Political Roundtable - Part VII

[Zonkerbl]

Pending drug charge was a misdemeanor so whatever.

My stance is it's perfectly legal to be a **** lunatic so no idiotic nibbling around the edges regulation is going to solve the problem. Ban guns. Full stop.

[dobrojim]

I understand mistrust of govt but the idea that we can never have any
regulation of almost any type of firearm due to the slippery slope
thesis is a idea that needs debunking almost as much as the idea
that the NRA is more concerned with the rights of individual gun
owners as opposed to profits of gun manufacturers. Let's be honest.
(Zonk's point of view notwithstanding)

One idea I would like to see enacted would be a requirement
for owners, like automobile owners, to maintain liability insurance.

welcome back Spence

[fishercob]

I understand mistrust of govt but the idea that we can never have any
regulation of almost any type of firearm due to the slippery slope
thesis is a idea that needs debunking almost as much as the idea
that the NRA is more concerned with the rights of individual gun
owners as opposed to profits of gun manufacturers. Let's be honest.
(Zonk's point of view notwithstanding)

One idea I would like to see enacted would be a requirement
for owners, like automobile owners, to maintain liability insurance.

welcome back Spence

I mean, sure. But all that's going to do is make legal gunowners get liability insurance. Illegal gunowners won't do anything and I don't think it will slow the proliferation of guns.

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

[dobrojim]

I agree that it would be unlikely to result in any drastic effects as far as violent deliberate crime
go. But it might of some use when it comes to accidental and/or spur of the moment stuff which
goes largely unnoticed but ends up being a hugely significant part of our 'gun problem'.

[JWizmentality]

The confederate flag is America's swastika. I've been saying this for years! Could you image if the Nazi symbol was flying over a government building in Germany?

[Wes_Tiny_Abe_]

Found great resonance with Sally Jenkins oped piece in Today's WaPost.

If you went to Germany and saw a war memorial with a Nazi flag flying over it, what would you think of those people? You might think they were unrepentant. You might think they were in a lingering state of denial about their national atrocities. The Confederate battle flag is an American swastika, the relic of traitors and totalitarians, symbol of a brutal regime, not a republic. The Confederacy was treason in defense of a still deeper crime against humanity: slavery. If weaklings find racial hatred to be a romantic expression of American strength and purity, make no mistake that it begins by unwinding a red thread from that flag.

All these folks that for so long have defended displays of the confederate battle flag on the
basis of "heritage" have been indulging themselves in a heaping dose of rationalization.
I understand why they would want to believe that but history is what it is, the south
seceded because they were threatened by the possibility that slavery would be forcibly
ended.

http://www.arlnow.com/2013/08/13/morning-poll-should-washington-lee-hs-be-renamed/

What will happen next?
A condo dwelling transplant yup demanding Washington-Lee high school's name get changed?
Wait a minute...
That already happened.
Washington-Lee.
A school that has existed for decades before that yup arrived here.
Typical gentrifier/transplant/yup sense of entitlement.

[TGW]

I understand mistrust of govt but the idea that we can never have any
regulation of almost any type of firearm due to the slippery slope
thesis is a idea that needs debunking almost as much as the idea
that the NRA is more concerned with the rights of individual gun
owners as opposed to profits of gun manufacturers. Let's be honest.
(Zonk's point of view notwithstanding)

One idea I would like to see enacted would be a requirement
for owners, like automobile owners, to maintain liability insurance.

welcome back Spence

I mean, sure. But all that's going to do is make legal gunowners get liability insurance. Illegal gunowners won't do anything and I don't think it will slow the proliferation of guns.

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Can we limit the amount of ammo going around or is that too stupid?

[dobrojim]

Ironic thing about gun control is that the manufacturers reap a huge windfall any time there is even
a sniff of discussion about doing something from the huge spike in sales.

[nate33]

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Thank you for thinking about this issue logically and critically, rather than emotionally.

If the government could magically make all handguns disappear, then maybe such a policy would make sense. But the fact is, they can't. They can only take guns away from the law abiding. Yes, that would likely reduce some number of gun deaths and it would certainly reduce accidental deaths, but it would increase the advantage that criminals have over the innocent and eliminate the deterrent effect of gun ownership. For the most part, efforts to curb violence by means of handgun control have failed spectacularly.

Gun control advocates are invariably residents of densely populated urban and suburban areas living alongside well-funded police departments.

[dckingsfan]

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Thank you for thinking about this issue logically and critically, rather than emotionally.

If the government could magically make all handguns disappear, then maybe such a policy would make sense. But the fact is, they can't. They can only take guns away from the law abiding. Yes, that would likely reduce some number of gun deaths and it would certainly reduce accidental deaths, but it would increase the advantage that criminals have over the innocent and eliminate the deterrent effect of gun ownership. For the most part, efforts to curb violence by means of handgun control have failed spectacularly.

Gun control advocates are invariably residents of densely populated urban and suburban areas living alongside well-funded police departments.

I agree with fish's assertion. It would be ugly and logically impossible today.

But I am not sure trying to take guns away from the entire population wouldn't reduce the total number of gun deaths. Yes, it might give the bad guys a temporary advantage. But most guns that come on the black market are stolen from law abiding citizens.

I think the only way to test your assertion would be to put in practice - and that isn't feasible in today's political climate.

[pineappleheadindc]

.
Wow. I'm just amazed at how quickly public opinion has changed over the confederate flag and things associated with the Confederacy.

It's clear that it'll come down at the South Carolina state house grounds. But look at everyone falling over themselves to join the bandwagon. To wit:

-- Lots of local and national politicians are suddenly anti Confederate flag.
-- MS *Republican* politicians calling for removal of the Confederate flag portion of their state flag.
-- Mitch McConnell calling for removal of statuary honoring Confederate leaders from the KY state house.

The Confederate flag has no real national defenders right now. And I note that it's withstood attack from protest after other racially-charged incidents in the past.

In other issues, public opinion has changed quickly too. The acceptance of gay marriage seems like it happened overnight. And suddenly, with no specific thing that pushed so many people to change their opinions. Same thing with the general acceptance of decriminalizing weed.

The speed of change in public opinion is just mind-boggling to me.

[Zonkerbl]

I understand mistrust of govt but the idea that we can never have any
regulation of almost any type of firearm due to the slippery slope
thesis is a idea that needs debunking almost as much as the idea
that the NRA is more concerned with the rights of individual gun
owners as opposed to profits of gun manufacturers. Let's be honest.
(Zonk's point of view notwithstanding)

One idea I would like to see enacted would be a requirement
for owners, like automobile owners, to maintain liability insurance.

welcome back Spence

I mean, sure. But all that's going to do is make legal gunowners get liability insurance. Illegal gunowners won't do anything and I don't think it will slow the proliferation of guns.

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

It really amazes me that people could view this issue any other way. The second amendment as interpreted by NRA lawyers is purely evil and unsupportable by moral people. It shocks me that we have such a large portion of people in this country obsessed with supporting the ownership and manufacture of a tool whose sole purpose is to condemn you to hell.

[fishercob]

I understand mistrust of govt but the idea that we can never have any
regulation of almost any type of firearm due to the slippery slope
thesis is a idea that needs debunking almost as much as the idea
that the NRA is more concerned with the rights of individual gun
owners as opposed to profits of gun manufacturers. Let's be honest.
(Zonk's point of view notwithstanding)

One idea I would like to see enacted would be a requirement
for owners, like automobile owners, to maintain liability insurance.

welcome back Spence

I mean, sure. But all that's going to do is make legal gunowners get liability insurance. Illegal gunowners won't do anything and I don't think it will slow the proliferation of guns.

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

Lovely in theory. Untenable in practice.

[Zonkerbl]

I mean, sure. But all that's going to do is make legal gunowners get liability insurance. Illegal gunowners won't do anything and I don't think it will slow the proliferation of guns.

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

Lovely in theory. Untenable in practice.

Won't be a theory for long. Continue to drag your feet on this issue and we will have reprisals. There's an easy way and a hard way to fix this problem but it will eventually be fixed.

[nate33]

I mean, sure. But all that's going to do is make legal gunowners get liability insurance. Illegal gunowners won't do anything and I don't think it will slow the proliferation of guns.

I am open to having any of my ideas debunked. But I remain under the impression that we have so many guns in circulation that stopping production wouldn't reduce violent crime; and that trying to enforce a ban of all guns will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look like a traffic stop.

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

Lovely in theory. Untenable in practice.

But perhaps with a few more exclamation marks and ad hominem attacks, he'll win the debate.

[fishercob]

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

Lovely in theory. Untenable in practice.

But perhaps with a few more exclamation marks and ad hominem attacks, he'll win the debate.

I didn't see the attack as ad hominem. He said the argument was idiotic, not me.

I admire Zonker's passion on the issue. I share it, in fact. These regular mass shootings are so senseless and vile, that one needs to be truly disconnected from their humanity to not be moved by them.

I'm also not sure about some pieces of this argument. I do believe that confiscating guns is untenable from a couple of standpoints. Firstly, the amount of person power and dollars it would take would be massive undertaking. We'd probably need the National Guard. Secondly, it's going to cost lots of lives -- both resistors and law enforcement -- dozens, maybe hundreds. That's morally costly, as well as emotionally and politically.

But that being the case, I'm not sure I see a pragmatic case for allowing the continued manufacturing and sale of guns. Stemming the tide has to help at some point. I don't know when it is -- maybe it's 5 years or 10 or 20 -- but less is better. I don't know if I see any downside to requiring licenses (renewable like drivers'), tight regulations, and stiff penalties for offenders. We'd probably be better off as a society if we got the non-violent drug offenders out of prison and made room for the illegal gun owners.

That said, I hear your point about urban versus rural gun ownership. I live in Tenleytown and I have dialed 911 to have police cars show up at my house with 90 seconds (living near a 7-11 helps). But if I lived on a farm in Front Royal, it might take the cops 10 or 15 minutes. Should that person not be allowed to own a shotgun -- a just-in-case deterrent? They don't need an AR-15 and a high capacity magazine, I'm sure.

Lots to consider here and I thin some answers are easier than others.

[Cramer]

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

It really amazes me that people could view this issue any other way. The second amendment as interpreted by NRA lawyers is purely evil and unsupportable by moral people. It shocks me that we have such a large portion of people in this country obsessed with supporting the ownership and manufacture of a tool whose sole purpose is to condemn you to hell.

Well, speaking of idiotic arguments, that was a fine one.

I live on a farm in rural North Carolina and have several guns.I have zero intention of taking a human life unless it was to defend my own or that of my family (well, I wouldn't **** with my dogs either, they're family). I'm surrounded by wildlife that would be happy to kill my dogs (7), the cat, or probably me. That doesn't take into account the family that lives right down the road that is certifiably crazy (oldest son is in prison for murder (beat someone to death with a baseball bat. guns? who needs a stinkin' gun?). The two times I've called the police the quickest turn around time was about 25 minutes. The only lives I've taken belonged to a few copperheads. I put a serious scare into a coyote once, but I missed. He did get the message

Now I'm supposed to put all of that at risk so you sleep a little better at night and feel good about yourself in your little suburban utopia? I don't think so. Maybe I should just move to the city because God knows that will be safer after you've gotten rid of all the guns, right? I don't hunt either, and don't allow others to do it here either, and I've been offered some nice cash to let people. I've got more deer than you can shake a stick at. The thought of killing a non-predator disgusts me.

So, I'm not obsessed with guns, I didn't even have one until I moved here, but they're something that living in place like this that only makes sense.

So yea, you better send that SWAT team. Actually, around here, it would take a hell of a lot more than a SWAT team to start taking the guns. And arguments like the one you posted? That will really help the cause.

[fishercob]

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

It really amazes me that people could view this issue any other way. The second amendment as interpreted by NRA lawyers is purely evil and unsupportable by moral people. It shocks me that we have such a large portion of people in this country obsessed with supporting the ownership and manufacture of a tool whose sole purpose is to condemn you to hell.

Well, speaking of idiotic arguments, that was a fine one.

I live on a farm in rural North Carolina and have several guns.I have zero intention of taking a human life unless it was to defend my own or that of my family (well, I wouldn't **** with my dogs either, they're family). I'm surrounded by wildlife that would be happy to kill my dogs (7), the cat, or probably me. That doesn't take into account the family that lives right down the road that is certifiably crazy (oldest son is in prison for murder (beat someone to death with a baseball bat. guns? who needs a stinkin' gun?). The two times I've called the police the quickest turn around time was about 25 minutes. The only lives I've taken belonged to a few copperheads. I put a serious scare into a coyote once, but I missed. He did get the message

Now I'm supposed to put all of that at risk so you sleep a little better at night and feel good about yourself in your little suburban utopia? I don't think so. Maybe I should just move to the city because God knows that will be safer after you've gotten rid of all the guns, right? I don't hunt either, and don't allow others to do it here either, and I've been offered some nice cash to let people. I've got more deer than you can shake a stick at. The thought of killing a non-predator disgusts me.

So, I'm not obsessed with guns, I didn't even have one until I moved here, but they're something that living in place like this that only makes sense.

So yea, you better send that SWAT team. Actually, around here, it would take a hell of a lot more than a SWAT team to start taking the guns. And arguments like the one you posted? That will really help the cause.

Good to see you!

Catch up: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1390133&start=40

[dobrojim]

+1 Fish

I agree that it's clear that different rules make sense in different areas.

I also agree that doing nothing to attenuate the problem really isn't morally acceptable.

What I have trouble abiding is the idea from opponents of reasonable (agree reasonable is subject to interpretation)
regulation that they have an unlimited unrestricted right to buy as many guns of whatever type they
might feel they need. I don't think this is an 'emotional' response at all. In fact, judging by the volume
and the hyperbole( again Zonk notwithstanding, love you man), I'd say the emotion is mostly on the
side of the anti-regulation people incited by the profiteers.

Pine - right on. I think another area of law beginning to adapt to current cultural norms
is the area of weed. I'd guess a majority of people in most places in the US now believe
it's not good public policy to criminalize low level possession and 'responsible' recreational
use. We simply can't afford to incarcerate and ruin the lives of a somewhat small but
significant portion of the population. The anectdotes I hear from CO are that legalization
hasn't significantly changed the number of people who choose to recreate with weed.

[Cramer]

Good to see you!

Catch up: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1390133&start=40

Good to see you as well, my friend! It's been a while.

I just checked out that thread. I was actually mentioned? I feel famous....or something. I used to live to be in this place but life is kind of getting in the way.