Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    I think we've all finally got together on the question of the existence of guns. We're tentatively positing that they do in fact exist.
  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Because it's a right that fundamentally must come into conflict with the same right exercised by another human being. Why use language of empowerment when you can't or shouldn't reasonably empower someone?
  3. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Pretty insightful for a fark drinking game.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  4. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  5. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 7
    Typical realist propaganda. You monsters just won't stop until everyone agrees that things are, will you?! [IMG]
    Last edited by Ramza, Jan 4, 2013
    Rogue1-and-a-half likes this.
  6. Tim Battershell Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    Questio quid juris?

    Enough people get cheesed off at having their houses broken into and their belongings nicked and/or get cheesed off at having to pay ever-higher Insurance Premiums => they start pressuring their legislators to either protect their houses and belongings with more, and tougher, policing (as per the State's compact with its citizens) or to allow the housholders to do the job themselves => the legislators enact legislation => and that's how things like the 'Castle Law' get on the Statute Book.

    The People of Texas (through their democraticaly elected representatives) do seem to value the safely and security of their homes, families and belongings (and quite possibly cheaper insurance too) over the lives of criminals. The evidence is that that Law was passed.
  7. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Look at the language you are using. At the least, it's degrading to those who disagree with you. (Terms like "primitive", or "redneck phallic toy" aren't exactly supported to suggest that you are interested in honest and reasoned discussion, are they?)

    I haven't used such terms to deride your arguments, and there's no call for you to inject them into the discussion either, especially when you have criticized FID for similar comments.

    During WWII, both Germany and Japan considered the implications of trying to invade the US. In addition to the difficulties imposed by crossing the oceans, their biggest concern was the armed civilian population, most of which are part of the unorganized militia as defined in 10 USC 311.

    Similarly, in Iraq, as of around 2007 there had been about 50000 insurgents killed or captured, out of a population of around 30 million in a country smaller than Texas. Their primary weapons weren't tanks or aircraft, but rifles and IEDs. By contrast there are around 80 million armed households in the US, with a population of 311 million. If only 1% of those households chose to form an insurgency against the state, it would be around double the relative size of Iraqi insurgency. If 3% joined the insurgency (2.4 million), it would be larger than the US military and all law enforcement combined (2.2 million), and that's assuming that all of the military and law enforcement sided with the government.

    In the event of an actual foreign invasion, those numbers would be a lot higher than 3%.

    How does the right to pursue happiness (which is also understood to be the right to pursue property, and that's how it was actually encoded in the Constitution) fundamentally conflict with the same right for someone else? The right to pursue is not the same thing as the right to receive at the expense of another.
  8. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    He's a hypocrite, KK, always has been. That's why I've put him on ignore. That this is the JCC and not the Senate where 'higher' discussion need not apply never occurred to him. So yeah, moral of the story: the ignore feature works really well and thankfully it's here. Now time to go find some really expensive property to brag about.
  9. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    KK that second point was actually Jabba's. Mine was more to the "deeper" (for want of a better word) context behind the English bill of rights of 1689 including the regulations around maintaining a standing army during peacetime in Britiain; normalisation of the status of Protestants in the country, and that subsequent acts of Parliament have curtailed the extent to which citizens can bear arms for self-defence without removing it entirely.

    Of course, there are cultural factors to consider as well, which is why I referred to the rights-based vs non-rights based framework. Being as how I've grown up in a society modeled by British constitutional law I've lived in the non-rights based framework so I might have bias but I think as soon as you frame things as people have a right to do "X, Y and Z" you run into problems. Hence the comments about "right to happiness":, where in the course of exercising my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I could be pursuing something that, whilst making me "happy" makes you "unhappy". However, as the framework has empowered me with an entitlement, I'm not likely to consider the situation beyond exercising my right.

    Which is why I've been talking about people valuing their right to bear arms over another's right to life. Again, I don't think it's a conscious or malicious choice; I think when you have a right and you're constantly seeing people emphasise how important individual rights are and how they're self-evident (you know my views on that) then you're not likely to consider things beyond your personal right.

    Make sense?
  10. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    IEDs were the defining weapons of the Iraqi insurgency, correct? The U.S. military would have been delighted to have fought a war directly and exclusively against lightly armed militants. Iraq proves my point. Also Syria. Guns have a way of getting into conflict zones, whether or not they were in the hands of civilians beforehand, but small arms can't defend against tyranny with air superiority.
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Something must have happened, because I know I typed a lot more than what is posted in response to you. I put in a lot more about the difference between British and US law. The boards must have eaten part of it when I copied the quote from Jabba over with formatting, and I missed it as I ran off to a meeting with my boss.

    My key point (which got dropped in that post) is that when looking at US law you can only really consider English law until 1776, when our legal and legislative traditions split. For example, Virginia has the Castle Doctrine not because it is codified in Virginia law, but because it was part of English Common Law as of 1776 and has not since been overturned or changed through legislative actions. In fact, it has been explicitly upheld on the basis of the English Common Law. A person in Virginia has no "duty to retreat" as long as they aren't breaking the law. Just because England passed a law in 1967 imposing a duty to retreat when in public doesn't change the fact that Virginia still holds to the prior rule. The 1967 law is irrelevant for discussing Virginia's laws.

    The later changes that you keep referencing either came after that split in traditions, or were some of the direct causes of the split (such as the attempt to confiscate private arms in Concord and Lexington that sparked the first battle of the Revolution). As such, in drafting and ratifying the Second Amendment, those changes were explicitly rejected.

    You have to approach the issue from the reality of US law (including English Common Law prior to the split), not from what British law is 237 years after they went their separate ways. As such, the only "cherry picking" I am doing is limiting my sources to those that actually apply to US law.

    Except that there is no right to happiness, only the pursuit of happiness. Just because my pursuit of happiness makes you unhappy doesn't mean that it infringes your rights.

    Except you are imposing a framing of the issue that doesn't match the reality. You keep accusing me of valuing my right to bear arms over another's right to life, and that is false. What I value above their right to life is the right to life for myself and my family. My right to bear arms is simply one means to protect that right. I would make the same determination if all I had was a knife, a baseball bat, or merely my bare hands. If my choice is between letting someone harm/kill myself or my family and using lethal force against them (whether by gun, knife, bat, or hand), then I will use lethal force to protect my right to life (or that of my family).
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    What US general will order the Air Force or the Army to attack a US city? How long to you think it will take before one of his officers who grew up in that city, or who has family in that city, to refuse such an order (or worse, turn on his superiors)?

    You only really see the military turn on the citizenry after there is already an established dictatorship. That's not exactly the case in the US.
  13. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    That's great news then re the need for civilians to keep guns in defense of their own freedom.
    V-2 and SuperWatto like this.
  14. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Leftover post from yesterday.
  15. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Except that the right to keep and bear arms acts as a bulwark against the nation becoming a dictatorship. Additionally, there is still the matter of the unorganized militia (see 10 USC 311) and how civilian ownership of firearms was a deterrent to both the Germans and the Japanese during WWII.
  16. Likewater Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    I never understood this seperation of military and citizenry in the mind of "protect from your government" position holders. Last time i checked the Military arn't slave jannaseries, they are fellow citizens, same with "the Government"

    If the government is corrupt you can't seperate it from the citizenry to make the joe slob feel better about himself. Besides the "Government" on its more evil days put down multiple slave rebellion and Native American wars both of which had alot better reasons for fighting than "joe slob citizen". Then it put out down a full Secession by several southern states, who fromed and organized and trained army.

    Yet some how there is a delusion in which in if a war brakes out between the Citizen based leaderhip, and your average joe. But the Citizen military will fight for the average joe against the citizens in elected leadership positions?

    On the USS America if the Captain is bad, the Crew is also probably rotten and their is no garuntee the marines are going to side with any one more than the other.
    Last edited by Likewater, Jan 4, 2013
  17. Darth-Lando Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 6
    I think our massive pile of ICBMs are a better deterrent to a foreign nation's modern military than civilian gun ownership nowadays. KK, do you honestly think gun owners like yourself are the only thing holding back WWIII?
    Last edited by Darth-Lando, Jan 4, 2013
  18. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Sorry I missed it.

    There is a difference between bringing down gun crime in the US, and trying to get rid of or restrict guns in the US. The reality is that gun crime, like crime in general, in the US has been steadily decreasing for the last 15-20 years, even as more and more guns have entered civilian hands. When the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, that trend continued without even a hiccup. In the same time, carry laws have expanded to the point that there are 40 states that are "shall issue", and several more that are effectively "shall issue". Through all of that, gun control advocates claimed that crime would go up, blood would run in the streets, and shootouts would occur all over. Instead, crime rates have continued to decrease, even if there are occasional high-profile crimes.

    One key point that I saw reported in an article (which sadly didn't give its source) is that about 50% of homicide victims themselves had criminal histories. If true, that would suggest that one of the biggest drivers of violence in general (including gun violence) is other crime (such as drugs or gang activity). If you look at the statistics for "children" killed by guns, the bulk of them are actually in their late teens and involved in gang or drug activities. The solution then is to target those activities and address the root cause of the problem, not to go after the law-abiding gun owners who are already obeying the law.

    As I mentioned before in this thread, I am also a big advocate of teaching firearm safety, including in schools. It should be age-appropriate, but it is important to demystify guns and instill a healthy respect for them. That, in turn, will reduce the chances for accidents and underscore the potential consequences for misusing guns.

    I don't think that we need to target specific types of guns (especially when they are already infrequently used in crimes). The problem is ultimately about people, not things. Until we focus on "fixing" the people involved, the things used by those people won't make a significant difference.
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    ICBMs aren't an all-purpose deterrent.

    And I never claimed that gun owners are the only thing holding back WWIII. However, it has historically been one factor that has weighed heavily against foreign invaders.
  20. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Curious, do gun owners really believe that should the US become a dictatorship that they would really be able to fight back and take back the country?
    V-2 and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  21. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    We can fend off the Canadians and Mexicans even if we're only armed with garden rakes.
    Last edited by Jabbadabbado, Jan 4, 2013
    V-2 likes this.
  22. Likewater Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    Thats an historic self deception, inaccesability or easy inaccesability is what made america hard to attack. Not to discount Britain was very good at playing diffrent parties on mainland europe against the middle.

    There was a reason Nepolian never persued the Portugese royal family to Brazil, and the French invasion of Mexico was a spectacular failure. And no it wasnt the availability of Brazilian or Mexican fire arms.
    Last edited by Likewater, Jan 4, 2013
    V-2 likes this.
  23. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I don't know...those Canadians have hockey sticks.
  24. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Never trust the Canuckistanis. Their obsession with hockey is really a way to train their invasion forces.

    They'll come skating across the border before we know it.
  25. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Some dodgy and dangerous reasoning from my own camp here. If the Taftian notion that you're separated from al possible attack by two wide oceans' is all that keeps a (powerful) invader at bay, and that
    is the reason you don't need guns in the hands of citizens, European citizens should be armed to the teeth.

    oh and anyone that calls my daughter a canuckistani will be called a cheeseburger from now on. :)
    Last edited by SuperWatto, Jan 4, 2013