REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Guns, Guns, Guns.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 19:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 32463
PAGE 9 of 9

Friday, December 28, 2012 8:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Niki: Okay. How have I backed Anthony up when I have precisely no idea about what laws exist, what laws could exist, what are the proposed regulations on various gun features I'm unfamiliar with, and I also don't actually CARE one way or another?

Please explain where you think I am BIASED, and also show anyplace in this thread where I've proposed or argued for a solution.

You might be surprised to find I haven't, but that I have stated I have no idea WHAT to do SEVERAL TIMES.

You are imagining a bias. And no, I'm either biased or I'm not, so no, you can't take each post on a case by case basis on whether I'm biased or not. I am not a gods damned pendulum, so please don't swing me around.

You don't deserve to be called liars, but your side of the argument is making it REALLY hard to defend you sometimes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 8:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh BYTE- "I hear ya, NIKI2" on the part about Frem and him calling everyone who disagrees with him a "liar". Staying out of whatever is between you and and NIKI2- haven't kept up with the back-and-forth on that.

That is all.

*backs out slowly*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 9:17 AM

HKCAVALIER


Just to clarify, though, damn, people's interest in actually reading other people's words and understanding them in this thread are verging on nil: I wasn't saying that laws are useless or meaningless, only that they're not where social change starts. Laws, to my mind are something like the marriage cerimony of social evolution and people act as if they're the engagement or even the first kiss. I was simply saying they are no place to start. No one wants to be proposed to on the first date.

Weirdest thread EVAR.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 12:26 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh BYTE- "I hear ya, NIKI2" on the part about Frem and him calling everyone who disagrees with him a "liar". Staying out of whatever is between you and and NIKI2- haven't kept up with the back-and-forth on that.

That is all.

*backs out slowly*



You're okay, I knew what you meant. I am just frustrated that I'm being ascribed a pro-gun bias when in fact I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion, and that my being anti-traditional-gender-role is being treated as pro-gun bias. The two arguments are not the same thing.

I should also apologize to Niki too, I've been trying to be more even-keeled and not let anger and irritation get the better of me. In fairness, in a thread like this, I should expect that unrelated arguments might get pulled into the main argument, and that people might see me on one side or the other.

If Niki thinks I'm on the pro-gun side of the debate, then it is because I haven't made my ambivalence clear. And so that is on me I suppose.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 12:30 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

my being anti-traditional-gender-role is being treated as pro-gun bias.

Eh, that just the if you're not against them you must be for them thing. I understand your stance.

It's a front stance.

failed martial arts joke

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 12:32 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Just to clarify, though, damn, people's interest in actually reading other people's words and understanding them in this thread are verging on nil: I wasn't saying that laws are useless or meaningless, only that they're not where social change starts. Laws, to my mind are something like the marriage cerimony of social evolution and people act as if they're the engagement or even the first kiss. I was simply saying they are no place to start. No one wants to be proposed to on the first date.

Weirdest thread EVAR.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



Well... I still agree, I was just hinting that I kinda take it a step farther than you do. But everyone knows that too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 1:25 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

TONY...

There are at least five pages in this discussion that I haven't read due to time constraints.

If you would be so kind, can you please enumerate for me the gun controls you would be OK with and the ones you wouldn't?



Hello,

I have spent pages discussing my views in this thread and the one you started. I even responded to a bulletpoint list Niki gave out. Forgive me for saying so, but if you don't know what I think by now it's because you can't be bothered or aren't particularly interested.

As an aside to Niki: In claiming to desire the outlaw of semiautomatic weapons, you are essentially calling for a return to the weapons technology of the late 19th century, post-civil war era.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 2:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


TONY, I'm trying to get a specific sense of where your "line" is in terms of gun control, so I just posted a rather long list of gun laws from another country to see which ones trip your meter. I just scrolled all the way thru the DO-OVER thread looking for a specific suggestion for gun control, or a specific response to a suggestion. I saw only one substantive suggestion on your part .... using 12-gauge guns as Taser dart-throwers.

Also, you don't think that people should be "required" to carry guns.

Now, did I miss anything in that thread???

---------------------

Now, in this frelling thread, would you be so kind as to at least tell me which PAGE your bullet-point list is??? Please, don't make me have to scroll thru page after page of venting just to find that information, because I won't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 2:58 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Signy,

I experience no end of frustration.

I said that the civilians and constabulary could both disarm to employ less-lethal weapons almost exclusively, with exceptions for hunters, sportsmen and SWAT team members in using manually actuated shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

As for Niki's bulletpoints, I cared enough to respond at length. She responded to my responses. You missed it all, and no I'm not going to find the correct page for you.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 3:42 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

I saw only one substantive suggestion on your part .... using 12-gauge guns as Taser dart-throwers.


Hello,

This is why I get frustrated. Because I can go into a lot of detail in a thread you started in order to discuss this. A thread you presumably cared enough to monitor, on a topic you claim to care about.

And you isolate one thing and make it my whole statement.

--Anthony



Quote:


Hello,

The British model is good with two caveats.

1) I believe that even their limited use of lethal force could be further reduced. Knowledge of an armed assailant is not in itself enough of a reason to bring in the killers. A robust selection of nonlethal options may allow for effective nonlethal responses to lethal threats.

2) The citizenry have no practical tools of defense whatsoever.

So I am basically proposing the British model with an accommodation for second amendment rights.

The arms that the people keep and bear can be mostly a variety of effective less lethal weapons, rather than firearms.

Hunters could retain bolt-action/lever-action rifles suitable to their craft.

Sports shooters could possibly enjoy simple revolver style handguns or limited capacity target pistols and have marker ammunition available to them should they like to fire at some targets or tin cans.

Firearm equipped police, when RARELY required, could use the full gamut of nonlethal weapons in addition to hunting rifles/shotguns and revolvers. In most cases, I suspect tasers and stunning devices will subdue the lethally armed adversary without need for lethal response.

People fearful of tyrannical government will feel secure knowing that their constabulary is so limited.

People fearful of weapons of mass murder will feel secure knowing that nobody has such things. Not ordinary civilians. Not half-a-million police officers.

People fearful of robbers and rapists will be able to defend themselves against attack.

I think this solution would solve virtually everyone's problems.

--Anthony




Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 6:02 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!













NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 7:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I submit that if we as a nation trusted our government more we'd be able to pass anti-gun laws like we used to. (It's kind of a tautology, ain'it?) But who cares about that? The truth is, if our government were to start being trustworthy tomorrow, we'd cut down on the number of mass murders in the first place. 'Cause as long as our government's policies reflect a belief that social change issues from the barrel of a gun, that force of arms (i.e.: "or else" i.e.: laws) is what we need to make the world a better place, INDIVIDUALS WILL FOLLOW THAT EXAMPLE. If our government were to really stop the fucking torture, and cut military spending FOR REAL, and stop denying that we kill the weak and defenseless with every strike, then our citizens would follow suit and there would be a real reduction in gun violence in this country.

How is it that people don't make that connection? How is it that we think that if we just take guns away from "the right people," that this problem will go away? It's absurd and it's childish and it's never gonna work anyway.


Again...
Quote:

“As long as the child will be trained not by love, but by fear, so long will humanity live not by justice, but by force. As long as the child will be ruled by the educator’s threat and by the father’s rod, so long will mankind be dominated by the policeman’s club, by fear of jail, and by panic of invasion by armies and navies.”

Boris Sidis, from “A lecture on the abuse of the fear instinct in early education” in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919.


There's also the foolishness of blaming a tool instead of holding the user accountable, or collective punishment against others who have such a tool because someone else misused it and the assumption that they MIGHT.

So long as Force and Fear are how humans are taught to deal with each other, all the laws in the world won't budge this problem an iota.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 7:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Siggy:
Quote:

And blah blah blah... Yanno, I researched to 2A too. That bit about well-regulated militias was not put in there for you, the Supreme Court, and all gun-nuts to ignore, and when the Supreme Court decided that the 2A protected individual right to own a gun, you all got handed a nice, juicy, totally unwarranted kiss on the ass. The right to own guns belongs with the STATES. Because it was the STATES RIGHTS the FF were protecting, not yours.

I disagree, passionately - I have read our Founders discussions on the topic quite extensively, repeatedly pointed out or quoted them, even pointed out specifically where Madison offers an outright assumption of a citizenry possessing their own arms, it was assumed to the same degree we "assume" another person has a right to wear clothing.
They said what they said, and were quite verbose and explicit in their meaning, just because you do not like it, refuse to accept it, makes it no less a fact.

Niki:
Quote:

Frem, that really pisses me off. I mean seriously! That you lump me in with "y'all" makes smoke come out my ears. I have every fucking right in the WORLD to want to see some reasonable restrictions on guns without it meaning I want to ban them all. That is a stupid, idiotic stance to take, I expect better from you. I have NO desire to see all guns banned, whatsoever, can we get clear about that? And I'm certainly not "lying" about anything. I've been very clear, I believe, in what I'd like to see:

Yes you have, it does not however mean I believe you, nor do I trust that once that first inch gets taken, that others will not rush to infringe further, especially when they've stated as much publicly and often, or that such "Reasonable Restrictions" won't be expanded and misused every bit as much as they have in respect to the Fourth Amendment.
I've no intent to give that inch, sorry - while YOU may have no such intention, opening the door and wedging it open for those who do carries little distinction from it, in my eyes.

I am also perplexed at your own reaction to say, the notion of banning folks who suffer from any kind of mental illness from this right, suddenly it became all sorts of personal, yes ?
Think about that one for a minute, and you might understand my ire.


In General:

You're angry at me for standing here and saying "No" to your efforts, wishes and intentions to deliberately infringe upon a Constitution Right, and having the gall to be annoyed with you about it, suspicious of your motives, and wary of the potential for abuse such measures may carry.

Perhaps seeing the same people who decry the evil, untrustworthy government for stomping all over the Fourth and First Amendments, while simultaneously calling for the benevolent, reliable government to stomp on the Second has made me a little skeptical.

The answer is still "No."

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 9:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


TONY- thank you, kind sir, for the info! If I had to scroll thru this entire thread, I would have gone crazier than I already am.

FREM
Quote:

Perhaps seeing the same people who decry the evil, untrustworthy government for stomping all over the Fourth and First Amendments, while simultaneously calling for the benevolent, reliable government to stomp on the Second has made me a little skeptical.
There is no such thing as a complete right to free speech- you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and so forth. There is no such thing as a complete right to privacy... if you know of an immediate threat by someone, even if you're their doctor, you have to report it. I can give you a number of examples unrestricted "rights" could cause great harm to others. The 2A is no different... you cannot stand on the idea that the amendments grant complete, unfettered right to damage others and you can't claim the same thing for the 2A.

As a practical matter, ALL of our rights were granted to be able to change and (if necessary) overhrow the government. The right to free speech? To disagree with the government. The right to privacy and a fair trial? So people couldn't be arrested for "political" crimes. Free association? To be able to collectively control one's political destiny thru organization.

As a PRACTICAL matter, by the time you really should be thinking about revolution, the government has already abrogated those rights anyway, and whining That's not FAIR! isn't going to work. Again, strictly practically-speaking, a frank discussion of the role of gun ownership in prodding government would more than likely interest either the FBI or the NSA. But IMHO, you would need such numerically extensive cooperation in order to make your "sidearms" effective against superior armaments, if you had THAT level of communication and cooperation there would be any number of other things you could do more successfully.

So, your "slippery slope" is met with "whatever"; you have failed to convince me of the rightness of your argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 28, 2012 9:57 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Frem, my friend, you constructed, for the most part, a sound argument in defense of our constitution; our way of life and what makes us tick. I commend you for your passionate defense.

First, to start off with, I'm a constitutionalist. I firmly believe in the driving force behind our imperfect union, the United States. Yes, imperfect but don't misunderstand, I believe our revolution is an ongoing phenomenon
that is envied and copied throughout the world, and is a work in progress.

I believe that the Constitution is damn near perfect and is a part of us, as much as the flag and apple pie. But I believe the founding fathers meant for it to grow, stretch and breathe along with the people of the country. To redress grievances, the freedoms of religion, speech and to assemble; and yes the right for the people to bear and keep arms are integral to our American fabric and should be respected and cherished. It's what makes us tick.

It was in response to the tyranny that was King George. The freedoms were born out of our fight to become a nation of free people, which included the strongly fought for, right to bear arms, in direct response to "hand over your guns." Everyone has the right to enjoy those freedoms. And you're right that a few have been cannibalized in our recent lifetime, again because a sign of the times (see Patriot Act). I cannot argue that this has not taken place. But I do not believe that the Constitution is wholeheartedly absolute.

The 9th Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(which supports the 1st Amendment's right to petition Government for redress of grievances).

I argue that there is no such thing as Big Government, because the government is us, the people. We elect people to represent us; to execute and manage our American way of life. Well, Big Government, as described by conservatives and the Tea Party as though it was a four-letter word. Yes, over the years (with the influence of BIG Money and corporate interests) that has changed. But the basic principle remains the same.

The killing of innocents with automatic assault weapons is infringing upon our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People kill people, not guns. Correct. Why would anyone need a gun that can shoot hundreds of rounds within mere seconds unless they are going to war. That, I dare say, is a grievance that needs to be "redressed." I am not advocating the "government" confiscating all guns. But to reclassify weapons of mass destruction. Will that stop someone determined to kill whole masses of people - no.

But why should anyone feel the need to own a 50-caliber machine gun? If I were preparing for the economic collapse of our society, it may come in handy to protect me and mine. But do you expect that to happen in our lifetime? (apparently Mrs. Lanza did and looked where we are).
Freedoms come with responsibilities, respect and honor. I learned in grammar school many years ago about the freedom of speech and how it doesn't give a person the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Well, these lunatics running around with AK-47s are "yelling fire," is their freedom more important than you and your family's freedom to live?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Byte, you misunderstood. The bias I was referringt o was your bias in support of Anthony, which has been consistent, not about guns.

As to pendulum...I BELIEVE in this thread I have been consistent. But it is always the case that if someone writes something I find logical and/or compliment-worthy, I say so. When I disagree with someone, I also say so. I don't pick and choose my responses (with a few exceptions) depending on how I feel about the person--hell, I've complimented Rap and others who despise me when they've said something I find worth applauding. I've said positive things about some of your posts, negative things about others. It's not about a pendulum, and that's all I'm going to say with regard to this. I'm not about to get into a 'back-and-forth'; been there, done that.

Cav, I read your post and it came across AS IF social change resulted in laws, all the time, and never that laws resulted in social change. Your statements like
Quote:

I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard.

"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"


was something I found rather offensive; I've never thought that and I think we've all been trying to deal with reality, rather than avoiding it.
Quote:

Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.

came across pretty strong, and seemed to be indicating that laws were irrelevant when it came to social change. I disagreed. I happen to think sometimes laws are passed which go AGAINST social change...especially some that Republicans have passed in the past few years. I agree that a lot of the time, laws follow social change, but not always, and you seemed to be putting the whole problem on the government not being trustworthy. I don't think that's the answer; if anything, I think it's the way our society has evolved which is causing people to "act out", not the actions of the government. That was my point. And yes, this has been a very weird thread, one reason I've not been very involved in it for some time now. It seems to me like the same arguments keep being made over and over, and getting nowhere.

Anthony:
Quote:

In claiming to desire the outlaw of semiautomatic weapons, you are essentially calling for a return to the weapons technology of the late 19th century, post-civil war era.

That statement is so far outside reality that I shouldn't even respond. Obviously there are many, MANY changes that have been made to weapons technology since then, I don't know how you can say that. It's an absurd statement and again, over the top when it comes to discussing the issue at hand.

Frem:
Quote:

I am also perplexed at your own reaction to say, the notion of banning folks who suffer from any kind of mental illness from this right, suddenly it became all sorts of personal, yes ?
Think about that one for a minute, and you might understand my ire.


The difference between keeping a national registration for firearms and a national registry of the mentally ill is, to me, pretty big. The former would help the police deal with crime, and MANY guns cause crime; the latter would only serve to make fewer people seek mental-health services and would further stigmatize a section of the population, VERY FEW of which commit crimes. We'll have to agree to disagree; it comes down to my view that the idea that the government could or would even TRY to confiscate people's guns is absurd and in my opinion an unjustified paranoia. We'll just have to agree to disagree whether it's an unjustified paranoia and let it go at that; all the aspects of our government trying to confiscate everyone's guns are so numerous and so absurd, to me, that it's not the basis for a rational argument.

Mostly I was angry at you calling me and others liars, etc., which to me is something I don't expect from you and which offends me personally. Additionally, there is a VAST difference between rational people trying to debate an issue and the kind of name-calling you hurled at me as well as others.

Shiny said it best, in my estimation:
Quote:

The killing of innocents with automatic assault weapons is infringing upon our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People kill people, not guns. Correct. Why would anyone need a gun that can shoot hundreds of rounds within mere seconds unless they are going to war. That, I dare say, is a grievance that needs to be "redressed." I am not advocating the "government" confiscating all guns. But to reclassify weapons of mass destruction. Will that stop someone determined to kill whole masses of people - no.

Freedoms come with responsibilities, respect and honor. I learned in grammar school many years ago about the freedom of speech and how it doesn't give a person the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Well, these lunatics running around with AK-47s are "yelling fire," is their freedom more important than you and your family's freedom to live?


That's what I believe. In my opinion, the rights of those of us (many of whom own guns) who are against semi-auto and automatic weapons' threat to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness trumps the rights of anyone to own one specific type of weapon which kills many in a short amount of time. ONLY those weapons.

The consistent taking of our desire not to have weapons of war freely available to the extreme of "the government will take away ALL my weapons" is not a logical extension of our stance, in my opinion, but for some people, there can be no middle ground. LIMITING the availability of one kind of weapon--not even confiscating those already out there--can only be seen by some as a total ban/confiscation of ALL guns. That kills the debate right there. The right to less chance of losing their lives of everyone in America being trumped by the rights of those who own semi-automatic and automatic weapons as acceptable is unreasonable, in my opinion.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
We'll have to agree to disagree; it comes down to my view that the idea that the government could or would even TRY to confiscate people's guns is absurd and in my opinion an unjustified paranoia. We'll just have to agree to disagree whether it's an unjustified paranoia and let it go at that; all the aspects of our government trying to confiscate everyone's guns are so numerous and so absurd, to me, that it's not the basis for a rational argument.


Unfortunately Reality trumps your Viewpoint.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bre
d-defian/print

Quote:

Maybe gun owners are getting more ornery as time goes on. Or perhaps they’re just getting more distrustful of the authorities. In fact, American gun owners may have good reason to be skeptical of common assurances that registration records won’t ever be used for anything more than tracking lost and stolen weapons. In New York City, the center of agitation for tighter U.S. gun laws, the registration system for long guns such as rifles and shotguns, established in 1967, was used in the 1990s to confiscate previously lawful semiautomatic rifles.

California state officials pulled a similar stunt, though with a shorter grace period. After the registration of so-called “assault weapons” subsequent to the passage of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, Attorney General Dan Lungren reversed official position in 1997 to declare one of the rifles considered legal and subject to registration just a few years earlier—the SKS Sporter—to be illegal. Owners who had complied with the law were forced to surrender their weapons or transfer them out of state.


And then there was Katrina, you wanna try and tell me that didn't happen ?
Do we NOT already have enough evidence of what happens when the Gov starts compiling "lists" of people, really ?

It's one thing to talk about stuff in theory, yet another to speak of it having witnessed it being done, and then having people who ALSO SAW IT try to tell you that doesn't happen, never happened, cannot happen.
Sure, okay, and we've always been at war with Eurasia, right ?
Quote:

Mostly I was angry at you calling me and others liars, etc., which to me is something I don't expect from you and which offends me personally. Additionally, there is a VAST difference between rational people trying to debate an issue and the kind of name-calling you hurled at me as well as others.

Quid Pro Quo - you and others have PRETENDED to be rational, when in fact the tenuous and unsupportable so-called "logic" you ascribe to borders on, if not actually involves, downright magical-thinking, and I am supposed to accept this as reasonable debate ?
No more so than I would accept it from Rappy or Zero!

Also, overall: Rights are not GRANTED by Government, they are NOT handed down upon us by the would-be masters, they exist, have always existed, as a consequence of being a human being.
That document, The Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, is a ROADBLOCK, an official and resounding "No!" to the encroachments EVERY political power of any kind no matter what one calls it, begins to engage in prior to enslaving or massacring those within its power.

See, lest one forget - I do have a moral obligation here.
Quote:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

You want to CHANGE the Constitution to allow for those infringements, you AMEND the document, as is right and proper, you DO NOT simply ignore it and pass laws anyway, or abuse the legal system to hedge in rights that "shall not be infringed", or any of that other hocus pocus.

Yes, with Rights come Responsibilities - Responsibilities for your OWN CONDUCT, but isn't what is being proposed here, what is being proposed is an act of collective pre-judgement against anyone who owns something you do not like, on the basis that they MIGHT do something wrong.

Do you, any of you, at all, have any bloody IDEA, even the slightest notion, of just how offensive I find that ?
Compounded, absolutely, by the sure fact that if someone were to infringe your own rights with similar excuses, you'd scream to high heaven about the very stuff you're all but cheerleading now.

Frankly, The Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, exists to STOP such insanity, the knee-jerk reflex to cast aside more important things for a mythic notion of safety which exists for a fact nowhere in this world at all, ever.

That now said, you're also looking into the wrong end of the telescope here, getting the weapons out of society won't stop the violence, and all the attempt will do is increase both the potential for violence and the proliferation of the very weapons you claim are the problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/fearful-ban-frenzied-buyers-swarm-gun-stores-225
130224--finance.html


How bout getting the VIOLENCE out of society first, whereupon the weapons will follow for lack of need - but no, that's too much like work, that might require thought and action, instead of reflexive conditioned knee-jerking, oh what a terrible thought.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:



Anthony:

Quote:
In claiming to desire the outlaw of semiautomatic weapons, you are essentially calling for a return to the weapons technology of the late 19th century, post-civil war era.


That statement is so far outside reality that I shouldn't even respond. Obviously there are many, MANY changes that have been made to weapons technology since then, I don't know how you can say that. It's an absurd statement and again, over the top when it comes to discussing the issue at hand.



Hello Niki,

Exactly how is it absurd or over-the-top? This is what you called for. If you eliminate semiautomatic weapons you are left with revolvers, break-open actions, lever-actions, bolt-actions, and pump-action firearms. Which is, you know, what we had in the post civil war era in the latter part of the 19th century.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:46 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Cav, I read your post and it came across AS IF social change resulted in laws, all the time, and never that laws resulted in social change. Your statements like
Quote:

I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard.

"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"


was something I found rather offensive; I've never thought that and I think we've all been trying to deal with reality, rather than avoiding it.
Quote:

Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.

came across pretty strong, and seemed to be indicating that laws were irrelevant when it came to social change. I disagreed. I happen to think sometimes laws are passed which go AGAINST social change...especially some that Republicans have passed in the past few years. I agree that a lot of the time, laws follow social change, but not always, and you seemed to be putting the whole problem on the government not being trustworthy. I don't think that's the answer; if anything, I think it's the way our society has evolved which is causing people to "act out", not the actions of the government. That was my point.

Hey Niki,

I kinda have to rely on people presuming a benevolent/reasoned context for what I say (which is different from presuming that everything I say is itself benevolent/reasoned--I am not perfect). I try to do the same for others. In most cases I find it's not that hard. When I can't do that, I do my best to focus on the specifics of what a person said and explain to the best of my ability how what they said doesn't make sense to me. This gets me into trouble on the internet because the moment people get angry they tend to drop context and turn you into whatever dragon they're imagining needs slaying at that moment. And similarly, when I do try to specify what I think is wrong with what they've said, folk all too often take it as a simple, blanket personal attack on them (I have my fair share of dragons that need slaying but in that case I try to generalize and distinguish my dragon from any individual person--with varying degrees of success). If I didn't presume that folk would take my established context into account (reasonable/benevolent/empathetic), I could end up writing books on these topics to cover all the context. And in reality, I would end up not writing anything.

It's keenly frustrating. So when Magons comes along and condemns my post as the most hopeless and defeatist post she's read, it's fucking depressing! Do you know me as a hopeless person? Do you know me as defeatist??? And yet that's what I get, because Magons wasn't willing to stretch and try to imagine how my comments might be reasonable and hopeful within my context.

Woulda been different if Magons talked about how what I said made her feel hopeless and how she was unable to see hope in what I was saying because...etc., etc. self disclosure, etc., (I'd have been very interested in such a post) but she didn't do that. She dumped on me.

Back to the topic at hand: I do, fundamentally, believe that passing laws at this point will do nothing to curb mass murder in this country. That seems to me to be self-evident to anyone who looks at the problem realistically. Such laws would be nothing but theatre. Exactly the way TSA officers groping 5 year olds is theatre and does nothing whatsoever to curb terrorism. Quite the contrary, it erodes the public's feeling of safety and certainly damages the public's trust in authority generally. Or, worse, it serves to further anesthetize the public to government intrusion and invasion of privacy.

I do think that believing we can legislate ourselves out of this mess is simplistic and, seriously, unobservant. I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong in this, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

I further perceive that a lot of people believe in democracy in exactly the way some people have religious faith. Voting becomes this mystical demonstration of individual power to such folk and a sacred duty. They want to throw democracy at the problem. Pass a law and it will all go away. Makes me ill when I smell that coming off some of the posts in these threads (if anyone reading this feels I'm unfairly characterizing their own posts, I'd be happy to know that).

Then of course there's the folk who hate guns who want to use this event as a pretext to further their far more general agenda regarding guns. That's a kind of theatre as well, but it's the massacre at Sandy Hook that's being used as theatre that supplies the moral: "You see, boys and girls? Guns are bad and we need to greatly reduce their numbers in this country. The end." That may or may not be true, but that's not the lesson I'm gonna gleen from the massacre of 20 kindergarteners. In aesthetic terms, that seems a kind of superficial gloss.

So frustrating: I said that laws were A PART of the process of social change and that they did not come at the BEGINNING of the process. And yet, Niki, you specifically got from that statement that laws were "irrelevant." What the heck am I supposed to do with that?

To extend my marriage analogy: the marriage ceremony is in no way irrelevant to the process of a couple coming together in a meaningful way. It's just not where it starts and in reality it may not even be necessary to the union. In some cases, marriage can harm the relationship and turn it into a kind of prison for one or both of the partners. But at the same time a marriage can and usually does have profound meaning to that couple and fundamentally change their relationship with their entire community. Laws can be just as important, but also just as beside the point, merely icing on the cake, and just as confining. But most importantly, marriage is not where the relationship starts. And laws are nowhere to start changing a culture. IMHO, YMMV.

I think the reason some folks who read my post didn't get that is because I was also trying to deflate the crazy fetishization of "law and order" that a lot of people indulge in in this country. So I said that law and government were a bad place to start if you want to enact social change; that shoving change down people's throats at gun point (ie.: force, i.e.: by law) was not the best policy. This is Anarchism and pushes all manner of non-Anarchist buttons. Oh well. Mea culpa.

I believe the last thing anyone should have is faith in an institution. Institutions do not deserve our faith. They require our scepticism. Law is such an institution. Democracy is such an institution. Government itself is such an institution. If you hold faith in any of these institutions, it's likely that my previous post is gonna feel like blasphemy and you're gonna be outraged.

And yes, of course, some laws are passed that go against social change. This strikes me as a "no duh" situation. A context I didn't feel the need to include in my post because it was so dang obvious. I was specifically talking about the relationship between laws and social change. That some laws are regressive and destructive to social change is THE NORM in my view.

And I really don't much see a difference between "the government" and "society." I think they're aspects of the same creature. And I think that "government" exists on the vast macro level of a country and on the individual micro level of a single person. I think that the macro and the micro function as mirrors and that there's an eternal feedback loop between these two poles. So, if I want to change society, I need to start with myself. Think of the Nazis. Before there was a Nazi Party, before there was an Adolf Hitler, there was a German family system of abuse and absolute obedience to the father. There was individual philosophy of "will to power" and racial pride that verged on something far more sinister. Individual and society; yin and yang; chicken and egg.

I believe that society sets an example for the individual and I think government as an aspect of leadership within any society sets an example. I think we hold up shitty examples in this country. And I think some of the shittiest examples, most far-reaching and persuasive examples (torture, permanent warfare, TSA child molestation) are set by government.

But I also think each individual sets an example of the society he or she wants to live in. And each individual has a chance to make a larger impact on society than they ever imagined. The readiness is all.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:31 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Hello everyone. I can't remember if tasers were mentioned in this thread as being non-lethal or not. They, I think usually are but they can also be lethal. Case in point a man arriving from Poland a couple of years ago into Canada was killed by being tasered. He didn't understand english and was getting frustrated with security. No translator was sent for or his mother who was waiting for him at the airport where he got off his plane. Security tasered him and he died. So not completely none lethal.



Hello,

Tasers are properly referred to as 'less-lethal' and are good alternatives to being shot with a slug of lead.

They are not solutions to the problem of 'not wanting to be bothered' which is, unfortunately, how they are often used by authorities.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:00 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I believe the last thing anyone should have is faith in an institution. Institutions do not deserve our faith. They require our scepticism. Law is such an institution. Democracy is such an institution. Government itself is such an institution.

Anyone who places faith in an institution needs to be institutionalized.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Re: Tasers

When these were first issued to police, I about hit the roof because they were just handed out without proper controls and oversight, and classed as a NON-lethal rather than LESS-lethal weapon, on the assumption that they would not be abused...
*rolls eyes*(1)
Stuffing THAT genie back in the bottle took far more effort and resources than it woulda had they not been so stupid in the first place, and still abuses continue, although increased public scrutiny and accountability measures are putting paid to that, ever so slowly.

That said, there *IS* a place for them in the force continuum, something brought all too clear in an unfortunate incident in New York, when some guy shot his co-worker and then brandished at the police in an obvious (in hindsight) effort at suicide-by-cop, to which they responded by blazing away and wounding nine bystanders - this also serves to highlight why blazing away at an active shooter is a VERY BAD IDEA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-
caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


And here's the thing, a bullet may or may not STOP someone, even a fatal wound can take up to minutes to drop somebody, minutes during which they're still shooting back - what was once known as "the dead mans ten", historically.

In light of this, while less-lethal, a taser hit will generally drop the target all but instantly.
My suspicions in regard to why they're not used in situations they SHOULD be, whilst abused in cases that they shouldn't, mostly revolve around failures of training and a toxic mentality amongst many police forces - what I call the beehive effect.

Another case in Ohio demonstrates what I mean by this: hearing something that sounded like a gunshot, the police in question believed they were being shot at by some nearby individuals, while those individuals believed THEY were being shot at by the police and ran away - resulting in a high speed chase during which 137 shots were fired by the officers who ignored more than one order to break off the chase, resulting in the death of two individuals who, while not exactly what you'd call "good people", were probably not guilty of anything.
http://www.wral.com/137-police-shots-2-dead-many-questions-in-ohio/118
85052
/
There's a certain almost gang-like mentality involved here, where when police feel threatened they go far beyond the necessary force continuum straight into lethal retaliation, like a kicked beehive.

So one possibility regarding the failure to deploy Tasers in situations where they are warranted, is a combination of poor/inadequate training, compounded by a strong desire to see the "perp" dead.
(aka he-shot-at-me-imma-KILL-this-mofo!)

But the fact remains that we have a less-lethal option which will stop a shooter instantly, versus a more-lethal option which will not, and we really have to rethink our responses to the situation in light of this - is it more important to stop them, or see them dead ?

They do make civilian tasers mind you, and Michigan has recently changed the laws to allow their use after learning that the police were technically in violation of the law for some time as it made no exception for them - so now that option exists privately as well.

It's certainly something that some thought and effort should be invested in, cause an active shooter in a crowded area is a situation where a Taser is the best option, and I've been in discussion with some of our sister security companies about it, cause we don't do most of the places where that situation would be likely.

-Frem
(1) Oh yes, and I was called paranoid and accused of overreacting then, too.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:26 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

you and others have PRETENDED to be rational

That's where you leave me. You're calling me a liar again. That leaves no basis for communication. I will say again, I agree to disagree that the government will ever confiscate EVERYONE's guns. Beyond that, I'm not even going to try anymore. If you can't be civil, it's not worth it.

Cav:
Quote:

I do, fundamentally, believe that passing laws at this point will do nothing to curb mass murder in this country

With that I fully agree. Over time, however, I think it would.
Quote:

we need to greatly reduce their numbers in this country

To the best of my knowledge, nobody is proposing anything but stopping the INCREASE of a certain kind of gun, nothing more. Even that won't pass, as is evident by the thinking right here, alone. When you add in the power and money of the gun lobby and NRA, I'm almost sure nothing will happen.

I understand much better your position, and in many ways I agree with it.

And I think there I will give up. It remains my belief that automatic and semi-automatic guns, as well as magazines which make it possible to murder large numbers of people quickly, are weapons of war and have no business within a society already as screwed up as ours. It seems to me obvious that attempting to debate this point has been useless for nine pages, and will probably go on doing so if those of us who feel that way continue trying to make our point. Thus I will try and avoid this thread, and as many of the other gun threads as are going currently, in future.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 31, 2012 6:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


OK apologies for dumping on you, Cav. I had little time to post, and was very rude in what I said.

I'll try to reply in a more respectful manner to the points I disagreed with.

Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, I don't understand why people persist in believing that there's a political solution to the problem of mass murder.



I don't see it as political, but legal. I don't see them as the same things. People who decry this becoming a 'political issue' just don't want to look at solutions they don't like, in my view.

Quote:


I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard



Or maybe others see solutions that you don't agree with. I don't think people who advocate changing gun laws have any less sense of reality than you, really?

Quote:

"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"

No one sane believes this, and it just mocks people who support changes to gun laws.

Quote:


That's the "or else" kind of thinking our mutual Frem is talking about. Laws are the government's "or else!" And guns are the individual's "Yeah, make me!" They don't guarantee freedom, they're just the individual's last defense against freedom being taken away. They give the individual's defiance just a little "oomph." Sure, when the shit hits the fan the individual will lose that fight, but not before giving the government a bloody nose. And historically, it's amazing how individual bullies and collective bullies (i.e.: governments) will change their tactics to avoid that bloody nose.


I have nothing to say about this statement.

Quote:

You'll notice that it's only true "gunbunnies" like Wulf who bloviate about BEING THE ONE TRUE PATRIOT WHAT PUTS THAT DOG DOWN 'CAUSE I AIN'T AFEARED O' NO GUNS! RAWR! Neither Frem nor Anthony cherish such illusions. They just don't want to be disarmed when and if the government turns on 'em. Is that so hard to understand?

It's not so hard to understand, but given the US government has the most powerful military in the world at its disposal, it appears to be a fantasy.

Quote:

Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.


I disagree. I explained why in my offensive reply post.

Quote:

Sometimes they lead social changes, sometimes they follow it, but for every law passed there are repercussions, sometimes for good and sometimes not. I can think of numerous laws of the top of my head that have had far reaching consequences on marriage, on ownership of property by women, on giving women the vote, on abolishing slavery, have enabled and ended segregation, prevented discrimination on the basis of race and gender, prevented employers from using child labour, porviding the basis of free speech, freedom of dissent and indeed your own constitution.

Your idea that there is no law that can affect any situation in society ludicrously ignores the history of law making.




Quote:

Laws exist--governments exist--to maintain the status quo. That's what an "ordered society" is: a society that stays the same. How pathetic is that? An institution whose sole purpose is to make people think that without it they wouldn't be doing what they think they oughta do anyway. Nobody ever needed a government to enforce majority rule.


I can't see any evidence to back this statement. Is our society the same as 100 years ago? Government and laws must be doing a lousy job, because change is rampant.


Quote:

But what all of us here want is social change. Social evolution. You want it, I want it, and Frem and Anthony both want it. And how do we get it? Not through government and not through laws.

What social changes do you want that will impact on someone who wishes to murder a lot of people? Do you propose such changes to society that no one will wish to murder others? To inflict suffering on others?

Kindly explain what momentus changes would need to happen to permanently remove people with potential for mass murder from our society?

Quote:

Just look at gay marriage for a minute.
*snip*


So then what happened? Well, support for gay marriage got to be so strong in poll after poll after poll that Obama & Co. realized that if they didn't fall in line with public opinion they were liable to start losing elections.

(THAT's what get's laws passed, btw.)



This is the hopeless part of your post.

I see that sometimes laws have been passed because people have lobbied and fought for them to be law, that they (sometimes they are even politicans) have put themselves in the firing line because they believe that something is right. I have seen that sometimes great segments of society will resist the laws ie civil rights, votes for women, end to child labour but there has been *enough* support for a law to be passed. And then change does happen.


Quote:

So, what are we gonna do about guns? At what point in the social change that would meaningfully reduce the amount of gun violence in this counrty do y'all think we are? I'd say square one. LOOOOOOONG before any meaningful laws are gonna be passed.


How? Please explain how you might begin to reduce gun violence without changing/passing any law.

Quote:

The stupidest thing you could do is outlaw them now. Outlawing a thing that the people actually want always brings nothing but misery. And in the long run, after bazillions of dollars have been wasted in the effort, it never works anyway. What we need is for Americans to stop wanting (loving/desiring/fetishizing) guns so damn badly.

Again the hopeless part. Nothing we can do. It won't work. Woe.

here is a thought. Try it. See if it does reduce the violence. If you are right, the stats will prove it.

Quote:

How'd it work in the past? How'd we get gun legislation passed before? How'd we get that all-powerful assault weapons ban passed? Well, of course there are always a ton of reasons, but the one I'm gonna say trumps 'em all is this: trust in our government.

I submit that if we as a nation trusted our government more we'd be able to pass anti-gun laws like we used to. (It's kind of a tautology, ain'it?) But who cares about that? The truth is, if our government were to start being trustworthy tomorrow, we'd cut down on the number of mass murders in the first place. 'Cause as long as our government's policies reflect a belief that social change issues from the barrel of a gun, that force of arms (i.e.: "or else" i.e.: laws) is what we need to make the world a better place, INDIVIDUALS WILL FOLLOW THAT EXAMPLE. If our government were to really stop the fucking torture, and cut military spending FOR REAL, and stop denying that we kill the weak and defenseless with every strike, then our citizens would follow suit and there would be a real reduction in gun violence in this country.



Well I'm all for the US rethinking its foreign policy, but the link between that one and mass murder is kind of tenuous. Or at least a lot more tenuous than
= lots of guns in circulation increases the amount of gun violence.

Quote:

How is it that people don't make that connection? How is it that we think that if we just take guns away from "the right people," that this problem will go away? It's absurd and it's childish and it's never gonna work anyway.


yeah I remember these kind of frustrating conversations with Americans about how something can *never* work ie public health, when it works okay elsewhere.

How is it that you can make this so difficult and convuluted.

It's like a fat man stuffing his face on sugar and complaining that his weight is the result of sugar being introduced to the west in the middle ages. Maybe he is on a fundamental level correct, but the easiest solution is for him to stop eating sugar.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 1:18 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
OK apologies for dumping on you, Cav. I had little time to post, and was very rude in what I said.

I'll try to reply in a more respectful manner to the points I disagreed with.

Thanks for that, Magons. I really appreciate you taking the time to unpack your thoughts for me here.

Quote:


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, I don't understand why people persist in believing that there's a political solution to the problem of mass murder.



I don't see it as political, but legal. I don't see them as the same things. People who decry this becoming a 'political issue' just don't want to look at solutions they don't like, in my view.

Sorry, too much listening to the Police in my youth: "There is no political solution/To our troubled evolution..." Jeez god, I assure you I am as sick as you of this idea that people who want gun control are "politicizing" a tragedy. I meant "legal," absolutely. Legal solution = write a law and a problem goes away.

Quote:

Quote:


I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard



Or maybe others see solutions that you don't agree with. I don't think people who advocate changing gun laws have any less sense of reality than you, really?

Ouch. This is Geezer's argument: you're just saying it's bad because you don't agree with it. It's a sophistic tautology. Of course I don't agree with the solutions I don't think will work. I think people who believe that changing gun laws will reduce the number of mass murders in this country are not dealing with the problem realistically. Sure, restricting guns may curb gun violence in general, but mass murders are so rare, throwing laws at the problem is kinda like relying upon the butterfly effect to control the weather.

Quote:

Quote:

"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"

No one sane believes this, and it just mocks people who support changes to gun laws.

No, it mocks people who think that changing gun laws is gonna prevent another Sandy Hook. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Quote:

Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.


Your idea that there is no law that can affect any situation in society ludicrously ignores the history of law making.

So weird. I thought I clarified this in my previous post. I never said "there is no law that can affect any situation." This is very troubling and kinda instantly exhausting 'cause it suggests that you think I'm a lunatic on this subject. I said, and you quoted: "Laws never BRING ABOUT social change...Laws always come VERY LATE TO THAT PROCESS."

Laws don't come first. They don't begin the process of social change. What I see with the gun craziness in this country is that we need social change. Laws are not the best way to begin. Because they are too sweeping and general and if we enact them before we understand the problem, may have no positive affect on the problem they were intended to address. My exemplum: TSA workers groping children. It's pure theatre, symbolic, and in no way reduce the threat of terrorism and creates instead a crisis of its own in human rights.

Once the problem is clearer and society is better informed, then laws make perfect sense. Trying to come up with the right gun laws to reduce the possibility of mass murders in kindergartens is kinda like pushing for gay marriage immediately after the slaying of Harvey Milk in 1978. Legalizing gay marriage would be a great thing to occur at any point in history, but the likelihood of it having the desired result of creating more respect and political power for gays in 1978 would have been miniscule. A gay marriage movement in 1978 could very well have meant an increase in violence against gays and a more radical swing to the right across the country. Social change is not a linear, wholly rational process.

Quote:

Quote:

Laws exist--governments exist--to maintain the status quo. That's what an "ordered society" is: a society that stays the same. How pathetic is that? An institution whose sole purpose is to make people think that without it they wouldn't be doing what they think they oughta do anyway. Nobody ever needed a government to enforce majority rule.


I can't see any evidence to back this statement. Is our society the same as 100 years ago? Government and laws must be doing a lousy job, because change is rampant.

YES! EXACTLY! Governments always are doing a lousy job. That's why my position is not one of hopelessness. Change happens all the time and is happening at ever accelerating rates throughout the world despite entrenched power ALWAYS opposing it. And, over all, though it is not perfectly linear and progressive in every given place and time, the shift from more authoritarian power to more individual power is what we see unfolding historically. We, as a species, are growing up and I'm not seeing laws as the engine of that change. People have to want change, they have to be making change, before they're gonna make laws that reflect the changes they want in a meaningful way.

Quote:

Quote:

But what all of us here want is social change. Social evolution. You want it, I want it, and Frem and Anthony both want it. And how do we get it? Not through government and not through laws.

What social changes do you want that will impact on someone who wishes to murder a lot of people? Do you propose such changes to society that no one will wish to murder others? To inflict suffering on others?

Kindly explain what momentus changes would need to happen to permanently remove people with potential for mass murder from our society?

Okay, sorry, I may need you to repeat your question at a lower sarcasm volume, 'cause I'm not understanding you. I'm arguing against the efficacy of using gun regulation to reduce mass murder. You in opposing me, seem to think laws might be just the thing we need to reduce the likelihood of mass murder. If you don't, if you merely think it would be better if there were fewer guns floating around in this country, I'm not arguing with that.

But yes, it's gonna take pretty sweeping change in this country if we're gonna reduce the instance of mass murders here. I think I covered some of the changes and the direction society would have to move in my view if we are to become a truly more peaceful people.

Quote:

Quote:

Just look at gay marriage for a minute.
*snip*

So then what happened? Well, support for gay marriage got to be so strong in poll after poll after poll that Obama & Co. realized that if they didn't fall in line with public opinion they were liable to start losing elections.

(THAT's what get's laws passed, btw.)



This is the hopeless part of your post.

I see that sometimes laws have been passed because people have lobbied and fought for them to be law, that they (sometimes they are even politicans) have put themselves in the firing line because they believe that something is right. I have seen that sometimes great segments of society will resist the laws ie civil rights, votes for women, end to child labour but there has been *enough* support for a law to be passed. And then change does happen.

And I think this is an exceptionally short-sighted view of the process of social change. How long were people fighting for the rights of black people in this country before the Civil Rights Act was passed? Before a Civil Rights Act was even a possibility? Since long before the Civil War. Hundreds of years. When did the Civil Rights Act finally get passed in that process of social change? When the country was ready. When LBJ saw no alternative. When enough people in power couldn't live with themselves if they continued to oppose the rights of their fellow citizens based on race. Why did they come to that conclusion? Because any laws had been passed? No. Because the culture around them had changed. And when the culture changed, it changed them.

Quote:

Quote:

The stupidest thing you could do is outlaw them now. Outlawing a thing that the people actually want always brings nothing but misery. And in the long run, after bazillions of dollars have been wasted in the effort, it never works anyway. What we need is for Americans to stop wanting (loving/desiring/fetishizing) guns so damn badly.


Again the hopeless part. Nothing we can do. It won't work. Woe.

here is a thought. Try it. See if it does reduce the violence. If you are right, the stats will prove it.

Ah, I get it now. You call me hopeless because I don't believe in forcing my will on others and don't believe that forcing one's will on others is what creates meaningful social change. How do we change culture? By learning to threat our children as fellow human beings and not property, for instance. By creating powerful works of art that change consciousness. By gaining power throughout society and changing the culture by example. There's no control in my vision of change. No force. I believe the way of the gun is the wrong way--for the government and for the individual. And in the long run, it's losing. Dictatorships are dying all over the world. Not because of the laws in those countries but because of the internet. If Jefferson were alive today, I imagine he'd have written the 2A about the right of the people to have internet service.

Quote:

Quote:

How is it that people don't make that connection? How is it that we think that if we just take guns away from "the right people," that this problem will go away? It's absurd and it's childish and it's never gonna work anyway.


yeah I remember these kind of frustrating conversations with Americans about how something can *never* work ie public health, when it works okay elsewhere.

How is it that you can make this so difficult and convuluted.

It's like a fat man stuffing his face on sugar and complaining that his weight is the result of sugar being introduced to the west in the middle ages. Maybe he is on a fundamental level correct, but the easiest solution is for him to stop eating sugar.

I don't believe I'm making this so difficult and convoluted. I think real social change tends to be difficult and convoluted. I think you're making the rational fallacy. You seem to believe that people change according to rational will. You're fat? Just stop eating sugar! Sometimes, sure. But far more often it comes about by more organic means.

You remind me of an episode of Dr. Phil I saw years ago. He was talking to a battered wife. And she was trying to express why it so hard for her to leave and good ol' Phil interrupted her with, "CAN YA WALK?" She just sat there, a little stunned. So he repeated himself, "CAN YA WALK???" And she sheepishly nodded her head as if he'd helped her.

I like this story a little better: A woman brought her son to see the Great Mahatma Gandhi. She said to the Mahatma, "Bapu, please, my son eats too much sugar! Make him stop!" Gandhi looked at the boy and at the mother and told her, "Come back in a week and I will help your son."

So the mother bowed thanks and took her son away until the following week. This time Gandhi said to the boy, "Come closer." And the boy did. And Gandhi looked sternly at the boy for some moments. Then he said to the child very distinctly and emphasizing each word with a raised index finger, "Stop. Eating. Sugar." Then he motioned the boy away and back to his mother. The mother's rational mind would not allow her to go without an explanation, so she came forward and asked, "Gandhiji, why could you not have told my son this when we came last week?"

Gandhi smiled and explained: "Because last week I was still eating sugar!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 2:34 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Okay long post. Short time to respond.

But I just wanted to clarify on one point.

Quote:

So weird. I thought I clarified this in my previous post. I never said "there is no law that can affect any situation." This is very troubling and kinda instantly exhausting 'cause it suggests that you think I'm a lunatic on this subject. I said, and you quoted: "Laws never BRING ABOUT social change...Laws always come VERY LATE TO THAT PROCESS."

Laws don't come first. They don't begin the process of social change. What I see with the gun craziness in this country is that we need social change. Laws are not the best way to begin. Because they are too sweeping and general and if we enact them before we understand the problem, may have no positive affect on the problem they were intended to address.



And I guess you haven't understood that I disagree with you on this. Laws don't necessarily happen at the end of change, when everyone is ready for it.

People who want to change gun laws are no different to anyone who lobbied for any social changes. Think about some of the dramatic areas of change. If, as you state *should* happen, everyone was completely on board with ending segregation, it may have been years before it actually happened, or never.

Seeking changes to laws, whether they be about marriage, discimination or guns is part of social change. And there will always be some people who oppose those laws, who don't want change. Would you have argued that ending segregation should not have happened because many opposed it? Would you have said that changing the law would have had no impact in that situation?

I don't understand how you think some evolution will happen without it. And in the meantime while you wait for sweeping and dramatic changes without laws to descend on the US (still not explaining how that will happen) very disturbed, angry people will have access to weapons considered in most places in the world to not have any place in civilised society, enabling them to act out their sick fantasies.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 3:11 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Without actually reading everything here, I think part uv the problem iz theze mega posts. People tend to scan stuff if its too long.

Brevity iz the essense uv wit.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


MAGONS, HKCAV- I think the most significant example of laws being well in advance of society are our civil rights laws. A lot of people weren't ready for the emancipation, when it happened. They weren't ready for civil rights, and non-discrimination either, when THEY happened.... heck, Federal soldiers were needed so that black kids could go to a "white" school.

They STILL aren't ready... it's not like discrimination is a thing of the past. But we no longer have slavery, and a lot of progress has been made. The next generation is far less prejudiced than I.

When you institute laws, it may takes five generations to follow, but as long as the rewards and punishments remain consistent, follow they will.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:35 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAGONS, HKCAV- I think the most significant example of laws being well in advance of society are our civil rights laws. A lot of people weren't ready for the emancipation, when it happened. They weren't ready for civil rights, and non-discrimination either, when THEY happened.... heck, Federal soldiers were needed so that black kids could go to a "white" school.

They STILL aren't ready... it's not like discrimination is a thing of the past. But we no longer have slavery, and a lot of progress has been made. The next generation is far less prejudiced than I.

When you institute laws, it may takes five generations to follow, but as long as the rewards and punishments remain consistent, follow they will.



^ Yup, what I have been trying to say but more articulately.

Yes, Jo the long posts can be hard to follow and you can mistake intent in some of the detail.

Quote:

YES! EXACTLY! Governments always are doing a lousy job. That's why my position is not one of hopelessness. Change happens all the time and is happening at ever accelerating rates throughout the world despite entrenched power ALWAYS opposing it. And, over all, though it is not perfectly linear and progressive in every given place and time, the shift from more authoritarian power to more individual power is what we see unfolding historically. We, as a species, are growing up and I'm not seeing laws as the engine of that change. People have to want change, they have to be making change, before they're gonna make laws that reflect the changes they want in a meaningful way.


I don't think governments necessarily try to stifle that change, I just think they struggle sometimes to keep up. And how do you successfully govern such complex societies?

Even my workplace, which is small at 80 odd staff (and I mean odd ;) ) struggles to keep abreast of changes, in demographics, legislation, competitive environment, yes and social changes. It's hard and costly to keep implementing changes. But guess what works best, when you LEAD changes. When you actually don't just follow on in a panicky way, back and forward peddling in the way you have described Obama on gay marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I have never believed that any law will 100% prevent an atrocity like the recent school shooting from happening again, but I do believe less guns in circulation will equal less shootings.

Society will never be perfect. No one has ever claimed that on these boards as far as I can see. No one has said there is one single answer, and that a number of things cannot happen at the same time.

As far as I can make out from these threads, some of the sensible solutions include

1. Some restrictions of gun ownership
2. Better provisions for treating people with mental health problems
3. Widespread societal changes that involve increasing empathy in the population

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 1:08 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
1. Some restrictions of gun ownership
2. Better provisions for treating people with mental health problems
3. Widespread societal changes that involve increasing empathy in the population

Ideally, all three of these things would be happening and the connection between these three issues would be explicit. I would be very happy to see, as cheesy as they might be, little "The More You Know" style PSA's about empathy and violence and the downside of spending all day fantasizing about murder and such. I really think gun literacy requirements for ownership would be great if they could be implemented sensibly. Wholist solutions are always the best, because they indicate a real and community oriented commitment to change. I get very frustrated when people focus too much on a single solution that's supposed to "fix" such complex problems.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 1:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Well you have to start somewhere. And starting with what seems obvious would appear to be a natural way to find a solution.

Interestingly, there are Americans who pretty much oppose all three of those ideas, believing in:

*more guns are the solution. Everyone should possess arms
*No more public funding for mental health. Health should be for the private sector to provide. If people cannot pay, they do not receive treatment
*Focusing on empathy is a namby, pamby liberal notion. Laws should be severe, punishments for those who transgress - as harsh as possible. Both torture and capital punishment are condoned. Prisons should also be in the hands of the private sector and be 'profotable' as indeed they are in the US, thus slave labour continues to exist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 1:35 PM

HKCAVALIER


We've had a very bad decade. I don't think we're in a good state as a nation, morally or rationally. Not the best state in which to be making sweeping decisions that affect people's civil rights. We've seen better days. And I do hope we'll get better again in time.

One thing Sandy Hook did that I think is crucial to the process is that it engaged a whole lot of people on an empathetic/brother's keeper kind of level. It made people truly, deeply desire real change and a better world not just for themselves and their families, but for all families. That's powerful. That's a wonderful thing and I hope it lasts.

Same thing happened immediately after 9/11 but it didn't last. It got twisted by our leaders' manipulation and our fellow Americans' unprocessed rage into the pretext for global atrocity.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 2:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


If I can be frank, it's not all about you. The social and political changes affecting the US are happening everywhere. It may be that you lead the world in ways that have been both positive and negative and it may be that your global power has waned somewhat, but you don't exist in a bubble.

That's why you and I can have conversations about society and make sense of what each other says (mostly).

Western nations suffer the same from the same malaise and the same benefits. People are not substantially less free in the UK or Australia than the US, despite differences in gun laws. Nor do they live in a crime free paradise.

Personally I think the western issues do revolve around these discussions we have on this board, in which we try to come to terms with some of the complexities of living in our respective countries. Issues like finding a balalance between individual rights and the functionability of a society, the role of government and privately owned businesses and how they function together, the responsibility of an individual for their own lives and the role of society in offering services/safety nets.

The main difference in the West really boil down to a few philosophical differences. Gun laws, and health services are two that spring immediately to mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:56 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!







NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:03 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:40 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Attorney general prosecutors tell citizens to carry handguns in schools and colleges no matter what bogus law alleges that to be illegal (reported today by a Texas state representative):
http://archives2013.gcnlive.com/Archives2013/jan13/AlexJones/0101132.m
p3




Dr Suzanna Gratia-Hupp experienced the Lubys Restaurant Massacre with her handgun in her car, both parents shot dead
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/dr-suzanna-gratia-hupp-talks-about-lubys-r
estaurant-massacre-and-armed-citizenry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL