Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(6)
(2)
Message 128 of 955 (686650)
01-02-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
01-02-2013 5:41 PM


Re: What some of the founders had to say about it:
What some of the founders had to say about it:
But are they are they right? Do these same laws make sense in today's world? Those same founders also owned slaves, thought that women should not vote, and that the vote of free blacks should only count as 3/5ths of a white man's vote.
I think you are forgetting that the Founders were as fallible as we are, and that laws need to change when they no longer work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 01-02-2013 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
(1)
Message 129 of 955 (686651)
01-02-2013 5:52 PM


My Ideas for Regulation
It is going to be nearly impossible to suddenly eliminate the number of guns in the US. What we can do is control where they are carried. New York's law seems to be the best option of real gun control where you are not allowed to carry a gun in public. For those that think weapons are necessary to protect them from government intrustion then fine, keep your firearms at home and have them at the ready in case we need to topple some fantasized tyrranical US government.
If you are caught with a handgun/AR in public, with an unregistered handgun/AR, or privately selling a handgun/AR then you serve a one year sentence. We can make exceptions for gaming firearms just as other countries do. Last I checked, people are not holding up 7-11's with bolt action 30-06's or full length 20 guages. This is the only real solution that I can see.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 6:25 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
(1)
Message 132 of 955 (686656)
01-02-2013 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
01-02-2013 6:10 PM


Re: What some of the founders had to say about it:
But I've got to say that the attitude toward the founders here is maybe the scariest thing I've ever run across, a recipe for absolute ruin of the country. He who forgets history is condemned to repeat it. Oh well I've been expecting it for some time.
So we should allow slavery, end women's suffrage, and re-enact the Dredd Scott decision?
The founders are just as fallible as we are. They are not demi-gods that we should be worshiping. What we need to figure out is if the laws made in the late 18th century still make sense in the 21st century. Afterall, that is why they included methods for changing the Constitution since they knew that times change, and that they would get things wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 01-02-2013 6:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 6:24 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 01-02-2013 6:45 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 136 of 955 (686662)
01-02-2013 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by foreveryoung
01-02-2013 6:25 PM


Re: My Ideas for Regulation
So you think tyrannical government is a fantasy that is never likely to take shape?
In the US, it is highly unlikely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 6:25 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 6:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 139 of 955 (686665)
01-02-2013 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by foreveryoung
01-02-2013 6:33 PM


Re: My Ideas for Regulation
Rahvin doesn't seem to agree with you.
And Rahvin is wrong. What is your point?
What we see in history are tyrrants who were put in position with mobs carrying guns. The Bolshevik revolution was a revolution by the people, and the result was Stalin and the gulags. Anything like that in the US right now? No. There aren't any purges going on, and there won't be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 6:33 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 01-02-2013 6:41 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 141 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 6:42 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 166 of 955 (686725)
01-03-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
01-02-2013 6:45 PM


Re: What some of the founders had to say about it:
The founders are NOT "just as fallible as we are" if by "we" you mean the posters on this forum who are a bunch of complete ignoramuses by comparison.
The founders were just as fallible as any other human, us included. They were not gods, no matter how much you want to worship them like deities.
Yes they included METHODS for changing it, but your attitude is that nothing they did is of any value anyway so why not just ignore it altogether, why bother following their rules at all, we're all so much wiser than they were.
That is not my attitude. They got many things right, some things they got wrong (women's suffrage, slavery), and for others times have changed to the point that good ideas are no longer good ideas. Why is that so difficult to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 01-02-2013 6:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 167 of 955 (686727)
01-03-2013 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Rahvin
01-02-2013 6:42 PM


Re: My Ideas for Regulation
I think that depends entirely on the threshold for acceptable usage of the rather vague term "tyranny." I tend to define "tyranny" as a government's systemic removal of rights like the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure or the right to due process. That includes concentration camps, but also includes lesser offenses like the PATRIOT Act.
From a historical viewpoint, modern Americans enjoy more rights than any generation before them, at least in my view. In previous generations we had laws like the Sedition Act where you couldn't even say bad things about the President in the press. Our modern views of search and seizure have changed drastically. Do you really think that a sheriff in the 19th century asked politely if he could search a wagon? I highly doubt it.
I agree that the US will not likely experience a "purge" or any sort of tyranny on that scale. But that doesn't mean that extraordinary rendition or torture are not forms of tyranny.
In my eyes, they aren't. They are injustices, yes, but not tyranny. What Hitler, Mao, and Stalin did was tyranny.
As it relates to my ideas of gun control, this type of systematic widespread tyranny could still be prevented by citizens since they would still be able to house arms on their own property (assuming that an armed citizenry could stop the type of tyranny I am talking about).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 6:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 454 of 955 (687490)
01-11-2013 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2013 1:00 AM


Duh. And in that case, fuck gun regulation. Social issues are a way better challenge to focus on. All this gun-focus is misguided.
Not only misguided, but ineffective. As far as the US is concerned, there is a glut of weapons already out there and we can not get rid of them very easily. It would take several generations to really make a dent on the number of weapons.
What we do see is a strong correlation between firearm deaths and poverty. If we can improve the lives of the most unfortunate in our culture we will make massive gains on violent crime in this country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2013 1:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2013 10:49 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 459 of 955 (687505)
01-11-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by Panda
01-11-2013 11:14 AM


Because you don't know and are therefore unable to even attempt an explanation?
Unless we are willing to have government agents go door to door and forcefully search and seize weapons we are going to have to live with the fact that there are millions and millions of weapons out there. There is no way of getting around it. The only way around this problem that I see is to confiscate weapons if they are found on people whne they are in public, but even then we would have to really rethink our constitutional rights as it pertains to search and seizure.
Overall, I think our money, time, and energy are better spent fixing the underlying problems in our culture. Gun violence is a symptom of our problems, not the problem itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Panda, posted 01-11-2013 11:14 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Panda, posted 01-11-2013 1:10 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 477 of 955 (687535)
01-11-2013 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Panda
01-11-2013 1:10 PM


So, if your argument is that guns will not reduce in numbers without an active "search and destroy" campaign by government representatives - then I question your judgement on how long a gun lasts.
I was thinking more along the lines of immediate results, as in the next 2 years.
I do agree that long term attrition would reduce the number of guns out there, but we are still talking about a glut of weapons. There are still Colt Navy revolvers from the 19th century in circulation, and they fire just fine.
But more importantly, no gun ban is going to work unless a large bulk of the population is on board. American history has taught us that we are all too willing to create black markets for the things we want.
But if your argument is that it will take time to reduce the gun numbers - then I concur.
But so what that it will take time?
It will take time to end poverty - should we not bother trying?
There are countries with high gun ownership with relatively little gun violence. While I do think that gun restrictions can help reduce gun crime, it is still treating a symptom instead of the cause.
Isn't there a logical fallacy for that?
We spend money housing the homeless - but that is just a symptom.
We spend money dealing with spousal abuse - but that is just a symptom.
We spend money on lots of worthwhile things that are just symptoms of an underlying issue.
Are we wrong to spend that money?
Can we not spend money on gun control as well as the cause of gun crimes?
If you go to a large city in Switzerland do you see the same types of slums that you see in major US cities? I don't think you do (but I could be wrong). I am not talking about feeding the poor, or housing the poor. I am talking about our economic and cultural system that produces such a large disparity. I am not even sure what the solution is to this problem, but I do know that it is spawning gun violence in the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Panda, posted 01-11-2013 1:10 PM Panda has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 478 of 955 (687536)
01-11-2013 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by ICANT
01-11-2013 4:29 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
Hi NoNukes,
Do you ever intend to respond to the discussion of the ruling of the Supreme Court concerning who is allowed to possess and bear arms or just ignore it?
God Bless,
I will gladly concede that the current gun laws and rights have been correctly interpretted by the SCOTUS. I even think that they have correctly interpretted the intent of the founders.
What we should ask is if those rights make sense in the modern world. Should we consider rewriting the 2nd Ammendment. I am not saying that we should rewrite it, but I think it is high time that we at least discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2013 4:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2013 11:52 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
(1)
Message 514 of 955 (687612)
01-14-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by ICANT
01-12-2013 11:52 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
There was a reason for that amendment being placed in the constitution and the reason given then has not disappeared and looms on the horizon.
It has disappeared. That's the whole point. We no longer need to call up a militia to defend ourselves from invaders. We have a standing army for that now that we spend billions of dollars on. I am not agreeing with the founders. All I am agreeing to is that the SCOTUS has correctly interpretted the intent of the founders. What I am saying is that intent no longer applies in modern America.
SCOTUS can not make law. It can only interpret it.
When 1 3/4 (540) more murders are commited with blunt instruments, (clubs, hammers, etc.) than all rifles combined (358),
why is everyone wanting to go after rifles?
When 4 3/4 (1704) more murders are commited with knives or cutting instruments than all rifles combined (358), why is everyone wanting to go after rifles?
When 16 3/4 (6009) more murders are commited with handguns than all rifles combined (358), why is everyone wanting to go after rifles?
If these other instruments are so much better at killing people, then why are people in such a huff about a ban on rifles? Why not use knives et al. instead? Obviously, they are much more effective than rifles, so where is the problem?
You are arguing against your own position.
You want to fix the problem have people return to the values we had in the late 40's and the 50's when we had no locks on our doors, a man's word was his bond, and everyone helped everyone around them and we all survived without government intervention.
You mean those values that led to public hanging of blacks fighting for equal rights, segregation in public schools, and overt sexism in the workplace? Those values?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2013 11:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:29 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 518 of 955 (687617)
01-14-2013 3:37 PM


Use the guns our founders used?
Perhaps as a compromise between the two camps we should only allow people to own black powder muzzle loading ball muskets since those are the arms that the founders were talking about. Sound fair?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 524 of 955 (687625)
01-14-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by NoNukes
01-14-2013 4:33 PM


I have seen a few proposals for gun regulations in this thread, but I don't recall a single one of them that would 1) pass constitutional muster under the current make up of the Supreme Court, and 2) be strong enough to present a real obstacle to a psycho grabbing mom's guns and setting off to shoot up a school.
I think we can say that gun regulations would limit the damage such a psycho could do . . . sort of. If we limit magazines to 9 rounds instead of 30 then the shooter will have to stop shooting after 9 rounds instead of 30, even if it is a short time period but hopefully long enough for someone to tackle the psycho. That's about all the good I can see. However, psychos make up a tiny portion of all gun related deaths and gun releated crimes. Sadly, there are twice as many children under 15 killed accidently by guns last year as there were killed in the most recent school shooting.
If we want to stop gun violence then it makes much more sense to regulate gun sales, register guns so owners are held responsible, and limit the right to carry in public.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2013 4:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2013 5:28 PM Taq has replied
 Message 531 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 527 of 955 (687628)
01-14-2013 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Jon
01-14-2013 5:29 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
I guess I missed the word 'invaders' in the Second Amendment.
Defending against invaders is certainly one of the purposes of having a militia. Given that the founders were rebels who did repel an invading army, if not during the revolutionary war then definitely during the war of 1812, I don't think it is much of a stretch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:29 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024