On guns, where does one draw the line

[kineo]

(06-02-2013 08:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 04:56 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

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.

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.


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.

Wow, that was very well said! Bravo!

[Chas]

(06-02-2013 08:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

Not exactly.
The use of hollow point bullets in war is a violation of the Hague Convention. They are intended for hunting, but are also used by the police.

[Bucky Ball]

No one has the absolute right to anything. Even the most conservative Supreme Court judges say, (as Antonin Scalia said to Piers Morgan, in his interview), we have the right to what is "reasonable". The reasonable test trumps everything. Even Scalia reads the Federalist Papers to try to determine what the founders were thinking, on various subjects, and he is a strict Constitutionalist. The founders had no way of envisioning any weapons beyond the single shot muskets they had then, and certainly not multiple shot military weapons.
It is not reasonable that the public have possession of multiple shot weapons, (whatever they are called), meant for military use. One could invent anything, and call it a gun, and say "the Second Amendment guarantees me the use of anything named a *gun*.
It's bullshit, and unreasonable, and has produced an environment that is unsafe.

[TheBeardedDude]

I didn't think the military used them but I thought that was cost related. Fact noted.

[Chas]

(06-02-2013 09:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one has the absolute right to anything. Even the most conservative Supreme Court judges say, (as Antonin Scalia said to Piers Morgan, in his interview), we have the right to what is "reasonable". The reasonable test trumps everything. Even Scalia reads the Federalist Papers to try to determine what the founders were thinking, on various subjects, and he is a strict Constitutionalist. The founders had no way of envisioning any weapons beyond the single shot muskets they had then, and certainly not multiple shot military weapons.
It is not reasonable that the public have possession of multiple shot weapons, (whatever they are called), meant for military use. One could invent anything, and call it a gun, and say "the Second Amendment guarantees me the use of anything named a *gun*.
It's bullshit, and unreasonable, and has produced an environment that is unsafe.

The legal arms of civilians of that day were the equal of the military arms of that day. So that is the context.

Now, is that still reasonable? In the context of today's military weapons, no rational person would agree that civilian ownership of just any military weapon is reasonable, and the law agrees.

So the discussion boils down to what is reasonable.

[TheBeardedDude]

(06-02-2013 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one has the absolute right to anything. Even the most conservative Supreme Court judges say, (as Antonin Scalia said to Piers Morgan, in his interview), we have the right to what is "reasonable". The reasonable test trumps everything. Even Scalia reads the Federalist Papers to try to determine what the founders were thinking, on various subjects, and he is a strict Constitutionalist. The founders had no way of envisioning any weapons beyond the single shot muskets they had then, and certainly not multiple shot military weapons.
It is not reasonable that the public have possession of multiple shot weapons, (whatever they are called), meant for military use. One could invent anything, and call it a gun, and say "the Second Amendment guarantees me the use of anything named a *gun*.
It's bullshit, and unreasonable, and has produced an environment that is unsafe.

The legal arms of civilians of that day were the equal of the military arms of that day. So that is the context.

Now, is that still reasonable? In the context of today's military weapons, no rational person would agree that civilian ownership of just any military weapon is reasonable, and the law agrees.

So the discussion boils down to what is reasonable.

Agreed. And perhaps the other point to be made is that even those within the band of the reasonable spectrum, should be regulated. Primarily because the people using them need to be held responsible, which is what laws do. They hold those living under them, responsible for their actions.

So, it is both a question of what weapons and accessories are reasonable, and what regulations and requirements are reasonable.

There's no need to be unreasonable.

[kineo]

Since handguns are the guns most likely to be used in a shooting, I'm OK with leaving rifles alone and going after handguns instead. I would be ok with drawing the line at handguns being illegal for private citizens. They are made to be concealable. A rifle is generally not.

[Chas]

(06-02-2013 09:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  The legal arms of civilians of that day were the equal of the military arms of that day. So that is the context.

Now, is that still reasonable? In the context of today's military weapons, no rational person would agree that civilian ownership of just any military weapon is reasonable, and the law agrees.

So the discussion boils down to what is reasonable.

Agreed. And perhaps the other point to be made is that even those within the band of the reasonable spectrum, should be regulated. Primarily because the people using them need to be held responsible, which is what laws do. They hold those living under them, responsible for their actions.

So, it is both a question of what weapons and accessories are reasonable, and what regulations and requirements are reasonable.

There's no need to be unreasonable.

In the U.S., there is the problem of having at least 51 sets of firearms regulations - the feds and the states, leaving out local ordinance.

I live in a state with among the most restrictive gun laws, Massachusetts. Next door is Connecticut, another very restrictive state. However, on our northern border, New Hampshire and Vermont are among the least restrictive. People are generally surprised that no license is required in Vermont.

Massachusetts Wrote:Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.
All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks, and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel.

Compare that with:

Vermont Wrote:Vermont has very few gun control laws. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse. State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.
The term "Vermont Carry" is widely used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement, however this term is being replaced by the term "Constitutional Carry". Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont.

'New Hampshire Wrote:New Hampshire is a "shall-issue state" for a license to carry a concealed handgun. The act of open carrying of firearms by non-felons is generally permissible.
No license is required to openly carry a firearm while on foot, but carry of a loaded pistol or revolver in a motor vehicle, openly or concealed, does require a license. Note that the NH license is issued for carry of a "pistol or revolver," and is not a license to carry "weapons" as exists in some other states. The NH license is issued by the local mayor, selectmen, or police dept at a cost of $10 for residents, and by the NH State Police at a cost of $100 for non-residents (changed from $20 on July 1, 2009). The term of issue of the license is four years for non-residents, and at least four years for residents. Turn around time is generally 1 – 2 weeks, with 14 days being the maximum time allowed by law.
New Hampshire has no laws restricting the age at which a person may possess and carry firearms.

[TheBeardedDude]

(06-02-2013 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Agreed. And perhaps the other point to be made is that even those within the band of the reasonable spectrum, should be regulated. Primarily because the people using them need to be held responsible, which is what laws do. They hold those living under them, responsible for their actions.

So, it is both a question of what weapons and accessories are reasonable, and what regulations and requirements are reasonable.

There's no need to be unreasonable.

In the U.S., there is the problem of having at least 51 sets of firearms regulations - the feds and the states, leaving out local ordinance.

I live in a state with among the most restrictive gun laws, Massachusetts. Next door is Connecticut, another very restrictive state. However, on our northern border, New Hampshire and Vermont are among the least restrictive. People are generally surprised that no license is required in Vermont.

Massachusetts Wrote:Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.
All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks, and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel.

Compare that with:

Vermont Wrote:Vermont has very few gun control laws. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse. State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.
The term "Vermont Carry" is widely used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement, however this term is being replaced by the term "Constitutional Carry". Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont.

'New Hampshire Wrote:New Hampshire is a "shall-issue state" for a license to carry a concealed handgun. The act of open carrying of firearms by non-felons is generally permissible.
No license is required to openly carry a firearm while on foot, but carry of a loaded pistol or revolver in a motor vehicle, openly or concealed, does require a license. Note that the NH license is issued for carry of a "pistol or revolver," and is not a license to carry "weapons" as exists in some other states. The NH license is issued by the local mayor, selectmen, or police dept at a cost of $10 for residents, and by the NH State Police at a cost of $100 for non-residents (changed from $20 on July 1, 2009). The term of issue of the license is four years for non-residents, and at least four years for residents. Turn around time is generally 1 – 2 weeks, with 14 days being the maximum time allowed by law.
New Hampshire has no laws restricting the age at which a person may possess and carry firearms.

Massachusetts eh! Well I am your next-door neighbor here in CT. And I think we have agreed on this too, that 51 different sets of regulations for things like guns and education is incredibly stupid and counterproductive.

[germanyt]

Regardless of your or someone else's interpretation of the 2nd amendment or what the founding fathers had in mind when writing it, you are advocating the banning of firearms with no evidence that it will reduce the murder rate in any significant way. In fact, the number of crimes that are prevented with firearms suggests that removal of them could actually result in the increase of the murder rate per 100,000. Just admit that guns scare you so you want them banned and you'll come up with any cherry picked statistic or other excuse you can think of to accomplish that goal.


Also, have fun in your failed gun control goals in 2013. Hundred bucks says that not even a universal background check bill passes the House. And as long as gun control is the hot topic those that support it will lose seats in Congress making it even harder for control advocates. On top of the zero Republicans that will support gun control there are dozens of Dems from red states/districts that also won't support it.