Defend the Second Amendment!

I know the court cases because I'm active in the sport and follow gun rights cases. The three I listed are big ones., Yes, I said "sport". I competed on a rifle team when I was younger and still like to practice making tight little shot groups. It's a skill. It takes great focus and concentration. I find it relaxing.

Poverty is a complex issue so no, I don't have the answer. Nobody does, and there are plenty of people making sure it stays this way. I'll give you a few examples (this just scratches the surface)
Drugs
Mental illness
Inner-city school systems
Lack of ambition
The allure of easy money in criminal activities
Lack of positive role models
An abundance of negative role models.
Peer pressure
Lack of family structure.
Teen pregnancy
Victim mentality
Illness
Rap and other media that glorifies "thug life"
Lack of vision - as in there's a lot more out there than a single neighborhood. Move. I did. I even lived in my car for two summers.
bad economy - too often used as a cop out, but a legitimate issue.

I'd say the two biggest problems are the school systems and the activists. I went to Boston public schools they sucked. I can spell because I went to a high school in the suburbs. Frigging activists make it their full time job to convince the poor there's nothing they can do, they're incapable of succeeding, everything is somebody else's fault, and how to game the welfare system. Al Sharpton is the worst of the worst. Louis Farrakhan spews more hatred and calls for violence, but he's not in the news much anymore (except when he's calling for killing cops), and La Raza deserves a special place in Hell for the way they manipulate and exploit the Hispanic community and illegal immigrants.

There are a lot of good people lumped in with the bad. Some are happy where they are, earning an honest living, others don't know how to get out.

What's the solution? I'll let you know as soon as somebody figures it out. I'm pretty sure happy thoughts aren't working. Some of them don't want to be saved, and you'd could probably get 50% on their feet by forcing them to man the fuck up and take responsibility for themselves. Cashing Uncle Sam's free checks is easy, tearing them up and working three part time jobs is hard, And a million other possibilities.

 

It's not illegal to sell a gun, so why should there be a penalty?

I didn't say I was against reporting lost/stolen guns.

A background check is not registration. By law it has to be deleted from the system within 72 hours I believe, I forget the time limit, might be longer.

Why should I be forced to by insurance? According to Democrats ObamaCare would insure everybody. They're already covered under homeowner's insurance so not sure the point other than to make gun ownership more expensive.

I don't believe in registration because it's nobody's business if I legally own a gun. If I pass a background check that's where it should end. If I want to sell it to somebody who can legally own a gun that's my business. There's a paper trail from manufacturer to distributor to gun shop to owner, if the feds want me they can do their homework. "You can't have confiscation without registration".

I did some work at a gun factory a couple of years ago. There was a row of servers connected to a modem bank. That's right, a dozen old school modems. The phone lines belonged to ATF and the servers contained that particular gun manufacturers serial number database. All those modems were active around the clock - ATF has direct access to all the gun manufacturer databases in the country. The government can track my purchases easily despite no federal registry. I just moved to a state with registration so they already know what I have. I don't like the registry but I'm not going to jail for it, I'll obey the laws of this state.

 

Paw

So for you the reason people are fearful is because they fear the poor?

What is it about the poor that is so frightening?

Also you don’t give examples you produce a list of things you think lead to poverty with the comment that you haven’t a clue what to do about them adding nobody does – but have you looked?

I mean have you ever wondered why US pregnancy rates are so high compared to some other countries

If people are unwell, mentally ill or suffer from addiction isn’t that a healthcare problem that could be tackled by a healthcare solution?

And if US schools are not doing well why not look to places where they are and try and bring in policies that fix the problem?

Why do you think there are more negative role models in the US and why are they being listened to?

What do you mean by lacking family structure and why necessarily does it lead to poverty in your view?

How do you know that around 50% of the poor could be put on their feet by forcing them to man the fuck up and by them taking responsibility for themselves I mean what does that mean to you?

 

According to the FBI the majority of guns in criminal hands were bought legally then were stolen or sold on.

But what if the gun is sold to a criminal?

But if there is no need to and no way to check if someone has lost stolen or sold on the gun, it likely it will not happen.

But what about those that sell them on to criminals?

Wouldn't you want to stop guns being sold on to criminals?

 

Yep old, almost as old as you saying "you just proved my point" about something that doesn't prove your point and then acting like you're putting forth a "rational, reasonable or logical counter argument".

Just like your saying over and over again; "I’ve pointed out that many people who say they have guns for personal protection seem motivated by fear – I mean if they were not fearful they wouldn’t feel they needed a lethal weapon for personal protection" as if saying it over and over again will make it meaningful and not just a bit of contrived circular reasoning.

Let's look at it; "I’ve pointed out that many (how many? what percentage? or is this some subjective opinion of yours) people who say they have guns for personal protection seem motivated by fear (if you are talking about people that only own guns for personal protection, then there may very well an element of fear in their ownership as you next point out) – I mean if they were not fearful they wouldn’t feel they needed a lethal weapon for personal protection" But then no one here but you is limiting this discussion to personal protection and so this whole statement is a stawman.

And this; "And you I mean at first you say it’s not true then in the next breath you tell people they should be afraid and that the frightening things are not going away." Are you really this naive or are you just ignoring the truth to make your "reasoning" sound reasonable. There are "frighting things" in this world, do you really think they don't exist or are going away anytime soon? Have noticed that while this discussion has been going on terrorist attacks have been going on in France, and France has already has the repressive gun laws you recommend for the US?

 

This was a great episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit. This is a clip from close to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

Yeah but Penn Jillette is a nutter.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/06/penn-jillette-is-willing-to-be-a-guest-on-adolf-hitlers-talk-show


From the vanity fair interview;
Do you think Bullshit is fair and balanced?
"We're very, very fair and very, very biased. "

 

How's their fears any more irrational than your own?

 

Now that's funny. Coming from a person that says the same things over and over again. You even send people to read your other posts so you don't even have to retype them. That's not "respectful free speak" and debate that is simple dogmatism and disrespectful as it comes.

 

AGAIN – the question is why people feel they need to be armed for personal protection in the first place?
AGAIN – there innumerable reasons why a person would feel the need to be armed for personal protection, this has been pointed out to you innumerable times. Why don't you listen.

If they were not so frightened they’d likely stop wanting them.
First who is "they", if you are talking about gun owners in general then, not all gun owners have them for personal protection. You have been told many times the differing reasons for gun ownership, personal protection being only one of those reasons and not the reason for everyone who owns a gun, yet you harp on it like it is the only reason for gun ownership. So many who are not frightened want them and own them.

Why is it you seem to want to sell guns rather than thinking about a society where people didn’t feel they needed such guns?
First, few if any of those talking with you in this thread have ever sold a gun.
Second, owning a gun does not in any way prevent that person from thinking about improving the society they live in, as you keep implying.
In fact it seems that gun ownership has very little to do with solving social ills or not. If it did, it would seem the UK would have solved their social ills by now.

 

Wow. Are you for real? Great troll posts. I don't want to insult you but nobody can be this naive.

No, I don't fear poor people. Violent criminals are a different story.

Teen pregnancy rates are so high because we just "celebrated" the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This country just had a year long celebration of over 1,000,000 terminated pregnancies a year. Fundraisers. Black tie galas. Concerts to celebrate death. Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi staged a fake Congressional hearing to whine because she has to pay $12/month for birth control, arguing her sex life should be subsidized. Close your fucking legs, Sandy, or get your millionaire boyfriend to pick up a box of Trojans. I'm pro-choice for crying out loud but I was absolutely disgusted by this grotesque celebration.

You pretty much answered your own questions, not sure why you keep asking.

 

Old

Personal Protection

[SIZE=11pt]In the many conversations I’ve had with pro-gunners over the years the idea of owning them for personal protection has been frequent mentioned- for hunting yes but defiantly not as much and for competitive sport target shooting not so much. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve been here nearly 15 years and the gun issue comes up frequently so there are many threads and if you want links I can give you them. Also my observation here seem to be backed from studies like this one from the Pew Research Center –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A national survey finds that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection; just 32% say they have a gun primarily for hunting and even fewer cite other reasons, such as target shooting. [my bold][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And when you factor in - one of the reasons - rather than just ‘the main’ then the figure goes even higher. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is that I’ve highlighted this observation many times and linked to examples of it, it’s not a new discussion. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I said - “people who say they have guns for personal protection seem motivated by fear [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You reply - (if you are talking about people that only own guns for personal protection, then there may very well an element of fear in their ownership as you next point out)”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thank you for backing me up. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Threat[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]No one I know feels so unsafe they think they need a weapon to hand just in case let alone something as powerful and lethal as a modern handgun.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Socio-economic problems[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This has been discussed many times the results have been unclear because many pro-gunners seem reluctant to debate it openly and honestly usually reverting to ‘that’s not true’ – ‘that silly’ or the ‘you’re wrong’ kind of comeback which I have to keep pointing out is not a rational counter argument. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In many cases if is clear they haven’t given such things much though and some like Paw admit they haven’t. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I really would like to discuss this more sensibly. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As to your jib about the UK it seems to imply a -either/or -absolutist mentality something is either A or Z the bcdef etc are ignored, the thing is that many issues have shades and degree, they are not all black or white.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Again it is something that I’ve had to discuss many times thing is that the UK has its social and economic problems, but they are framed in a British context, and I’m very happy to discuss them again if you want, but here we are talking about the US and the gun issue in an American context. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And as I’ve explained many times in my view the American desire for guns seems like a symptom of a wider mentality and set of attitudes[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]To repeat –[/SIZE]

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can seemingly lead some into a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

Old

Sorry but your posts these days seem more about rage than rationality and more about point scoring than point making.

It seems more about wanting to hit out at someone whose views you don’t like and would want silenced.

For example lets us take this outburst - you criticise me for wanting rational respectful debate saying

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

But as I’ve pointed out many times I often end up having to repeat myself because people don’t read the posts or ask me to repeat myself – I don’t want to do it I’d prefer the discussion move on.

Citing other posts, articles, reports etc that is normal practise in any debate if you don’t understand that I don’t think you understand what debate means.

It seems to me that you are angry and calling me names because I won’t just accept what you say without question or criticism even when you seem unable to put up any rational defence of your point of view.

So please don’t just come back with some more vitriolic bluster but try to put together a logical and coherent counter argument and then we might be able to move the debate on.

 

Paw

Sure you picked the right word? What do you mean by ‘naïve’? I’ve asked you some questions (most of which you ignore) are you saying I was naïve to expect you to show the common curtsy of answering them?

But you seemed to imply that most violent crime was the result of poverty and so poor people?

Sorry can you please try and explain your thinking here in some rational way? Are you saying teenage girls get pregnant because they can abort – can you back this up in any way? Many other countries have abortion rights but also much much lower teenage pregnancy rates.

Where did I answer my questions?

And it’s not my answers I’m looking for its your answers – have you any?

 

Well I think what you describe is not an american problem but a world wide problem and that is the belief in the rule of law. The rule of law makes any brutallity justifiable in the name of the law. It is in the name of the law or the in the name of common decency that nations take up arms against each other and have police forces and statutues that are actually antagonistic toward the public.

 

I do not think it is balanced - mostly in part because Penn tells you it isn't. It is his view on the way things are or should be. Absent the second amendment, there would probably be no private ownership of guns. I'm glad that we have the 2nd amendment. Piers Moragn kept asking people on his show why people should have the right to own a AR-15 or whatever weapon he chose to ask about. I kept waiting for one of them to say that the 2nd amendment guarantess that no American should ever have to answer that question.

 

The dope

The rule of law does not have to be brutal or justify brutality or be antagonistic toward the public; I’m not saying it can’t be I’m saying it doesn’t have to be. There are however people around the world that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and so support policies that promote such views.

What I’m saying is that in an American context this seems to me to be tied up to the issue of guns and there place in US society and politics.

 

Chrys

But for what reason would you feel the need to own an AR-15? In what way would it improve your life and that of society?