On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 12:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I draw the line with the second amendment the same way the line is drawn with the first. There is a point on the continuum between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. You have free speech, but there is that line you can cross where using free speech to endanger other citizens is not protected speech (perjury, yelling 'fire' in a movie theater, etc). The trouble is finding the balance with the second amendment, especially in a climate as partisan as this; and with all the money weapons manufacturers are using to throw their weight around through organizations like the NRA.


We need unbiased information and analysis, not statistics being yelled out from the hilltops of the gun control and gun manufacturing lobbies. It would also be helpful to get a more modern take on the second amendment through a Supreme Court decision. The second amendment was written at a time when military and hunting technology where equal, the rifle you used to put meat on the table you used to fight for independence (and actually, with Kentucky rifles, the hunting weapons were arguable better).


What would the founding father think of battle tanks, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, drones, and nuclear weapons? Is it really meant as a weapon ownership free-for-all, or is it intended strictly for the maintenance of local militias? Why does Europe and Japan have much less gun violence than the United States, and what lessons can we learn from them? How, if any, could they be applied? Would doing so be Constitutional?


This is a conversation we need to have, but standing there making Charlton Heston quotes about your 'cold dead fingers' while shoving your fingers into your ears isn't going to solve anything. Claiming we don't have a problem won't solve anything. Scapegoating the media won't solve anything...


Is 2008 recent enough?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 06:35 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It applies to any piece of legislation that dictates future governments actions.


So, no government can ever be founded on a defining document. What, then, defines a government?
The people, which is why the constitution was made to be amended and rewritten. So that the people could refine and redefine as needed.

Our government does NOT work the same way as they had proposed, nor should it. The states had different sets of powers back then as opposed to now. The Senate was chosen by elected state officials, but are not any longer. The reason? Communication is no longer an issue. Waiting for the federal government to rule on a piece of legislation in the early 1800's might take years due to travel times for getting the idea there and to everyone and then getting it amended and revised. That is not the issue anymore because communication is essentially instantaneous.

We have already agreed as a nation to amend government as needed, it's just that some people want certain areas to be off-limits to change.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 08:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 07:18 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I described in in great detail already. If you're still confused I don't know how to make it any more clear.

@ germanyt

The city passed an ordinance to prohibit ownership of ordnance.
Right, that poor people would be taxed too heavily and that the government would just muck it up. It isn't a straw man fallacy if I am just reasserting what you yourself have already said.
Okay, and then you equated the fact that I think the government will misappropriate funds with me saying that we should just do away with government. That is what is known as a straw man as I do not hold that position.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 10:30 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 08:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Right, that poor people would be taxed too heavily and that the government would just muck it up. It isn't a straw man fallacy if I am just reasserting what you yourself have already said.
Okay, and then you equated the fact that I think the government will misappropriate funds with me saying that we should just do away with government. That is what is known as a straw man as I do not hold that position.
But your position is the government will just screw it up. You are assuming that levying a tax will instantly mean government corruption and misappropriation of funds. Your point has no bearing on the issue and evades the proposal of additional taxes by trying to attack another nonexistent argument. Sounds like...straw-man?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 10:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 10:30 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Okay, and then you equated the fact that I think the government will misappropriate funds with me saying that we should just do away with government. That is what is known as a straw man as I do not hold that position.
But your position is the government will just screw it up. You are assuming that levying a tax will instantly mean government corruption and misappropriation of funds. Your point has no bearing on the issue and evades the proposal of additional taxes by trying to attack another nonexistent argument. Sounds like...straw-man?
I am not assuming it, I'm presuming it. There is a big difference. My point has a huge bearing on our suggested course of action. If your suggestion does not help solve the perceived problem then it is moot at best, and harmful at worst. I am doing a cost/benefit "analysis" and concluding that it won't have it's intended affect. You could argue that it is a good way to increase government funds and is therefore good (which I wouldn't agree with, but would make more sense) but I don't see it helping reduce gun violence, or preventing mass-shootings.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 12:18 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 10:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But your position is the government will just screw it up. You are assuming that levying a tax will instantly mean government corruption and misappropriation of funds. Your point has no bearing on the issue and evades the proposal of additional taxes by trying to attack another nonexistent argument. Sounds like...straw-man?
I am not assuming it, I'm presuming it. There is a big difference. My point has a huge bearing on our suggested course of action. If your suggestion does not help solve the perceived problem then it is moot at best, and harmful at worst. I am doing a cost/benefit "analysis" and concluding that it won't have it's intended affect. You could argue that it is a good way to increase government funds and is therefore good (which I wouldn't agree with, but would make more sense) but I don't see it helping reduce gun violence, or preventing mass-shootings.

Your presumption or assumption is based off of a different argument about the government and avoids the issue entirely. You are presuming/assuming that your guess as to the consequences of taxes will mean the government will just misappropriate the funds. It is the job of the people to make sure that does not happen, not to just say "screw it, they always mess it up so let's just not enact any new taxes."

And your cost-benefit analysis seems to be putting more stock in money than in human life. I do not care about the pocket-book of gun enthusiasts. Those that need their guns to survive, can get exemptions. Any change that prevents or deters violence towards humans is preferred.

And how would my changes hurt? What change have I suggested that would tip the cost-benefit analysis towards it being detrimental for society? How are my suggestions going to put more bodies in the ground? I can see how maintaining the status quo and arguing against improving our laws will keep burying innocents like those in Connecticut. Or Colorado. Or Oklahoma. etc. etc.

And then I go back to statistics like those from Australia of a drop-off in mass shootings and murder by gun numbers in England that are something like <40 per year. Or countries that lack a gun culture where people assume that their right to owning a gun is greater than the right that society possesses to amend laws to protect life. People keep citing Sweden. I would love for our gun laws and gun culture to be like that. Want a gun? You have to be in the military and redo your weapons training every year.

They have better mental health care there too. But being more like Sweden does not mean we stay the course.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
TheBeardedDude Wrote:It is the job of the people to make sure that does not happen
Okay, and how is our track record? What makes you think this will be any different? Also, yes we shouldn't be enacting new taxes. We are taxed to heavily already. But now we are going into polarizing political philosophical differences. I think on that specific point I am just going to agree to disagree, but regardless our country doesn't do with the tax money what you seem to think they do. Just take a look at the Social Security Program funding if you don't believe me. You can blame the people for not holding the governments feet to the flames if you wish, but the fact is it happens all the time....constantly and incessantly and I see no reason to believe you proposed gun tax would be any different.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And your cost-benefit analysis seems to be putting more stock in money
than in human life. I do not care about the pocket-book of gun
enthusiasts. Those that need their guns to survive, can get exemptions.
Any change that prevents or deters violence towards humans is preferred.
We don't live in fantasy-land. The cold hard fact is that humans can be measured in dollar signs. It isn't pleasant, but it's true. Besides if this is your goal perhaps you should be more concerned about military technology. We have used drone strikes to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children and continue to do so on a regular basis. This ultimately falls squarely on the shoulders of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Guess what? The people of our country allows this, they voted for this, so you could say that the people failed again to hold the government's feet to the fire. Sorry for rambling a bit...I get side-tracked. My point is that human life can be, and is measured in money on a regular basis. You can also look at the healthcare industry for some fine examples. The fact that you "don't about gun-owners pocket-books" just shows who the unreasonable one between us is. If you don't care about the position of your "opposition" then I would judge you to be far more cruel than gun-owners as a collective.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And how would my changes hurt? What change have I suggested that would
tip the cost-benefit analysis towards it being detrimental for society?
How are my suggestions going to put more bodies in the ground?
They would hurt by taking money out of the pockets of people and wasting it on bureaucratic bullshit. I could argue that some of the tax money would ultimately be used in warfare, but I won't. I think the money would more likely be wasted an organization whose sole purpose would be to convince people that it's needed while it ends up wasting more money than it brings in, like the USPS. Will your proposal kill people? Probably not, but I also think it is very unlikely that it would save any significant amount of lives either. They they jacked up the prices of cigarettes for example most people continued to smoke, they were just poorer smokers.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And then I go back to statistics like those from Australia of a drop-off
in mass shootings and murder by gun numbers in England that are
something like <40 per year. Or countries that lack a gun culture
where people assume that their right to owning a gun is greater than the
right that society possesses to amend laws to protect life. People keep
citing Sweden. I would love for our gun laws and gun culture to be like
that. Want a gun? You have to be in the military and redo your weapons
training every year.



They have better mental health care there too. But being more like Sweden does not mean we stay the course.

And here again is where we just must agree that out political philosophies are split in divergent directions and agree to disagree. Yes, it may save lives to be like the UK or Sweden, but I'd rather take my chances and keep my freedoms.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 05:10 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 12:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I draw the line with the second amendment the same way the line is drawn with the first. There is a point on the continuum between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. You have free speech, but there is that line you can cross where using free speech to endanger other citizens is not protected speech (perjury, yelling 'fire' in a movie theater, etc). The trouble is finding the balance with the second amendment, especially in a climate as partisan as this; and with all the money weapons manufacturers are using to throw their weight around through organizations like the NRA.


We need unbiased information and analysis, not statistics being yelled out from the hilltops of the gun control and gun manufacturing lobbies. It would also be helpful to get a more modern take on the second amendment through a Supreme Court decision. The second amendment was written at a time when military and hunting technology where equal, the rifle you used to put meat on the table you used to fight for independence (and actually, with Kentucky rifles, the hunting weapons were arguable better).


What would the founding father think of battle tanks, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, drones, and nuclear weapons? Is it really meant as a weapon ownership free-for-all, or is it intended strictly for the maintenance of local militias? Why does Europe and Japan have much less gun violence than the United States, and what lessons can we learn from them? How, if any, could they be applied? Would doing so be Constitutional?


This is a conversation we need to have, but standing there making Charlton Heston quotes about your 'cold dead fingers' while shoving your fingers into your ears isn't going to solve anything. Claiming we don't have a problem won't solve anything. Scapegoating the media won't solve anything...


Is 2008 recent enough?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.



Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that decision. Then the next thing to ask is, is this what we want as a people? The Constitution is a malleable document, and just because something is ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean that's the end. The ruling can be turned over by a later ruling, not that I can see this happening any time soon with the same set of Justices. The other option is to modify the Constitution itself, something that is being pushed on other fronts in light of other rulings such as Citizens United (in an effort to get corporate money out of politics, something I strongly support).

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 05:10 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Is 2008 recent enough?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.



Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that decision. Then the next thing to ask is, is this what we want as a people? The Constitution is a malleable document, and just because something is ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean that's the end. The ruling can be turned over by a later ruling, not that I can see this happening any time soon with the same set of Justices. The other option is to modify the Constitution itself, something that is being pushed on other fronts in light of other rulings such as Citizens United (in an effort to get corporate money out of politics, something I strongly support).


Yes, a future Supreme Court could modify or reverse that decision and, though that is rare, it happens.

A prime example is the Dred Scott case; the SC ruled at that time that "Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Constitution." That has obviously been reversed.

And the Constitution was amended to ban alcoholic beverages (Amendment XVIII) and was then amended (Amendment XXI) to kill that amendment.

So, working to change the Second Amendment is not necessarily a fool's errand, but it would be an uphill fight, not least because it is enshrined in "The Bill of Rights" - the first ten amendments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-02-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(05-02-2013 04:56 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
TheBeardedDude Wrote:It is the job of the people to make sure that does not happen
Okay, and how is our track record? What makes you think this will be any different? Also, yes we shouldn't be enacting new taxes. We are taxed to heavily already. But now we are going into polarizing political philosophical differences. I think on that specific point I am just going to agree to disagree, but regardless our country doesn't do with the tax money what you seem to think they do. Just take a look at the Social Security Program funding if you don't believe me. You can blame the people for not holding the governments feet to the flames if you wish, but the fact is it happens all the time....constantly and incessantly and I see no reason to believe you proposed gun tax would be any different.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And your cost-benefit analysis seems to be putting more stock in money
than in human life. I do not care about the pocket-book of gun
enthusiasts. Those that need their guns to survive, can get exemptions.
Any change that prevents or deters violence towards humans is preferred.
We don't live in fantasy-land. The cold hard fact is that humans can be measured in dollar signs. It isn't pleasant, but it's true. Besides if this is your goal perhaps you should be more concerned about military technology. We have used drone strikes to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children and continue to do so on a regular basis. This ultimately falls squarely on the shoulders of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Guess what? The people of our country allows this, they voted for this, so you could say that the people failed again to hold the government's feet to the fire. Sorry for rambling a bit...I get side-tracked. My point is that human life can be, and is measured in money on a regular basis. You can also look at the healthcare industry for some fine examples. The fact that you "don't about gun-owners pocket-books" just shows who the unreasonable one between us is. If you don't care about the position of your "opposition" then I would judge you to be far more cruel than gun-owners as a collective.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And how would my changes hurt? What change have I suggested that would
tip the cost-benefit analysis towards it being detrimental for society?
How are my suggestions going to put more bodies in the ground?
They would hurt by taking money out of the pockets of people and wasting it on bureaucratic bullshit. I could argue that some of the tax money would ultimately be used in warfare, but I won't. I think the money would more likely be wasted an organization whose sole purpose would be to convince people that it's needed while it ends up wasting more money than it brings in, like the USPS. Will your proposal kill people? Probably not, but I also think it is very unlikely that it would save any significant amount of lives either. They they jacked up the prices of cigarettes for example most people continued to smoke, they were just poorer smokers.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And then I go back to statistics like those from Australia of a drop-off
in mass shootings and murder by gun numbers in England that are
something like <40 per year. Or countries that lack a gun culture
where people assume that their right to owning a gun is greater than the
right that society possesses to amend laws to protect life. People keep
citing Sweden. I would love for our gun laws and gun culture to be like
that. Want a gun? You have to be in the military and redo your weapons
training every year.



They have better mental health care there too. But being more like Sweden does not mean we stay the course.

And here again is where we just must agree that out political philosophies are split in divergent directions and agree to disagree. Yes, it may save lives to be like the UK or Sweden, but I'd rather take my chances and keep my freedoms.



The disclaimer of "let's agree to disagree" is the big problem with our government and politics right now in general. I do not agree to disagree. I agree that we can disagree and that we can agree that differing opinions are valuable. But I disagree that we should ever just draw a line and say "let's agree to disagree", because that divides us into 2 groups with no helpful dialogue back and forth to come to a mutual agreement to solve our problems. Exactly like what has been happening on capital hill for a few years now.

You continue to try and make the point that the government just squanders money and that there is apparently nothing we can do about it. That argument has no bearing on the issue of guns and is a separate issue. But it is resolvable through action from good information. That is done by getting rid of elected officials squandering their positions and demanding better politicians to replace them. It isn't a quick fix. It is a long-term investment. Which is why most people just seem reserved to say it doesn't work, because they don't want to actually do anything.

And the notion that we are already taxed to heavily is also absurd and also a distraction from the point of guns. We pay less for gas here in the US than other developed nations do. We pay less into the government. We get fewer services from our government for our money. Flat taxes on goods (like a sales tax) are unfair and shitty. Income taxes make more sense. Do I want to pay more? No, I like extra money in my bank account too. But I would prefer to live in a safer country bent on improving that invests in its peoples lives through medicine and education. Not the country we have become over the last few decades. (attribution for that is primarily in the hands of the moral majority)

I do care about military technology, which is why I care when it ends up in the hands of the average US citizen (my George Carlin quote on the intelligence of the average person is both amusing and alarming). Guns are military technology. Extended magazines, .50 caliber rifles, fully-automatic weapons, hollow-point bullets, tactical shotguns, etc. These are designed for military purpose, not hunting and not self-defense.

Am I happy with things like drone strikes? No, but you are shifting the argument to another point again. If we have to engage in warfare (I don't think we currently do but whatever), I prefer it be fought by machines instead of humans, but I don't like what our drone program is used for and I do not commend the president for that, but this is still a mute point that is unrelated to the topic at hand.

As for the people=$$ argument, I agree that corporations do frequently assign a dollar value to people, but a government shouldn't. We can talk about how much the average person costs the state or how much an individual contributes or takes from the government pool. But human life is equally valuable. Their contributions to society may not be, but their lives are. And your rights only extend so far. Once they cross the barrier of affecting someone else's life, your rights end and theirs begin. Damn the 2nd amendment if you think your right to own a gun means someone else may have to die.

And your point about the USPS and smoking shifts the argument again to a point not in this race. The USPS loses money, sure. But it was NEVER designed to make money. The government is not a business, why should it turn a profit? It takes care of its employees and USPS workers do well in salary and benefits. As for smoking, they tax the crap out of it and my mom continues to smoke. And will probably die prematurely. Because taxes alone do not deter use, and are not why I suggest enacting taxes. You are attacking something I did not say again. You like throwing out the idea of a straw-man but your whole reply so far has been nothing but a series of them. I will however say that I have a sister-in-law that has given up smoking due in part to the financial cost of smoking, but it wasn't the initial reason and was instead a secondary plus. And are you trying to assert that guns are on par with cigarettes. I.E. that they are an unnecessary, expensive, and potentially harmful hobby?

"Yes, it may save lives to be like the UK or Sweden, but I'd rather take my chances and keep my freedoms."
'Murica, cause fuck all those other happy people who live longer and don't have the problems we do. They're nothing but hippy socialist commies.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Do guns cause Rape? What do you think is the leading cause of rape? LostandInsecure 96 1,552 31-05-2014 03:26 PM
Last Post: Metazoa Zeke
  Guns. Yee haw! Drunkin Druid 64 1,090 26-05-2014 04:09 PM
Last Post: Anjele
  The problem with storing guns/ammo at a range Phaedrus 2 75 28-04-2014 06:25 PM
Last Post: Phaedrus
  Polite discussion on guns itsnotmeitsyou 10 228 24-04-2014 11:26 AM
Last Post: itsnotmeitsyou
  Kids and Guns Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver 6 287 13-02-2014 10:01 AM
Last Post: Unknown
  Anarchists, Guns, and 3D Printing houseofcantor 43 2,429 16-11-2013 09:31 AM
Last Post: Chas
  Boys Expelled From School for Toy Guns at their Home Dark Light 18 837 26-09-2013 06:36 PM
Last Post: I Am
Forum Jump: