gun control

[The Voice]

Why don't they just build panic rooms?

[Ignatius]

They do.

[pr26]

This is simply a topic that I feel very conflicted on, and I see both sides.

People like Big Mar (no offense, just using your tone in the thread as an example) really turn me off when it comes to guns. It's something about the culture of guns...they get glorified in such a way that just makes me uncomfortable. Something about a society with a bunch of people carrying concealed guns around every corner, and the type of rhetoric that goes along with it. Me and my wife have been talking a lot about having a child. The thought of a gunman coming into my small Ohio suburb school and shooting up a kindergarten where my child was learning honestly does scare me. On the flip side, my child going to a school where teachers have loaded weapons in their desks makes me just as uncomfortable.

On the flip-side, people do have the right to bear arms. Sometimes I wonder if that right comes with any benefits, but the type of argument Gouri brings up is valid. We could ban semi-automatic weapons now, but 100 years down the line, this could be a very different society.

If people had the tone and level headedness of Gouri were the ones walking our streets with legal guns in their pockets, I'd feel better. Instead, it's people like Big Mar. I don't mean that as a slight at you Big Mar, but the paranoid rhetoric and the "my viewpoint is the only logical viewpoint" concerns me.

Perhaps Keys had the most interesting view I've read on here, inbetween the terrible banter in this thread. Let's tax the shit out of guns. Let's tax the shit out of ammo. This leaves everyones rights in tact, discourages gun and ammo hoarding, and the tax revenue could go towards public programs related to mental health, gun safety, etc.

I also think there's no reason at all why people shouldn't have to go through screenings, or have a required title, to purchase a gun.

[Ignatius]

For as much bitching as I've done (calling it whatever you want) about gun control, my priority is now the Libor Scandal.

[Tornicade]

This is simply a topic that I feel very conflicted on, and I see both sides.

People like Big Mar (no offense, just using your tone in the thread as an example) really turn me off when it comes to guns. It's something about the culture of guns...they get glorified in such a way that just makes me uncomfortable. Something about a society with a bunch of people carrying concealed guns around every corner, and the type of rhetoric that goes along with it. Me and my wife have been talking a lot about having a child. The thought of a gunman coming into my small Ohio suburb school and shooting up a kindergarten where my child was learning honestly does scare me. On the flip side, my child going to a school where teachers have loaded weapons in their desks makes me just as uncomfortable.

On the flip-side, people do have the right to bear arms. Sometimes I wonder if that right comes with any benefits, but the type of argument Gouri brings up is valid. We could ban semi-automatic weapons now, but 100 years down the line, this could be a very different society.

If people had the tone and level headedness of Gouri were the ones walking our streets with legal guns in their pockets, I'd feel better. Instead, it's people like Big Mar. I don't mean that as a slight at you Big Mar, but the paranoid rhetoric and the "my viewpoint is the only logical viewpoint" concerns me.

Perhaps Keys had the most interesting view I've read on here, inbetween the terrible banter in this thread. Let's tax the shit out of guns. Let's tax the shit out of ammo. This leaves everyones rights in tact, discourages gun and ammo hoarding, and the tax revenue could go towards public programs related to mental health, gun safety, etc.

I also think there's no reason at all why people shouldn't have to go through screenings, or have a required title, to purchase a gun.

a small tax is one thing. taxing the shit ? then your pricing guns out of the hands and using taxes as a form of gun control.

Overall I dont think the gun tax is something that would stand up in court unless obama gets to appoint a few more judges over the next 4 years.

[Tlyons]

I'm still not convinced with "your average joe".

I think your average joe is only looking out for his best interest (safety) and the safety of others. In that case, you have to re-think that.

I want to make it harder to get them in the hands of criminals (extremely hard to do, so you must also arm yourself to deter/defeat and punish harshly via law). I want to make it harder to allow children to get them (parents).

This isn't rocket science.

You cannot, and will not, take away the guns of many in an effort to protect everyone, because THAT is absolutely idiotic at its very core.

It is counterproductive to the advancement of a powerful, free nation.

I think "average joe" thinks guns are cool.

[Tlyons]

To the gun control advocates, Boobie and Jack Brickman particularly, what endgame do you envision? Honestly, not half-measures, or compromises, but if you were King for a Day, what would American gun policy be?

Boobie, you've said you don't think "doomsday scenarios" are realistic. But as I pointed out, when was the last time we as a nation went without the threat of war or catastrophe? I'm curious as to how old you are, and if you remember the very real threat of nuclear annihilation that entire generations of Americans lived under since the 1950's? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there is no scenario in which the government would not come to our immediate aid? There is no reason to want to protect yourself, rather than total reliance on the police?

Do either of you accept the premise, laid out in the Constitution, for the need to have an armed citizenry?

The Supreme Court as recently as 2008 decided that the term "militia" historically refers to able-to-serve men who were the primary defense of the nation. It is also noted that the militia is in stark contrast to a standing army, and that the militia is to check the powers of government.

Now you may not think armed citizens have a chance against the government, but I disagree (many rebellions start small but ultimately succeed). In fact, several President's feared armed uprisings during the Civil Rights Movement and the Watergate Tapes detailed Nixon's fear, prior to 1965, of African Americans taking to arms in order to protect their freedoms. Rebellion isn't some far off concept. The United States is not a perpetual institution. It has not and will not always exist.

My point, concisely, is that The People are the last arbiter of the social contract. If the three branches of government fail to protect our rights, the People are charged with dismantling the government and erecting a new one in it's place. To that end, government may simply fail, for a myriad of reasons, and so goes the protection from nature. At that point, people will need to fend for themselves.

So when I hear people say "you don't need an assault rifle," what I really hear them say is "the government is perpetual; it is and always will be just; to offer counterbalance is absurd because there is no hope for resistance; disarm; submit; obey."

Where am I going wrong?

White person feared black people with guns in the 60's? I'm not sure that Nixon feared a takeover of the country so much as the lives that would be lost.

This notion that we could ever rise up against our gov't is silly in this modern time. And examples of what happened in the 1860's and 1960's seem light years away from a technological standpoint. Assault weapons or not the gov't possesses All intelligence agencies and weapons that would render any uprising useless.

I agree this nation will not always exist. But the people aren't going to take it from the gov't.


I'd also argue that the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA are already an example of the gov't not protecting our rights.

[Ignatius]

I think "average joe" thinks guns are cool.

I think you're probably right based on the media representation.

[Tlyons]

Starting to think they are going craft legislation on gun control that has the second to last sentence say "oh and we do not reserve the right to not ban all firearms".

Kinda like the NDAA does with us good ole Americans

[gourimoko]

White person feared black people with guns in the 60's? I'm not sure that Nixon feared a takeover of the country so much as the lives that would be lost.

Agreed, I don't think Nixon or any President feared blacks taking over, but armed insurrection and violent demonstrations (potentially terrorism) was a major concern. Previous Administrations did fear armed Communist factions taking root.

This notion that we could ever rise up against our gov't is silly in this modern time. And examples of what happened in the 1860's and 1960's seem light years away from a technological standpoint. Assault weapons or not the gov't possesses All intelligence agencies and weapons that would render any uprising useless. I agree this nation will not always exist. But the people aren't going to take it from the gov't.

Don't really know why people take this viewpoint. Citizen uprisings are often successful by waging a war of attrition. The U.S. government, like all others, is sustained by the production of it's people. Without thriving businesses, decent wages, or property to tax, the government has no way to sustain itself. Political leaders lose credibility every day there is strife, and lose all legal standing once their term expires. The military is not a single-minded body, but a collection of Americans who choose to serve. It is usually the case that, during a rebellion, factions of the armed forces choose to either desert or revolt in defiance of any order to kill their fellow countrymen.

The People have strength in numbers, and the benefit of time. The technological differences are not as pronounced when you consider how a guirrella war is waged and the sheer magnitude of such an uprising.

Revolutions happen on the world stage routinely. They can still happen in Western Civilization. We should not create a situation in which we have no means to defend our freedoms once they are taken away. In fact, I would argue that an armed citizenry is the greatest deterrent to overreaching government.

I'd also argue that the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA are already an example of the gov't not protecting our rights.

I would completely agree.

[Tlyons]

I see what you are saying and definitely realize that they depend on us to run this country and yes the military members do have a mind of their own. I just hope they haven't created something that will wipe people out by the thousands with the push of one button(obviously not talking nuclear).

Hopefully the will of the people will be there when the shit goes down because we do have the numbers.

[Randolphkeys]

a small tax is one thing. taxing the shit ? then your pricing guns out of the hands and using taxes as a form of gun control.

Overall I dont think the gun tax is something that would stand up in court unless obama gets to appoint a few more judges over the next 4 years.

If you told me a pack of smokes would cost 7 bucks in 1993 I would have thrown a fit. It would have been unfair to cool rock stars who smoke three packs of Reds on stage. It would be unfair to waiters and bartenders. It would be unfair to everyone with cool young person lifestyles.

That lifestyle has changed for the better.

I suggested taxing multi-gun households. The key is the value a stronger national mental health care system would provide people who otherwise may not afford it... but have plenty of guns available to them.

When gour brings the idea forward to his connections and passes it off as his own idea, I'd like an RCF donation out of it.

[Jack Brickman]

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/24/two_...shot_while.php

[Tornicade]

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/24/two_...shot_while.php

double post

[Tornicade]

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/24/two_...shot_while.php

people get shot by guns. everyone knows this. People get killed by a multitude of thngs everyday.

what your doing is sensationalism. using a tragedy to promote an agenda. if people had died in the burning house to arson do you propose we ban matches and gasoline as well?
and what about people killing others while texting. do you ban cellphones from everyone so they cannot text?