Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One concern about the "reasonable" gun control laws, even with the post a few above this one is that they always come at a problem from the back end, the results so to speak.
If a person throws a rock at a window and when this happens enough times, the window makers make stronger windows, eventually using plastics of some sort rather than glass. The penalties for throwing rocks are increased too. Then if the trend continues, we add more police patrols. Finally, we get the control people involved and when some kid throws a rock they are immediately descended upon and told not to throw rocks. Many parents, believing that controls are the best way to address behavior become horrified when their child throws a rock and rush to make sure that never happens again, at least not that they can see.
This is the fallacy of control. It is based on nothing less than one human being imposing their will on another. In the history of mankind, control has never worked. Look around and ask yourself: if control works so well then why are there so many problems? The answer is simple, people can reason and when that happens, individual thought overrides control and people do what they want.
Gun control, like every other control, regardless of what it is, is contrary to reason and being reasonable. We hear the "reasonable gun control" mantra all the time. The term is used as a control itself, a mechanism to get people to accept something they don't want and like the confidence game, challenge those who question "reasonable gun control" by implying they are unreasonable for opposing it. In reality, those proposing "reasonable gun control" are actually the least reasonable and hidden behind words like "reasonable" are the most insidious intentions devised by humans, the control of other humans.
Then we hear the comparisons to other controls, again, the idea being to challenge anyone who opposes gun control to then have to defend different arguments on the basis that those controls are unreasonable but in so doing, portraying themselves as being so. This is yet another control mechanism at work and like the insidious methods above strikes at individuals who might lack the sophistication to recognize manipulation of the highest order.
Once you accept one control as the reason to accept another, on the basis that the first is reasonable and so accepting what is reasonable should be beyond question, you can control anything and anyone. That is the goal of the "reasonable" in gun control or any other control.
The basis of a control, be it guns or anything else is the idea that people are unwilling to do something and therefore need to be forced to do it. Now you get to the foundation of gun control - FORCE. If you examine "reasonable" gun control you will eventually get to the use of force and confiscation, every time. Not some of the time, every time.
Notice how you never hear anyone promoting "reasonable" gun control also promoting "reasonable" education at a basic level? Think about it, when included as an afterthought "oh yeah, that too" idea, that too becomes a control because there is no genuine interest in anything but indoctrinating others into accepting a "reasonable" control, there is no education intended nor provided. The purpose of education is to provide a way for people to learn and understand and then using their brains, to build knowledge from independent thought. That is contrary to the "reasonable" gun control advocates. When you look at what they are proposing, you can see that they want to control the way people think and to accomplish that, go back to the same formula of using other controls that they decide are reasonable to say their idea of gun control is also reasonable, not to be challenged because who but an unreasonable person would oppose something reasonable?
Mention true education with a goal of people using independent thought and you'll see horror on the faces of reasonable gun control advocates, just what do you mean independent thought? The idea is that people who think independently are prone to doing something the controller does not like and that chips away at the very foundation of what they want, control.
So we get back to the rock throwing. A problem exists because some people, not all or even most, but a small number, throw rocks at windows. The industrial machine jumps into action to make better windows. Penalties for throwing rocks at windows are made harsher and more police enforcement of those laws is implemented and finally, parents, teachers and anyone with control authority over others tell the kids not to throw rocks. Problem solved right?
Wrong.
Here is what actually happened. A technical solution to breaking windows was created. Great, that should have been done when the windows were designed in the first place but no matter, sometimes you must have a need before some material thing or even virtual thing is fixed. No control there, it's just a reaction and doesn't make anyone do anything unless they want to.
One step backward though, we have the control laws. They sound reasonable, throwing rocks at windows is a bad thing. Who would in their right mind, being a reasonable person argue with that?
One more step backward and we have the teachers who tell kids not to throw rocks and should they continue, penalties are assessed. Control.
Then we get to the parents, again they tell their children not to throw rocks. All is well, the kids don't throw rocks and if they are told this often enough and penalized when they throw a rock, when they grow up they will remember not to throw rocks. Problem solved.
Nope. Family goes to a lake or river for a picnic. The kids never even think about throwing a rock and skipping it across the water. It isn't that they don't want to, they no longer even think about it. They cease to wonder why the rock skips on the water or why it can do it more than once, the rock being so much heavier than the water and also being of many different shapes. They never see the correlation between rock shape, how fast and how they throw it so how the rocks skips on the water. Some don't even know it is possible.
You might say that doesn't happen, but oh yes, it does. You might say that a reasonable parent can distinguish between throwing rocks at windows and throwing a rock to skip it on the water but that is increasingly not true.
Don't throw rocks Billy, you might hurt someone.
Don't own a gun Billy, you might hurt someone.
That Billy would never harm someone by using a gun never enters the equation of reasonable gun control because the premise is that everyone will harm another person with a gun unless they are controlled.
It is important to understand that the goals of reasonable gun control aren't what they seem, as is the way of all those seeking to control others. The real goals are hidden away in the selection of those who will decide what is and is not reasonable. There will be no representation in how that is done or who decides it, all that is accomplished by those who in the end, owe their livelihoods and other things to those desiring to control others.
Don't forget, the very premise of "reasonable" gun control is that you, a human being who would not harm another, must be controlled so that you do not do what you would not do. The entire concept that a child can be provided with the skills and true knowledge that enables them to understand the many purposes of firearms, the difference between right and wrong and therefore also determine independently what is reasonable and what is not, is an attack on reasonable gun control in the worst imaginable way. It scares the reasonable gun control advocates to the core, as it should because the very idea that someone can own a gun removes the possibility they can control others.
I don't know if you could bring up closing liquor stores on Sunday as a Constitutional issue, exactly how is it different from forbidding polygamy or public nudity ?
because most of the country/US states would find public nudity or polygamy unacceptable regardless of your religious persuasion or lack of it. Nothing to do with religion and everything to do with general culture.
I don't know if you could bring up closing liquor stores on Sunday as a Constitutional issue, exactly how is it different from forbidding polygamy or public nudity ?
Well interestingly those two things cause no harm to anyone and are also only on the books because of religious views....
In the 1700's guns were a much bigger factor in politics than they are now. Random groups of citizens with guns can no longer use those guns to fight the federal government, because it can outgun them with high tech weapons. The 2nd amendment was partly a reaction to what happened in 1776. While waiting for the Delaware River to freeze over, so they could walk across and attack the American army, the British went around New Jersey confiscating guns. Americans wanted their constitution to make it clear that they had the right to keep their guns as a defense against that kind of abuse. Hunting and target practice never had anything to do with it.
But even though the original intent was to prohibit the federal government from confiscating guns, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted much more broadly than that. It wasn't intended to prohibit state and local governments from restricting guns. Only after activist supreme court decisions changed its meaning. But it should be considered unconstitutional for the supreme court to change the meaning of the constitution.
I want to clarify/correct some of your points. I agree with the general point you are trying to make, but some of your statements do not match with the existing facts...
The 2A was not borne out of the experiences in the Revolution, but out of three converging ideas/events.
1. The British Crown had passed laws barring certain groups from bearing arms in service of the militias. One of the more famous examples was Catholics. This was an attempt to disarm those groups and leave them vulnerable.
2. Many of the Founers had a strong distrust of central authority, in particular a central authority with an army. They saw the various States and their milities as the ultimate check on Federal authority and possible abuse. A well regulated militia would negate the necessity of having a standing army.
3. The Founders had a Greco/Roman view of the citizen farmer/soldier. Essentially the body of the people would form the backbone of the nations defense through their service in a militia. They thought that this would ensure the strongest roots of democracy and tightest bound society. Jefferson went so far as seeing the militia as the basic organ of local government.
Take these together and one sees how the language and reasoning for the 2A came about..."A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It was never about expressing an individual right, but a collective right to bear arms in the service of the militia. There was no need to recognize an individual right to having weapons for personal defense, because that had long been codified in common law. The 2A was all about ensuring that the Federal government could not pass laws to disarm the State's militias.
As to your second paragraph, it was a combination of both judicial interpretation and amendments that created the situation we have today. Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the Federal government. Meaning, a state could establish a religion, censor speech, etc. if it so chose. After the Civil War the 14th Amendment was ratified which via the Equal Protection Clause made the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights universal.
Following several SCOTUS decisions, they viewed that the 2A was modified by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14A taking the 2A to a place it was never intended, the state level. At the same time, they did however support restrictions and requirements upon the exercising of ones 2A right in the name of public safety and common sense. What was shot down was an outright ban.
If anything what we now see is the convergence of the accepted common law tradition of keeping weapons for self defense merging with the 2A which was about (a now defunct concept) of militia service. One has a right to "keep and bear arms", but that right is not unlimited and those who argue that is are misinformed.
because most of the country/US states would find public nudity or polygamy unacceptable regardless of your religious persuasion or lack of it. Nothing to do with religion and everything to do with general culture.
And the general culture stems from religion. Nudity is perfectly acceptable in some parts of the world. And so is polygamy. These are religious taboos since neither someone's nudity nor someone else's polygamy directly affect you in any way.
And the general culture stems from religion. Nudity is perfectly acceptable in some parts of the world. And so is polygamy. These are religious taboos since neither someone's nudity nor someone else's polygamy directly affect you in any way.
You just proved my point, I'm afraid
You forgot one thing. It is possible some people see themselves as victims of polygamy because of their personal experience or views on the subject. That came out clearly in the thread about the website being hacked and the identities of users being released. Many said they didn't care since what goes on in the personal lives of others doesn't matter yet, they cared enough to discuss the topic for days.
One concern about the "reasonable" gun control laws, even with the post a few above this one is that they always come at a problem from the back end, the results so to speak.
If a person throws a rock at a window and when this happens enough times, the window makers make stronger windows, eventually using plastics of some sort rather than glass. The penalties for throwing rocks are increased too. Then if the trend continues, we add more police patrols. Finally, we get the control people involved and when some kid throws a rock they are immediately descended upon and told not to throw rocks. Many parents, believing that controls are the best way to address behavior become horrified when their child throws a rock and rush to make sure that never happens again, at least not that they can see.
This is the fallacy of control. It is based on nothing less than one human being imposing their will on another. In the history of mankind, control has never worked. Look around and ask yourself: if control works so well then why are there so many problems? The answer is simple, people can reason and when that happens, individual thought overrides control and people do what they want.
Gun control, like every other control, regardless of what it is, is contrary to reason and being reasonable. We hear the "reasonable gun control" mantra all the time. The term is used as a control itself, a mechanism to get people to accept something they don't want and like the confidence game, challenge those who question "reasonable gun control" by implying they are unreasonable for opposing it. In reality, those proposing "reasonable gun control" are actually the least reasonable and hidden behind words like "reasonable" are the most insidious intentions devised by humans, the control of other humans.
Then we hear the comparisons to other controls, again, the idea being to challenge anyone who opposes gun control to then have to defend different arguments on the basis that those controls are unreasonable but in so doing, portraying themselves as being so. This is yet another control mechanism at work and like the insidious methods above strikes at individuals who might lack the sophistication to recognize manipulation of the highest order.
Once you accept one control as the reason to accept another, on the basis that the first is reasonable and so accepting what is reasonable should be beyond question, you can control anything and anyone. That is the goal of the "reasonable" in gun control or any other control.
The basis of a control, be it guns or anything else is the idea that people are unwilling to do something and therefore need to be forced to do it. Now you get to the foundation of gun control - FORCE. If you examine "reasonable" gun control you will eventually get to the use of force and confiscation, every time. Not some of the time, every time.
Notice how you never hear anyone promoting "reasonable" gun control also promoting "reasonable" education at a basic level? Think about it, when included as an afterthought "oh yeah, that too" idea, that too becomes a control because there is no genuine interest in anything but indoctrinating others into accepting a "reasonable" control, there is no education intended nor provided. The purpose of education is to provide a way for people to learn and understand and then using their brains, to build knowledge from independent thought. That is contrary to the "reasonable" gun control advocates. When you look at what they are proposing, you can see that they want to control the way people think and to accomplish that, go back to the same formula of using other controls that they decide are reasonable to say their idea of gun control is also reasonable, not to be challenged because who but an unreasonable person would oppose something reasonable?
Mention true education with a goal of people using independent thought and you'll see horror on the faces of reasonable gun control advocates, just what do you mean independent thought? The idea is that people who think independently are prone to doing something the controller does not like and that chips away at the very foundation of what they want, control.
So we get back to the rock throwing. A problem exists because some people, not all or even most, but a small number, throw rocks at windows. The industrial machine jumps into action to make better windows. Penalties for throwing rocks at windows are made harsher and more police enforcement of those laws is implemented and finally, parents, teachers and anyone with control authority over others tell the kids not to throw rocks. Problem solved right?
Wrong.
Here is what actually happened. A technical solution to breaking windows was created. Great, that should have been done when the windows were designed in the first place but no matter, sometimes you must have a need before some material thing or even virtual thing is fixed. No control there, it's just a reaction and doesn't make anyone do anything unless they want to.
One step backward though, we have the control laws. They sound reasonable, throwing rocks at windows is a bad thing. Who would in their right mind, being a reasonable person argue with that?
One more step backward and we have the teachers who tell kids not to throw rocks and should they continue, penalties are assessed. Control.
Then we get to the parents, again they tell their children not to throw rocks. All is well, the kids don't throw rocks and if they are told this often enough and penalized when they throw a rock, when they grow up they will remember not to throw rocks. Problem solved.
Nope. Family goes to a lake or river for a picnic. The kids never even think about throwing a rock and skipping it across the water. It isn't that they don't want to, they no longer even think about it. They cease to wonder why the rock skips on the water or why it can do it more than once, the rock being so much heavier than the water and also being of many different shapes. They never see the correlation between rock shape, how fast and how they throw it so how the rocks skips on the water. Some don't even know it is possible.
You might say that doesn't happen, but oh yes, it does. You might say that a reasonable parent can distinguish between throwing rocks at windows and throwing a rock to skip it on the water but that is increasingly not true.
Don't throw rocks Billy, you might hurt someone.
Don't own a gun Billy, you might hurt someone.
That Billy would never harm someone by using a gun never enters the equation of reasonable gun control because the premise is that everyone will harm another person with a gun unless they are controlled.
It is important to understand that the goals of reasonable gun control aren't what they seem, as is the way of all those seeking to control others. The real goals are hidden away in the selection of those who will decide what is and is not reasonable. There will be no representation in how that is done or who decides it, all that is accomplished by those who in the end, owe their livelihoods and other things to those desiring to control others.
Don't forget, the very premise of "reasonable" gun control is that you, a human being who would not harm another, must be controlled so that you do not do what you would not do. The entire concept that a child can be provided with the skills and true knowledge that enables them to understand the many purposes of firearms, the difference between right and wrong and therefore also determine independently what is reasonable and what is not, is an attack on reasonable gun control in the worst imaginable way. It scares the reasonable gun control advocates to the core, as it should because the very idea that someone can own a gun removes the possibility they can control others.
So your response to my arguments was that I am trying to subliminally manipulate the conversation by using the word "reasonable". I am then further muddying the waters by the use of the negative word "control". Yes, let's not actually respond to any of the points or arguments, but engage in a mental circle jerk about the meaning of words and wondering what was meant by the meaning. I meant what I said and the ideas and reasoning were clearly spelled out.
Let's head down this road though....
You are assuming that the natural state of being is kids throwing rocks at windows. Absent the proper control kids will throw rocks at windows. Your argument is that the proper control is education (what else is education but a method of control?). Other efforts for control are ineffective or do not get to the root of the problem.
Fair enough. If you had read what I wrote you would see where I said that training should be an integral part of the licensing process. That is being an advocate for education. I agree that kids should be taught how to properly handle and treat firearms. We can leave the details out of the discussion, but I never said, nor argued, that education and training were not key components.
Let's take this another step though. We educate our kids about rocks. All of the things rocks can do and the ways they are great tools. We teach them to respect and care for rocks. Everythings great except for that 1 out of 100 kid whose just an *******. That kid takes his knowledge of rocks and uses it to up the ante and break a ton of windows. He's got the education, but it failed. Now we need to find ways to make sure we keep rocks out of that kids hands. Beyond that we have a couple of other kids who are always up to mischief. They are using sticks in apporpriate ways and causing problems. We send them to detention a lot and do our best, but they are incorrigible. It would make a lot of sense to not let those kids have rocks, cause chances are they're going to use them inappropriately. Then we of course have the kid who sits in the corner of the class and has a conversation with four people...all in his head...probably best not to let him have a rock either.
So, what is so evil about keeping rocks away from the kid who breaks a ton of windows, the kids who are always causing trouble and the kid whose a nutcase while making sure that we let all of the kids who are good kids and properly educated have all of the rocks they want and take them wherever they want to go. We just want them to get educated about the various types of rocks and ways to use them and make sure that none of them are selling their rocks to the kids who we don't want to have them.
The trouble is here you do things by state not as a whole country. There are many areas of the UK that have concentrations of religions and although there is representation at local level you are not allowed to enable that one religion or culture impact on others as we are inclusive. eg In Bradford there is a huge population of muslims, the muslim faith does not advocate alcohol same as the LDS faith. Do you think that they have banned or restricted sales of alcohol in that area at local level due to the majority in that area having that faith. No , it is not allowed as most of the country find drinking acceptable. However there are more butchers shops that carry Halal meat. Not the normal culture for us to kill animals in this way and many may find it unacceptable but it is not restricted or banned even though it is not the norm in our religion or culture. Same in the US , most people find drinking alcohol the norm but yet one concentration of people in one area can restrict that and impact others by legislating due to their religious beliefs even though the majority of the country do not agree with it. Everything to do with religion and it being mixed with the state as I said before. If it wasn't then alcohol would be available more freely here as it is in other states which do not have a religious majority. The UK culture is very secular so our culture although originally stemmed from religion does not now and has changed dramatically . Its not our culture to have public nudity but people do have the right to do so in many places and we have many nudist beaches and leisure places as do a lot of Europe.
dear mr obama
most of the crime committed are done with stolen guns.
that is the source that is how they get the weapons they are stolen and unregistered.
you already know who is doing the crime, you visited them last week in jail. are you saying if they dont have the guns they wont commit crimes? are you saying the guns are the criminal not the user?
then why do you not disarm soldiers and police?
Joe Biden said only assault rifles are evil bit a few weeks later a man killed 9 people in the navy ship yards in New England with a shotgun --btw he was not a white nra member
mr obama the man that almost made it to your bedroom, the home invader in the white house, he was armed with a knife.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 07-27-2015 at 12:07 PM..
I posted this in the theater shooting thread, but it belongs here...
***
I am pro gun control, not because I think it will stop these kinds of shootings, it most likely won't. I am pro gun control because I think it will help stop the thousands of other gun deaths that occur. Deaths at the hands of criminals who attain their guns through blackmarket channels, almost all of which universally started out as legally purchased firearms. I think there are some very clear steps we can take...
1. All firearms owners/purchasers need to be licensed. This involves taking a test, demonstrating knowledge of basic safety and control, background checks and mental health screenings. It needs to be renewed every so often and that renewal can be streamlined. Think like a drivers license. There would be different levels of license for different types of firearms. This license would be valid in all 50 states.
2. Every individual firearm is registered to its owner in a national database. If you want to sell or purchase a gun private party, the registration needs to be transferred to the new owner. This transfer can be done at a police station or through a firearms dealer. Gun owners are responsible for their firearms at all times and can be charged with accessory if one of their guns is used in a crime if it can be proven that they committed some form of negligence.
3. There would be limits on the types of firearms allowed for private ownership as well as limits on things like magazine size. However, these regulations would be universal to all 50 states and all 50 states would allow concealed carry, assuming the persons license contained the CCW provision and they had been properly trained.
There you go, common sense gun control.
You are 100% correct but unfortunately a large percentage of gun owners are paranoid about having their guns taken away. They believe this because the NRA says so and many are just not bright enough to see that they are being duped into paying dues so that the people who run the NRA can live pretty good on their contributions.
Of course the NRA contributes to Politicians who will not sponsor gun control. These same politicians keep the paranoid in line by saying a vote for the other guy means their coming for your guns.
These guys are so easily duped there in no chance of reasonable gun control so forget about it.
The best thing to do is to legally secure your own gun and keep it in your house or get a CCW permit so that when one of the guys comes around with a gun he stole or got in a straw purchase you can protect your family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
