Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think you guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who the President is, it doesn't matter what the bill is or the issue was. When the media reports on it being a "victory" or a "defeat" for the President, it's purely focusing on the horse race, the partisan politics involved and the "score" between Team R and Team D.

Whether or not you think a given piece of legislation is good or bad, when the news media reports on its passing or failure as a "victory" or "defeat" for the sitting President or the political party that backed it, that's trash journalism. That's crap that hurts the country. It's focusing on the spectacle of politics that's become a stupid sideshow and it neglects to inform people about what's really going on in terms of the laws that will affect them.

It hurts democracy and turns voters into idiots.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg

Care to elaborate on what "checks, etc" that the Founding Fathers put in place that violates the 2nd Amendment? And while the Founding Fathers didn't any specific type of firearm into the language of the 2nd Amendment there are some who use that fact as a lame excuse to try and say that they (The Founding Fathers) put that there to protect all firearms. Even though I have extreme doubts that the Founding Fathers could of foreseen the types of weapons that mankind uses to kill itself with today. Mankind inventing better ways to kill itself since the Stone Age.

Trying to discuss legal reasoning with Bubba is pointless. As defined by the Supreme Court in D.C. v Heller, there was nothing in the Senate Gun Bill that was an unconstitutional restriction of Second Amendment rights:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgmentof the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(see pp. 54-56).

so expanded background checks, assault weapon bans, high capacity magazine bans, etc. are all within the jurisdiction of Congress.

Its not a constitutional issue, its purely a political issue.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Its not a constitutional issue, its purely a political issue.

I think it' a cultural issue. There really are two sides to the American coin. On one side, you have the people who live in reallly large meto areas. They tend to be more progressive in their views. San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, etc etc.

On the other side of the coin, is just about everybody else.

From past posts that I think you've made, i think your on the progressive side of the coin. If correct, I say to you and others of the progressive persuasion, that I highly suggest reading these two articles:

The gun debate is a culture debate

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The gun debate is a culture debate

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides

I stopped reading after this.

In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.

This would be the mother of all false comparisons.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I stopped reading after this.

And because people REFUSE to understand the cultural divide, and remain WILLFULLY IGNORANT, the vicious circle will go round and round.

Personally, having originally come from California, i know exactly how people in large metro's view guns. Living where I do now, I also know the other side of the coin as well.

Anyway, whatever. I have better things to do then try and nudge immoveable objects.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think it' a cultural issue. There really are two sides to the American coin. On one side, you have the people who live in reallly large meto areas. They tend to be more progressive in their views. San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, etc etc.

On the other side of the coin, is just about everybody else.

From past posts that I think you've made, i think your on the progressive side of the coin. If correct, I say to you and others of the progressive persuasion, that I highly suggest reading these two articles:

The gun debate is a culture debate

Gun debate won’t end until there is respect on both sides

As a Canadian and a responsible gun owner myself, I try to stay out of it since it is a U.S. issue. I only intervene on the Constitutional aspects. Canada's own bill of rights was heavily influenced by the U.S. constitution and judges up here always keep an eye on what is going on south of the border, so I have to pay attention as well.

[Tchocky]

Seriously Ducimus, I understand a lot of what 2nd Amendment defenders are talking about, I think I understand why a lot of people don't want any further gun control.

What I don't do is bother myself reading articles that are badly-phrased broadsides against imaginary opponents. The points made in that article are nothing to do with a "cultural divide" - they're trying to make pro-gun people look stupid.

The same pointless tautological arguments are made. Criminals don't obey laws (why is this always phrased like some sort of messianic revelation?). Swimming pools kill more people than guns. Why aren't liberals banning swimming pools?

Look at this.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

To paraphrase - some parents are good parents, some are insane.

Look at the second article. The headline calls for respect on both sides - then proceeds to list a bunch of stupid things gun control advocates said. Including Jim Carrey. Note that there is no call for respect from gun rights advocates.

Now for God's sake, I could write an article complaining about gunrights advocates and quote nobody except Ted Nugent and BubbleHead1980. It would be the easiest thing to write but would also be fundamentally worthless as a piece of writing. The same goes here.

The author has only one piece of advice for gun rights advocates - get your facts right. He's saying that one side is already respectful and just has to tighten the messaging. It's the Democrats (led by Jim Carrey) who are cruel manipulative liars.

I stopped reading after this.

Its worth reading both, he does the swimming pools nonsense again in the 2nd piece.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I stopped reading after this.




This would be the mother of all false comparisons.

Seriously. That article was basically "anti-gun people are irrational and need to come around to our way of thinking." That was the author's entire point.

And the second article, he spends 98% of the piece pointing out how ridiculous the anti-gun crowd is in his eyes, and he spends two sentences saying "Gun-rights supporters need to stop characterizing all gun-control advocates as ultimately wanting to “ban guns.” Most do not."

Fair and balanced. Suurrrrre.

[Ducimus]

I think those articles I linked make a valid point, only because I HAVE lived on both sides of the metaphorical coin I talked about earlier. There IS a cultural divide, and it's a deep one. You just don't really realize it until you've lived in and moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state. How many people here can say they that? If I hadn't experienced that cultural divide first hand, I wouldn't be insisting upon it's existence. Just because something is not in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think you guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who the President is, it doesn't matter what the bill is or the issue was. When the media reports on it being a "victory" or a "defeat" for the President, it's purely focusing on the horse race, the partisan politics involved and the "score" between Team R and Team D.

Whether or not you think a given piece of legislation is good or bad, when the news media reports on its passing or failure as a "victory" or "defeat" for the sitting President or the political party that backed it, that's trash journalism. That's crap that hurts the country. It's focusing on the spectacle of politics that's become a stupid sideshow and it neglects to inform people about what's really going on in terms of the laws that will affect them. It puts the actual issue aside...you know, the thing that's actually gonna affect people...and makes the important thing out to be whether it was a "victory" or "defeat" for the President.

It hurts democracy and turns voters into idiots.

I understand your point about the media and the circus it provides. But, as thinkers, we rise above. Some do not think nor rise above though.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think those articles I linked make a valid point, only because I HAVE lived on both sides of the metaphorical coin I talked about earlier. There IS a cultural divide, and it's a deep one. You just don't really realize it until you've lived in and moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state. How many people here can say they that? If I hadn't experienced that cultural divide first hand, I wouldn't be insisting upon it's existence. Just because something is not in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure how to put this without being offensive - you're exactly the kind of person this article is seeking. Concerned about Second Amendment rights, but want to be civil and not-a-jerk about it.

Notice that the article says there's nothing wrong with you - it's the liberals who need to get a grip. The whole thing is one-sided with a nice happy title that gives it the covering of bipartisanship the content/arguments do not warrant.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Fair and balanced. Suurrrrre.

Neither is CNN, as I have already pointed out. Your not going to get an unbiased news source in the United States. Period. ALL news sources pander to a demographic for ratings. Your best bet is to read multiple sources and filter out the rhetoric, instead of focusing on just the rhetoric. Admittedly, that can be hard at times.


EDIT:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I'm not sure how to put this without being offensive - you're exactly the kind of person this article is seeking. Concerned about Second Amendment rights, but want to be civil and not-a-jerk about it.

Notice that the article says there's nothing wrong with you - it's the liberals who need to get a grip. The whole thing is one-sided with a nice happy title that gives it the covering of bipartisanship the content/arguments do not warrant.

I don't think so Tchocky. Let me ask you this, Have you moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state as I have done? Or have you sunk your roots in one area and haven't really lived outside of it for very long, if at all?

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I was saying I dislike the Iranians in my class , partly because the do smell.That is not racist, bigoted etc, they really do smell! I would think the same if a white person smelled. Do all Iranians smell? no However, that stereotype is a stereotype because many more people aside from me have encountered a smelly iranian or two.

I can't help you with your other problems , but I think I can shine some light on the smelly Iranian problem.

I just found out the reason why flamingo's are pink ...

it's because they eat shrimp: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...ey-eat-shrimps

... honest injun

so perhaps what you and your friends are really smelling is something that is not in your diet like
garbazo beans and olive oil or something like that.


I have another suggestion for those of us (including me)
that jump on these assumptions that bubbleheads theories
are mis-aligned and in need of our constant attention to correction.

Stop feeding the humans

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't think so Tchocky. Let me ask you this, Have you moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state as I have done? Or have you sunk your roots in one area and haven't really lived outside of it for very long, if at all?

No, I haven't. As far as the US goes, I've only lived in the bluest of blue states, MA and CA. In Europe I've lived all over. Ireland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, now the Netherlands - so I understand what it's like changing places and encountering different lifestyles and viewpoints. My experience is not yours, that's something great about GT, you get a lot of different viewpoints in the mix.

I can see what you're getting at -the cultural divide here isn't one that I have an awful lot of experience with. And that's true.

However, articles like the ones linked above are not serious discussions for reasons myself and mookie have pointed out. They don't further understanding, they don't seek comity or common ground. That's not to say the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have good arguments. They do! It just means that none of them are present in the writing of Mr Burrus.