300,000,000+ guns floating around in our society

[Capitalist]

It hasn't been a compelling issue for me. If you have some data and history on it for me to consider, I'd be happy to look.

If you have some data that you can truly justify beyond just being gov. statistics ergo, they're true, I'd be happy to look.

 

[Arkady]

LOL!

theres that "tick" we have talked about previously...

as i said,,,unfortunately, theres little hope for a recovery...
however,,,i can say that you have given many people an insight into the aberration...

I'd recommend you actually read the Constitution, then you can engage in a more informed discussion of such matters.

 

[Capitalist]

No. Just as there are no firearms specifically mentioned in the bill of rights, there are no cars or toys, either.

Arms are specifically mentioned in the bill of rights. Firearms are arms. That can be confusing to some people. You're welcome.

The fact that "arms" such as switchblades and brass knuckles are illegal in many states only underscores the extent to which we have let the 2nd Amendment decay. Don't think for a second the battle is only about firearms.

 

[Arkady]

It isn't analogous to GMO foods, or the drug approval process etc. It is not analogous to taxes. It is analogous to all the other civil rights.

Right wingers have started referring to the right to unfettered access to firearms as civil rights, but that's simply inconsistent with how the term has always been used:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html

It's a word-game. Nobody wants to say he's against civil rights, so the idea is to apply the label to whatever activity you wish to protect. So, for example, I could say there's a civil right to have an abortion -- or even a civil right to have government pay for your abortion. I could say that American children have a civil right not to have their parents deported from the country, even if those parents aren't citizens and came here illegally. I could say there's a civil right to be able to smoke marijuana. Or a civil right to have government-financed healthcare. Or a civil right to have a basic secure income. Or a job. If I can succeed in applying that kind of label to a setting where it hasn't previously belonged, I can try to ride the good will for civil rights built up by the civil rights movement, and thereby try to suppress opposition to my preferences. But, again, those are just word games and won't ultimately get us anywhere. Gun rights aren't civil rights.

I would not accept excess limits on speech, assembly, or religion

There's the issue, though. What's an "excess" limit? Are your civil rights being violated if you're not allowed to broadcast your thoughts on radio frequencies that have been licensed to others? Are your civil rights being violated if you aren't allowed to copy and distribute other people's copyrighted material? How about if you're not allowed to market a soft drink and call it "Coca Cola"? How about if you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Or slander someone with disparaging material you know to be untrue? Or stand on a street corner yelling through a megaphone? Or use your words to inspire and then coordinate a plot to assassinate the president?

Even the most extreme advocates of free speech (and assembly, and religion) accept that there are limits that are not excessive. And that's what we're discussing around gun rights, too. Is it excessive to say you have to register your gun, or pass a test demonstrating safety knowledge and skill before being able to carry a gun? I'd say no.

 

[Arkady]

Arms are specifically mentioned in the bill of rights. Firearms are arms.

Yes. So are nuclear arms. But neither firearms nor nuclear arms are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Arkady]

That was YOUR justification, your words.

Clearly not. Try rereading. You're very bad at it, but with practice can probably improve.

If not, why not?

With about a century of gun regulations on the books, firearms per capita are up in this country. What makes you think we're heading towards a gun-free society?

 

[oicu812]

I'd recommend you actually read the Constitution, then you can engage in a more informed discussion of such matters.

your deflections are not working.

 

[oicu812]

Clearly not. Try rereading. You're very bad at it, but with practice can probably improve.



With about a century of gun regulations on the books, firearms per capita are up in this country. What makes you think we're heading towards a gun-free society?

yes, guns/nra membership is on the rise..

that can be directly attributed to the prog anti-gun/nra stance...

 

[freyasman]

Hello? There were two guards on site with guns. That did not prevent the carnage.

And their efforts are the reason the only person killed was the attacker.... stupid.


You know, sane people who are not willfully ignorant do not need to have this stuff explained to them. What is it with you? Do you just enjoy looking retarded? Why are you like this?

 

[trapdoor]

Right wingers have started referring to the right to unfettered access to firearms as civil rights, but that's simply inconsistent with how the term has always been used:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html

The rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, etc., enumerated in the Bill of Rights have always been considered civil rights. The 2nd Amendment is among them.


Even the most extreme advocates of free speech (and assembly, and religion) accept that there are limits that are not excessive. And that's what we're discussing around gun rights, too. Is it excessive to say you have to register your gun, or pass a test demonstrating safety knowledge and skill before being able to carry a gun? I'd say no.

Anti-gun advocates want the limits to be so extreme that the right cannot be exercised. Fortunately, we organized opposition to that.

 

[oicu812]

Anti-gun advocates want the limits to be so extreme that the right cannot be exercised. Fortunately, we organized opposition to that.

our best and most successful supporters of the nra and increased gun ownership are progs themselves..[although they are too stupid to recognize that fact]...

 

[Arkady]

Anti-gun advocates want the limits to be so extreme that the right cannot be exercised. Fortunately, we organized opposition to that.

I've known man your control advocates, myself included, and have never met a single one who wants limits so extreme that the right can't be exercised.

Massachusetts has fairly tight gun laws, by the absurdly loose standards of the US, and yet it's not really hard to exercise those rights. Much of what you have to do is stuff that any responsible gun owners should be doing, anyway (e.g., keeping guns locked up when not in use, getting some training before starting, etc.) Other stuff is practically effortless (e.g., filling out the background-check/registration form). Beyond that, it's simply a matter of having to pay a somewhat higher price if you want to buy grandfathered firearms of a type that has since been restricted. And there are a wide variety of new firearms that aren't restricted, so that's not much of an issue. Unless you're looking for a "pray and spray" weapon, or you're fixated on certain aesthetics, you've got a huge assortment of options that will cover you for home defense, hunting, target shooting, etc.

 

[Dawg]

I'd recommend you actually read the Constitution, then you can engage in a more informed discussion of such matters.

Θ evidently never read our Constitution, that was apparent.

 

[freyasman]

I've known man your control advocates, myself included, and have never met a single one who wants limits so extreme that the right can't be exercised.

Massachusetts has fairly tight gun laws, by the absurdly loose standards of the US, and yet it's not really hard to exercise those rights. Much of what you have to do is stuff that any responsible gun owners should be doing, anyway (e.g., keeping guns locked up when not in use, getting some training before starting, etc.) Other stuff is practically effortless (e.g., filling out the background-check/registration form). Beyond that, it's simply a matter of having to pay a somewhat higher price if you want to buy grandfathered firearms of a type that has since been restricted. And there are a wide variety of new firearms that aren't restricted, so that's not much of an issue. Unless you're looking for a "pray and spray" weapon, or you're fixated on certain aesthetics, you've got a huge assortment of options that will cover you for home defense, hunting, target shooting, etc.

I gotta admit, it makes me chuckle to see you sounding like some kind of an expert when I know you just bought your first firearm less than a year ago, lol.

(And I'm not being a dick, it just really does make me laugh a little)

 

[trapdoor]

I've known man your control advocates, myself included, and have never met a single one who wants limits so extreme that the right can't be exercised.

Massachusetts has fairly tight gun laws, by the absurdly loose standards of the US, and yet it's not really hard to exercise those rights. Much of what you have to do is stuff that any responsible gun owners should be doing, anyway (e.g., keeping guns locked up when not in use, getting some training before starting, etc.) Other stuff is practically effortless (e.g., filling out the background-check/registration form). Beyond that, it's simply a matter of having to pay a somewhat higher price if you want to buy grandfathered firearms of a type that has since been restricted. And there are a wide variety of new firearms that aren't restricted, so that's not much of an issue. Unless you're looking for a "pray and spray" weapon, or you're fixated on certain aesthetics, you've got a huge assortment of options that will cover you for home defense, hunting, target shooting, etc.

I don't think you've known many if you don't know any that want ownership limited to a set number of guns, stored outside the home -- effectively meaning you no longer have a right to arms.

Where Massachusett's laws break down, from my perspective, is in requiring local police approval for licensing. Like all states that require some sort of Firearms Owners ID, the exercise of the right then becomes dependent on the police authorities permission, which means it is effectively a privilege distributed by the police rather than a right exercised by an individual. I don't know if they still do it, but Massachusetts used to require guns to pass a rather arbitrary safety test, that mean the state wouldn't issue permits to purchase any number of classic firearms such as the Colt Peacemaker or the former U.S. Army .45 Automatic.

The point being, of course, that for all its efforts, Massachusetts its not some crime-free Utopia. It ranks 18 out of the 50 states in violent crime statistics (source: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-u-s.html) -- meaning that the various complications it imposes don't make it any better in terms of violent crime than a state without all the restrictions, such as Kansas (which ranks 23), nor much better than Texas, which ranks 15 -- and those states don't require a Firearms ID card, etc.

 

[Arkady]

I gotta admit, it makes me chuckle to see you sounding like some kind of an expert when I know you just bought your first firearm less than a year ago, lol.

(And I'm not being a dick, it just really does make me laugh a little)

Well, quite obviously, the fact I bought my firearms recently is what makes me informed on the topic I was discussing in the post to which you replied: the limits imposed by Massachusetts gun regulations. If I had a huge arsenal of firearms but they'd all been acquired years or decades ago, I wouldn't necessarily have a clue what gun control was like in the state today. It's because I just jumped through those hoops that I'm (relatively) expert on what those hoops are.

 

[Arkady]

I don't think you've known many if you don't know any that want ownership limited to a set number of guns, stored outside the home -- effectively meaning you no longer have a right to arms.

Where Massachusett's laws break down, from my perspective, is in requiring local police approval for licensing. Like all states that require some sort of Firearms Owners ID, the exercise of the right then becomes dependent on the police authorities permission, which means it is effectively a privilege distributed by the police rather than a right exercised by an individual. I don't know if they still do it, but Massachusetts used to require guns to pass a rather arbitrary safety test, that mean the state wouldn't issue permits to purchase any number of classic firearms such as the Colt Peacemaker or the former U.S. Army .45 Automatic.

The point being, of course, that for all its efforts, Massachusetts its not some crime-free Utopia. It ranks 18 out of the 50 states in violent crime statistics (source: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-u-s.html) -- meaning that the various complications it imposes don't make it any better in terms of violent crime than a state without all the restrictions, such as Kansas (which ranks 23), nor much better than Texas, which ranks 15 -- and those states don't require a Firearms ID card, etc.

The local police approval wasn't any kind of issue for me. I simply filled out the form and said I wanted the firearm "For all legal purposes," in the block that asked for my reason, and I was issued a concealed carry permit. Piece of cake. But, I actually agree with you that leaving it up to the unguided whims of local unelected officials is a dumb way to do it. The rules should be spelled out clearly by statute and applied consistently state-wide. Your head of your local police shouldn't be able to say no just because you stole his girlfriend or didn't call him "sir" when you put in your application or he's got a problem with black people. If you meet the requirements, you should have the right to the license.

Anyway, Massachusetts isn't a "crime free Utopia," but it's in very good shape. Don't be deceived by the violent crime statistics, since every state applies different reporting standards for most violent crimes. So, for example, a liberal state where hooking up with a drunk girl is treated as rape is going to look like it's got a worse rape problem than a conservative state where only forcible rapes get counted. If a state counts every barroom scuffle as an assault, it's going to look worse than a place where that's just "boys being boys." The homicide rates are the only violent crime rates that are meaningfully comparable across states, since the presence of a corpse takes most of the discretion out of it. In terms of murder rates, Massachusetts' had the sixth-lowest rate in the nation.

That said, a gun controller would actually be helped if we were to pretend that the big gap between Massachusetts' ranking in murder rates versus other violent crime rates was a real thing, rather than a statistical fluke from inconsistent collection standards across states. After all, one of the counter-arguments to the idea that Massachusetts' low murder rate is partly attributable to gun-control is the (correct) point that Massachusetts could just be less violent for cultural reasons, and that's why there's less murder, and that guns have nothing to do with it. If it were true that Massachusetts was actually unusually violent, and yet managed to have few murders, that would be a big-ass point in favor of gun control, because it would negate the "less violent culture" explanation of the ultra-low murder rate. If a very violent culture somehow managed to have very few murders (because, say, the violence was steered towards fisticuffs by the relative absence of firearms), that would be a dream argument for a gun controller. But, I've got to admit that's not a fair argument, because overall violent crime stats really just measure varying collecting methods, rather than underlying differences in actual rates. I think Massachusetts gun laws help drive down murder, but I've got to admit that a less violent culture probably also factors in.

Anyway, what's even more impressive about the low murder rate here is that generally murder rates track urbanization -- being higher in cities than in rural areas. Thus, low-murder states tend to be very rural states, like Maine, Vermont, and Idaho. Yet Massachusetts is the fourth-most urbanized state, and still has relatively little murder.

 

[Dawg]

Well, quite obviously, the fact I bought my firearms recently is what makes me informed on the topic I was discussing in the post to which you replied: the limits imposed by Massachusetts gun regulations. If I had a huge arsenal of firearms but they'd all been acquired years or decades ago, I wouldn't necessarily have a clue what gun control was like in the state today. It's because I just jumped through those hoops that I'm (relatively) expert on what those hoops are.

You don't even know what 'Gun Control' is.....it's being capable of hitting what shot at......I'm certain you don't have that Control.

GUNs save more lives than they take and here's an example libs will not appreciate:

http://tribunist.com/news/escaped-cop-killer-fugitives-captured-by-two-homeowners-with-guns/?utm_source=SR

Those two bastards would probably still be running if not for Private Citizen with a GUN!

 

[Arkady]

You don't even know what 'Gun Control' is.....it's being capable of hitting what shot at......I'm certain you don't have that Control.

GUNs save more lives than they take and here's an example libs will not appreciate:

http://tribunist.com/news/escaped-cop-killer-fugitives-captured-by-two-homeowners-with-guns/?utm_source=SR

Those two bastards would probably still be running if not for Private Citizen with a GUN!

Guns take more lives than they save. There have been various studies that look into this -- for example, by measuring mortality in gun-owning and non-gun owning households. The results are clear.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Well, quite obviously, the fact I bought my firearms recently is what makes me informed on the topic I was discussing in the post to which you replied: the limits imposed by Massachusetts gun regulations. If I had a huge arsenal of firearms but they'd all been acquired years or decades ago, I wouldn't necessarily have a clue what gun control was like in the state today. It's because I just jumped through those hoops that I'm (relatively) expert on what those hoops are.

You aren't informed just because you bought a gun and read the owners manual or looked on you tube. It takes practical field training and experience to say you are informed. Can you handle a malfunction in the middle of a firefight? Do you know what to do if you are being fired upon? DO you know the difference between cover and concealment? Do you maintain situation awareness or even know what it is?