[HTML1]
A while back, I attended a National Rifle Association fund-raising dinner; an event so white bread it made the Northeast Harbor Fleet yacht club look like a multi-racial melting pot. As the gun rights guy next to me tried to spread rock hard portion-controlled butter onto a roll specifically designed to disintegrate under duress, I asked him if he carried. “No way,” he said. Too much hassle? Too much responsibility? Kids in the house? “If I had a gun I’d shoot someone.” Seriously? Well fair enough. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. We should trust each citizen to make-up their own mind whether or not owning or carrying a firearm is right for them. In other words, common sense gun control is about letting individual Americans—not bureaucrats and politicians—exercise their common sense. Anything else enables the kissing cousins of disarmament and fascism. Am I wrong?
Check out the JPFO’s/Charles Heller’s Kosher Gun Laws, which deal much more with the responsible use of firearms than with who should or shouldn’t get them. I do think that in a very few cases (I mean a few handfuls), laws meant to prevent bad people from obtaining firearms have frustrated some wanna-be criminals – they chose a different weapon, or decided to try some other type of crime not involving the use of force. So if all of the thousands of federal, state and local firearms laws were reduced to simply, “pass a NICS check and you’re good to own and carry as you see fit any firearm you like” I’d be OK with that. But if even that limitation went away, I wouldn’t exactly be crying, either.
C’mon Robert. Do you really mean EACH and every individual? That might work if 98% of you gun owners were truly fit, but I’m afraid it’s a far cry from that.
Under my plan, you really wouldn’t have to worry about “the kissing cousins of disarmament and fascism.” But under your plan, we do have to worry about “the kissing cousins of stupidity and irresponsibility.”
Doesn’t EACH individual decide how to exercise their constitutional right to free speech using what’s commonly called common sense? The government intercedes AFTERWARDS, should exercising that right fall afoul of other laws. Inhibiting the individual’s right to free speech is called censorship. Inhibiting the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is called gun control. Why is one more acceptable than the other?
I’m starting to see a pattern here. When the regular gun argument fails, you pull out the Bill of Rights and 2A bit. When that fails, you go to the 1st Amendment which has nothing at all to do with this.
Sometimes you combine these two steps for a stronger (you think) impact.
Actually, the argument is that a right is a right, and that all rights are worthy of protection.
Mike, you threw out a figure of 50% the other day. By many accounts, there are between 80 and 100 million law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. We’ll use the 80 figure. Suppose you get your wish and 50% of them are disqualified from owning guns. How do you intend to collect the weapons from 40 million recently-disqualified gun owners?
He didn’t plan for that. You see, his plan is not much of a plan at all.
What he is proposing has already been a very expensive boondoggle in Canada that hasn’t proven to be effective.
One of the first animated “countdown clocks” I ever saw on the Web was an Australian government site that showed a ticking deadline for Aussies to turn their firearms in by a certain deadline. This was back in the mid 1990s, as I recall, and THAT confiscation hasn’t worked out too well, either.
I’m glad you’re starting to see it my way. If you want to talk about the details of how to implement, we must be in agreement on the need to do so.
That’s a joke, I know you’re not.
First of all, you cannot use the 80M figure. Most of them are in agreement with the gun control side. Enthusiastic gun owners are a small minority of the overall 80 or 100 million figure and the real advocates like you are even rarer.
But, here’s the thing. Strict gun control like I’d like to see could be introduced gradually. There could be any number of implementation plans, starting I suppose with new purchases. The entire process could be a twenty or thirty year operation for which attrition would play a big part.
The short answer is I don’t know and it’s a bit premature to be discussing it. We’re still working on whether it’s good and right.
“First of all, you cannot use the 80M figure. Most of them are in agreement with the gun control side.”
—–
Sorry. You don’t get to dictate facts. You said 50%. We’re using it.
“Enthusiastic gun owners are a small minority of the overall 80 or 100 million figure and the real advocates like you are even rarer.”
—–
Again. You said 50%. Defend it with facts, and tell me how you plan to confiscate the weapons.
“The short answer is I don’t know”
—–
Aha! A direct answer finally appears!
“We’re still working on whether it’s good and right.”
—–
Nope. You’re still trying to justify it. We’re just telling you “No, you’re wrong, and here’s why.”
OK, Moon, there are two things. One is that it’s bullshit for you to use the 80M number as if that’s how many folks agree with your nonsense. They don’t.
The second thing is my 50%. It’s a guestimate I made based on the idea that if we had licensing that included mental health and drug and alcohol screening as well as some of my other ideas like disqualifying people for negligence, you’d eliminate about 50%.
The ones who remain would be of such an incredibly high caliber, responsibility-wise, that much of the trouble we read about every day would vanish, including much of the gun flow into criminal hands.
“One is that it’s bullshit for you to use the 80M number as if that’s how many folks agree with your nonsense. They don’t.”
—–
Who said anything about how many agree with me? You said 50% of gun owners. You wish to move the goalposts? Fine. I’m using 80M gun owners. What percentage do you think you can disqualify?
Also, since when have you taken a survey of how many people would go along with your idea? I’m not making any such assumption. Why do you get to?
Mikeb gazillion numbers,
The ones who remain would be of such an incredibly high caliber, responsibility-wise, that much of the trouble we read about every day would vanish, including much of the gun flow into criminal hands.
Yesterday over 80 million law abiding American gun owners did nothing illegal, so I guess we already have an incredibly high caliber, responsibility-wise group!
Taurus, Do you think before you write?
“Yesterday over 80 million law abiding American gun owners did nothing illegal, …”
Nothing, not one of ’em???
And MikeB gazillion numbers, it is common knowledge that it is a small, as in very small number that commit all of the crimes in the United States, a country you have abandoned. So yes my figures are correct, not that you would even consider anything correct in your responses.
Seriously guys, why haven’t you banned this troll yet?
Probably because he’s so much fun to fnck with.
Amen Totenglocke
I get that he is tolerated with the ideal that it allows for discussion with grabbers, but when is the last time he contributed anything other than increasing blood pressure and controversy.
All he has are half baked plots and WAGs (wild ass guesses). We could get better comments from a grade schooler
Yeah, sure William, a grade schooler. Ha ha.
Listen Totenglocke and Moonshine, the subject of banning me has been discussed at great length and quite recently. If you missed it, go look it up. If you were there, then you’re just the sore losers, so get over it.
The opinions were strongly on the side of allowing me to comment and even post from time to time. Most admitted I afford you guys a chance to avoid the echo-chamber in which you have no opportunity to hone your arguing skills. Some few guys even admitted that I make some good points and that I’m entitled to my opinion.
“The short answer is I don’t know and it’s a bit premature to be discussing it. We’re still working on whether it’s good and right.”
Let me help you out then. You’ll have spent thirty years of time, effort, and definitely money. You’ll have a system that hasn’t done jack shit to stop criminals from getting guns. You’ll probably have reduced the number of guns in legal gun owners hands, which hasn’t reduced suicides or domestic violence, but has had the unintended consequence of leaving many people disarmed and now another crime statistic. So what you’ve got so far is not close to right. Go back to your drawing board and see what else you can come up with. Here’s a hint: focus on criminal control, not gun control.
+1
Mike, read up on the concepts of civil and human rights, because it seems you’re having a bit of trouble grasping them.
To summarize, the right to bear arms is a civil right which, among other things, protects the human right to self defense. It falls to each individual to decide how to exercise that right, while always using common sense and respect for others as a guide.
Carlos, The problem is this.
1. right to life
2. right to self defense
3. right to own a gun
The first two are natural human rights, the third is not. You could substitute “piano” for gun and it would make just as much sense – none.
You’re creating a false dichotomy. As the first two are rights, the third is nonsensical.
mikeb probably knows that, too. But that’s his plan. He crosses the border over here, drops a few bombs, leaves his link, and we chase him across the proverbial Yalu River and increase his site visits and page hits.
Bingo. And over there him and his cohorts can control the dialog with selective post deletions/changes.
I clicked his link one time , saw that there was no merit in anything on his site, and promptly exited. And I will never be back as long as I live and suggest that no one here add to his traffic. Unless he did a post where he actually got some trigger time and discovered the joys of gun ownership. Or him going into the middle of Detroit at 3am and asking the gangsters to kindly turn in their guns and just start to get along. Now that, I’d PAY to see.
Yeah, that would be lovely. Can I watch?
Ah, this classic. Tell that one to the elderly woman being attacked by the 300 lb crack head. “Oh, you have the right to defend yourself, it’s just too bad you forgot to be Jackie Chan.”
Better yet, tell that to the non-hypothetical 18 year old widow with a baby whose front door is being kicked in by two meth heads, in a town where 911 response time is over 20 minutes. “Listen, I know you’ve been busy with the baby, and your husband dying of cancer and all, but if you thought you might need to defend yourself from multiple attackers, you really should have gone all Bruce Wayne and picked up some mad ninja skillz.”
In a world where guns exist (especially in the hands of your goose-stepping military and police that you want to give infinite power to), a gun is a necessity for self defense – or are you really so ignorant and incompetent that you’ve never heard the saying “Never bring a knife to a gun fight”?
I would argue that natural human rights encompass everything that does not affect others in a negative fashion without their consent. So gun ownership is a human right because owning a gun does not harm others in itself. Neither does using that gun against non-humans. Murder, on the other hand, is excluded because it negatively affects others. Under this theory, gun ownership is completely justified, as is nearly every other freedom that we posses. No 2nd amendment is needed to give the right to gun ownership.
You do have a right to own a piano! It’s called the right to property.
If you obtain property through licit means then you have a right to own and use that property for licit purposes.
It would be the same violation of human rights to put conditions on who could own a piano or to conficate pianos!
That’s funny, “stupidity and irresponsibility” seem to go hand in hand with many people who have a driver’s license. Go take their 60 MPH metal missiles away from them.
Though, truthfully stupidity and irresponsibility are two words synonymous with government. So, like all scumbag self-slavers, your fealty to government oppression is even more poignant.
If we bend over on the 2A what’s next? Which right do we abridge for the sake of public good? Who gets to make these decisions anyway? President? How about the Congress or SCOTUS? Local Sherriffs? The ATF?
The Constitution is real handy when some lefty wants to ban religion or impose some newly invented right to do something obscene but when it comes to protecting something historically proven to be in our best interest all of a sudden we need asterisks and parentheses around the right.
Once again, quit focusing on the hardware and possession of it and start dealing with people who break the rules. The current message is you can get dozens of chances as a crook and get parole each time.
Deal with the human side of the equation? You’re speaking Chinese, as far as MikeB is concerned.
“If we bend over on the 2A what’s next?”
If you did that, we might get the impression the 3rd Amendment is meaningless in today’s society too.
But according to you, what, is the 3A also inviolable?
They are all inviolate. Why is that hard to understand?
Are you you saying you’re up for quartering some troops, Mike? Because whereever you are, I’m sure there’s some serving nearby and you could save Uncle Sam a few dollars.
I’m pretty sure Aviano Air Base would be happy to house a few airmen in your home. All you gotta do is give them a call.
Like I said before, mikeb needs to man up, post pics of his wife and daughters, and then post his home address. Now that he is volunteering to host some troops, well, let’s just say the fine Japanese tradition of comfort wives is in play. Thanks mike!
Did you forget everything you learned in US History class?
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana
For God’s sake Mikeb, crack a book and try to expand your mind.
Actually, once documents such as the Constitution, original Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense become violated; the Fascist Fun really begins.
I agree with the author 100%, but not the southern belle in the video. I don’t believe in individual restrictions of open carry, but I think it’s a dumb thing to do. Making yourself a target for BG’s to neutralize before they carry out their dirty deeds is an obvious tactical drawback, but the biggest strategic drawback is that it does as about as much for our cause as two guys making out in public does for gay rights. We can remind anti-gunners about the constitution all we want, it ain’t gonna stop California from ignoring it. What they don’t know won’t hurt them, and it might change their mind next time the guy in front of them at the checkout counter ventilates an armed robber before he can hurt anyone.
My .02. Happy Friday!
I think of it as being pro-active vs reactive as far as crime control goes. A BG walks into a grocery store and sees 4 shoppers carrying guns, they’ll politely put their ski mask back in their jacket and proceed elsewhere. Most likely.
As far as hiding your weapon, I don’t believe that my guns have anything to be ashamed of. Well except the Hi-Point. Poor little guy.
As far as the Anti’s go… Look at MikeB. We can make all the intelligent, polite comments we want to him, and he’s still going to wet the bed tonight dreaming that someone legally owns a firearm. You can only give in so much to the ends of being politically correct and non-offensive. If you spent your whole life trying not to step on someone’s toes, you’d just never get out of bed.
“Common sense gun control” is the banning and confiscation of all civilian-owned firearms so there will be nothing to impede the regression from citizens to subjects. Haven’t you guys been paying attention?
But it has to be done gradually. I suggest that gun owners be required to have some kind of indentification that they will be required to wear or carry. Failure to produce such identity card will subject them to arrest and imprisonment.
Next, there needs to be a means of locating all the guns so that they can be confiscated. I suggest that some form of registry would be appropriate for that purpose.
Certainly, gun owners must be demonized so that they can be controlled without interference from the masses of people. The media will need to be co-opted, but that’s not a difficult chore.
Eventually, gun owners will have to be segregated and cannot be allowed in cities like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. They can only be allowed to live beyond the pale of settlement.
Once the background has been laid, the rest is easy. Ultimately, they will turn in their guns or suffer the consequences. A group of jackbooted thugs can be recruited who will have no qualms about shooting men, women, children or household pets if that’s what it takes.
See the end of a Clockwork Orange where Alex has been nominally rehabilitated and his droogies Dim and Wit joined the police force so they can go around beating people up officially. What better way to give employment to the unemployable?
All the amendments have to go: 1st – the banning and destruction of all knowledge about weapons technologies – this kept guns out of Japan for a long time. 3rd – so they can house a government spy in each house. 4th – so they can raid and confiscate anything that can be used as a weapon. 5th – you will be assumed guilty of thought crimes and anything you say and do will be taken into account for … 6th – punishments be meted out at random just to make sure. 7th – well, you get my drift. Oh, and strict regulation of machine and hand tools will be neccessary. Perhaps internment of anyone handy but untrustworthy.
Soma will be dispensed for free on every street corner. Ah, Brave New World.
Common sense gun control is
1 a good stance
2 a good grip
3 a tight group
Bahahah +100
Gun Control and Common Sense is sort of like Jumbo Shrimp or Military Intelligence.
Comments are closed.