Cowardly Gun Nuts

Post Reply New Topic

visagrunt wrote:

Name calling; the first sign of losing an argument.



They are in fact not allowed to but that’s about it. It does nothing to actually stop them from having firearm’s, it happens all the time. Theoretically I think it’s a bogus law and a testament to the inefectivity of the corrections system. If the corrections system is supposed to be about reform and rehabilitation and the inmate has received and served a just sentence then theoretically they should have their rights restored.
It certainly sounds like a sound conclusion, especially from a liberal standpoint.



The United States is not without gun control and plenty of it. Maybe you should study up on it (federal, state, and local) before telling me we don’t have any or not enough.
Every time the gun laws fail to work, and they do obviously fail to work, your kind screams for yet more and it becomes a slippery slope. I’ll be damned if I’ll stand idly by and watch our gun laws become anything like Canada’s.



Unless we annexed Canada today it’s not your country to decide how it should be run.
I wasn’t going to say that but you’ve been insulting and arrogant enough to warrant it.

I apologize for my intemperance.



But you avoid admitting the point: the restriction is constitutional. Whether it's time limited to the sentence being served, whether the law is properly enforced, are both irrelevant to the proposition that, "shall not be infringed," allows for infringement. Constitutional law is not now, and never has been absolute.

I am perfectly open to the argument that says, "there shouldn't be laws restricting firearms." That is a political question that is open to divergent views. But I am not open to the argument that says, "no laws of any kind restricting firearms are constitutional," when the facts clearly contradict that statement.



You are putting words in my mouth.

Did I ever say you don't have any? No, I said they were failures. Did I say you don't have enough? No, I said they were failures, and furthermore, I have said quite clearly that restrictions on firearms ownership are not the way to get at the root of firearms violence. How much plainer do I have to be? So, what do you mean, "your kind?" I'm not among the crowd seeking more gun control. I'm in the group suggesting a more rational approach to firearms.

Let me go on the record: I support a narrow approach to firearms regulation. I believe that the privilege or right (depending upon jurisdiction) to possess and use firearms should be large and liberal, restricted only from clearly defined classes that are purposively linked. I oppose Canada's long-gun registry because it's a poorly established program, that is costly, and will work contrary to its intention by establishing an inappropriate sense of security that will divert attention away from what I think is a more meaningful approach: development of a culture of responsible firearms ownership.

So instead of bickering about what the US constitution means, or ascribing positions to each other, why don't we have a substantive discussion about what it is that actually constributes to firearms violence, and what legitimate steps might be taken to mitigate that violence?



I have never suggested that I am in any position to decide how it should be run. But if this forum is about the free exchange of ideas, then those ideas should not be limited by nationality. If we cannot learn from the successes and failures of our neighbours, what's the point of living in a community?

Whether you limit guns in this city or that, you still have a system totally awash in guns (legal or otherwise). Street criminals don't have gun factories. They are arming themselves through stealing other people's guns when they are at work and selling them to other criminals.

So certain gun owners are contributing to the violent crime problem by failing to secure their weapons. There is a circular element to it. Then they run out and buy another. It's a hobby where if you lose your glue gun and paste, someone somewhere dies.

How do you explain the Feds supplying guns to the Mexican drug cartels then?

visagrunt wrote:

Myabe yes, maybe no. As written I’d have to say that any restriction is against the letter of the amendment but maybe not against the intent.
And there are some things that we grudgingly accept and move on, good natured that we generally are. However there are limitations on what we’ll accept.

Before you hurl the Supreme Court at me again like I know you’re going to keep this in mind: We American’s tend to have a natural streak of civil disobedience in us even though we come from generally the same stock as Canadians. I don’t know, maybe it’s something in the water down here but we’re a bit rowdier but not necessarily villains except for a small percentage.

What I’m getting at is that we tend to see things that we are passionate about our way regardless of what the Supreme Court or anyone else says.
And we tend to follow our own sensitivities instead of the law sometimes.
The expression “The best way to keep me from doing something is to tell me that I have to do it” comes to mind as a good example.
Given our vastly divers culture and large population I don’t think we do all that bad, considering.



And they will continue to be failures. Failing is all they can do because in practice they fail even if in theory they work.
Yes, I saw the part about “restrictions on firearms ownership are not the way to get at the root of firearms violence” and in the same breath a call for more restrictions which is contrary.
Well, if it’s not the way to get to the root then why add more of what’s not the issue?
So just for the record what exactly are you suggesting as a rational approach?



We could go on and on about what really causes crime but probably never agree.



Well, I tend to be a bit protective…………….
And what constitutes success and failure are often subjective.

simon_says wrote:

Some are stolen (which is a felony) and some are obtained via straw purchase (another felony).
So they are committing one felony in the acquisition phase, another with possession if they are on parole (or whatever), and if (when) they use it in the commission of a crime it’s yet another felony.



No, if someone invades my home and steals a few guns they, not I, bear responsibility for the gun ending up in the wrong hands. The one ultimately responsible is the one that pulls the trigger on a victim since that is the end result we are primarily trying to avoid.
You’re not going to find very many sane people that will agree that the homeowner (or resident) is responsible for the actions of a burglar.
Blaming the victim of a burglary for anything that happens with his property that was stolen is pretty low.

Last edited by Raptor on 13 Aug 2011, 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ah yes, I forgot about that!

Can't wait to see the response from the antis.

All of which is fair enough. As I have said, the position should not be, "no limits are constitutional," but rather, "how far can limits be taken before they become unconstitutional?"



Greater minds than mind have described it as the "exit culture." The United States was born from a desire to get out from under British control. The West was colonized from a desire to get out from under Eastern control, and now that there is no more territory to colonize the desire is now manifested in a desire to get out from under government control.

I have no problem with that, provided that it does not conflict with the rule of law. Seeking to put limits on government is well and good, and a proper function in a democratic society. But that does not give the citizen permission to ignore law unless and until a competent authority declares that law to be a nullity.



I most certainly agree with your last statement, and it's always good to remind ourselves that no matter how troubled our governments may seem, no matter how aspects of our society might seem, generally speaking they work pretty well.



I think that education is a key aspect. The vast majority of firearms owners in the United States are prudent, responsible people, who handle their firearms carefully and who will exercise good judgement in their use. But in a country as large as the United States, a small minority can still be a large number in absolute terms. I think that education increases the the likelihood of a person on the margins winding up in that vast majority.

The most likely way of introducing a greater level of education is through a system of facilitation. This has the twin advantages of facilitating acquisition, possession and disposal by people who meet certain criteria, and it reduces the number of people who are will continue to use usual processes, allowing for a higher level of scrutiny in these cases. You're not infringing on a person's right to acquire and possess--you're just making it easier for people who merit that facilitation.



But that doesn't mean that it's not a conversation worth having.



Indeed they are. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be turning our attention to the question of how to achieve success.

visagrunt wrote:

There have been several things that have killed firearms safety education over the past hundred or so years to include urbanization, sub-urbanization, the “gunz-r-bad” indoctrination by the media and Hollywood, etc…
On the other hand mandatory hunter safety in the past few decades has taken up some of what has been lost but in the form of structured training. This is mandatory for anyone born after a given date prior to obtaining a hunting license but the lessons learned are, of course, transferable to anything firearms safety related.
The catch is that hunting is a licensed privilege and not a constitutional right like firearms ownership is.

I’m an NRA certified Range Safety Officer (RSO) at the gun club I belong to. Most of the safety violations I end up intervening in are relatively small ones and more specific to our club rules than anything. Most of those violations are from non-members and it’s usually just a matter of firmly pointing out the errors of their ways and then they do better.
That club has been in existence for over 50 years without a single accidental death and we have 8 rifle, pistol and shotguns ranges within our complex plus archery.

Since we’re out in the sticks pretty far some people have asked me about getting EMS services there in time if there were an accidental shooting. I honestly tell them that the greater danger of going shooting is not getting shot but the drive out to the range on the freeways.

Anyhow, the number of gun related deaths in the US (and I assume Canada) consistently ranks near or at the bottom of the common causes of death.
More lives could be saved (assuming that is the actual goal) by first effectively addressing the greater causes of death.
We gun people tend to see emphasis placed exclusively on gun deaths as a covered wagon approach to prohibition or at least more invasive regulation.