I am a radical (and therefore numerically insignificant)

[Travis]

Yes I am a radical.

Therefore I am essentially insignificant. The vast majority of people are not going to support my no compromise get-all-the-guns-out-of-civilian-hands-with-whatever-force-is-necessary stance on the issue of gun control. They will, instead, support much more practical and less insane proposals.

Now a few days ago I didn't even feel this way really. I wanted more gun regulation and nothing more. But the absolute refusal of the gun faction to even attempt to discuss new laws or increased regulation has pushed me into hardening my stance to the point that it is now a radical-no-compromise ideology.

I have just about lost all my marbles. And I don't like it. So I created this thread so I can keep my highly polemic and emotionally charged rants out of the other threads on this matter so that less compromised people can continue their discussions. They don't need me there cluttering things up with my mental regurgitation.

So, again, I represent, at best, a very small faction of the population in my stance on this. Don't hold it against anyone that may share viewpoints with me on a broader array of issues. They shouldn't be punished or hurt because I am so unable to decouple myself from my emotions on this one issue.

Thank you all for your restraint in dealing with me.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Don't worry Travis. The people with the exact opposite opinions than you (complete unfettered access to any firearm) are also a very small faction of the population. Neither one is going to win the debates that lie ahead. In the end it will be recommendations on new laws that will do little to nothing of substance on the issue other than pissing off about half of the population (of all political stripes by the way) while assuaging the hand wringers out there because they "Did something".

I'll even make an avatar bet on that.

 

[ravdin]

So... you want to use "whatever force is necessary", i.e. guns, to disarm people. You do see the irony here, right?

I think you're right that this is not likely to catch on.

 

[fishbob]

So... you want to use "whatever force is necessary", i.e. guns, to disarm people. You do see the irony here, right?

I think you're right that this is not likely to catch on.

More likely giant electro-magnets turned up to 11 instead of guns.

 

[Noztradamus]

In a democracy the wishes of the minority Do. Not. Matter.

 

[ravdin]

In a democracy the wishes of the minority Do. Not. Matter.

So the wishes of minorities such as black or gay people shouldn't matter in our society? For example, I'm completely opposed to Proposition 8, which denies gay people the right to be married in California. But it did pass by popular vote in 2008. Does that mean the rest of us who were against it don't matter?

Thomas Jefferson defined democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what they'll have for supper. Without basic and guaranteed rights for minorities and individuals, democracy would be nothing more than mob rule.

 

[Brainster]

Yes I am a radical.

Therefore I am essentially insignificant. The vast majority of people are not going to support my no compromise get-all-the-guns-out-of-civilian-hands-with-whatever-force-is-necessary stance on the issue of gun control. They will, instead, support much more practical and less insane proposals.

Now a few days ago I didn't even feel this way really. I wanted more gun regulation and nothing more. But the absolute refusal of the gun faction to even attempt to discuss new laws or increased regulation has pushed me into hardening my stance to the point that it is now a radical-no-compromise ideology.

I have just about lost all my marbles. And I don't like it. So I created this thread so I can keep my highly polemic and emotionally charged rants out of the other threads on this matter so that less compromised people can continue their discussions. They don't need me there cluttering things up with my mental regurgitation.

So, again, I represent, at best, a very small faction of the population in my stance on this. Don't hold it against anyone that may share viewpoints with me on a broader array of issues. They shouldn't be punished or hurt because I am so unable to decouple myself from my emotions on this one issue.

Thank you all for your restraint in dealing with me.

Travis, you are not a radical. You are an idealist. You want to live in a world where [insert idealistic notion here]. Most of us skeptics are pragmatists; we attempt to deal with the actual world on its own terms.

Yes, I am sure you would love it if the government could get the guns out of the hands of the citizenry. Guess what? Barring a totalitarian government that would trample a lot more rights than the Second Amendment, it ain't going to happen.

It's good that you're an idealist; you're young and haven't been beaten up enough. Don't confuse where you are now with your destination, however.

 

[theprestige]

Travis, you're not a radical, you just have an extremely unhealthy love for totalitarian police states.

 

[Spockette]

Well, I've decided that I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, so I guess that makes me a radical too.

Ravdin, great reply to Noztradamus. The minority don't matter, indeed.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well, I've decided that I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, so I guess that makes me a radical too.

Ravdin, great reply to Noztradamus. The minority don't matter, indeed.

That won't happen outside of a Constitutional Convention. And that won't happen because everyone knows how much of a mess that it would quickly become.

But let's imagine for a second that for some reason the 2nd is repealed. Then what? You've just made millions upon millions of otherwise law abiding people criminals with the stroke of a pen. And they are armed with many of them being unwilling to voluntarily giving up their guns. Lets say that you then use gun registrations as a basis for a warrant to go to their houses and take their guns by force if necessary (assuming that the courts allowed that, which I doubt that they will). What about the millions of unregistered guns out there that are legal under our current laws? What about the criminals who (now) have illegal weapons? What are you going to do about them? Go door to door into every residence, business and shed and toss it from top to bottom looking for guns (including yours of course because at this point the assumption of innocence has been tossed out of the window)? Ignoring the logistics of doing that for a second that would be breaking the very tenets of what this country is supposed to stand for in the hopes of preventing a very tiny minority from doing "Something bad". You might as well shred the entire constitution.

 

[3point14]

That won't happen outside of a Constitutional Convention. And that won't happen because everyone knows how much of a mess that it would quickly become.

But let's imagine for a second that for some reason the 2nd is repealed. Then what? You've just made millions upon millions of otherwise law abiding people criminals with the stroke of a pen. And they are armed with many of them being unwilling to voluntarily giving up their guns. Lets say that you then use gun registrations as a basis for a warrant to go to their houses and take their guns by force if necessary (assuming that the courts allowed that, which I doubt that they will). What about the millions of unregistered guns out there that are legal under our current laws? What about the criminals who (now) have illegal weapons? What are you going to do about them? Go door to door into every residence, business and shed and toss it from top to bottom looking for guns (including yours of course because at this point the assumption of innocence has been tossed out of the window)?

All of this seems fairly reasonable.

But...

Ignoring the logistics of doing that for a second that would be breaking the very tenets of what this country is supposed to stand for

America = Guns? Is that what you're saying here? I don't get it.

in the hopes of preventing a very tiny minority from doing "Something bad". You might as well shred the entire constitution.

No, not with you here. Why does repealing one amendment equal shredding the constitution? It's been done before.

 

[AlBell]

All of this seems fairly reasonable.

But...



America = Guns? Is that what you're saying here? I don't get it.



No, not with you here. Why does repealing one amendment equal shredding the constitution? It's been done before.

What is shredded by the actions proposed are the 4th & 5th amendments.

 

[3point14]

What is shredded by the actions proposed are the 4th & 5th amendments.

Ah, I see. I was reading it wrong.

I still don't agree, but at least it makes more sense to me now. Thanks.

 

[Travis]

Don't worry Travis. The people with the exact opposite opinions than you (complete unfettered access to any firearm) are also a very small faction of the population. Neither one is going to win the debates that lie ahead. In the end it will be recommendations on new laws that will do little to nothing of substance on the issue other than pissing off about half of the population (of all political stripes by the way) while assuaging the hand wringers out there because they "Did something".

I'll even make an avatar bet on that.

I'm not sure if that is reassuring or very scary.

So... you want to use "whatever force is necessary", i.e. guns, to disarm people. You do see the irony here, right?

I think you're right that this is not likely to catch on.

Well I've never had issues with the police having guns. So if they use guns to disarm the citizenry even if it means widespread bloodshed (not all gun owners are giving them up willingly) I don't see it as a problem.

Travis, you are not a radical. You are an idealist. You want to live in a world where [insert idealistic notion here]. Most of us skeptics are pragmatists; we attempt to deal with the actual world on its own terms.

Yes, I am sure you would love it if the government could get the guns out of the hands of the citizenry. Guess what? Barring a totalitarian government that would trample a lot more rights than the Second Amendment, it ain't going to happen.

It's good that you're an idealist; you're young and haven't been beaten up enough. Don't confuse where you are now with your destination, however.

Why does it have to trample the rights of the Second Amendment? Why not just create a new amendment that nullifies the Second?

Travis, you're not a radical, you just have an extremely unhealthy love for totalitarian police states.

Well I have stated my preference for authoritarianism before. But why would this have to a totalitarian police state? Once all the guns are gone things would just go back to normal. All the other rights are still there.

 

[ravdin]

Well I've never had issues with the police having guns. So if they use guns to disarm the citizenry even if it means widespread bloodshed (not all gun owners are giving them up willingly) I don't see it as a problem.

Here's a recent story about Norman Wielsch, an armed criminal who recently pleaded guilty to 11 felony charges of drug trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Normal-Weilsch-Pleads-Guilty-in-Federal-Court-182226881.html

Did I mention that Wielsch had a badge in addition to a gun when he committed these crimes? He wasn't just any cop either- he was the commander of a drug enforcement unit. Several cops were involved with his criminal conspiracy.

Sorry to say so, but I wouldn't feel comforted knowing that only the police were armed with guns.

 

[fuelair]

Yes I am a radical.

Therefore I am essentially insignificant. The vast majority of people are not going to support my no compromise get-all-the-guns-out-of-civilian-hands-with-whatever-force-is-necessary stance on the issue of gun control. They will, instead, support much more practical and less insane proposals.

Now a few days ago I didn't even feel this way really. I wanted more gun regulation and nothing more. But the absolute refusal of the gun faction to even attempt to discuss new laws or increased regulation has pushed me into hardening my stance to the point that it is now a radical-no-compromise ideology.

I have just about lost all my marbles. And I don't like it. So I created this thread so I can keep my highly polemic and emotionally charged rants out of the other threads on this matter so that less compromised people can continue their discussions. They don't need me there cluttering things up with my mental regurgitation.

So, again, I represent, at best, a very small faction of the population in my stance on this. Don't hold it against anyone that may share viewpoints with me on a broader array of issues. They shouldn't be punished or hurt because I am so unable to decouple myself from my emotions on this one issue.

Thank you all for your restraint in dealing with me.

Still cool ... And most of us do not disagree with every suggestion. As a person with no history of mental illness of any kind (for example), I am certainly fine with checking that out before purchases are allowed - and having guns confiscated if an owner starts tumbling down that cliff. I also believe a person should not be able to purchase /have for use a weapon he cannot control in normal firing situations. NOTE: I would exempt in the second weapons of historical value - with no ammo for same (just in case) and, IF i get old enough that I cannot point and fire well my .480 (per ex) I will sell it off to a hunter who can......(etc)....

 

[fuelair]

and, you are not insignificant (except maybe numerically)

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Ah, I see. I was reading it wrong.

I still don't agree, but at least it makes more sense to me now. Thanks.

What don't you agree with?

 

[Travis]

Here's a recent story about Norman Wielsch, an armed criminal who recently pleaded guilty to 11 felony charges of drug trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Normal-Weilsch-Pleads-Guilty-in-Federal-Court-182226881.html

Did I mention that Wielsch had a badge in addition to a gun when he committed these crimes? He wasn't just any cop either- he was the commander of a drug enforcement unit. Several cops were involved with his criminal conspiracy.

Sorry to say so, but I wouldn't feel comforted knowing that only the police were armed with guns.

Well, that is your right to feel that way.

I, however, would feel better.

Still cool ... And most of us do not disagree with every suggestion. As a person with no history of mental illness of any kind (for example), I am certainly fine with checking that out before purchases are allowed - and having guns confiscated if an owner starts tumbling down that cliff. I also believe a person should not be able to purchase /have for use a weapon he cannot control in normal firing situations. NOTE: I would exempt in the second weapons of historical value - with no ammo for same (just in case) and, IF i get old enough that I cannot point and fire well my .480 (per ex) I will sell it off to a hunter who can......(etc)....

I would love for us to at the very least require a certification process so we can at least be sure people know how to properly use the things.

 

[fuelair]

Florida requires that (not for rifles, but for concealed). I have no problem with it.