Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 78 by bluethread]

TSGracchus: �Laws help change public opinion.�

Bluethread: �No, in a democratic republic, public opinion changes the laws.�

Well, the fugitive slave laws did help change public opinion. Good laws can sway public opinion and so can bad laws. Passing laws can clarify what disputes are about. There it is in black and white. Make your choice.

Bluethread: �Jim Crow was government action.�

And action by bigger government (:yikes:) nullified Jim Crow.

Bluethread: �The Civil War was as much, if not more, about economic differences...�

Slaves were a major economic factor to be sure, and constituted much of the wealth and production capacity of the South.
If you read the documents that the seceding states published to justify secession, slavery and the superiority of the “white� race is always the overriding factor. Indeed, the Confederate constitution specifically banned any law that would make slavery illegal. They didn't start a shooting war to get a line item veto or a six year term for the president. It was about their property, their slaves.

But now, off the sidetrack and back to the subject:

Bluethread: �Response to increased costs due to government regulation can increase a resentment that adds value to having a gun, increasing the willingness on the part of the consumer to pay higher prices.�

I am willing to own a five million dollar home on the Pacific coast, but it doesn't really matter how willing I am. Fewer guns mean higher prices and so, even fewer guns. Fewer guns means less need for “self-defense� guns. Less demand means (eventually) less production. Eventually no one needs a gun because they just aren't worth it. Even the “bad guys� find it isn't cost effective. It just isn't worth the extra hassle, if we make it as much hassle as possible.

Bluethread: �When I say one way, I mean one category of ways, i.e. market based ways. Yes, one can impose a police state, but that is antithetical to a democratic republic. The government could attempt to control the open market manufacture of guns and ammunition, but, short of a fascist state, it is not going to stop black market manufacture.�

Governments regulate markets. Governments regulate what can and can't be legally manufactured. I will grant that regulation is almost never 100% effective. If we can't provide a perfect solution, we can at least reduce the problem, and the reduced problem will be easier to deal with.

Bluethread: �Oh yah, when someone disagrees with you, you trot out statistics and dead baby pictures to argue that person is heartless. It is not clear whether gun laws are effective in reducing those deaths.�

And there it is: You will not change your mind based on fact or emotion. Facts? Dead children? Throw back your shoulders in defiant scorn. You will not be moved. No libtard argument will change your mind. (By the way, I was not the first to trot out statistics.)

What is clear: Fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths. No guns means no gun deaths. And if guns are harder to get, fewer people will have them.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 77 by Clownboat]Clownboat: �And if the US were to stop supplying guns, they will get them from elsewhere. I don't see how this helps, besides you get my guns of course�.

Deal first with our own markets. Then it is much easier to address other lines of supply. Tariffs and trade agreements can be brought into play.

Clownboat: �So citizens will need to pay to have their guns bought from them. All countless millions of them. 
Sounds expensive, but not necessarily a pipe dream at least.�

Well there is precedent. Slaveowners in the non-seceding states were compensated for their freed slaves.

Clownboat: �Government seizing property for anyone labeled criminal is scary, but without more details I have nothing to comment on.

That would not be from those “labeled� criminal, but those actually convicted of a crime.

Clownboat: �Would the US be justified to use force to stop other countries from manufacturing guns? I ask, because if we stop manufacturing them, criminal will need to get them from other countries and there would be a lot of money incentive's these countries/companies (black market) would have to continue making guns, at least for criminals and governments.�

As I mentioned before, there can be tariffs, trade agreements, economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Clownboat: �Agreed. It's no more reasonable to get rid of guns then it would be to get rid of swords/spears many, many centuries ago. Look at some of the martial arts weapons out there that came about due to dictatorships outlawing swords or by putting size limits and such on them. 
"This isn't a weapon, it's just a farming tool". 
- Nunchaku 
- Sai 
- Tonfa'


Well, be sure to keep your farming tool on the farm. And it is illegal in some states to carry nunchaku, or sai. But if you want tonfa, you can steal one from a cop. (They call them “batons�.)

Clownboat: �I kinda agree, but again, I see you successfully getting rid of guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals will attempt to keep them. Criminals will attempt to get them from other countries. Criminals would start manufacturing them? I'm sure you would also agree that governments are not going to get rid of their guns. I'm a law abiding citizen though. So pass a law, and you will have my guns. I just don't feel like anything beneficial would be happening if you did. This is a major hang-up for me obviously.

I believe I have addressed your objections. I understand them. I love guns. I love precision machinery. I love the smell of gunpowder. It makes me feel good to put a round in the black. But I don't own a gun. It might get stolen.

Clownboat: �You're way to short sited. I'm not the only gun owner out there that owns to hunt. My guns are not for self defense (guns and ammo are not in the same building). 

So, your guns are a single shot hunting rifle, and perhaps a double barrel shot gun. Because it really isn't sporting to go out with a thirty round magazine. (I suppose you might make a case for two rifles, one for varmints and one for bigger game.)

Clownboat: �Any burglar that enters my home without a gun is in trouble. However, if they enter with a gun, I admit, myself and my family are at their mercy. It should be obvious that I'm not paranoid though like your caricature attempts to paint. I'm not a wannabe killer like you have claimed either. No gun under my pillow, much less one even readily available.�

I didn't paint a caricature, you inferred one. And I don't think you would argue for the non-existence of real paranoid wannabe killers.

[AgnosticBoy]

In one of your earlier post, you said I was "rationalizing" when I stated that "bad guys" (as in those with felonies on their record) commit the vast majority of gun crime. Since you are against my point, I assume you then think that my claim is false.

So can you please substantiate your claim with evidence showing gun crime committed by BAD guys vs. good guys? If you do not have that evidence, then please discontinue making unsubstantiated claims. That's only fair given the FACT that I've presented evidence from government sources to support my claim. It's also part of the forum rules.

I said you were rationalizing because you were cherry picking statistics. You ignored completely the world statistics on gun deaths.

In the US, it is the criminals that commit the vast majority of gun crime. Bringing up WORLD stats does not apply to my claim because not all countries have the same factors as the US. Some countries may have a weak and/or corrupt police force, some countries have terrorism, some deaths may be due to war, large drug cartels, etc. IN a lot of these countries, the guns may be obtained illegally because very few countries would allow gun ownership like the U.S. does.

You ignored completely the obvious fact that if there were no guns there would be no shooting deaths.

That's false. My whole point of bringing up good guys with guns vs. bad guys with guns was to show that guns and GOOD guys can coexist without "gun crime" problem, unless you consider ONE percent of gun crime to be a problem. I'm sure the percentage of crime is even lower among armed law enforcement and military.

How many school shooters were convicted felons? Was the three year old who shot and killed his mother with her own gun a really evil person?
What is an acceptable body count?
Getting rid of guns won't stop all violence. It will stop some.

A lot of the school shooters did not have prior criminal records but they did have some some patterns of behavior that would point to them being antisocial, loners, prior threats, etc. This is where my point about strengthening background checks comes in. I'd want every single person who wants to own a gun to undergo the same background checks that FBI agents go through. I'd even take it a step further and add that ROUTINE (not just one time) psychological evaluations/testing should be done, while factoring in information from 2 or 3 acquaintances of the gun owner. All of this should be made available to those conducting background checks.

You see, I'm willing to give up some rights to help the right to own guns be much safer than what it is now. This would weed out those with obvious mental health problems. Your position is naive because it leaves out self-defense which makes you an ever bigger target for criminals.

But getting back to the bigger picture, my point is that non-criminals account for less than ONE percent of gun crime. Armed federal workers and law enforcement probably account for less because they go through more screening which is why I use some of their background check process as a model to be applied to all of the population. That's why I boldly stated that "NO guns for criminals, equals no gun crime problem".

[Clownboat]

Deal first with our own markets. Then it is much easier to address other lines of supply. Tariffs and trade agreements can be brought into play.

This does not address that criminals will get their guns from elsewhere. Even other countries as you evidenced. Doesn't address the black market either, or self manufacturing. You will successfully stop my hunting and shooting of clay pigeons though.

Clownboat: �Would the US be justified to use force to stop other countries from manufacturing guns? I ask, because if we stop manufacturing them, criminal will need to get them from other countries and there would be a lot of money incentive's these countries/companies (black market) would have to continue making guns, at least for criminals and governments.�

As I mentioned before, there can be tariffs, trade agreements, economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The Cartel wont get their guns from the black market, other countries or build them on their own because of tariffs and such? I think they will continue to get their guns. You will make it expensive for me to buy a hunting shotgun sure, but I'm concerned about the criminals and cartels...

Clownboat: �Agreed. It's no more reasonable to get rid of guns then it would be to get rid of swords/spears many, many centuries ago. Look at some of the martial arts weapons out there that came about due to dictatorships outlawing swords or by putting size limits and such on them. 
"This isn't a weapon, it's just a farming tool". 
- Nunchaku 
- Sai 
- Tonfa'

Well, be sure to keep your farming tool on the farm. And it is illegal in some states to carry nunchaku, or sai. But if you want tonfa, you can steal one from a cop. (They call them “batons�.)

I am well versed with these weapons as a former martial arts instructor.
Felons right now can buy parts to self assemble their own weapons. They don't even have to disguise them as something else.

I believe I have addressed your objections. I understand them. I love guns. I love precision machinery. I love the smell of gunpowder. It makes me feel good to put a round in the black. But I don't own a gun. It might get stolen.

It appears that you find yourself unqualified to own a gun. Good on you. We should all know our limitations, but should we be projecting them on to others?

Clownboat: �You're way to short sited. I'm not the only gun owner out there that owns to hunt. My guns are not for self defense (guns and ammo are not in the same building). 

So, your guns are a single shot hunting rifle, and perhaps a double barrel shot gun. Because it really isn't sporting to go out with a thirty round magazine. (I suppose you might make a case for two rifles, one for varmints and one for bigger game.)

My only rifle is a 22 for targets and squirrel hunting. Shotguns were for bird hunting Just had to put my dog down two weeks ago. 15 good years. He was such a good dog.

Clownboat: �Any burglar that enters my home without a gun is in trouble. However, if they enter with a gun, I admit, myself and my family are at their mercy. It should be obvious that I'm not paranoid though like your caricature attempts to paint. I'm not a wannabe killer like you have claimed either. No gun under my pillow, much less one even readily available.�

I didn't paint a caricature, you inferred one.

I'll let you speak for yourself...
Post 65: "I have a proposal: Let everyone who wants to own a gun be paired with another, and let them face each other's fire until one is dead. Then give the survivor his gun and brand him on the forehead so every one knows a killer on sight. Until that is done these gun fanatics are just wannabe killers. Let them earn their guns by showing they are willing to use them."

And I don't think you would argue for the non-existence of real paranoid wannabe killers.

Correct, I would not argue this.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 78 by bluethread]

TSGracchus: �Laws help change public opinion.�

Bluethread: �No, in a democratic republic, public opinion changes the laws.�

Well, the fugitive slave laws did help change public opinion. Good laws can sway public opinion and so can bad laws. Passing laws can clarify what disputes are about. There it is in black and white. Make your choice.

No, it codified the public opinion in the South and, like the Jim Crow Laws, imposed that opinion on the entire public. As I stated, this is government imposition into the free market, requiring an activity from people who would otherwise not take part in that activity. Those who favored slavery abode by the law. Those who were against slavery ignored or protested the law. Those that were indifferent about slavery, opposed the law because it was government telling them what to do.

Bluethread: �Jim Crow was government action.�

And action by bigger government (:yikes:) nullified Jim Crow.

Yes, but that action only needed to enforce the seller's right to sell to whomever they wish. However, it went further and did the same thing that the Jim Crow laws did, but in reverse. It still mandated to sellers how they should do business.

Bluethread: �The Civil War was as much, if not more, about economic differences...�

Slaves were a major economic factor to be sure, and constituted much of the wealth and production capacity of the South.
If you read the documents that the seceding states published to justify secession, slavery and the superiority of the “white� race is always the overriding factor. Indeed, the Confederate constitution specifically banned any law that would make slavery illegal. They didn't start a shooting war to get a line item veto or a six year term for the president. It was about their property, their slaves.

No, they did not start a shooting war to get a line item veto or a six year term for president. They started a shooting war to preserve their way of life and reject federal interference. Slavery was an integral part of that economy. However, the focus on slavery was started by the New England abolitionists, who were the first to propose secession from union with the South, based on the argument that the South was overrepresented in congress, due to the three-fifths compromise(William Lloyd Garrison). In 1823-33, the idea of secession began to take hold in South Carolina over the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", that was designed to protect Northern Industry and, like all tariffs, increased the cost of goods to Southern consumers.

But now, off the sidetrack and back to the subject:

I only addressed that "sidetrack", because you brought it up as a justification for government intervention in the economy, specifically the economy of firearms. So, if you are willing to drop that as a justification, we can move on to your other arguments.

Bluethread: �Response to increased costs due to government regulation can increase a resentment that adds value to having a gun, increasing the willingness on the part of the consumer to pay higher prices.�

I am willing to own a five million dollar home on the Pacific coast, but it doesn't really matter how willing I am. Fewer guns mean higher prices and so, even fewer guns. Fewer guns means less need for “self-defense� guns. Less demand means (eventually) less production. Eventually no one needs a gun because they just aren't worth it. Even the “bad guys� find it isn't cost effective. It just isn't worth the extra hassle, if we make it as much hassle as possible.

I believe you are being disingenuous. That fact that you are willing to pay the price necessary to own that home shows how willing you are. Purchase price is the primary indicator of the buyer's willingness to buy and the sellers willingness to sell. Fewer guns in a demand economy means increased pressure for innovation in both production and distribution, i.e. a black market. Less availability of guns does not mean less demand for “self-defense� guns. In fact, in can drive up demand for “self-defense� guns, as black market guns proliferate among those who do not respect the law. This results in a lowering of respect for the law among those who are then vulnerable to those who have no respect for the law in the first place.

Bluethread: �When I say one way, I mean one category of ways, i.e. market based ways. Yes, one can impose a police state, but that is antithetical to a democratic republic. The government could attempt to control the open market manufacture of guns and ammunition, but, short of a fascist state, it is not going to stop black market manufacture.�

Governments regulate markets. Governments regulate what can and can't be legally manufactured. I will grant that regulation is almost never 100% effective. If we can't provide a perfect solution, we can at least reduce the problem, and the reduced problem will be easier to deal with.

I am not suggesting 100% effectiveness. I am just pointing out that reduced supply always results in increased demand and increased demand will always result in increased supply, by hook or by crook.

Bluethread: �Oh yah, when someone disagrees with you, you trot out statistics and dead baby pictures to argue that person is heartless. It is not clear whether gun laws are effective in reducing those deaths.�

And there it is: You will not change your mind based on fact or emotion. Facts? Dead children? Throw back your shoulders in defiant scorn. You will not be moved. No libtard argument will change your mind. (By the way, I was not the first to trot out statistics.)

What is clear: Fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths. No guns means no gun deaths. And if guns are harder to get, fewer people will have them.

If one uses statistics properly, they can be quite persuasive. Emotional appeals can also be quite persuasive. However, when they are used to impune one's motives, that is not a reasonable argument. Being pro gun does not mean that one does not care about women and children. Many are progun precisely because they do care about women and children, specifically their own women and children.

[DPMartin]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

really? I didn't see that in the constitution that states except for the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.


this problem wasn't here 100 years ago this country has the right to bear arms for over 200 years and this problem is only recent, and you can blame the society you live in that thinks it knows better then the rest. this society is reaping what it sows. nothing has changed but the views on what should be law, and not law. what is true and what is not true. what is trusted and what should not be trusted.


maybe 50 years back a car dealer would be happy to receive cash for a car, to day the public thinks otherwise and so does the car dealer.

if you want friends you go some place and or join some organization and make friends. now you get on line and get sued for your mistakes by someone you've never seen face to face, because its documented and there's laws against saying that.

it gets worse, walking towards hell doesn't get any better, no matter what you want to believe about yourselves.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]

bluethread: �As I stated, this is government imposition into the free market, requiring an activity from people who would otherwise not take part in that activity.�

All markets are regulated. If they are not regulated the marketing system will collapse. There is no “free market� without regulation.

Governments exist to regulate. That is the function of government. Governments, good or bad, exist on tolerance, “deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.� For better or worse, the governed are starting to withdraw consent for the Second Amendment, just as they withdrew their consent for the once constitutionally mandated slavery.

bluethread: �If one uses statistics properly, they can be quite persuasive. Emotional appeals can also be quite persuasive.�

Most people are far less likely to be convinced by facts than by pleasant delusions. The intellectually challenged are actually resentful of reason. Emotions are far more persuasive than facts.

bluethread: �However, when they are used to impune� (impugn: Spelling Nazi strikes again!) � one's motives, that is not a reasonable argument.�

I am not impugning motives. But I am trying to point out that motives may be based on mistaken perceptions. Guns are more a source of harm than protection.

bluethread: �Being pro gun does not mean that one does not care about women and children. Many are progun precisely because they do care about women and children, specifically their own women and children.�

I argue that the strict control of the gun market and the tight regulation of of ownership and possession of firearms is in the public interest. If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. Fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]

bluethread: �As I stated, this is government imposition into the free market, requiring an activity from people who would otherwise not take part in that activity.�

All markets are regulated. If they are not regulated the marketing system will collapse. There is no “free market� without regulation.

Governments exist to regulate. That is the function of government. Governments, good or bad, exist on tolerance, “deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.� For better or worse, the governed are starting to withdraw consent for the Second Amendment, just as they withdrew their consent for the once constitutionally mandated slavery.

That quote is an ideal of Jefferson in the Declaration. It is not in the Constitution. That said it is true that even the tyrant governs by the benign consent of the governed, in that they choose no to rebel. Also, the full quote of that ideal is "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Therefore, he is not saying that governments exist to regulate, but that they exist to secure rights. They are only to regulate to the extent necessary to secure those rights. Jefferson's point is that governments do not establish rights through regulation, but regulate only to the extent of securing rights. Among those rights was the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of one's life, liberty and one's use of one's property in pursuit of happiness.

bluethread: �If one uses statistics properly, they can be quite persuasive. Emotional appeals can also be quite persuasive.�

Most people are far less likely to be convinced by facts than by pleasant delusions. The intellectually challenged are actually resentful of reason. Emotions are far more persuasive than facts.

Fine, but I was not finished making my point.

bluethread: �However, when they are used to impune� (impugn: Spelling Nazi strikes again!) � one's motives, that is not a reasonable argument.�

I am not impugning motives. But I am trying to point out that motives may be based on mistaken perceptions. Guns are more a source of harm than protection.

No, you were suggesting, if not saying outright, that those who are not convinced by your statistics to adopt your solutions do not care about dead men, women and children. That is indeed impugning motives.

bluethread: �Being pro gun does not mean that one does not care about women and children. Many are progun precisely because they do care about women and children, specifically their own women and children.�

I argue that the strict control of the gun market and the tight regulation of of ownership and possession of firearms is in the public interest. If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. Fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

Argue all you like, there will always be guns. I argue that tight regulation of any commodity only increases demand, unless the public does not want it, regardless of what some bureaucrat thinks is in the public interest. Fewer legal guns means more illegal guns and 90% of gun deaths are committed with illegal guns.

[AgnosticBoy]

I argue that the strict control of the gun market and the tight regulation of of ownership and possession of firearms is in the public interest. If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. Fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

I agree with you that banning guns would reduce gun violence. However, you should also acknowledge that there are alternative ways to reduce gun violence without banning guns. I've presented evidence from government stats to validate my point. I've also taken it a bit further to show why my point is better than yours when we look at the overall picture of "violent crime", which is not limited to just guns. Since violent crime is not limited to guns, this shows that self-defense will always be needed. My point leaves a means of effective self-defense in place which is why it's better than your point.

Let me reiterate my conclusion which you a)have not disagreed with or b) you're UNABLE to logically rebut my point (but instead choose to bypass it and give us LIBERAL talking points).

Here's my conclusion:
Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals reduces gun crime.

You obviously can not refute this so I want you to stop claiming that banning guns is the ONLY way to reduce gun crime. Support your claims with logic and evidence instead of 'liberalism'. People here are smart enough to notice the difference between the two!

[jgh7]

There are definite steps that could be taken to reduce gun violence, and at this point I would say even many Republicans are in favor of doing something, be it regulations, stricter background and mental health checks prior to purchasing, or more restrictions.

But practically nothing is done. That leads me to believe that the people of this country are no longer primarily to blame. There are more sinister, corrupt, and powerful forces preventing progress to be made in this area. I suspect corruption in the government and NRA are to blame right now, and I'm not sure what can be done about that.