ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2nd amendment issues , gun violence

Reply
Old 9th August 2019, 09:12 AM   #81
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm sure I will!

But Afghanistan is a good example. It's not a problem of logistics, but of political will.

The two are deeply intertwined.

Logistics is about what you can move to where and when. Part of that calculation is a political one.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:14 AM   #82
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
(Pointless barb removed)


Just checking.
Not a barb, a serious question. What's your point?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:15 AM   #83
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
From the article:

"The literal language used in the Constitution focuses on the right to bear arms within the context of — if, arguably, not solely limited by — the security needs of our nation."

Not exactly.

The Constitution is primarily about the relationship between the states and the federal government. A "nation" arguably did not exist, though it was said the Articles of Confederation created a "nation of nations." James Madison, one of the main architects of the Constitution, wanted to foster a national identity, mainly by creating a stronger central/federal government. Still, people found their state identity more meaningful than a national identity. In other words, some people Virginians before they were Americans -- if they even had a concept of being "American."

The country has since evolved culturally. An example of someone who consciously identifies with his state before country is BobTheCoward, which gives some idea of how out of touch and alien that view has been (especially out west).

Modern conservatives and liberals like to imagine the Constitution was created to protect sacred individual liberty, but this is mostly nonsense (ask any African-American). People also speak breathlessly about the sacred Bill of Rights, but these were amendments added later -- not part of the core product. More obvious and essential freedoms were written directly into the Constitution (writ of habeas corpus, prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder). The states were seen as guardians of liberty -- and under threat by a strong central government. Under the AoC, the federal government could not directly draft soldiers or impose taxes, which led to collective problems, compelling Madison and others for creating a stronger central government.

One of the compromises for ratification was passing "a Bill of Rights," initially opposed by Madison. Many state constitutions had included such rights, and Madison finally warmed to the idea, in part because it was popular and would give Congress a measure of credibility. The Bill of Rights were originally intended as restrictions on the federal government. Regarding the First Amendment, for example, "Congress shall make no law..." establishing a national church. State governments still had the authority to create official churches, and a couple of them did, a fact fondly recalled by people like Clarence Thomas.

Again, the country has since changed, especially with an obscure extra-Constitutional event known as the Civil War, which chartered a more national government -- one of the people, by the people, and for the people. There were hiccups when it came to establishing a national character (see for instance the Corrupt Bargain of 1876, which effectively ended Reconstruction).

A national orientation started gathering again in subtle ways. The courts would begin to "incorporate" parts of the Bill of Rights (i.e., applying the first ten amendments to the states via the 14th Amendment, which would prohibit state authorities from establishing churches, restricting speech and so on).

And with a little of this historical background out of the way, we can finally get to the Second Amendment. The most overlooked clause is the "necessary security of a Free State." Again, the historical context of the Constitution is about distributing power between the states and central government. Some people, such as antifederalists like "Brutus," feared the central government would "swallow" up state governments, so they wanted assurances. One of those safeguards was allowing states to raise their own militias. These could be "well-regulated" -- meaning, well-equipped and well-trained.

There are a couple of rich, ironies in contemporary politics. Nowadays, the so-called supporters of the Second Amendment, people who tend to have an "originalist" view of the Constitution, will not hesitate to use the power of the federal government to overturn state and local gun laws. Richard Posner, a pro-gun libertarian/conservative judge and scholar has said Scalia's Heller opinion is more of a snow job.

https://newrepublic.com/article/62124/defense-looseness
I'd say this was an excellent post but I first have to ask you: who are you, and what have you done with Cain?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:17 AM   #84
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
DId not like the movie at all. A travesty of Heinlein's novel, which badly distorts the points Heinleon was trying to make..many of which I disagree with.
You have to take it as its own thing. It's definitely satirical, but it works in its own way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:18 AM   #85
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not a barb, a serious question. What's your point?
My point is that infringement is going to happen or you're going to be living in loonyland.

The question is never about if the 'right' to bear arms is to be infringed. It is only about how and why that infringement happens.

Which makes the actual text of the document utter lunacy without interpretation.

Those that scream "Shall not be infringed" just doin't understand the problem.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:19 AM   #86
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
The two are deeply intertwined.

Logistics is about what you can move to where and when. Part of that calculation is a political one.
I completely disagree. Logistics is a question of can. Politics is a question of should. There's a huge difference between -

"We want you to win this, and we want to send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we simply don't have the resources or the means to do that, so please just do your best with what we can manage to get to you."

And -

"We want you to win this, and we could send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we need to keep this pretty lowkey for political reasons, so please just do your best with what we are willing to send to you."

That difference is the difference between a logistical problem and a political problem.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:20 AM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
My point is that infringement is going to happen or you're going to be living in loonyland.

The question is never about if the 'right' to bear arms is to be infringed. It is only about how and why that infringement happens.

Which makes the actual text of the document utter lunacy without interpretation.

Those that scream "Shall not be infringed" just doin't understand the problem.
Then what was your point with the question you asked originally, and your response to my answer?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:22 AM   #88
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Thing is, it's hard to use statistics, which tell you how much safer on average the presence of firearms makes people who own them, to convince an individual that, in their specific case, they'll be safer without guns. It's true, but it may or may not apply to that individual. And the feeling of control is a powerful motivator.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:26 AM   #89
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,211
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
It is beyond laughable to suggest that likes of Jefferson, Washington or Adams would have been in favor of a popular revolt to restore personal liberty. That's why they specified a "well regulated militia". They were trying to recreate the army of Republican Rome. They wanted citizens armed, ready to heed the call to form an army and then go back to their farms after the war.
Well said, except for this last part.

How do you reconcile what you wrote and the founders' explicit comments (i.e.; "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.")



Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The only way to avoid that would've been for regular citizens to have tanks and jets and nuclear weapons.
There was a fair amount of history between the founding and the creation of tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons for it to have possibly turned the other way. Now, alas, not enough force can be brought to bear to override the current levels of force arrayed against the people.



Quote:
I still am not buying that nuke.
I don't usually do this, but for a friend like you, I can get you a great deal!
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:38 AM   #90
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I completely disagree. Logistics is a question of can. Politics is a question of should. There's a huge difference between -

"We want you to win this, and we want to send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we simply don't have the resources or the means to do that, so please just do your best with what we can manage to get to you."

And -

"We want you to win this, and we could send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we need to keep this pretty lowkey for political reasons, so please just do your best with what we are willing to send to you."

That difference is the difference between a logistical problem and a political problem.


I don't think there's any practical difference at all. You can either move what you want to where you want it or you can't.

Why you can't, be that practical or political has no bearing on the outcome. Particularly in reference to the post to which I was initially replying.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:39 AM   #91
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then what was your point with the question you asked originally, and your response to my answer?
I just wanted to know.

I'm sorry there's not some grand plan behind my inquisitiveness. I could make something up if you like?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 10:25 AM   #92
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Since it's a myth, perhaps?
I was commenting on this claim in the article;
Quote:
How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
Is personal protection in general a selfish act? I think not. It can also be selfless.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 10:39 AM   #93
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I don't think there's any practical difference at all. You can either move what you want to where you want it or you can't.

Why you can't, be that practical or political has no bearing on the outcome. Particularly in reference to the post to which I was initially replying.
I think there's a huge practical difference, one that goes directly to the question of the practicality of armed opposition to the government.

Particularly in reference to the post to which you were originally replying.

Anyway, if the argument is that we're having trouble winning in Afghanistan because we lack the political "logistics" to win in Afghanistan, then it seems to me that we'd have the same "logistical" problems with armed insurgencies in the US as well. Which is the whole point of the Afghanistan comparison (or the Fallujah comparison, or the Vietnam comparison) in the context of these 2nd Amendment debates.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 11:04 AM   #94
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I was commenting on this claim in the article;

Is personal protection in general a selfish act? I think not. It can also be selfless.
If you're not more safe with a gun, or if having a gun makes you less safe, then it's not "personal protection" at all. Instead, the idea of "personal protection" from a gun is a myth.

If having a gun makes other people less safe - either directly by, for example, escalating a situation, or indirectly by being part of a culture that leads to things like mass shootings - then I'd say it's selfish. In the latter case you could make the argument that it's selfish even if it really is "personal protection" - it's putting your own personal safety above societal good. It's saying "I don't care how many children die in school shootings as long as I'm safer".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 11:06 AM   #95
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
There was a fair amount of history between the founding and the creation of tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons for it to have possibly turned the other way. Now, alas, not enough force can be brought to bear to override the current levels of force arrayed against the people.
But you'd still need tanks and nukes in the hands of civilians.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 11:07 AM   #96
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think there's a huge practical difference, one that goes directly to the question of the practicality of armed opposition to the government.

Particularly in reference to the post to which you were originally replying.

Anyway, if the argument is that we're having trouble winning in Afghanistan because we lack the political "logistics" to win in Afghanistan, then it seems to me that we'd have the same "logistical" problems with armed insurgencies in the US as well. Which is the whole point of the Afghanistan comparison (or the Fallujah comparison, or the Vietnam comparison) in the context of these 2nd Amendment debates.

I think it's a bobbins comparison. Mainly due to the roughly ten thousand K between the two locations.

If the US could bring the full force of their entire military might to bear in Afghanistan then things would be different. But, for both practical and political reasons, they can't.

The comparison (you might call it an analogy) is utterly useless.

You may think moving an entire armed force ten thousand miles is of no note. I disagree.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 11:48 AM   #97
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I think it's a bobbins comparison. Mainly due to the roughly ten thousand K between the two locations.

If the US could bring the full force of their entire military might to bear in Afghanistan then things would be different. But, for both practical and political reasons, they can't.

The comparison (you might call it an analogy) is utterly useless.

You may think moving an entire armed force ten thousand miles is of no note. I disagree.
It's been done many times, though. The US did twice, simultaneously, in WW2. Did it again in Korea. Did it again in Vietnam. Did it again, repeatedly, to maintain readiness for a Soviet invasion of western Europe (ETA: simultaneously with Vietnam). Did it again to liberate Kuwait. Did it again to conquer Iraq. If it's technically possible, the US has the resources to make it logistically feasible.

Global logistics is a solved problem for the US military. Politics is not, and is not mediated by distance.

Last edited by theprestige; 9th August 2019 at 11:52 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 12:01 PM   #98
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If the US could bring the full force of their entire military might to bear in Afghanistan then things would be different. But, for both practical and political reasons, they can't.
Political reasons are why we can't. Practical reasons are why we won't, and possibly shouldn't, not why we can't. Aside from an unwillingness to pay the cost it would take (that's a practical reason not to, but not a reason we couldn't), we would need massive land supply routes which we don't currently have. Pakistan won't willingly agree to that. We could conquer Pakistan, or at least military force them to open up sufficient supply routes, but there are both political and practical reasons not to do so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 02:42 PM   #99
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,556
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If you're not more safe with a gun, or if having a gun makes you less safe, then it's not "personal protection" at all. Instead, the idea of "personal protection" from a gun is a myth.

If having a gun makes other people less safe - either directly by, for example, escalating a situation, or indirectly by being part of a culture that leads to things like mass shootings - then I'd say it's selfish. In the latter case you could make the argument that it's selfish even if it really is "personal protection" - it's putting your own personal safety above societal good. It's saying "I don't care how many children die in school shootings as long as I'm safer".
Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible. So we get this kind of blasé attitude that oops, accidents happen, or that any legislation is futile because it would not have stopped 100 percent of mass shootings.

Since I don't think the levels of gun ownership are going to go down, I'm pretty much resigned to hoping for a cultural shift - people will simply stop doing mass shootings.

Personally I feel safer in countries with low gun ownership rates.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 07:14 PM   #100
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If you're not more safe with a gun,...
I think you're being evasive. Is personal protection in general, selfish or not?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 01:13 AM   #101
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible. So we get this kind of blasé attitude that oops, accidents happen, or that any legislation is futile because it would not have stopped 100 percent of mass shootings.
Absolutely.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 03:32 AM   #102
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think you're being evasive. Is personal protection in general, selfish or not?
I'm not being evasive. Ironically, you are being evasive with this post, unless you want to make the argument that this isn't a thread about guns, and that the article quoted in the OP isn't an article about guns, and that the sentence in which the phrase "personal protection" appears isn't about guns.

Come on.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 03:38 AM   #103
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible. So we get this kind of blasé attitude that oops, accidents happen, or that any legislation is futile because it would not have stopped 100 percent of mass shootings.

Since I don't think the levels of gun ownership are going to go down, I'm pretty much resigned to hoping for a cultural shift - people will simply stop doing mass shootings.

Personally I feel safer in countries with low gun ownership rates.
I'm not even sure that it's a question of "responsible gun owners". There are any number of ways in which having a gun could escalate a situation. There are any number of ways in which having a gun could make a situation more dangerous for the person holding the gun.

I mean, let's even just take the past week. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a "responsible gun owner" in El Paso would have tried to stop the shooter and unwittingly injured or killed someone else by missing their target, or even ended up shot themselves because the police arriving on the scene wouldn't have taken the time to canvas everybody to find out who were the goodies and who were the baddies and instead just shot anybody with a gun. There was a case a month or two back where a guy who responded to a shooter in a club or bar by drawing his own gun got shot and killed by the police because they assumed he was the shooter.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 04:23 AM   #104
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's been done many times, though. The US did twice, simultaneously, in WW2.
Yeah, they had an island (Britain) right there, 50 miles from the coast they had to land on. They also had the troops of a few other countries in support and two entire Air Forces (the RAF and the USAAF Eighth for air cover

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did it again in Korea.
Oh yeah, that went well, didn't it!

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did it again in Vietnam
And so did that!

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did it again, repeatedly, to maintain readiness for a Soviet invasion of western Europe (ETA: simultaneously with Vietnam).
Again they had the land and the military of several counties right there to operate from.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did it again to liberate Kuwait.
They had Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai and UAE as allies and staging areas

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did it again to conquer Iraq.
And again, same countries as staging and logistics

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If it's technically possible, the US has the resources to make it logistically feasible.

Global logistics is a solved problem for the US military. Politics is not, and is not mediated by distance.
For Afghanistan, they have none of the above.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 04:51 AM   #105
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,212
I don't think irresponsible gun owners are getting enough attention. It is their right, too.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 02:08 PM   #106
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'm not being evasive. Ironically, you are being evasive with this post, unless you want to make the argument that this isn't a thread about guns, and that the article quoted in the OP isn't an article about guns, and that the sentence in which the phrase "personal protection" appears isn't about guns.
I asked you a direct question about something that is in a thread about guns. There is no reason why you can't provide an answer or just say you don't have an answer to give.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 10:03 PM   #107
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,540
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Well said, except for this last part.

How do you reconcile what you wrote and the founders' explicit comments (i.e.; "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.")




There was a fair amount of history between the founding and the creation of tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons for it to have possibly turned the other way. Now, alas, not enough force can be brought to bear to override the current levels of force arrayed against the people.




I don't usually do this, but for a friend like you, I can get you a great deal!
I really doubt that Washington, Jefferson or Adams intended that the average person make this assessment. Especially Jefferson and Adams. They were both in France in the days before the popular revolution. I highly recommend "Jefferson's Crème Brule". It's about Jefferson's time in Europe after the revolution.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 02:23 AM   #108
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I asked you a direct question about something that is in a thread about guns. There is no reason why you can't provide an answer or just say you don't have an answer to give.
My answer is "it depends on what you mean by 'personal protection'". The answer to that in this context is "carrying a gun". You know my thoughts on that, but don't want to address them.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 05:49 AM   #109
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222


Well there might be a few conservative politicians who say there is no political appetite for gun control, but it certainly looks like there is a public appetite for it!!


Politicians, listen to what your people are telling you!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 05:59 AM   #110
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible.
80% of people think they are better than the average.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:01 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well there might be a few conservative politicians who say there is no political appetite for gun control, but it certainly looks like there is a public appetite for it!!
Yeah but there's no money in that meal.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:02 AM   #112
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You have to take it as its own thing. It's definitely satirical, but it works in its own way.
I love both.
In fact, the movie does what Team America world police did, a decade sooner.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:05 AM   #113
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r96ov9r3mq...Poll.png?raw=1

Well there might be a few conservative politicians who say there is no political appetite for gun control, but it certainly looks like there is a public appetite for it!!


Politicians, listen to what your people are telling you!
Universal background checks is a popular proposal, politically. As far as the reporting has shown, I don't see any reason to believe that any of our recent mass shooters would have failed a background check.

Did any of the recent shooters acquire a gun by means of private sale not requiring a background check? Garlic Festival shooter bought his from a gun store, which almost certainly means he went through the normal background check when buying from a licensed dealer.

My only minor complaint about universal background checks is that I doubt that the law will be written in a way that allows private sales to occur. Seems likely to me that private individuals will not be able to use the background check system, so all sales will require an FFL to broker it, which smacks of rent-seeking. That's a pretty minor gripe, and I wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:22 AM   #114
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I was going to do a serous reply on the grounds of "Sometimes Arms are necessary to defend human rights" but this whole post is so outrageous and silly and bear so little relation to reality it's best just to laugh on it.
Like the Alamo, the Mexicans were trying to take the Texans slaves away merely because slavery was illegal in mexico and they immigrated to mexico. Fortunately they wouldn't stand for that kind of stand against their rights and now we have Texas.

A shining example of the importance of guns in establishing human rights.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:28 AM   #115
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think you're being evasive. Is personal protection in general, selfish or not?
Exactly why laws requiring seatbelt wearing are so unsafe and wrong, better to be thrown clear than trapped in a burning car.

Sure guns are more likely to take your life or the life of your loved ones than save them statistically but you defy mere statistics. After all the ones most likely to attack you are your friends and relatives and having guns in the house are good for them to use against you.

Oh but sure your friends and family are totally different and so statistics don't matter.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:29 AM   #116
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'm not even sure that it's a question of "responsible gun owners". There are any number of ways in which having a gun could escalate a situation. There are any number of ways in which having a gun could make a situation more dangerous for the person holding the gun.

I mean, let's even just take the past week. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a "responsible gun owner" in El Paso would have tried to stop the shooter and unwittingly injured or killed someone else by missing their target, or even ended up shot themselves because the police arriving on the scene wouldn't have taken the time to canvas everybody to find out who were the goodies and who were the baddies and instead just shot anybody with a gun. There was a case a month or two back where a guy who responded to a shooter in a club or bar by drawing his own gun got shot and killed by the police because they assumed he was the shooter.
Fortunately all the concealed carry people in the walmart didn't confront the shooter. But next time it will be different!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:13 AM   #117
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
My only minor complaint about universal background checks is that I doubt that the law will be written in a way that allows private sales to occur. Seems likely to me that private individuals will not be able to use the background check system, so all sales will require an FFL to broker it, which smacks of rent-seeking. That's a pretty minor gripe, and I wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker.

Well, I think it's a good way to get gun shops behind such legislation.
When I've bought firearms online, I pay $40ish just to have the gun delivered then the BG check. That's easy money for a shop.

Then again, I've bought guns privately for like $50, so adding that cost on top would kind of suck.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:44 AM   #118
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
My only minor complaint about universal background checks is that I doubt that the law will be written in a way that allows private sales to occur. Seems likely to me that private individuals will not be able to use the background check system, so all sales will require an FFL to broker it, which smacks of rent-seeking. That's a pretty minor gripe, and I wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker.
In Washington State for example, the universal bkgd check law (enacted by I-594) was not just about sales, it covered any transfer "without limitation". This included me handing a gun to a friend at a rifle range to try out. But it was sold to the public as bkgd checks for sales. There is a short list of situations that do not require a bkgd check. The handling of another person's gun at a shooting ranges was amended a while back.

The FFL's are limited to charging market rate for facilitating the transfer, whatever that is. The law also appears to cover shipping (FedEx, UPS) employees, but as far as I know they are ignoring the law. Requests to the Attorney General for clarification of the law are ignored except for the statement on the AG's website that they are not going to give an opinion on the new law.

I'm better vetted as a gun owner/maker than most dealers in the state, but I still am not exempt from the new requirements.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:30 AM   #119
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
So, yeah, you definitely do want to avoid the subject of whether or not "personal protection" is selfish, if said "personal protection" involves owning or carrying a gun, which it does in the context of the article you linked to and the specific quote you posted. Seems an odd choice on your part to post something you wanted to evade discussion of, but each to their own.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:13 AM   #120
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It is labeled "opinion." Not speaking to its merits, but you can see from the URL, it's an opinion piece.
I know it's an opinion piece. But the writer is trying to convince us that some states are exempt from gun registration requirements; something he should not be doing since it is false.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.