What is with guns and paranoia?

[Ranb]

You're clueless, man.

Birther style debate tactics are not supposed to cut it here. Make a claim, back it up with more than insults.

Ranb

 

[BStrong]

Cain:

"So it's OK for the government to force you to get a permit... if you want to carry a firearm, but it's not OK for the government to make you get a permit... if you want to own one. You make it sound as though there are obvious differences, so why the opposition to the latter but not the former?"

I believe that the state has a vested interest in public safety when an individual wishes to carry a concealed firearm. There is a reasonable expectation that the individual should be vetted and display at least a minimum level of safe handling and shooting skills.

I see no such state interest in licensing simple possession of a firearm in the home -The Supreme Court in Heller made it clear - the right to simple possession of firearms in common use is a protected right, and in the Mcdonald decision incorporated that to the states through due process.

ETA:

Harvard Law And Policy Review piece from 2010 (pre-Mcdonald)

http://hlpronline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/johnson_commonuse.pdf

 

[Travis]

Oooh, a sample size of one. Impressive.

I try not to hang out with idiots. So that's as large a sample size as you will get here.

Sorry to hear you live around some crazy people. You should get out more...

You forget that where I live more people make their living cooking meth than with actual jobs. I stay in as much as possible to avoid crazy people.

Straw buyers are indeed one of the main ways of diverting weapons from the legal trade. If firearms registration was computerized, their purchase patterns would stick out like a sore thumb.

That would require gun advocacy groups to not be completely insane.

 

[R.Mackey]

You forget that where I live more people make their living cooking meth than with actual jobs. I stay in as much as possible to avoid crazy people.

Well, there's your problem. [/Adam Savage]

You shouldn't be surprised if they also act differently from normal people where firearms are concerned...

If you want to see a much saner bunch, we've got a class coming up near Mariposa, about 70 miles from you, on September 8/9.

 

[MaverickPLM]

I don't think so. If I need a license to own a gun when that right is specifically stated in the Constitution, it sets a precedent that all rights could be subject to licensure.

The problem with this argument is the 2nd Amendment, unlike any other right granted by the US Constitution, can directly result in the bodily harm and/or death of another individual. There's no logical reason not to take proper, effective, and efficient precautions for a literal life-and-death situation.

Certain events and free speech zones are analogous to concealed carry laws. These are usually just and reasonable. Requiring a license to own or possess a gun in my home is analogous to restricting my free speech in my own living room.

Unless you are the main character from the Dune movie, free speech is never a direct cause of human causalities while firearms actually do function without a "killing word."

 

[R.Mackey]

The problem with this argument is the 2nd Amendment, unlike any other right granted by the US Constitution, can directly result in the bodily harm and/or death of another individual. There's no logical reason not to take proper, effective, and efficient precautions for a literal life-and-death situation.

Balderdash... the right to keep and bear arms does not directly result in the bodily harm of anyone. Just like keeping and bearing an automobile doesn't result in fatalities. Not until that same automobile is used irresponsibly, for which there are laws and rules and guidelines and all the rest, just like for firearms.

Try harder.

 

[crimresearch]

Someone earlier said we only need to register cars if we intend to drive them on public roads. That's not true in Republik of Kalifornia. Even if you have no intention of operating your vehicle for the next year, you still have to pay a registration fee (for me non-use was ~$18. I paid ~$160).

The Cali $18 is a filing fee for the affidavit that a vehicle in the database doesn't have insurance and is not being operated or parked on any California roadway, it isn't a license or registration.

 

[crimresearch]

So it's OK for the government to force you to get a permit... if you want to carry a firearm, but it's not OK for the government to make you get a permit... if you want to own one. You make it sound as though there are obvious differences, so why the opposition to the latter but not the former?

The obvious differences (at least obvious to the courts) are the same ones that allow the government to require you to get a permit for a public speech, while they can't require you to get a permit to speak your mind in your own home.

A rational extension of that to guns would be public carry versus private carry.

 

[MaverickPLM]

Balderdash... the right to keep and bear arms does not directly result in the bodily harm of anyone. Just like keeping and bearing an automobile doesn't result in fatalities. Not until that same automobile is used irresponsibly, for which there are laws and rules and guidelines and all the rest, just like for firearms.

Try harder.

First of all, to own an automobile is not a right. Second, automobiles do result in fatalities thus why we license people to drive them. Third, I was responding to a post against licensing firearms in response to a comparison to automobiles. To use automobiles as an analogy as to why my argument is incorrect is extremely disconcerting.

(ETA- Actually scratch my first point it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.)

It seems like you inferred from my post I am against the ownership of firearms. I assure you I most certainly am not.

 

[BStrong]

The problem with this argument is the 2nd Amendment, unlike any other right granted by the US Constitution, can directly result in the bodily harm and/or death of another individual. There's no logical reason not to take proper, effective, and efficient precautions for a literal life-and-death situation.


Unless you are the main character from the Dune movie, free speech is never a direct cause of human causalities while firearms actually do function without a "killing word."

300 million + firearms in private hands in America.

Under 30,000 firearm related deaths per year, m/l.

Considering the effect The Turner Diaries had on Robert Mathews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(group)

and Tim Mcveigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

I'd say that the First Amendment isn't lilly white, and I wouldn't want to change a word of it either.

 

[R.Mackey]

First of all, to own an automobile is not a right. Second, automobiles do result in fatalities thus why we license people to drive them. Third, I was responding to a post against licensing firearms in response to a comparison to automobiles. To use automobiles as an analogy as to why my argument is incorrect is extremely disconcerting.

(ETA- Actually scratch my first point it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.)

It seems like you inferred from my post I am against the ownership of firearms. I assure you I most certainly am not.

I don't actually know what your position is, but your claim that the mere exercise of the Second Amendment automatically and spontaneously can lead to fatalities is stuff and nonsense.

Apart from firearms, what possessions do we have "explicit rights" to own? There's nothing else save only alcohol even mentioned in the Bill of Rights. This gives you a rather pat rejection of any analogy, so I'm not impressed.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

The idea that a lot of Democrats want to ban guns is not paranoia, it's a platform and historical fact. Observing that Obama has not yet made such an effort is mere hindsight bias. Don't think that you are somehow clever or rational for not having worried about it.

 

[BStrong]

The idea that a lot of Democrats want to ban guns is not paranoia, it's a platform and historical fact. Observing that Obama has not yet made such an effort is mere hindsight bias. Don't think that you are somehow clever or rational for not having worried about it.

Enough republicans have signed anti-gun legislation that you can't leave them out of the mix.

 

[crimresearch]

You mean your consistent misreadings, such as the last one? Or the first one -- where you're not interested in what someone believes, but what you think was said? Or this one, where you're again aggressively going off topic? If you had any idea how silly you looked, you wouldn't -- couldn't -- take yourself seriously.

---------
<SNIP>

The topic is myths as used in the gun control debate, last I checked. Now all of a sudden, I'm off topic for debunking myths about gun control?

You went into personalities when you claimed I had a narrative, but when asked to identify it, re: the topic, you can't deliver and instead, produce the pile of illogic above .

So one more time... on the topic, what 'side' are you claiming I'm on, and what do you have to back that up? I'll even ask you for links again...

 

[MaverickPLM]

I don't actually know what your position is, but your claim that the mere exercise of the Second Amendment automatically and spontaneously can lead to fatalities is stuff and nonsense.

I'm not sure how you can contest the fact that firearms can and do result in fatalities especially considering you offered no explanation.

If you're attempting to imply that your statement refers to individual firearm ownership automatically leading to fatalities, I never made any such statement nor would I support one. I made a statement about a potential dangerous outcome of improper firearm ownership and/or use. No where did I claim that such an outcome would automatically occur or was more than likely to occur on an individual level.

My only intention is to advocate ways to effectively and efficiently increase firearm safety while retaining the opportunity of firearm ownership for interested parties. I see little reason why someone who puts the effort into learning proper firearm safety should be denied the opportunity to own a firearm.

 

[crimresearch]

They can have my johnson when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.

They can have my old Iver Johnson for a nominal fee, no need to get violent about it.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm not sure how you can contest the fact that firearms can and do result in fatalities especially considering you offered no explanation.

Firearms by themselves do not result in fatalities. Firearms + irresponsible behavior, specifically behavior that is not protected by any legal document including the United States Constitution, can. It's a pretty important distinction. There is nothing unique and inherent to firearms that makes them a constructive hazard without parallel.

My only intention is to advocate ways to effectively and efficiently increase firearm safety while retaining the opportunity of firearm ownership for interested parties. I see little reason why someone who puts the effort into learning proper firearm safety should be denied the opportunity to own a firearm.

Sounds fair to me.

Perhaps we're just nitpicking over minutiae. Another one I might have seized upon was your comment that the Constitution "grants" certain rights, whereas a pedant will note the Constitution grants no such thing, rather it guarantees certain rights.

 

[Cain]

One is a right protected by the constitution and the other isn't.

The Constitution does not protect going into public with concealed weapons. Whew. I'm glad that's so obvious.

Mine and the Supreme Court's.

You and maybe five members of the current supreme court, ignoring, what, almost a hundred of years of precedence? I love your people: the kind who, when the court happens to agree with them by even the narrowest of margins, the issue is declared settled law.

Whew! You are all over the place with that one. Talk about muddying the waters. You brought up pornography, alcohol, intrusive governemnt agents, etc. just to get to this point.

You mean illustrating a point...?

An appeal to emotion. You got nothin'.

Then you must be an emotional wreck -- or more desperate than I thought -- because it's a rather straight-forward observation. Maybe you'd have a point if I talked about the deaths of toddlers, or breaking up families, or old ladies getting gunned down. Instead I can't help but think complaint comes from a position of weakness -- an excuse to avoid the argument.

----------
Ranb

Birther style debate tactics are not supposed to cut it here. Make a claim, back it up with more than insults.

I'll repeat it again: the incriminating text you've been posting and reposting... it was sarcasm. I said as much earlier but you're not reading for comprehension, so let me spell it out: s a r c a s m. I was being sarcastic.

sar·casm   [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

sarcasm
1579, from L.L. sarcasmos, from Gk. sarkasmos "a sneer, jest, taunt, mockery," from sarkazein "to speak bitterly, sneer," lit. "to strip off the flesh," from sarx (gen. sarkos) "flesh," prop. "piece of meat," from PIE base *twerk- "to cut" (cf. Avestan thwares "to cut"). Sarcastic is from 1695.

Oh, and one more thing: It was sarcasm. Sarcasm.

----------
BStrong

I believe that the state has a vested interest in public safety when an individual wishes to carry a concealed firearm. There is a reasonable expectation that the individual should be vetted and display at least a minimum level of safe handling and shooting skills.

So is the state over-stepping its bounds with, say, safe storage laws? I guess it's a good thing that neighbors never get into disputes over silly things, and then someone grabs a gun and then someone else dies. That would be bad. If it ever happened. Or if criminals broke into homes and stole guns that would later be used in crime...

I see no such state interest in licensing simple possession of a firearm in the home -The Supreme Court in Heller made it clear - the right to simple possession of firearms in common use is a protected right, and in the Mcdonald decision incorporated that to the states through due process.

As a wise old law professor supposedly once advised, whenever someone says something is "clear" or "obvious," pay special attention to the claim that follows. Heller and McDonald (brilliant 5-4 decisions in agreement with resident Constitutional scholar RenaissanceBiker) provided (among other things) an individual right to own a handgun. Fine. So how is a license preventing anyone from owning a handgun? Is it a "heavy burden"? Or, as Ranb points out, you have to deal with renewals. I always thought renewals were relatively easy...

-------
crimresearch:

The Cali $18 is a filing fee for the affidavit that a vehicle in the database doesn't have insurance and is not being operated or parked on any California roadway, it isn't a license or registration.

This sounds like a distinction without a difference, but I'll run it by Ranb.

The topic is myths as used in the gun control debate, last I checked. Now all of a sudden, I'm off topic for debunking myths about gun control?

Again, you're also not reading for comprehension --

You went into personalities when you claimed I had a narrative, but when asked to identify it, re: the topic, you can't deliver and instead, produce the pile of illogic above .

"Narrative" was perhaps too lofty a word for your poor sniping. I'm saying that you've misread my posts. Consistently. See back to the notorious "evasion" accusation and subsequent clarifications.

So one more time... on the topic, what 'side' are you claiming I'm on, and what do you have to back that up? I'll even ask you for links again...

I don't recall ever claiming you're on any side. As I said earlier, I generally skip past your posts. I mis-spelled your handle earlier. You bore me.
-------

Hey Ranb, buddy... instead of a renewal for a license (which does not necessarily include a charge), would you support a filing fee for an affidavit on a gun in a database? Let me repeat, this is NOT a license or registration. It's a filing fee. A charming, charming filing fee.

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>crimresearch:



This sounds like a distinction without a difference, but I'll run it by Ranb.



Again, you're also not reading for comprehension --



"Narrative" was perhaps too lofty a word for your poor sniping. I'm saying that you've misread my posts. Consistently. See back to the notorious "evasion" accusation and subsequent clarifications.



I don't recall ever claiming you're on any side. As I said earlier, I generally skip past your posts. I mis-spelled your handle earlier. You bore me.
-------

Hey Ranb, buddy... instead of a renewal for a license (which does not necessarily include a charge), would you support a filing fee for an affidavit on a gun in a database? Let me repeat, this is NOT a license or registration. It's a filing fee. A charming, charming filing fee.

All I'm seeing is more evasions, recycled personal jibes (including some you previously aimed at other posters, whom you are now claiming were me), and a complete and utter failure to back up your assertions with facts, much less links to facts.

Do you have anything on topic, either correct or useful?

 

[Cain]

All I'm seeing is more evasions, recycled personal jibes (including some you previously aimed at other posters, whom you are now claiming were me), and a complete and utter failure to back up your assertions with facts, much less links to facts.

Do you have anything on topic, either correct or useful?

Like I said -- poor sniping. Good luck, though. Maybe you'll troll someone for a fruitless discussion of semantics on some tangential non-point.