Guns and stuff

[2ndRateMind]

One's heart goes out the bereft relatives and blameless wounded of Las Vegas. And one's prayers for the innocent dead.

Yet, one notices that this is hardly an isolated occurrence. Quite why civilians need a right to buy and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weapons evades me. The more that are sold, the more likely they will fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, the criminal, and the downright malicious. No civilised country could or should or would tolerate such lax gun laws for long.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Whoever threatens me or my family without due process. All gun owners are asking for is that they be left alone.

That's what the police is for.

Sorry, I was talking about the conversation between you and me, not the general discussion. To that point, I do not think that the purpose of the second amendment is to facilitate assassinations. It is to resist the imposition of tyranny in general. It is a resistance measure, not a proactive measure.

Okay, next time consider making your point elsewhere and not as a response to my point about assassination.

My point was that, if one wishes to take armed resistance off of the table, one must change the constitution. Currently, according to the constitution, armed resistance to tyranny is the primary justification for the right to keep and bear arms. It is a last resort measure, but it is an option.

And it's a bad justification for the reason I put forward. This last resort, is not a resort of any kind, you have no chance against the US military. It's a cultural remnant from a different time. Go right ahead and get the constitution changed.

No, that does not outweight the threat of an armed uprising. It poses a more credible threat in the current climate.

Wait, what current climate? You think a) there is a distinct possibility for Trump to turning his presidency into a dictatorship, and b) that he would somehow have the backing of the military?

However, should the credibility of elections be undermined, as Hillary, Rachel and others suggest, armed resistance serves as a credible fall back position and it appears that some on the left agree with that. However, let's not bother with them, because they are PC, right?

You are going have to educated me on that, I've only heard Trump joke about gun owners shooting Hillary if she won. I know there are some pro-gun Democrats, but who on the left thinks an armed resistance is an appropriate response to the election?

At the moment and in general. However, I believe that it is the fact that we have an armed citizenry, with a history of private arms ownership, initially including battleships, that has preserved the principle of domestic nonintervention on the part of the military. The tendency for the government to violate this principle, i.e. Kent State and Waco, has been held at bay, not by the decrease in private arms ownership, but the increase in private arms ownership.

Not exactly good examples to pick for making your case. My argument as usual, is that you are not going to win in a shoot out against the state, as clearly demonstrated by Kent State and Waco.

Again, whoever threatens me or my family without due process, after other options have been exhausted. Yes, an armed citizenry is the option of last resort. However, if that option is preemptively removed, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to reestablish that option.

Let me suggest that you'd do more damage against the state with a home made bomb than an AR-15. You really do have better options than guns, even when it comes to last resort.

The bottom line is does one wish to take responsibility for one's own security, or does one wish to delegate that to a government instituted among men, who have their own priorities and may not realize that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That's a easy choice to make, I've already delegated that much given I've never owned a gun. Am I detecting a shift from the fighting tyranny argument into home defense argument?

[2ndRateMind]

Okay, but that still doesn't tell me who are you are going to shoot, if the military is already on your side.

Whoever threatens me or my family without due process. All gun owners are asking for is that they be left alone.

Can't help thinking that if there were fewer assault weapons in civilian hands, there would be less stress on the police, the military could concentrate on their real job, which is defending the nation from external aggression, and the direct threats to you and your family would be reduced.

Gun owners may want to be left alone - don't we all? - but living in society inevitably requires compromises and give and take. One makes concessions, in other words, to promote the common good. And in this way, social progress happens.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Rufus21]

Can we all agree that ownership of the guns is just one of the issues?

I think we can all agree on that. Stricter gun control laws would not have prevented the mass shootings of the past and they will not end shootings in the future. But hopefully they can minimize the damage while we work on the other contributing issues. At the very least, we should be trying to turn these mass shootings into just regular shootings. I mean come on, shooting almost 600 people in 10 minutes just shouldn't be an option for a regular citizen.

And on the flip side, who is being hurt by stricter gun laws? Law abiding citizens who like to safely shoot off big guns for fun? It doesn't seem like slightly limiting some people's recreational activities should be such a big deal.

[2ndRateMind]

So, another month, another massacre. Ho Hum. Not really that unpredictable. Can't help feeling that if Americans loved each other more, and guns less, these massacres would stop. Because prayers won't help, and money for bereaved families is a sticking plaster on a devastating loss. But, fundamentally, Americans clearly feel that saved lives are secondary to getting rich, and indulging that wealth, and nothing and no one matters enough to get in the way of the profitability of arms manufacturers.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

I've heard this said before. The problem with us gun control proponents, is that we only care about gun control immediately after each massacre; while the pro gun side, care about gun control every day of the week. Had we care as much about gun control as our opponents do, and lobbied as hard as they do, gun laws would have changed ages ago.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 75 by Bust Nak]

Surely, sensible gun control in the US will be a long, hard fight. And those most affected the current lax laws, the bereaved and the wounded, are a disparate group of unfortunates, selected by a random fate into being victims, without the corporate organisation or funding of the gun lobby.

Nevertheless, they do have morality on their side, and thus should have Christianity, also. Therefore, there are grounds for optimism. Right will prevail; it's just a matter of how long it will take, and how many innocents will need to die first.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[justme2]

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.
I want---
[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)
[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)
[3] provide a valid home address
[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places

Any objections-?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 77 by justme2]

No, that all seems to me like it would be a positive step in the right direction!

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Kenisaw]

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.
I want---
[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)
[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)
[3] provide a valid home address
[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places

Any objections-?

1) You already have background checks on any weapon bought by a licensed gun dealer. Most criminals get guns from theft, or from buying them from people who stole them. There are also cases where a "straw man" (a friend or family member) will buy a gun for a criminal because they can pass the background check. This is illegal of course, but it does happen.

About 78% of guns are bought from dealers. The rest are private transactions.

2) This is touted mostly as a deterrent to suicide. Mental health issues are a serious problem as it relates to gun violence. Almost all of the mass shootings in this country are carried out by people that are medicated for a diagnosed mental condition, but that is for another conversation. As it relates to your comment, there is no statistical data that shows that a waiting period reduces crime or suicide. The average time between when a gun is obtained and when it used in a crime according to the ATF? 9 years.

The national instant check system is usually completed in just a few minutes. There is nothing else to review and making someone wait 7 days accomplishes nothing. The FBI has three days to complete a check, and if the instant check system has issues or a problem arises then a person has to wait up to three days before they can purchase the weapon.

3) ATF form 4473 already requires your correct physical address on it. Your valid government issued ID has to have your current address on it. If you lie about it, you've broken the law.

4) States that now have open carry have not seen any statistical movement in crime rates. Some studies say violent crimes go up, others say they go down. So I don't see any reason why we should ban open carry, or concealed carry. People have the right to protect themselves.

5) You didn't have a number 5 on your list, but I'd thought this was worth mentioning. Here is an interesting article out of Forbes on how many lives are SAVED by gun ownership...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/ ... 0221f35edc