Has the Justice/Public Safety forum changed your opinion on gun control?

Has the Justice/Public Safety forum changed your opinion on gun control?

Moderators if this is an inappropriate or disruptive question please delete it. Thanks.

Battling with many of the pro-gun people who have been tombstoned over the years has convinced me that gun control is needed now more than ever.

More thann ever, I'm convinced gun control is necessary....and a WINNING issue.

Your early posts had the same strident tone and insulting demeanor as they do now, so I doubt that you less determined and convinced before posting in Justice/Public Saftey. Instead you were looking forward to good flame wars, weren't you now? :)

"I doubt that you less determined and convinced before posting in Justice/Public Saftey."
Next ask me if I give a good goddamn what YOU doubt.

Anyone can go back and read the archives and see that your tone has not changed one bit since you started posting in Justice/Public Safety. It is clear to anyone who does that your positions have not changed nor has your writing style.

"It is clear to anyone who does that your positions have not changed nor has your writing style."
And what did I say? "It's made me MORE determined..."

"your tone has not changed one bit"
Gee, wonder why?

It hasn't made you any *more* convinced that gun owners are scum and those two support gun rights are racists. It is obvious that you already believed, and Justice Public Saftey provided a convienent soapbox for your prejudices.

Having every olive branch you extend get chain-sawed down does not make for productive conversation.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"It hasn't made you any *more* convinced that gun owners are scum and those two support gun rights are racists."
Actually, if anything it HAS, you know. You'd think that if that weren't true the pro-gun Democrats would be able to come up with more than half-a-dozen names of decent people peddling this gun rights crap. But instead we get screams that it's so...UNFAIR...to point out in public what bigoted pieces of shit Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt ARE, or that they head up the TWO LARGEST GUN OWNER ORGANIZATIONS with nary a murmur of complaint from their chinless members..

And of course the RKBA argument is mostly horseshit from WorldNutDaily and the other far right wing asylums, phony or out of context quotes, and the same pack of lies that John AshKKKroft is peddling...exactly as we would get on a forum that wasn't self-limited to "Democrats and progressives."

But of course, somebody tipped us off that there were ordinary right wing gun nuts who were trying to sneak on here again and again, too.

Amusingly, the leading "pro-gun" Democrat whose name you guys keep waving about, Howard Dean, is closer to my position than yours...and Wayne LaPierre has already announced he's going to piss on him anyway if he gets the nomination.

Meanwhile, how come we don't hear whether your opinion has changed? Not that I particularly care.

In the words of Frank Zappa.

Actually, I like a lot of what I read on Dean's website, and think I would prefer Dean to Gore or Clark. I don't agree with him on everything, of course, but some of his ideas are long overdue particularly mandatory DNA typing of capital crimes.

This post is the first time you've actually asked me what my opinions actually are. You've been too busy flaming. :)

"This post is the first time you've actually asked me what my opinions actually are. "
Actually, I didn't...I just noted that you seemed more interested in arguing with me about what my opinions are.

I just have a better understanding of how the pro-control side feels about the issue.

Not all of "them" are ban-them-all fanatics, and I have learned a thing or two about what meaningful firearms control could be in the U.S. if the yelling would stop, or if legitimate public safety concerns would actually be addressed instead of exploited to further the push for the confiscation goal of the ban-them-all fanatics.

I've been a strong supporter of gun control legislation for almost 30 years and I've heard every argument there is on both sides. In fact many of the posts on the Justice/Public Safety forum have left me fuming (I see so many parallels between the way religious fanatics and gun fanatics think, it scares me sometimes).

It's reinforced my belief that the popularity of gun control is based on two erroneous principles:

- Widespread ignorance about guns (most people don't own them and have never used one), compounded by

- A very small number of people who seem to have hairs up their asses about guns. They spend a great deal of time and energy spreading their bigotry and fear.

Open-ended support of gun control cost the Democratic Party dearly in both the 2000 and 2002 elections. It's time for the DNC to add a plank to the party platform clarifying that we really do support the right of law-abiding, honest citizens to keep and bear arms.

That violent crime is caused by criminals, not be ordinary people owning guns. It seems that the most staunch gun control supporters fall into one of two categories: People who have had a personal bad experience, either being robbed at gunpoint or mistreated by a gun owner (e.g. an abusive father who was an NRA member); and people who are just plain afraid of guns for irrational reasons. Both kinds mean well but their perceptions are so colored by their own hatred or fear that they are not able to address the subject rationally.

The more time I spend with anti-gunners here, the more they reinforce my beliefs.

As I see the illogical statements from the anti-freedom wing of the Democratic Party, I am more convinced that the pro-freedom people are correct. If it were not for the NRA, I am convinced that people like John McCain and Diane Feinstein would have succeeded in rendering the citizenry defenseless against attack from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The "debates" here have shown how little substance there is to the pro gun control argument after all the rhetoric and logical fallacies they put forth are removed.

Their arguments are just that - arguments devoid of factual background or intellectual consistency. They fabricate quotes as evidence or cite obviously biases sources and claim we should accept this as gospel.

They've obviouly failed to read the ENTIRE second ammendment and refuse to let anyone read it to them.

I find it ironic that you would make such a comment as a generality; no specifics at all. I've found that you personally are not forthcoming with information when pressed for details.

Every criticism you have stated here could just as easily apply to the people who argue most fervently either way. The Violence Policy Center is every bit as much of a one-sided propaganda machine as the NRA.

BTW - As I think about this more and more I wonder if you even are aware of the irony of your use of the term "gun lovers" as a perjorative. A few extremists have tried to couple being pro-RKBA with espousing racial prejudice. Of course it's a shallow attempt at guilt by association, but the hypocrisy of a name-caller trying to demonize an arbitrary group of people is self-evident.

I don't love guns any more than I love garden tools. I do value the freedom to own them, as I value other basic civil rights.

"I've found that you personally are not forthcoming with information when pressed for details."

Please define "gun lovers".

On edit: 15 minutes later and no reply. I have to sign off for a while now.

than hang around hoping you'd respond to my post.

I think "gun lovers" is self descriptive - but I'll define it anyone who loves guns more than safety and security.

(and please - don't bother responding with Ben Franklin quote about 'those who love blah blah blah more than blah blah blah' - if that quote hasn't been debunked its still irrelevant to our situation today.

and I suspect it wasn't a mystery to many others...

I have to strongly disagree with you about Benjamin Franklin's irrelevancy to today for a number of reasons, not the least of which are his accomplishments with survive to today. I do not you can so easily debunk the man who gave us libraries, fire companies, and bi-focal glasses. In fact, if my childhood home had employed one of Franklin's lightning rods, it would not have burned to a total loss before the arrival of firefighters. My parents read using bifocals and I'm going to need them soon, and of course all of us have been to a library.

Of all of the figures from the revolutionary period Franklin stands as the one who has most influenced modern society and technology. One cannot simply pooh-pooh his words just because you don't like them. Better to explain why this particular quote is irrelevant today while so much of Poor Richard's Almanack remains relevant, to say nothing about his accomplisments which are an intergal part of our daily lives.

``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

It's just that it's so often misquoted and misrepresented, isn't it?

You got it right, to the extent that a definitive version is available (I add emphasis to the bits that are usually omitted by so many who like to cite Franklin as authority for their positions):

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's just a restatement of the eternal conundrum: freedom or security? And I'd add a corollary: "They that can give up essential safety for others to obtain a little temporary liberty for themselves deserve neither liberty nor safety." Security *is* as essential in human life as liberty, and some freedoms *are* as little and temporary as some kinds of safety.

Is there ever freedom without security, and is there security without freedom?

Nope. People who live under constant threat to their security cannot exercise their freedom, and people who are denied freedom will never have security. And yet providing a minimum of security will always infringe some freedom of someone's, and the exercise of freedom will always diminish some aspect of someone's security.

It's a balancing act, always. All Franklin has done, in fact, is state the problem. His opinion about what liberty is "essential" and what safety is "little" and "temporary" (which we never seem to see, anyway) would be no more authoritative than anyone else's. And it would not likely be of any relevance in this century, since what has to be balanced includes the effects of a denial of a freedom or loss of security, and nobody from the 18th century is any authority on what they would be in our world.

If you ask Google for "human security" you can get an idea of what modern thinking is on this point, and how security may just be recognized, rather widely, as a little more important than old Ben and his colleagues may have thought. After all -- they, the rich white guys doing all that talking, had security.

They weren't kids living in rural Africa in constant fear of being abducted by paramilitaries (and forced to engage in combat, and often mutilated or killed), and having to walk 5 miles each night to a village where they can sleep in relative safety, and then walk 5 miles home again every morning. They didn't ever wonder where their next meal was coming from. They had access to the finest 18th century medical treatment. They had fine houses to keep the rain out. And they didn't wonder, every time their kids left the house in their violence-plagued neighbourhood, whether they'd get hit by a stray bullet and killed.

So their opinion as to what liberty is worth giving up in return for safety might not even have been shared by people in their own time who did have some of those worries, and might not be shared by people today who have those worries and others. It really can be pretty hard to get excited about freedom of the press when you're homeless and hungry and victimized. And Franklin's opinion of what homeless, hungry, victimized people "deserve" (even if we knew it) might just not matter to them, or to me.

http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/

http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/about/Establishment.html

Adversities such as conflict, poverty, infectious diseases and human rights violations threaten the survival and dignity of millions of people today. Communities and individuals are unevenly affected by the challenges of globalization. These problems are not adequately addressed by conventional approaches alone. The UN Secretary-General has called the world community to advance the twin goals of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear". A new human-centered approach has to be developed if these issues are to be addressed in an effective and comprehensive way.

As a contribution to this effort, the Commission on Human Security (CHS) was established with the initiative of the Government of Japan. It is co-chaired by Mrs. Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees and Professor Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. It benefits from the participation of ten distinguished Commissioners from around the world.

The goals of the CHS are:

1.to promote public understanding, engagement and support of human security and its underlying imperatives;

2.to develop the concept of human security as an operational tool for policy formulation and implementation; and

3.to propose a concrete program of action to address critical and pervasive threats to human security.

...

In the note accompanying its "Links" link, that site says:

... human security is a comprehensive idea covering wide range of issues from conflict, and develoopment to financial crisis and social safety net ... .

We at our comfortable keyboards are kinda the Ben Franklins of the world. It's pretty easy for us to whinge about liberty when we don't have to worry much about our security.

But we simply don't get to resolve the conundrum that was only half stated by Ben Franklin for people who don't have our security.

If I had any confidence that the "RKBA" fans were as concerned about others' security as they are about their own liberty (or heck, vice versa), I'd find the discussion a little more worthwhile.

.

We at our comfortable keyboards are kinda the Ben Franklins of the world. It's pretty easy for us to whinge about liberty when we don't have to worry much about our security.

I consider electronic fora to be the modern equivalent of the Federalist Papers. The positions of the Federalists and Anti-Federalist were published in the various newpapers of the day. They were for public consumption, and often the authors wrote under pseudonyms. I think you are right that we have some things in common with the people who lived during the revolutionary period. For one thing our information revolution is almost a repeat of history with the printing revolution that occured during the late 1700s. England put steep taxes on books and india ink, and once there were enough presses and paper manufacturers in the colonies there was an explosion of media and opinions.

I wrote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You replied: "They that can give up essential safety for others to obtain a little temporary liberty for themselves deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I am not sure I would call your statement here a correlary of Franklin's quotation. If anything, it is almost the complete opposite in meaning to what Franklin wrote, beliving that liberty is essential and safety is temporary.

Consider the so-called Patriot Act being enfoced by Ashcroft's Justice Department. The liberties lost through the execution of the unPatriotic Act are significant when compared with the temporary and limited saftey it represents. It violates the privacy and freedom of us all, allowing secret tribunals and secret searches (among other atrocious things) but the saftey it will buy at the price of our liberty is questionable at best, and a false sense of saftey at worst.

If you take the meaning of your correlary and apply it to the unPatriotic Act then it would seem to me you would believe the essential safety purchased at the cost of our temporary liberty would be worth the price. Since so few people on this forum would agree with this law, may I assume that you also oppose it? If you do oppose it, then my assessment would be that liberties are essential, and saftey is something of a lesser value. I oppose it as well, and hope that you would stand with me in protecting liberty even if we have decided not to purchase some temporary and limited measure of saftey with it.

And this was my whole point.

Franklin did not say (hey, *you* didn't write it!):

"They that can give up liberty, which is essential, to obtain safety, which is little and temporary, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

He wrote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The reasonable conclusion is that he was referring to liberty which is essential as distinct from liberty which is not essential, and safety which is little and temporary as distinct from safety which is significant and lasting.

So I don't think it is at all justified to say that Franklin believed, or was saying, "that liberty is essential and safety is temporary". In fact, I think that this is a complete misreading, and that was my point. Obviously, Franklin did assign importance to security; it would be ludicrous to think that he did not.

That 2nd amendment of yours itself assumes the importance of security: "the security of a free state". The security and freedom to which it refers are collective -- the security and freedom of the state (the organized manifestation of "the people") qua state. Secure as in safe from harm, free as in at liberty to determine its own destiny and what it will do in that pursuit. Why would we imagine that the security of persons is any less important?


"If you take the meaning of your correlary and apply it to the unPatriotic Act then it would seem to me you would believe the essential safety purchased at the cost of our temporary liberty would be worth the price."

Absolutely not. What you have done is take the question I posed and put an answer in my mouth. I said that a balancing act was always required. I did NOT offer an opinion as to which way the scales tip in any particular instance.

"Since so few people on this forum would agree with this law, may I assume that you also oppose it?"

Frankly, I don't know the details of it. I have seen descriptions of some things that have happened under it, and my impression is that those are not good things. We have a counterpart here, and it was debated at length and within the same framework as yours: liberty vs. security. You might be interested in what one prominent civil libertarian (and also member of Parliament) had to say on it:
http://www.cdp-hrc.uottawa.ca/globalization/cotler.html
(When I say "counterpart", I don't mean that it is the same; I mean that it was designed to address the same issues.)

Those issues have probably been debated longer here than where you are. Canada *has* experienced both terrorism and the deprivation of liberty imposed in response: the FLQ crisis of 1971 (kidnappings, murder, bombings ...) and the imposition of the War Measures Act (emergency powers) by the great civil libertarian Pierre Trudeau, and the violations of civil liberties under that Act.

In that article, Cotler starts by saying:

Bill C-36, the proposed antiterrorism bill, is now before our
Commons justice and human-rights committee. Alas, both
political and public discussion of this bill has been beset by
conventional wisdom. But these are unconventional, even
extraordinary, times.

Ah, aren't they all? And isn't that the usual justification for violations of liberties by people who claim to support liberty? But -- are there not possibly some genuinely extraordinary times, and genuinely freedom-loving people who have good grounds for saying that the threat to security in those times truly is so great that liberty itself is in jeopardy?

It's time to think outside the box -- to consider Bill C-36 in terms
of a perspective anchored in the notion of human security (a
people-centred rather than state-centred approach). The UN has
declared that terrorism constitutes a fundamental assault on
human rights, international peace and security. Counterterrorism
law involves the protection of the most fundamental of rights: the
right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.

I'm *not* saying that I agree completely with Cotler's conclusions -- I'm saying that he is asking the questions that need to be asked. Agreement on the questions really is a prerequisite for any discussion of answers. In Cotler's case, there is a bias (that I won't go into) that to my mind counters some of his civil-liberties credentials, i.e. undermines his authority on this question when it comes to his answers.

Admittedly, Bill C-36 is extraordinary legislation -- unprecedented,
both for Canada and the UN Security Council. But the terrorist
threat is also unprecedented. This existential threat gives rise to
the final justificatory principle underpinning the legislation (and
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to which it is
accountable): the proportionality principle of just means to just
ends.

And that, again, is my point. Proportionality. Which is exactly what it seems to me was Franklin's point. And I think that your "assessment ... that liberties are essential, and saftey is something of a lesser value" is not an accurate assessment of what he said, or a reflection of how most people would state the matter.

Both freedom and security are essential to the ability of individuals to live their lives. An individual in a prison cell with three daily meals is secure, but not free, and not happy. But neither is an individual with complete freedom to say what s/he wants but nothing to eat happy. You know: the pursuit of happiness. What it's all about. Life (safety) + liberty (freedom). When you have *both* of them, you can go about that pursuit. Without *either* of them, you can't.

Keep in mind that the modern concept of "security" is broader than just Franklin's "safety". To the extent that he ignored things that we consider important, i.e. if we interpret "safety" as meaning "freedom from fear" but not "freedom from want", what he was actually doing was creating a false dichotomy.

And that's really what the Patriot Act does too. It focuses on people's desire for "freedom from fear" -- safety -- and sets it up against the desire for "freedom". It exploits the temporary, if not little, fear, and it offers a little temporary safety in return for relinquishment of freedom. There I agree with you: "the safety it will buy at the price of our liberty is questionable at best, and a false sense of saftey at worst." Because it isn't really designed to buy safety at all. It is designed to buy back freedom, at a bargain.

That doesn't mean that there can't be policies that *are* designed to buy true security, freedom from both want and fear, at a cost in liberty that is a fair price. In fact, we do it all the time. That's exactly what public policies, laws, that restrict anyone's ability to do anything, do.

Denying that fact amounts to saying "my freedom trumps your security in all instances", and that just isn't true, as a matter of how things actually are done, apart from being contrary to most people's beliefs about how things should be done.

And, getting back to our muttons, that's what most of the "RKBA" rhetoric sounds like to me. "I win because I win". If you'll forgive the generalization, it's an attitude that I find common in discussions with USAmericans about matters in which there is a freedom/security conflict. Another example is hate speech: my freedom of speech interests trump your security from fear and violence interests.

The discourse is too often framed as if Franklin had really said that liberty trumps safety every time. I don't think he did mean that -- and if he did mean that, I don't care. He'd just be one more person who never had to worry about want or fear telling others who experienced want and fear daily that his interests trumped theirs.

What the Patriot Act is, it seems, is rich white guys saying that their version of "want" (threats to profits) and "fear" (the possibility of losing power) trumps their opponents' liberty interests -- and manipulating their real opponents (ordinary people whose security interests -- freedom from both fear and want -- they have no interest in protecting and are the real threat to) into supporting them by exploiting the people's own fear about their safety, which is not what the law is designed to protect at all. They've got their thumbs on the scale, I'd say.

And, you guessed it, that's exactly how I see the "RKBA" discourse.

.

Ah, didn't know you were Canadian.

Frankly, I don't know the details of it. I have seen descriptions of some things that have happened under it, and my impression is that those are not good things.

They're not, in my opinion, good things at all. It goes a long way to not only changing standards of evidence but what many of us yanks consider traditional standards government officials should be held to during criminal procedues. When combined with new efforts in our drug prohibition program (a connection made by several high-ranking government officials) then you have something which would make a civil libertarian blanche.

Now, I didn't want to put words into your mouth, but I do believe you came up with a sentence with opposite in meaning to the Franklin quote. I do know people who would agree with it, and I am willing to concede some areas where you may be right, but I would not call it a correlary to Franklin's statement. This would seem to me to be a stretch.

And that's really what the Patriot Act does too. It focuses on people's desire for "freedom from fear" -- safety -- and sets it up against the desire for "freedom". It exploits the temporary, if not little, fear, and it offers a little temporary safety in return for relinquishment of freedom. There I agree with you: "the safety it will buy at the price of our liberty is questionable at best, and a false sense of saftey at worst." Because it isn't really designed to buy safety at all. It is designed to buy back freedom, at a bargain.

I believe the design is clearly to purchase safety at the cost of liberty because it gives the government new standards of evidence, new definitions of probable cause, new methods for seeking out the criminal. I wholeheartedly agree that it was sold on fear, fear of terrorism, fear of death, and in my opinion it would not have been possible without the hijackings to hold up as something to fear.

But I have to wonder, does it really buy freedom as you suggest. Now without getting into a semantical argument over a supposed 'freedom from terrorism' or some such let me say that here in the U.S. the so-called Patriot Act is already being applied in non-terrorism capacities. Several high-ranking law enforcement officials have stated that if they have these legal tools, why should they not use them to combat domestic crimes such as murder and drug trafficing. This is why I say the Patriot Act didn't buy back freedom for anyone. It was sold to alievate fear, promised to be effective at combating terrorism to make people feel safe. I have to ask in the practical sense are we really safer than we were before the passage of the Patriot Act, and what has it done to tradional concepts of due process and the rights of the accused, the right of people to be secure in their persons and effects? I believe any benefit is debatable, but the cost to the liberty of the citizen is not.

Now, when it comes to the right to the ownership of firearms I see that many (but not all) arguments against such a right are likewise based on fear. Fear of guns, fear of what happens due to them, and a certian lack of positive things surrounding them, if such things exist in the first place. And furthermore I believe the practical benefits of such policies are also questionable, do they really make people safer, or do they only provide the illusion of safety.

"But I have to wonder, does it really buy freedom as you suggest"

I wasn't clear. When I said "buy back" freedom, I meant "buy the people's freedom back from them" -- at a bargain price: promises of safety. I was agreeing with you that the consideration (value) given, in return for the cost in freedom, was a bad deal for those whose freedom was being purchased.

The Canadian legislation contains some elements very inimical to freedom (like secret evidence), but nowhere near what the Patriot Act does, as I understand it.

So Cotler's argument is that the price paid under the Canadian legislation is a fair bargain for the value received.

Just as prohibiting speeding and punishing speeders is a fair price in liberty for the public safety that it is believed is obtained in return.


"I believe any benefit is debatable, but the cost to the liberty of the citizen is not."

But it is conceivable that there would be a benefit that was sufficiently great that this cost would be justifiable. We may not be able to conceive of one just now, but it's theoretically possible that refusing to give up that amount of liberty would result in a complete loss of security, to the point that life was impossible to live -- literally. If there really were bombs going off hourly and planes flying into buildings daily, those kinds of deprivations of liberty might really be essential.


"Now, when it comes to the right to the ownership of firearms I see that many (but not all) arguments against such a right are likewise based on fear. Fear of guns, fear of what happens due to them, and a certian lack of positive things surrounding them, if such things exist in the first place."

Well, you see, I see the parallel as being on the other side. And the "fear" you see, I see as a valid assessment of the situation and a true loss of security.

Fear of burglars, fear of rapists, fear of looters and rioters, fear of tyrannical governments. Those things are no more real or serious threats to people's security in the US than bin Laden is. But people are manipulated into believing that the threat is huge and imminent, that they must arm themselves against it. So they are conned into relinquishing their essential security in return for a little temporary freedom.

Possessing firearms may offer a little, temporary safety, but in most cases it simply offers the illusion of safety against whatever threat to it may exist; it completely fails to provide significant, lasting safety and in fact is inimical to it. Widespread and unregulated firearms possession is a threat to that security, not a guarantee of it.

The Patriot Act offers a little false security in return for a high price in freedom. Relinquishing that freedom does not buy genuine security. Widespread and unregulated firearms possession offers a little false freedom in return for a high price in security. Relinquishing that security does not buy genuine freedom, either.

Both the safety offered by the Patriot Act and the freedom offered by the "RKBA" are illusions. Real safety *cannot* exist without the freedoms that the Patriot Act abrogates, in the present circumstances. And real freedom cannot exist without the security that widespread, unregulated possession of firearms makes impossible, in the present circumstances.

A society could have legislation like the Patriot Act and be in no danger at all of losing its essential freedom, if the violations it permitted were not committed for any purpose other than to genuinely protect it when such protection was genuinely necessary. That is not the case in our circumstances. And a society could permit widespread, unregulated possession of firearms and be in no danger at all of losing its essential security, if the firearms were not used to cause harm. That may have been the case in the circumstances of the 18th century, but it is not the case now.

The Patriot Act is allegedly intended to protect security, but in application it results in loss of freedom. The "RKBA" in its absolute form may be allegedly intended to protect freedom, but in application it results in loss of security. The loss in both cases is to great to be tolerable.

Obviously, the Patriot Act is also supposedly intended to protect freedom -- the freedom that people would not have if the terrorists won. Just as the "RKBA" is also supposedly intended to protect security -- the security that people would not have if they could not defend against criminals. Again, not only is the protection in both cases illusory, both measures are in fact inimical to those stated aims because of the extent to which the first denies freedom in the cause of protecting freedom, and the second diminishes security in the cause of enhancing security.

.

.

Obviously, the Patriot Act is also supposedly intended to protect freedom -- the freedom that people would not have if the terrorists won. Just as the "RKBA" is also supposedly intended to protect security -- the security that people would not have if they could not defend against criminals. Again, not only is the protection in both cases illusory, both measures are in fact inimical to those stated aims because of the extent to which the first denies freedom in the cause of protecting freedom, and the second diminishes security in the cause of enhancing security.

I guess we've reached the point where we have to agree to disagree.

I would say that 'gun control' is supposedly intended to protect security at the expense of liberty, but has questionable effectiveness and negative unintended consequences.

...but I'll define it anyone who loves guns more than safety and security.

Please name a few people who you think that describes accurately. I'm frankly questioning whether such a person exists, and suspect that you are waxing Quixotic against a faceless non-existent Bogeyman.

I think you have created a fallacy, specifically false dichotomy. I don't know anyone who loves guns any more than a car collector loves cars, and there is no reason that a person cannot both enjoy collecting and owning guns, thinking that it's OK to do that, and somehow value safety and security less.

BTW how do you measure the extent to which a person loves guns? How do you measure the extent to which a person values safety or security? You've made a comparison of two quantities. What are the units of measure you would employ, and what instruments measure these things?

It seems a bit odd to me that you are talking about quantifying ideas that are inside of other peoples' heads. Do you consider yourself able to read other peoples' minds? Your definition of "gun lovers" seems highly subjective, which does not square well with your criticism of gun lovers as people as using "...arguments devoid of factual background or intellectual consistency."

How do you measure the degree to which a person other than yourself "loves" one thing or another?

I'm trying to get you to express your definition of "gun lovers", those people you have accused of having little substance, of using "...arguments devoid of factual background or intellectual consistency", in rational terms.

I get the impression that you believe there is a group of people out there that you disagree with and perhaps do not like, but you haven't explained your position very well. What observable behavior characterizes these shadowy souls, and why are you having so much trouble casting your position in concrete terms?

:shrug:

Those who feel a gun can provide safety and security? Does gun lover include those who love safety and security and feel that a gun hightens their safety and security?

I love safety and security a lot. I believe that (especially since I live alone) having a gun available for self-protection enhances my safety and my security, while doing no harm to anyone else's safety or security.

at least when they're in my capable hands.

My house would be less safe and secure without guns in it.

Does that make me a "gun lover"?

nt

And let's not forget the sort of people they've joined WITH to push their phony agenda.

"devoid of factual background or intellectual consistency. They fabricate quotes as evidence or cite obviously biases sources and claim we should accept this as gospel."???
If it is could you PLEASE SHOW ME!
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/guns/emerson.htm

:hi:

I'll just counter with cites from the 9th cir.

If the gun lovers really belived what they've been spewing, they'd already have a case before the US Sup Court.

I can't wait to get a clear ruling and end this verbal sparring forever. How much progress would we have made on liberal issues if we hadn't spent all this time arguing that "well regulated militia" didn't mean "well regulated militia?"

How much progress would we have made on liberal issues if we hadn't spent all this time arguing that "well regulated militia" didn't mean "well regulated militia?"

How much time wasted, indeed.

http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Qoutes the SCOTUS ruling from US v Miller, which found that a weapon that did not have a military use was not protected by the 2nd. This would imply that military arms ARE protected by the 2nd. This would lead to the conclusion that the 1994 AWB that prohibits firearms based on features that would make them more useful to the military is Uncostitutional.
You should also read the dissenting opinion on the 9th Circuit court ruling. It goes along with the Fifth Circuit Court ruling.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/EnBancOrder.pdf

the NRA could sue and knock down the ban...but they haven't gone near a courtroom.

For that matter, if their "individual rights" horseshit was remotely true, they could have every gun control law in the country overturned tonight.

But it's horseshit pure and simple....and that's why the dishonest scum don't go near a courtroom to sue on Second Amendment grounds...

The fact that the NRA has not sued proves NOTHING about the 2nd. It probably DOES prove that the NRA is self serving and if they did sue and win, how could they then justify thier existence??
I think they are more afraid of sueing and winning then sueing and losing.

BTW I still have yet to see a refutation of the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit Court ruling. So who is peddelling crap??
:hi:

Hahahahahahahaha
:shrug: ok, if you say so!

but I did offer my opinion of one reason.
The assertion that the NRA won't sue because they are afraid to lose has no bearing on whether or not the 2nd guarantees an individual or collective right.

"The fact that the NRA has not sued proves NOTHING about the 2nd."
It proves the NRA knows the differencce between what the Second Amendment really says and the lies they tell their inbred clot of dimwits.

"So who is peddelling crap??"
The RKBA crowd, as usual.

It proves the NRA knows the differencce between what the Second Amendment really says and the lies they tell their inbred clot of dimwits.
Can you prove this statement???

:freak:

Otherwise they'd put their money where their ugly mouth is.

The NRA's good fortune is that in catering to the most ignorant and extremist clot of rubes in America, they've got a knot of followers whose brains long ago stopped working.

If the gun lovers really belived what they've been spewing, they'd already have a case before the US Sup Court.

The NRA. Not just the NRA but all other lobbying groups like VPC and HCI. Do you think they are gonna make money if the SCOTUS rules on the issue? Who would toss them their hard earned money if there was no need to?

you just said it in a different way.
:toast:

Their arguments are just that - arguments devoid of factual background or intellectual consistency. They fabricate quotes as evidence or cite obviously biases sources and claim we should accept this as gospel. This reminds me of a certain poster that i have on ignore but at last check he wasnt a "gun lover" :-)

I havent taken part in many of the issues here so far.

But, I have protection for my family.
It is a weapon designed for one thing only.
No pussy-footing around with "sporting" issues.
It is designed to do it's job with great accuracy, and I'm glad to be able to have it legally.

I'll leave the debates to people who get something from doing so.
I have no intention of committing crimes with said weapon.
Said weapon could do great harm in the hands of the wrong person though.

With the breakdown of basic civility in our society, I plan on protecting me and my own. Someone kicks in the door at 3 AM, the cops won't be there to help.

Likely as not it will BE the cops, e.g. a drug raid at the wrong address.

Welcome to the Dungeon BTW!

:toast:

MAYBE the cops.

But we've had a new phenomenon around here.
The home "invasion".
People busting in, tying the occupants up, and robbing them.
A few have been beaten.
And soon, you will hear that someone was killed in the process.

As for the cops busting in. I can just see it now, halogen tac-lites shining in both directions. My red-dot, their lasers. Oh, the irony.

Edit: I may get banned for disagreeing with a 1000 poster up in GD, so if I do, it was nice knowing you.

Your post sounds like you are threatening the police with an armed attack - but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way

Someone busts down my door at 3 AM, I'm protecting my family.

Yes, you see, what I was stating about the cops was called IRONY.

In that the cops would make their presence known before anything like that happened.

If the police had made their presence known why would you be shining your "red dot" at them?
Interesting how you have even considered the possiblity that you would be in an armed stand off with the police. That thought has never even entered my mind.

If the police had made their presence known why would you be shining your "red dot" at them?
Interesting how you have even considered the possiblity that you would be in an armed stand off with the police. That thought has never even entered my mind.

I have a gun.
I don't commit crimes with said gun.
Said gun is legal.

So far, it's still legal to have said gun.

Interesting how you have even considered the possiblity that you would be in an armed stand off with the police. That thought has never even entered my mind.

And why would the thought of being in any sort of 'armed stand off' occur to anyone so vehemently opposed to private weapon ownership?



The sad fact is that the cops have ended up shooting the wrong person dead after kicking the door on the wrong house. When someone enters your home by force, the constitute a threat to the safety of those inside. If those people be the poilce, the threat is just as real - perhaps even more so because they are reasonably well armed and have already made the decision to use deadly force at the first sign of armed resistance. A 'criminal' invader is just as likely to turn tail and run when confronted with such resistance.

That concern has always been in the back of my mind when debating the merits of no-knock warrants. (Fortunately, it's not really a personal concern. The local police know my house pretty well.) But if I lived anonymously, in the wrong neighborhood, it would be a concern.

added to my set of facts supporting RKBA.


AND DAMM PROUD OF IT!

I've bought 4 more guns and joined 2 groups with ardently pro-gun agendas:

Ducks Unlimited
National Wild Turkey Federation

So, I guess you can say, I'm more pro-RKBA, if that's possible.

I still wake up in the morning and oil my gun in the hopes that i MIGHT get to shoot someone with it. ;-)

all kinds of fucked up. Something wrong with the code?

I look good, though, so it's not all bad! :evilgrin:

I sent one that shows how some posters here might envision me
:hi:

soon.

I was always under the impression that the vast majority of Democrats were ardently pro-control. From the posts that draw participants in from GD, it's obvious that a substantial minority or perhaps even half of the folks that post at DU are anti-control or at least acknowledge an individual RKBA. The majority of the remainder are lukewarm on the subject at best. The really stringent pro-control folks like Mr. B are a pretty small minority. That gives me much hope that gun control isn't going to get any traction any time soon.

Otherwise, the J/PS forum is pretty useless as a form of debate. Between the freeper insurgents, all the bile and venom, the intellectual dishonesty, the prevarications and personal attacks, J/PS is more of a catfight than a discussion.

...Between the freeper insurgents, all the bile and venom, the intellectual dishonesty, the prevarications and personal attacks, J/PS is more of a catfight than a discussion.

Truer words have never been posted in the Dungeon.

Otherwise, the J/PS forum is pretty useless as a form of debate. Between the freeper insurgents, all the bile and venom, the intellectual dishonesty, the prevarications and personal attacks, J/PS is more of a catfight than a discussion.

You got this part right, but there are many more Dems that are pro-control than those that want every school kid to have an assault gun in their lunchpail. I think the extremists are over represented here - just take a look at all the posters with less than 25 posts who get tombstoned.

You've just provided a perfect example of one:

"...those that want every school kid to have an assault gun in their lunchpail...."

Nobody on DU has ever expressed a desire to see that happen.

I'd appreciate it if you and other gun control supporters would make a little more effort to keep the debate on a rational level. I understand you mean that as some kind of hyperbolic sarcasm, but it really contributes nothing to a serious discussion of the real issues.

Is that asking too much of you?

Who was it that posted that they bought a rifle for a baby's christening? Now the child shoots it - but she's still so tiny she has to fire while propped up in her mother's lap.

How about this - Let's not give children firearms until they are big enough to hold them without help. Is that asking too much?

I'll take your word someone actually wrote those on a DU forum.

Has it occurred to you those posts might have been intended as something other than a serious suggestion for public policy?

Its still on the wall. How bout we dont let the kid shoot the gun unsupervised until he is old enough. Thats not asking too much.

of de-mystifying things.

She knows she can touch a gun, but only when her parents are present. Of course, they keep their guns locked up in a safe, but as she gets older, there's less of an incentive for her (or their son) to go out trying to figure out how to gain access to "forbidden fruit".

"Let's not give children firearms until they are big enough to hold them without help. Is that asking too much?"

It depends on your definition of "give." I bought my 11-month-old son a youth rifle shortly after he was born. (It's a single shot, bolt-action .22LR.) Of course, he won't shoot it for years. The exact age will depend on his maturity, which I can't judge in advance. Apart from the occasional cleaning, the rifle will sit in the safe until then. After that, he will only shoot it under close supervision.

I assume you mean those that are totally anti-control. I'd say you're correct in that; in my original post I made the statement that perhaps half were either anti-control or for some controls while acknowledging an RKBA. I would certainly agree that there are more Dems who favor some controls than those that favor no controls. I also pointed out the high number of freeper insurgents, covering those who are quickly tombstoned. So I'd say I got the whole thing right.

But the "assault gun in their lunchpail" comment is an example of the problem. No one here is advocating that children should have weapons in their lunchbox. I know you meant this as an exaggeration to illustrate a point, but it's an excellent example of part of the problem. Certain elements on the pro-control side tend to think that those arguing a pro-gun position are morons, knuckle-draggers, small-penis-compensators, mentally deranged, consumed with fear, etc, etc. That's simply not the case. I'm pro-gun as they come and am a perfectly upstanding citizen and Democrat; I'm a veteran, attend one of the top public universities in the country, and have a lovely GF who's pursuing a doctoral degree at Harvard. I go to Phish shows and like to cook. I'm a perfectly normal guy who happens to have several "assault guns" in the closet. But to listen to the pro-control folks on this board, I'm a wild-eyed racist lunatic right wing nut who's hung like a rabbit and who advocates arming children. That pisses me off.

Now, those on the pro-gun side, and I myself have been guilty of this, equate pro-control arguments with childish ignorance, positions arrived at through indoctrination, elitism and, again, unreasoned fear. That pisses others off.

Many seem unable to acknowledge that there are two relevant positions here, both of which can be argued forcefully, and there are supporters of each that are intelligent and thoughtful. Those folks who always find it necessary to sling feces dominate this forum, making it inhospitable to those who are less partisan. Until this changes, the J/PS forum won't really be worth a damn.

;-)
Leanings, you're spot on mate!
:toast:

"Many seem unable to acknowledge that there are two relevant positions here, both of which can be argued forcefully, and there are supporters of each that are intelligent and thoughtful. Those folks who always find it necessary to sling feces dominate this forum, making it inhospitable to those who are less partisan. Until this changes, the J/PS forum won't really be worth a damn."

Very well said. I also cook, listen to jazz, love theatre, and have a degree from Harvard. But I also have "scary-looking semiautomatic rifles" (in a safe) in the closet and (legally) carry a handgun on a daily basis. Stereotypes just don't cut it, from either side.

I think if we all tone down the rhetoric a bit, people like iverglas, among others, are obviously capable of intelligent debate.

but there are many more Dems that are pro-control than those that want every school kid to have an assault gun in their lunchpail. I would be willing to bet that there are more pro-control dems that want kids to have an assault weapon in their lunch box than gun owning dems. Why you ask? Because the pro-controlers like to see a kid at school with a gun or a school shooting. Why you ask again? They like to try and use something like a school shooting or a gang related shooting to further their cause of keeping guns out of everyones hands.

just take a look at all the posters with less than 25 posts who get tombstoned. I think thats what he meant when he said freeper insurgents.

choking on the fart I just ripped.

swing voters to understand that the Democratic Party supports the inalienable right to defend self and property and firearms are the most effective and efficient tool for the job.

"I was always under the impression that the vast majority of Democrats were ardently pro-control."

And I used to believe that Democrats believed in equality rights. And in providing for people's basic human security needs -- things like decent medical care and income supports for those in need. And women's reproductive rights. And the right to life (for real people) and humane treatment of everyone. And taking responsibility for their country's actions on the global stage. And a bunch of other stuff.

And yet here I have seen people opposed to equal treatment for gay men and lesbians and opposed to levelling the playing field for African Americans, people opposed to universal health care and social assistance for those in need, opposed to reproductive freedom of choice, in favour of capital punishment (and prone to saying that sex offenders should be exposed to violence from fellow prisoners and children should be treated like criminals), and opposed to taking responsibility for what is happening in Iraq, and a bunch of other stuff.

Where I come from (and in most of the rest of the world), a whole lot of what's said on this board would place the speakers decisively on the right of centre (whatever "centre" is ...). Sometimes I just can't figure out why it is that some people want to get rid of George W. Bush at all, even though that's about the only common thread I've been able to discern.

So I'm not surprised that your perception would be that "a substantial minority or perhaps even half of the folks that post at DU are anti-control or at least acknowledge <sic> an individual RKBA".

Whether either of our perceptions is accurate when it comes to the rank and file of the Democratic Party, or the larger numbers of people who vote for it, I don't know. Perhaps your earlier "impression that the vast majority of Democrats were ardently pro-control" is actually the correct one, and my earlier assumptions were more accurate than what I would conclude if I considered only what I see here. I can only hope.

.

I don't think that the vast majority of Democrats are ardently pro-control. I do think that the vast majority of Democratic activists and elected officials are ardently pro-control, however, and it has become a wedge issue with blue-collar and southern Democrats. Gun control is a non-starter here in Norwood, where both Democrats and Republicans proudly proclaim their NRA membership on their campaign literature. But this is also very much an old union town, with a large number of transplanted southerners. Norwood used to be home to a GM assembly plant which closed in 1987 and moved to California.

In case, you're interested, I'm pro-choice, in favor of equal treatment for gay men and lesbians -- particularly with respect to the economic and legal benefits of marriage -- in favor of a level playing field, opposed to capital punishment, and opposed to violence against prisoners. I am, however, opposed to federalizing health care any more than it already is, and I am a strong supporter of the RKBA. So, I don't know how that measures up: 5 for 7?

regardless of the rest of your positions, you must be a Freeper type according to some here.

you're probably right. I might as well go buy a pickup, install a gun rack, pick up a case of cheap beer, head down to Kentucky and shoot up some mailboxes. :eyes:

Nothing I've read on J/PS either as a lurker or as an occasional participant has done anything but strengthen my determination to fight for every civil liberty, not just those of which the ACLU is fond. I am always open to persuasion on important issues, but it's tough to have a reasonable debate when the parties disagree on the most basic principles.

And I have to agree with slackmaster's assessment of most ardent RKBA opponents.

Blanket accusations of racism, refusal to accept factual historical events and concepts and blatant misrepresentation of statistical records is clear evidence to me that the anti crowd has nothing that supports any justification for the incremental revocation of our rights as citizens.

If anything my belief in the RKBA has strengthened through all the research I've done and seen that refutes almost every argument presented by the opposition.

There is no clear cut answer to this issue, but as with any issue, one must decide the best course of action based on precedence and fact.

I was pro gun control until about 1994/1995.

Thats when gun control peaked and the Clinton/Gore gun grab began.

At the beginning I supported the effort however the more I looked into it the less it made sense to to me.

Then when I saw the staggering losses the Democratic party took due to their attack on guns I started to swing to the pro gun side.

Over the years, I've become more and more pro 2nd ammendment...Both as an intrinsic belief and as I watch the damage that ant-gunners continual to inflict on the party.

As for the forum, it helps solidify my beliefs. When I visit here Im almost suprised at how thin the antigun arguments are. Indeed most anti-gun arguments are generally just insults shrouded in a veneer of self-righteonous.

Interestinly, I've only got one person on my ignore list and thats a troll to this forum. He's on my ignore list because his posts never contribute anything of value, and is almost always a baseless anti-gun insult.

and can see exactly what you are talking about.
There seems to be a very busy troll who is doing nothing more than glorfied cut-n-paste.

I just don't see the other side of the arguement. People here are law abiding citizens concerned with safety, protection, and the love of shooting.
The closest I can come to agreeing with the anti-crowd is the "Columbine issue". Sure, if those kids hadn't had access to certain weaponry...... etc.
But quite frankly, that is a social issue. It's like saying that they would have killed far less people with a knife. Sure, but you aren't dealing with the sociatal factors that are the biggest part of why it happened.
I want my Gov't to protect my liberties, and keep the big powers from doing so much damge to the nation and the planet. I don't need them to save me from myself.
Hell, I sound conservative now. But maybe a relativistic and permissive social mindset is where the problem really lies?

I wouldn't even go that far.

Then when I saw the staggering losses the Democratic party took due to their attack on guns I started to swing to the pro gun side.

So you are saying you are willing to give up deeply held convictions because you are afraid you won't be on the popular side? Good thing you weren't asked to vote on woman's sufferage, the civil rights acts, capital punishment or the right to choose - oops, maybe you will be.

for taking a position advocating that women be disarmed (along with everybody else), so that they are left at the mercy of bigger, stronger men. I'm sure rape victims all over the country who have decided to be armed because they were attacked also thank you... :eyes:

..."Good thing you weren't asked to vote on woman's sufferage, the civil rights acts, capital punishment or the right to choose - oops, maybe you will be."

Looks like another Straw Man in the making.

this is just the same as the vote for women.
You see, guns are wrong, like racism is wrong.

Or something.
:nopity:

Guns are just inanimate pieces of steel.

They are not right, nor wrong. They just are.

"So you are saying you are willing to give up deeply held convictions "

No..thats just it...my antigun feelins were not convictions at all, just emotional reactions to the world around me.

When the carnage to Democratic party started piling up, it encouraged me to reexamine those emotions and I found that not only was I wrong, I was VERY wrong.

Now, my feelings on the civil right to bear arms IS a deeply held conviction.

I have always been an advocate of as much personal liberty and individual self-determination as can be tolerated without compromising the civil rights of others, IOW a staunch civil libertarian with a lower-case "l". (I have not considered joining the capital "L" Libertarians because they remind me too much of Republicans.)

I was content to stay out of gun politics until the California state legislature started actively creating new restrictions that affected my personal choices and those of other decent, tax-paying law-abiding citizens without any visible offsetting benefit in public safety. There aren't even mechanisms in place (with one minor exception) to track the effectiveness of these restrictions.

A few years later the federal government started getting on the mindless gun control bandwagon.

Laws that restrict choices but lack accountability for their supposed benefit are generally wrong and against the bedrock principles on which our society was founded.