Guns, Guns, Guns.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 2 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:38 PM

Quote:
I've proposed several times recently that reporting - by school counselors, doctors, psychiatric professionals, and family members - of folks who might be prone to mass killing should be encouraged, so those persons might get evaluation, treatment, or possibly confinement; possibly with disincentives for failure to make such a report. No one seems interested in this idea. Any idea why?

Because we thought you were joking because it's a terrible idea that puts too much power over evaluation, treatment, and confinement into the hands of people who have been known to abuse such power. People known to target black sheep and families of black sheep at school and fudge evaluations to make problems just Go Away. I mean jesus, Zero Tolerance isn't even as close to all encompassing as what you just proposed and that Zero Tolerance is a violation of rights debacle with problems and failures of common sense all over.

Most crazy people aren't dangerous. Most crazy people aren't even like ME! They're entitled to rights same as anyone else, rights to refuse treatment, rights to refuse confinement, and maybe, even, the right to keep a gun at home to defend themselves. My grandmother on my mother's side had vascular dementia and and alcohol problem that pushed it even further, and she had a gun at home for her defense. She never used it, but if someone she didn't know had broken in, should she have not been allowed to have it and defend herself?

The problem is the stigma against getting help for mental health issues, and an abusive and exploitive mental health treatment system. Fix that up, give some additional hotlines for people at their breaking point and for people who the anger and resentment is starting to overcome them before they do something bad, and you'll have already improved the situation quite a lot. Without Orwellian Reporting, and without 4 year sanity testing.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Hello,

This is a common tactic. You pick something that seems awful that most people can agree on as being awful. Then you pile on as much stuff as you can into that thing and try to ban it. It's pretty much the playbook for convincing people to surrender rights.

--Anthony

I only mentioned abortion because I was responding to Frem's earlier post.

"Do you really think, that outlawing Abortion would stop it ?
What are the logical effects and consequences of doing so ?
And yes, that includes "cheating" by hedging it in with restrictions and manipulating the law or its interpretation to make it EFFECTIVELY illegal, without making it ACTUALLY illegal, a tactic I know full well that some of you have firmly and publicly decried here."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:54 PM

HCK> WTF?

I'm agreeing with you, so what's with the outraged response.

We're capable of empathy and of violence.
All societies have rules so that they can function.
Why not some rules around weapon ownership?

What bits are unfounded or contentious.

Our species isn't choking on these beliefs, we choking on an obsession on individualism and invididual happiness at the cost of all else. We're choking on obsessive consumerism, on placing objects above people. We're choking on seeing violence as a solution to just about everything, and in America you're choking on weapons.

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:09 PM

Quote:
I only mentioned abortion because I was responding to Frem's earlier post.

Hello,

Yes, I was responding to HKCAVALIER. I quoted some of his post in my response.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:19 PM

Quote:
Why not some rules around weapon ownership?

Hello,

In my country, there was a push recently to require identification in order to vote. This was a very simple and common-sense rule. It didn't aim to deny the vote to anybody. It simply required that a person be identified before they could vote, with a picture I.D.

Yet some people became alarmed at this simple (and minor) regulation on voting. There was a lot of shouting about disenfranchisement and voter suppression and all kinds of nonsense. Some people worried that poor folks couldn't afford to meet the new regulation. They might have to miss work. They might have to travel long distances to get identification. Many wild concerns were raised.

People have a habit of getting worked up about even the most logical, common-sense regulation of their rights. They imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios where someone is trying to deny them their rights, when in reality they are just placing some simple controls on how it is exercised.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
HCK> WTF?

I'm agreeing with you, so what's with the outraged response.

We're capable of empathy and of violence.
All societies have rules so that they can function.
Why not some rules around weapon ownership?

What bits are unfounded or contentious.

Our species isn't choking on these beliefs, we choking on an obsession on individualism and invididual happiness at the cost of all else. We're choking on obsessive consumerism, on placing objects above people. We're choking on seeing violence as a solution to just about everything, and in America you're choking on weapons.

Yeaaaaah, I was able to agree with you up until the last part you edited in. Ta!

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So here, you oppose a prohibition on guns and nobody here, to my knowledge, is advocating an absolute prohibition on guns. No one, right? What I hear people calling for is regulation.

Ummm, well, I could live with a ban on certain military grade weaponry.
My reasoning:
You don't hunt deer with a Sig Sauer 551A.
If you're having problems with certain folk that requires the use of such a weapon, perhaps you need to choose a new place to live, or ask the authorities for assistance.
If you're thinking of fighting the government at some point there's only one word I have: tanks.

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:
If you're thinking of fighting the government at some point there's only one word I have: tanks.

Hello,

Um... what about tanks?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

In my country, there was a push recently to require identification in order to vote. This was a very simple and common-sense rule. It didn't aim to deny the vote to anybody. It simply required that a person be identified before they could vote, with a picture I.D.

Yet some people became alarmed at this simple (and minor) regulation on voting. There was a lot of shouting about disenfranchisement and voter suppression and all kinds of nonsense. Some people worried that poor folks couldn't afford to meet the new regulation. They might have to miss work. They might have to travel long distances to get identification. Many wild concerns were raised.

People have a habit of getting worked up about even the most logical, common-sense regulation of their rights. They imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios where someone is trying to deny them their rights, when in reality they are just placing some simple controls on how it is exercised.

--Anthony

Whatever, Anthony. It's not my country, and I don't think I should even be contributing to this conversation. I don't have to live there, I don't have to deal with the consequences of your laws or lack of them. I just feel for those who are victims in all of this, when the solution to anyone outside the US seems so obvious but so hard for those within.

But I'll leave you to work out what to do in your neck of the woods and sincerely wish you find a solution that works.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:27 PM

dbl post

STORYMARK

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

In my country, there was a push recently to require identification in order to vote. This was a very simple and common-sense rule. It didn't aim to deny the vote to anybody. It simply required that a person be identified before they could vote, with a picture I.D.

Yet some people became alarmed at this simple (and minor) regulation on voting. There was a lot of shouting about disenfranchisement and voter suppression and all kinds of nonsense. Some people worried that poor folks couldn't afford to meet the new regulation. They might have to miss work. They might have to travel long distances to get identification. Many wild concerns were raised.

People have a habit of getting worked up about even the most logical, common-sense regulation of their rights. They imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios where someone is trying to deny them their rights, when in reality they are just placing some simple controls on how it is exercised.

--Anthony

Whatever, Anthony. It's not my country, and I don't think I should even be contributing to this conversation. I don't have to live there, I don't have to deal with the consequences of your laws or lack of them. I just feel for those who are victims in all of this, when the solution to anyone outside the US seems so obvious but so hard for those within.

But I'll leave you to work out what to do in your neck of the woods and sincerely wish you find a solution that works.

Broke people nat having the money to buy an ID just to vote.... is "wild?"

Don't go off the rails just because you have something you feel you need to defend. It does your argument no good when you rob yourself of credibility.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:35 PM

Quote:

Broke people nat having the money to buy an ID just to vote.... is "wild?"

Don't go off the rails just because you have something you feel you need to defend. It does your argument no good when you rob yourself of credibility.

Hello,

No, I don't think it's particularly wild. But the people who wanted to install the requirement thought that the requirement was mild and sensible, the objections were rediculous, and the talk of voter disenfranchisement was the product of lunacy.

"Nobody is trying to take away your right to vote" was a common rejoinder.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Um... what about tanks?

My point is that unless you have a Plasma Rifle in 40 watt range, no hand held gun is going to help you when the tanks roll in.

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
the objections were rediculous, and the talk of voter disenfranchisement was the product of lunacy.

Tony, you're beginning to lose me here...

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Um... what about tanks?

My point is that unless you have a Plasma Rifle in 40 watt range, no hand held gun is going to help you when the tanks roll in.

Hello,

I think the daily lesson in insurgency has taught us very well that you do not go toe to toe with tanks.

Which stops the insurgency not one whit.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:42 PM

Guys, he was comparing the disenfranchisement of blacks and other poor voters using voter ID laws with stricter gun control laws, which he is against, for ostensibly the same reasons he is against the voter ID laws.

Subtext please.

In before objection that "but votes don't kill people, wars do."

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:45 PM

Quote:
Tony, you're beginning to lose me here...

Hello,

I am here to answer any particular question or uncertainty.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:46 PM

Quote:
In before objection that "but votes don't kill people, wars do."

Hello,

LOL!

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Tony, you're beginning to lose me here...

Hello,

I am here to answer any particular question or uncertainty.

I found you again. No worries.

Thanks Byte.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
HCK> WTF?

I'm agreeing with you, so what's with the outraged response.

We're capable of empathy and of violence.
All societies have rules so that they can function.
Why not some rules around weapon ownership?

What bits are unfounded or contentious.

Why, that would be the bits you said in your last post?

Hey Magons,

I'll see your WTF and raise ya a WTH??? These three very mild statements here aren't what I saw in your other post.

"I've often wondered weather empathy is learned."

I'm sorry, but I took that to mean you believed empathy to be learned. I figured you were simply hedging (further down you seemingly confirm my suspicion). To say empathy is "learned" in this context is to say that it does not arise naturally; it is to say that it's something alien to our most primal instincts and therefore kinda quaint and nice but, at the end of the day, or when the shit hits the fan, empathy is simply not something humans are ever gonna really get to. That "learned" is what I objected to so strenously. Even dogs and cats express empathy without doing a lot of learning.

"You will never get a society where everyone is empathic."

This really seems to contradict your statement above: "We're capable of empathy and violence," which suggests that you already believe that our entire society is empathic. If you'd merely said that we were capable of empathy and violence I can't imagine any sane person would disagree. Why you gotta backpeddle? Didn't you think what you wrote? Isn't it different from what you're saying now?

"Secondly, violence and cruelty are as much a part of human nature as empathy is, maybe more so since we tend to lean towards that if empathy is not learned."

Okay, see, here you've clearly moved from "I've often wondered wheather empathy is learned" to basing your argument on the presumption that it is. So, really, your "I've often wondered" is just diplomacy. Again, if you were just asking questions and wondering in earnest, I don't think I woulda gotten riled.

And that "maybe moreso" speaks again of empathy being somehow secondary, learned behavior, non-instinctual, while violence is a primary drive in humans. This is mythology.

"We are predators after all."

Aw, hell to the no! That's just brainwashing from the Naked Ape crowd of the 50's that has been roundly debunked for decades. Minus our technology, we're pretty half-assed predators who don't even have the digestive tract to process all that meat properly.

Your second statement above, "All societies have rules so that they can function," is kinda totalogical (what is a society?) and kinda nebulous (what constitutes a rule?) and, to my mind, thoroughly questionable (what are you really trying to say?). You act now as if this is so very mild and self-evident and yet in your previous post you claimed to "know this will be the most contentious." What contention were you imagining if not the one I gave you? What's going on, Magons? I'm really having a difficult time seeing a logical through-line from that post to this. I'm quite willing to accept that you and I are having a terrible misunderstanding. As I said in my last post, I'm kinda sceptical that you and I can have a reasonable conversation on this subject, our points of reference being so wholly incompatible.

Quote:
Our species isn't choking on these beliefs, we choking on an obsession on individualism and invididual happiness at the cost of all else. We're choking on obsessive consumerism, on placing objects above people. We're choking on seeing violence as a solution to just about everything, and in America you're choking on weapons.

The so-called rugged individualist is a fundamentally toxic notion. As far as I can see it arose somewher

GEEZER

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The problem is the stigma against getting help for mental health issues, and an abusive and exploitive mental health treatment system. Fix that up, give some additional hotlines for people at their breaking point and for people who the anger and resentment is starting to overcome them before they do something bad, and you'll have already improved the situation quite a lot. Without Orwellian Reporting, and without 4 year sanity testing.

And I'd be all for that. And if that was fixed, I'd probably opt for mental health professionals who found someone they thought was a danger and beyond their capability being able to refer them to some non-expolitive body for further help. In a few cases, I'd probably allow involuntary confinement and treatment if the non-exploitive body found a real danger.

It would be good if we actually could deal with the real problem.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

JO753

Monday, December 17, 2012 10:00 PM

Anthony RE your rebuttle of my post to Frem. You appear to understand the basic concept of power.

A better undestanding requires the additional concept of balance.

Without the power to communicate, our species coud not exist. Its nearly as essential as the ability to invent ways to influence and alter our environment.

So, yes, words kill. But they also make civilization possible.

Guns have been called 'equalizerz' because an 80 pound girl can defend herself from a 300 pound brute with wun. This iz not accurate.

Gunz go way the hell overboard beyond equalization. That 80 pound girl can possibly kill the brute and 50 uv hiz big brute buddyz from 1,000 yards away in a matter uv minits.

The basic premise uv a gun az self defense iz lost bekuz uv its excessive power. The notion that you can defend yourself frum sumwun else with a gun just by having wun yourself and being a good shot iz restricted to a limited set uv circumstancez. Your enemy can put a bullet in your hed before you know hez there.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 17, 2012 10:13 PM

Quote:
That 80 pound girl can possibly kill the brute and 50 uv hiz big brute buddyz from 1,000 yards away in a matter uv minits.

Maybe if she had military training and hardware. And a railgun. Or a sniper rifle perfectly calibrated with a hell of an accurate scope. Or she's RIVER.

Remember in Firefly when Jayne is bragging about tagging someone at 500 yards away? That would be difficult even without a bent scope. You're talking about five football fields.

Now if you mean a girl could walk into a room with a black market illegal fully-automatic and take out fifty relatively big guys in a matter of minutes, then yes. Although frankly I don't know why in your example we're talking about an 80 pound girl. I think there's an implication there about 80 pound girls versus brutes that I don't want to touch with a barge pole.

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Anthony RE your rebuttle of my post to Frem. You appear to understand the basic concept of power.

A better undestanding requires the additional concept of balance.

Without the power to communicate, our species coud not exist. Its nearly as essential as the ability to invent ways to influence and alter our environment.

So, yes, words kill. But they also make civilization possible.

Guns have been called 'equalizerz' because an 80 pound girl can defend herself from a 300 pound brute with wun. This iz not accurate.

Gunz go way the hell overboard beyond equalization. That 80 pound girl can possibly kill the brute and 50 uv hiz big brute buddyz from 1,000 yards away in a matter uv minits.

The basic premise uv a gun az self defense iz lost bekuz uv its excessive power. The notion that you can defend yourself frum sumwun else with a gun just by having wun yourself and being a good shot iz restricted to a limited set uv circumstancez. Your enemy can put a bullet in your hed before you know hez there.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com]

Hello,

It seems as though you're advocating for dueling pistols. Equal but limited firepower.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 17, 2012 10:23 PM

I continue to have misgivings, Geezer. Although perhaps some of your ideas are salvageable in regards to addressing the problem. Just not the forced confinement and treatment thing. Did you watch Dollhouse? See Sierra's backstory? Bad enough as the system currently is without giving MORE power for that.

1KIKI

Monday, December 17, 2012 11:42 PM

"In my country, there was a push recently to require identification in order to vote. This was a very simple and common-sense rule. It didn't aim to deny the vote to anybody. It simply required that a person be identified before they could vote, with a picture I.D.

Yet some people became alarmed at this simple (and minor) regulation on voting. There was a lot of shouting about disenfranchisement and voter suppression and all kinds of nonsense. Some people worried that poor folks couldn't afford to meet the new regulation. They might have to miss work. They might have to travel long distances to get identification. Many wild concerns were raised.

People have a habit of getting worked up about even the most logical, common-sense regulation of their rights. They imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios where someone is trying to deny them their rights, when in reality they are just placing some simple controls on how it is exercised."

"No, I don't think it's particularly wild. But the people who wanted to install the requirement thought that the requirement was mild and sensible, the objections were rediculous, and the talk of voter disenfranchisement was the product of lunacy."

Not according to the this man:

Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader, said that a strict new voter ID law will help Republicans win the state for the first time since 1988.

""Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," he said to applause at a Republican State Committee this weekend, according to PoliticsPa.com."

And so your argument falls down. Please retract your claims and the falsifications you presented.

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 17, 2012 11:52 PM

Quote:
Not according to the this man:

Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader, said that a strict new voter ID law will help Republicans win the state for the first time since 1988.

""Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," he said to applause at a Republican State Committee this weekend, according to PoliticsPa.com."

And so your argument falls down. Please retract your claims and the falsifications you presented.

Hello,

Surely he was talking about how less voter fraud would benefit his candidate.

But even if you wanted to make the leap that THAT GUY wanted to disenfranchise voters, that doesn't mean that the vast majority of Voter ID supporters wanted to. They just wanted to add some common sense rules to the voting process.

A few fringe lunatics are attached to any policy, after all. That does not indicate a valid campaign to eliminate your rights.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:01 AM

"Way back when there was a spike of moral outrage, and knees were jerked ..."

Sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes it does.

MADD. Anti-cigarette smoking. Two examples that worked extremely well to provide more protection to the 'innocent' - those killed, maimed or injured by drunk driving or second-hand smoke.

Other things that have worked - anti-pollution laws. Laws helping ensure food safety. Laws helping ensure job safety.

Before you blanket condemn any and all government action to protect people, maybe you need to look at the other side of the argument.

More than that, I seriously, vehemently disagree that the will of the people should be ignored. Are we a free society in reality, able to weigh our options and make our choices? Or are we chained to symbols unable to choose?

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:08 AM

Wisconsin state senator, Glenn Grothman, and I’m sure I need not state that he is a…what else, a Republican piece of horseshit, another one of those who are determined to disenfranchise voters in order to win an election. From his interview with Think Progress (Keyes):

KEYES: If it were upheld and in place in time for the November election, do you think — polls have shown a pretty razor-thin margin — do you think it might ultimately help Romney’s campaign here in the state?
GROTHMAN: Yes. Right. I think we believe that insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat.

Let me interpret that for you AnthonyT - it's to keep DEMOCRATS away from the polls.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:09 AM

Quote:
More than that, I seriously, vehemently disagree that the will of the people should be ignored.

Hello,

I'm pretty sure that your fear about the will of the people being ignored is even more farfetched than my fear that people are trying to take away my gun rights.

After all, the people have successfully willed my gun rights diminished on more than one occasion in my own lifetime.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:11 AM

Do I need to find more republicans admitting what voter ID was for?

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wisconsin state senator, Glenn Grothman, and I’m sure I need not state that he is a…what else, a Republican piece of horseshit, another one of those who are determined to disenfranchise voters in order to win an election. From his interview with Think Progress (Keyes):

KEYES: If it were upheld and in place in time for the November election, do you think — polls have shown a pretty razor-thin margin — do you think it might ultimately help Romney’s campaign here in the state?
GROTHMAN: Yes. Right. I think we believe that insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat.

Let me interpret that for you AnthonyT - it's to keep DEMOCRATS away from the polls.

Hello,

Oh my goodness, Kiki. You seem to be building a strong case that a seemingly logical Voter ID law is actually being used by some people to disenfranchise voters. Essentially stealing their rights.

Which is a direct contradiction to what I was told. They said in no uncertain terms that they were Not Trying to Take Your Voting Rights Away when they proposed these initiatives.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:15 AM

Amazing, isn't it.

So, to get back to guns - when it comes to assault weapons I can give you an unqualified maybe. Define assault weapon. Then we can talk.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:16 AM

Anthony understands that part of the interest in voter ID laws was to keep poor voters away. That is why he compared them to restrictions on gun ownership. He clearly sees the right to vote and the right to own guns as similar and equal rights. He views people trying to making voting more difficult as chiseling away at those rights, just as he sees people trying to make owning guns more difficult in the same way.

He's now just pulling your leg, 1kiki.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

MADD. Anti-cigarette smoking. anti-pollution laws. Laws helping ensure food safety. Laws helping ensure job safety.

You know, I'm not up for endless links & a 1000 word essay on why this is so simplistic.

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:20 AM

BTW AnthonyT

Your argument is completely fallacious when it comes to voter ID. That you describe them as "seemingly logical Voter ID" laws is in defiance of all known facts. When challenged in court, states could find NO evidence of voter fraud that this supposedly 'logical' set of laws was supposed to fix.

That you would describe them as 'logical' makes me think you're extremely disingenuous in your presentation or your thoughts.

Then you try and draw equivalencies with gun laws, when the reality of gun violence and the severity of the problem is painfully obvious to everyone.

The two situations are not comparable in the least.

Twist away, little boy.

Enjoy your mental gymnastics.

I hope you realize what a heartless snide little weasel you look like, comparing a non-existent voter fraud problem with the all-too-real problem of gun violence. Enjoy your new-found reputation. Asshole.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
He views people trying to making voting more difficult as chiseling away at those rights, just as he sees people trying to make owning guns more difficult in the same way.

He's now just pulling your leg, 1kiki.

I love that you're here moderating, thanks B! You're doing a great job IMHO.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

That you would describe them as 'logical' makes me think you're extremely disingenuous in your presentation or your thoughts.

Almost there...

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
when it comes to assault weapons I can give you an unqualified maybe. Define assault weapon. Then we can talk.

Seriously?
You need a definition?
A gun that was designed for maximum human kills in the shortest time possible relevant to its size & round capacity.
Is that working for you?

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
He views people trying to making voting more difficult as chiseling away at those rights, just as he sees people trying to make owning guns more difficult in the same way.

He's now just pulling your leg, 1kiki.
I love that you're here moderating, thanks B! You're doing a great job IMHO.

Not really. It's just that the misunderstanding seemed so easy to clear up. But maybe not. :/

I guess it's hard to detect tone and sarcasm over the internet. That's probably why I'm either over-doing it or talking a bit robotic.

I actually don't really have opinions on guns. Not afraid of them, don't care for them. Don't even really like them. Much prefer fisticuffs. But Frem, well, Frem seems to NEED them. So I'm okay with that.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:32 AM

Quote:
Twist away, little boy.

ETA:

Quote:
I hope you realize what a heartless snide little weasel you look like, comparing a non-existent voter fraud problem with the all-too-real problem of gun violence. Enjoy your new-found reputation. Asshole.

Hello,

I see that your arguments have evolved to the pinnacle level of personal insult.

Voter ID law advocates wanted to be sure that the person voting was who they said they were. They pointed out that the actual amount of Fraud was difficult to determine, since there was no comprehensive system in place to prevent or even detect it.

They pulled out stories like this one to make their case.
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/michigan_dead_people_v
oting_au.html

And it all sounded pretty good until you realized that there was a disparate impact of these proposals.

The incident of Voter ID is almost identical to the incident of California's Junk Gun (Saturday Night Special) bans.

http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/junkguns/aboutn.htm

The so-called Junk Guns were found to be involved in a majority of criminal confiscations, so laws were enacted to restrict Junk Guns.

The solution was found in the melting point of the firearm frame. The Junk Guns they targeted had a lower melting point than higher priced alternatives. They also reasoned that the softer metal of Junk Guns was easier to modify (filing off serial numbers.)

It seemed pretty logical to a lot of people.

What do YOU think an Assault Weapon is?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:35 AM

Fisticuffs and blades, like swords, and axes, and polearms. And maybe cross bows. And bows.

I dunno, so I think the old primitive weaponry is actually kinda elegant. So shoot me. ;)

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:37 AM

You missed my ETA. Here it is.

I hope you realize what a heartless snide little weasel you look like, comparing a non-existent voter fraud problem with the all-too-real problem of gun violence. Enjoy your new-found reputation. Asshole.

I won't be discussing anything with you again.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:41 AM

Quote:
ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

Hello,

I'm not even sure who this is directed at, but probably me, given the surrounding text.

It's like you went a bit mad there fore a moment.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I actually don't really have opinions on guns. Not afraid of them, don't care for them. Don't even really like them.

Well, I quite like guns, and I own a whole passel of 'em!
Two Walther PPK's, a P99 too.
But they, being replicas, are no deadlier than my ten phasers, my Mal gun, or my lightsabre.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Fisticuffs and blades, like swords, and axes, and polearms. And maybe cross bows. And bows.

I dunno, so I think the old primitive weaponry is actually kinda elegant. So shoot me. ;)

Hello,

Reminds me of my days fencing at college. Good times.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:43 AM

I'll say it again: votes don't kill people, wars do.

(The missing point here is that wars are voted on. There is a reason I don't vote. Too much guilt involved)

Quote:
I hope you realize what a heartless snide little weasel you look like, comparing a non-existent voter fraud problem with the all-too-real problem of gun violence. Enjoy your new-found reputation. Asshole.

That's uncalled for. Sure, the joke went on too long, but you weren't listening to us when we explained the misunderstanding.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I actually don't really have opinions on guns. Not afraid of them, don't care for them. Don't even really like them.
Well, I quite like guns, and I own a whole passel of 'em!
Two Walther PPK's, a P99 too.
But they, being replicas, are no deadlier than my ten phasers, my Mal gun, or my lightsabre.

This is true. A gun that is locked up and secured and unloaded is fairly safe. Most times.

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:53 AM

BUT THAT ***IS*** HIS ARGUMENT.

His argument IS that people will SAY their intentions are well-meaning when they aren't.

But the situations are not at all equivalent. The 'problem' of voter fraud was non-existent - at best nebulous if you gave EVERY benefit of the doubt.

The problem of gun violence is real. It's obvious. It's brutal. it's heartbreaking. It is a REAL EVIDENT PROBLEM. To treat it like it's JUST LIKE voter fraud is an act of extreme dishonestly, cruelty, insanity. To try to make it an argument is worse.

And he seems to think that we are too stupid and too ignorant to understand the facts. That somehow if he's sly enough, subtle enough, we'll be sucked in to the argument that indeed, gun violence is JUST LIKE voter fraud and therefore the solutions to gun violence are JUST AS BAD as the ones to voter fraud.

Make no mistake - that IS his argument.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:59 AM

Quote:
therefore the solutions to gun violence are JUST AS BAD as the ones to voter fraud.

Hello,

They can be, most especially when they don't actually address the problem.

The California Junk Gun ban is a very good example in the exact same mold as the Voter ID laws.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
BUT THAT ***IS*** HIS ARGUMENT.

His argument IS that people will SAY their intentions are well-meaning when they aren't.

But the situations are not at all equivalent. The 'problem' of voter fraud was non-existent - at best nebulous if you gave EVERY benefit of the doubt.

The problem of gun violence is real. It's obvious. It's brutal. it's heartbreaking. It is a REAL EVIDENT PROBLEM. To treat it like it's JUST LIKE voter fraud is an act of extreme dishonestly, cruelty, insanity. To try to make it an argument is worse.

And he seems to think that we are too stupid and too ignorant to understand the facts. That somehow if he's sly enough, subtle enough, we'll be sucked in to the argument that indeed, gun violence is JUST LIKE voter fraud and therefore the solutions to gun violence are JUST AS BAD as the ones to voter fraud.

Make no mistake - that IS his argument.

Anthony is aware voter fraud is not a real issue. His argument is more about denying the poor the right to vote versus what he sees as an equivalent issue: denying gun owners the right to own guns.

His comments of shock that there isn't voter fraud was intended as a joke. Taking the side of pro-voter ID people was am attempt at highlighting anti gun control arguments.

And votes do kill people, though indirectly. Honestly the better argument was comparing with abortion, as that is more directly about life, death, and choice.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:30 AM

Quote:
Honestly the better argument was comparing with abortion, as that is more directly about life, death, and choice.

Hello,

I tried that, but apparently some people don't actually want complete control over their own bodies, so the argument had nowhere to go.

Nobody was more surprised than I.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:50 AM

Cav,

No idea why you have taken such umbridge at what I have said. Why you have taken such a combatative stance really suprises and confuses me.

You do know I want our respective countries to be filled with more empathic individuals, that I support parenting, education and institutions which foster empathy. It seems to me that you think I am saying something different that has caused some sort of out of proportion outrage response.

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:21 AM

Byte

I got that hours ago. All you're doing is reinforcing in my mind what as asshole he is. He equates the solution to a non-existent problem as being JUST LIKE the solution to a real problem. He's equating the the mendacity of the voter-ID folk with the heartbreak of the parents of those children. He's trivializing the real problem, negating the real grief, invalidating the real people who are living through this. And you think that's OK. That it's just a matter of explaining it, and that will make it good.

They are not the same. They will never be the same. No explanation will make them then same. One is a non-existent problem. The other is a crisis of violence and needless death.

He is an enabler of violence. Frem is an enabler of violence. Geezer is an enabler of violence. Anyone who can observe the situation and want to keep things EXACTLY THE SAME in order to allow EXACTLY THE SAME VIOLENCE is a supporter of violence.

Obviously there is something far more important to them than stooping gun violence and gun death. What that is is personal. They value their personal itches over their personal topics more than they value the life of others. I got that. That is what they are.

As for control over one's body, what AnthonyT doesn't seem to realize is that my freedom ends at his nose - or the nose of someone else. I am fine with the idea of people being able to freely ingest whatever drugs they want. I'm not fine with them getting on the road and killing someone else. I am fine with the idea of abortion. I'm not fine with the idea killing a viable fetus at a whim as an expression of my ability to do whatever I want with my body.

HKC was right so long ago. He pointed out that AnthonyT's absolutism was a psychological problem. I think we're seeing it play out.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:29 AM

"The bigger the gun, the smaller the pecker." .... Sigsauer Freud

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:34 AM

Quote:
Anyone who can observe the situation and want to keep things EXACTLY THE SAME

Hello,

I think this is what they call a straw man. That is, creating an argument that was never made, and pointing it out as rediculous.

I'd like to see a lot of things change. So would Frem.

But I don't see the types of firearms available as the problem that is so desperately in need of change.

Quote:
Obviously there is something far more important to them than stooping gun violence and gun death.

I think you mean stopping gun violence and death.

That's true.

Like creating a society that cares for its people and tries to help them, so that violence and murder are less likely to happen. Period.

Quote:
As for control over one's body, what AnthonyT doesn't seem to realize is that my freedom ends at his nose

Ah, that's precisely where I measure the end of your freedoms. But you want the intrusion to be just a bit further in.

Quote:
He pointed out that AnthonyT's absolutism was a psychological problem. I think we're seeing it play out.

I'm fairly sure we all saw some psychological problems play themselves out this evening. But I don't think the things I consider a problem are the things you consider a problem.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
He is an enabler of violence. Frem is an enabler of violence. Geezer is an enabler of violence. Anyone who can observe the situation and want to keep things EXACTLY THE SAME in order to allow EXACTLY THE SAME VIOLENCE is a supporter of violence.

We don't support violence you moron! Someone seriously needs to kick your ass.

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:49 AM

OOOoohhh look! He's still digging!

BTW, love the edit job and his inability to respond to a complete argument.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:51 AM

I'm sorry, Magons, I've been trying to make what I'm outraged about clear to you. That you do not identify with what I'm outraged about is excellent news to me. I was trying to make my understanding of what you'd said as clear as I could so you would know what I was upset about. You seemed to not understand my objection so I attempted to clarify. Your last post to me was WTF and I was trying to clarify the W. I am not upset at you.

I am upset about what I see as a societal trance that believes we're essentially violent creatures. That idea makes me plenty angry because my life has been a living example of how a person with an extraordinarily violent upbringing can find the essential goodness in himself and in our species as a whole. I promise you, no one was there to teach me empathy, quite the contrary. Sometimes I really wonder how I was able to find empathy and compassion at all. But I did. So, I can, from time to time, feel obligated to speak my mind on the topic. I don't think my response to that lie about human nature is out of proportion, but I absolutely understand if you didn't understand WTF I was talking about or how I got there from what you said. It happens.

I'm very confused by this whole thread. I have never seen so much talking past one other in a single thread as in this one. I've brought up, jeez, a dozen or more points that, y'know, I thought bear discussion, but I've gotten pretty much zero actual discussion from anyone (Frem and I did accomplished an exchange at one point, but it was quickly lost in the shuffle). I'm not seeing much discussion at all, except between Bytemite and Geezer, really.

At this point I get the feeling that Frem and Anthony are just too scared, really, to allow themselves even to think like the folks they're arguing with. Everyone else in this thread seems to represent a tremendous threat to their well-being. They act as if, and I get the feeling they truly believe that their lives are being threatened by even discussing gun regulation. I mean, if I saw the world as they seem to do, I don't know how I could avoid being very frightened of what folk have been talking about this weekend. It's the 2012 apocalypse for gun ownership!

At the same time, Frem has endorsed such regulation himself, so I dunno. I don't get it.

And the consequence for Anthony of his fear-based argument is that he treats kiki about as poorly as I've seen him treat anyone. It's shocking.

Anthony, that was a serious dick move on your part. Not clever. Not appropriate. To presume that she was too dumb to know exactly what you were doing and to persist in your nasty joke, not cool. And that dig about abortion, coming from my fellow XY, not cool, man! Not remotely. And jeez, it so did not win her over or serve your argument at all, did it? What do you think you're doing? Anthony, you got a style, y'know? And for the most part it works. Charming, funny, enlightening. But when you get into a particularly heated exchange with someone all it sounds like is snide, snide, snide.

So anyway, Magons, I'm sorry I've contributed to any confusion. My intention was to clarify.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
OOOoohhh look! He's still digging!

BTW, love the edit job and his inability to respond to a complete argument.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

Hello,

Your argument is summed up by the statement:

"Your solution to the problem of gun violence is different than my solution to the problem of gun violence. Hence, you wish to do nothing and are an enabler of violence."

Oh, and also,

"Your perception of freedom is different from my perception of freedom, therefore you have a psychological problem."

With presumably some personal insults thrown in for good measure.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
He is an enabler of violence. Frem is an enabler of violence. Geezer is an enabler of violence. Anyone who can observe the situation and want to keep things EXACTLY THE SAME in order to allow EXACTLY THE SAME VIOLENCE is a supporter of violence.

We don't support violence you moron! Someone seriously needs to kick your ass.

Chris,isall

I get someone who says 'yanno, this is a problem and I would love to do something about it but I have no idea what to do'. They don't condone the system, they understand it's broken, they just don't have a fix for it. But someone who says 'you can't change ANYthing' and ensures that things will stay exactly the same is an enabler. So, which are you? Do you think something needs to change? Or do you want to keep everything exactly the same?

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
He's equating the the mendacity of the voter-ID folk with the heartbreak of the parents of those children. He's trivializing the real problem, negating the real grief, invalidating the real people who are living through this. And you think that's OK. That it's just a matter of explaining it, and that will make it good.

You have a point.

Quote:
HKC was right so long ago. He pointed out that AnthonyT's absolutism was a psychological problem. I think we're seeing it play out.

You also have a point here, though I wish it could be expressed with less abusive language toward Anthony. I think his history as a reasonable voice in these parts has earned him that much.

I have the utmost respect for both Anthony and Frem, but in this case I see something coming up short in them. I see the same sort of fear-based almost-psychosis that has been ruling the Conservatives for the past few decades and making any sort of forward progress impossible. Frem hasn't posted as much so here I can't make claims about him, but it seems clear to me that Anthony is terribly afraid of losing his basic rights - which really are in no danger - that any kind of discussion of gun control, much less a *compromise* is impossible.

Perhaps it's because he has never grokked gun "control", rather than gun "ban".

I am a strident supporter of abortion rights. But I recognize that there is a difference between a woman who just discovered she's pregnant but doesn't want to be a mother, and a woman who's just gone into labor and suddenly decided she wants to kill this being that is hours, perhaps minutes from being an independent life form. Limiting a woman's right to destroy a fully formed newborn is not an attack on my right to choose my own destiny after a condom breaks. I understand this. There is a line in between these two extremes which is fuzzy and hard to define, but I am willing to have that conversation.

I can make this separation. Clearly, Anthony can't. I have tried to get him to define the far extremes of "allowable" guns, just to start a discussion, and all I get from him is OMG YOU WANNA TAKE ALL MY WEAPONS YOU'RE BAD! which I cannot see as anything short of a kind of psychosis. His fear of losing his symbol of manhood (and puh-lease don't tell me you haven't heard that analogy, Anthony, or that you haven't looked yourself in the mirror while you're gun stroking to exactly how perfect a penis-stroking metaphor it is) is so severe that he cannot bear any kind of discussion or possibility of compromise. No matter how many innocents die needlessly: it seems to folks like Anthony that we cannot separate limiting nukes from limiting pea shooters. I disagree. One must be limited. One clearly should not.

Where's the line for the fuzzier cases in between? Well, both sides have to be willing to talk or we won't find an appropriate dividing line. That's life. That's how we optimize things.

Anthony is not willing to talk. I find this enlightening, in a sad way, that such an interesting open mind is completely shut regarding this one matter.

No compromise, no discussion, no way. Why is Anthony like this about this topic, and no other? What is it about guns that do this to him? Does nothing else make you feel safe and secure, Anthony? Can you not compromise on things that have no effect on your personal hunting gun collection so that countless others can finally feel, and be, safer?

[Edited for many typos, as usual]

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:01 AM

Quote:
And the consequence for Anthony of his fear-based argument is that he treats kiki about as poorly as I've seen him treat anyone.

Hello,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Quote:
It's shocking. Anthony, that was a serious dick move on your part. Not clever. Not appropriate. To presume that she was too dumb to know exactly what you were doing and to persist in your nasty joke, not cool.

I didn't presume anybody was dumb. And it wasn't a 'joke' so much as a way of comparing two situations by placing the other person in my shoes.

Quote:
And that dig about abortion, coming from my fellow XY, not cool, man! Not remotely.

I didn't dig about abortion. I responded to a stance. My ex-wife and I had the ordeal of a late-term abortion, and quite frankly I find her stance on body freedom to be intrusive.

Quote:
And jeez, it so did not win her over or serve your argument at all, did it? What do you think you're doing?

I thought I was helping someone to recognize what I see when someone talks about whittling away my rights with a few common sense restrictions. But no, I don't think any argument of any stripe would win her over. That makes her committed to her positions and it makes me psychologically astray.

Quote:
Anthony, you got a style, y'know? And for the most part it works. Charming, funny, enlightening. But when you get into a particularly heated exchange with someone all it sounds like is snide, snide, snide.

My style is to avoid the kinds of vicious, nasty, personal attacks that other people make when they are angry.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I got that hours ago. All you're doing is reinforcing in my mind what as asshole he is. He equates the solution to a non-existent problem as being JUST LIKE the solution to a real problem. He's equating the the mendacity of the voter-ID folk with the heartbreak of the parents of those children. He's trivializing the real problem, negating the real grief, invalidating the real people who are living through this. And you think that's OK. That it's just a matter of explaining it, and that will make it good.

He's debating. If you would get off that high horse of yours for a damn minute you might get that. Voter ID laws on there surface make all the sense in the world, even with little problem. If everyone could get state IDs at no cost or hardship there would be no argument against ID laws. Yet that point is never argued because somehow the very idea of proving who you are to vote is a big deal. How the hell do we than expect to get gun restrictions past. That is AnthonyT argument as I understand it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
But I don't see the types of firearms available as the problem that is so desperately in need of change.

You're a smart man. How can you not see how an assault rife is more of a problem in these situations than a pistol or a hunting rifle? Assault rifles are designed with killing multiple people in mind. That is there function.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I am upset about what I see as a societal trance that believes we're essentially violent creatures. That idea makes me plenty angry because my life has been a living example of how a person with an extraordinarily violent upbringing can find the essential goodness in himself and in our species as a whole. I promise you, no one was there to teach me empathy, quite the contrary. Sometimes I really wonder how I was able to find empathy and compassion at all. But I did. So, I can, from time to time, feel obligated to speak my mind on the topic. I don't think my response to that lie about human nature is out of proportion, but I absolutely understand if you didn't understand WTF I was talking about or how I got there from what you said. It happens.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

I didn't mean to imply that we are essentially violent creatures, but that we have the capacity for violence or aggression, if you prefer. ie the 'fight; in fight and flight. We also have the capacity to suspend empathy which we do on a pretty regular basis, when we eat meat, when we step over homeless people etc etc.

I did say I wasn't sure if empathy was learned or not, but I believe it should be fostered in all circumstances. I do think that we will never achieve a society where everyone has the capacity for empathy - signy said it better in an earlier post.

So I do believe we have capacity for both. Both traits make us human. Aggression, while not being pleasant, has its uses. Happy to have this conversation at more length maybe in another thread.

None of this means I am just shrugging my shoulders re the human race to say we are hopeless, violent maniacs. I don't believe that. If anything, we're not the least empathic that we have ever been. There have been times when public executions, torture etc were considered fun entertainment. But I don't think we're heading in a direction that will make anything better for a long time

Anyway respond more when I have more time.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:12 AM

Quote:
I have tried to get him to define the far extremes of "allowable" guns, just to start a discussion, and all I get from him is OMG YOU WANNA TAKE ALL MY WEAPONS YOU'RE BAD! which I cannot see as anything short of a kind of psychosis.

Hello,

By and large, my weapons aren't really at issue in gun control debates. Most particularly my favored guns aren't usually at issue. Jong made some odd statements in another thread about locking gun ownership at the technology level of the 1870's. This would actually leave the majority of my arsenal and all of my favored guns intact. There is no serious gun control proposal on the table currently that would take my guns away.

Quote:
His fear of losing his symbol of manhood (and puh-lease don't tell me you haven't heard that analogy, Anthony, or that you haven't looked yourself in the mirror while you're gun stroking to exactly how perfect a penis-stroking metaphor it is)

I hear this metaphor a lot, actually. Which is really just a way of belittling someone's position. No, I haven't looked at myself in the mirror while gun-stroking in a perfect penis-stroking metaphor. This is something that happens inside of other people's minds.

Quote:

is so severe that he cannot bear any kind of discussion or possibility of compromise.

I actually can discuss this subject at length, for days on end, and without hurling insults at people.

Quote:

No matter how many innocents die needlessly: we cannot separate limiting nukes from limiting pea shooters. One is absolutely necessary. One is not.

Actually, I can separate limiting nukes from limiting pea shooters.

Quote:

Where's the line? Well, both sides have to be willing to talk or we won't find an appropriate dividing line.

I have been consistently willing to talk about this.

Quote:
Anthony is not willing to talk. I find this enlightening, in a sad way, that such an interesting open mind is completely shut regarding this one matter.

I have been consistently willing to talk about this.

Quote:

No compromise, no discussion, no way.

I have often proposed compromises. I don't remember many coming my way.

Quote:

Why is Anthony like this about this topic, and no other?

Because you don't notice when I stringently defend the freedoms that are agreed upon. Only the disagreements catch your memory and imagination.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:16 AM

Hmm. It seemed like... But okay, perhaps I misunderstood *you*.

Mal4Prez has a point, and I should apologize to you. You didn't need an explanation.

I don't know anything about guns, so I don't know what to do about them. I am as useful in a conversation about guns as I am useful in a conversation about economics. All I know about guns is whatever I might have heard second hand for research for writing.

That's why I've been "moderating," because I don't have anything else to contribute to the thread.

I think I'm more snide than Anthony when I'm annoyed.

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:27 AM

All right Anthony, setting aside the gun-as-manhood thing, (which I guess isn't evident unless you're a non-gun person coming across the gun measuring and comparing threads that crop up here time to time), let's talk limits.

I will make two lists: those I see as fully, obviously allowed, and those I don't. I ask you to please understand that I am not a gun expert and will not understand fine differences. I talk generalities.

Obviously allowed: (Keep in mind - this is MINIMAL in my mind. Allowable may go far past this. This is just the obviously a basic right stuff) hunting rifles that are not automatic and must be manually reloaded after two shots. Handguns that are easily concealable in purse or belt that carry 5-6 small caliber bullets, for self-defense.

Obviously not allowed: any fully automatic weapon, any weapon that fires more than 10 bullets in a short amount of time with a short reload time (short meaning that a schoolroom full of 6 year old would have 0% chance of fleeing before the reload was done.) Uzis, rocket launchers. Not OK.

I realize that there is a whole range of semi-automatics between these extremes that would take a great deal of discussions by more knowledgeable minds than mine to decide where the line should be drawn.

There, I have defined my "Oh shit, there are two lines on the pee stick" and "my water's just broken" extremes. Lots of room is left wide open in between.

What are your extremes? And again, for the love of TPTB, please do not go into the loving details of your personal favorites. What do you think is OBVIOUSLY a gun everyone should have a right to, and what it not?

If you keep it simple, I will try to educate myself about what exactly these guns are. I wouldn't mind learning.

BTW, I fired off the Terminator package at the gun store in Veges. Uzi and pump action and laser guided and such. It was awesome. But I would never, ever, want those guns in my hands or anyone else's outside that well-monitored environment.

1KIKI

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:34 AM

"He's debating."

No, he's not. He's setting up a false equivalency as a premise. It's a non-starter.

"Voter ID laws on there surface make all the sense in the world, even with little problem."

Voter ID laws make very little sense. They are a 'solution' to a non-existent 'problem'. Anyone who promotes them as such a 'solution' is starting from a false position.

"If everyone could get state IDs at no cost or hardship there would be no argument against ID laws."

But cost and hardships are the biggest arguments against them. IN ADDITION, many people have no birth certificates. A significant number of births occur at home, especially in the past, especially in rural areas, especially in the south, especially among blacks. I recently finished a book 'The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks' which, while not about birth certificates, outlined enough of the daily life and family life of poor blacks in the south that I can see the lack of a birth certificate could be a common and insurmountable problem. So insisting on an ID based on a birth certificate is not as reasonable and benign as you might think it is.

"Yet that point is never argued because somehow the very idea of proving who you are to vote is a big deal."

That was never MY objection or the objections I've heard. Honestly that sounds a lot more like the right-wing 'permanent ID' objection that anything else. My objections AND the objections I've read have all to do with the fact that the process was meant to disenfranchise specific groups of voters by setting up obstacles to voting.

"That is AnthonyT argument as I understand it."

Then it's an easily disproved one.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:48 AM

Quote:

You're a smart man. How can you not see how an assault rife is more of a problem in these situations than a pistol or a hunting rifle? Assault rifles are designed with killing multiple people in mind. That is there function.

Hello,

I wanted to address this first, because I hear the word assault rifle a lot.

I will respond to your other message presently.

I can see that an assault rifle would be more of a problem in these situations if they were used in these situations. However, assault rifles currently have restrictions that make them both difficult and time consuming to obtain while being cost prohibitive.

I think this is why legal assault rifles and other legal fully automatic weapons are rarely used in crime. As for the illegal ones, I'm not sure what reasonable steps can be taken against them. They are already illegal.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:07 AM

Quote:

All right Anthony, setting aside the gun-as-manhood thing, (which I guess isn't evident unless you're a non-gun person coming across the gun measuring and comparing threads that crop up here time to time)

Hello,

I am left to wonder why two girls can talk about their favorite things, even compare and contrast them, without being accused of using these things as vagina stand-ins or masturbatory symbols. I'm sure such a statement would be vulgar and inappropriate to a woman. I'm not sure why it's deemed appropriate to say such a thing to a man.

Quote:
let's talk limits.

I will speak to you of limits, but understand that I do not consider the types of firearms available to be the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness and mass murder. I consider it, in fact, to detract from the point and take away from solving the actual problem.

Quote:
Obviously allowed: rifles that are not automatic and must be manually reloaded after two shots. Handguns that are easily concealable in purse or belt that carry 5-6 small caliber bullets, for self-defense.

I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for these obviously allowed items. Your emphasis on conceal-ability and caliber is interesting to me. I believe I understand why you wish to limit magazine size.

Quote:
Obviously not allowed: any fully automatic weapon, any weapon that fires more than 10 bullets in a short amount of time with a short reload time (short meaning that a schoolroom full of 6 year old would have 0% chance of fleeing before the reload was done.) Uzis, rocket launchers. Not OK.

In your desire to disallow fully automatic weapons, I see a callback to the assault rifle thing from before. Having desired to disallow fully automatic weapons, I'm curious about the inclusion of Uzis. What about a semiautomatic Uzi with a 10 round magazine?

Military rocket launchers are virtually impossible to obtain currently. But for the sake of argument, I'm not particularly comfortable with these things in private ownership, either. I do think civilians should be able to build and buy hobbyist rockets, however.

I am pretty uncomfortable with fully automatic weapons, but since legal versions of this weapon are so rarely used in crime, I feel this may be a case of banning something without any actual cause to do so. Why infringe on someone without cause?

Quote:
What are your extremes? And again, for the love of TPTB, please do not go into the loving details of your personal favorites. What do you think is OBVIOUSLY a gun everyone should have a right to, and what it not?

I think that civilians should obviously be entitled to purchase non-automatic slugthrowers of less than cannon caliber. (Say 20mm, except with certain shotguns and antique styled arquebusses and blunderbusses, which may have wide gauges.)

As an aside, I'd be willing to completely outlaw magazines exceeding 10 rounds and also fully automatic weapons if the constabulary were similarly limited.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

SIGNYM

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:26 AM

Quote:
I will speak to you of limits, but understand that I do not consider the types of firearms available to be the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness and mass murder. I consider it, in fact, to detract from the point and take away from solving the actual problem.

You've taken a big step onto illogic. If frem and geezer follow your logic (haven't checked back into the thread yet to find out) they've followed the same Wile E Coyote step.

Let's start with: I agree with you. The type of firearm available isn't the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness. (mass murder is another problem.) What does the "type of firearm available" do?? It allows a single person (sane or not) a more or less efficient force multiplier with which to impose his or her will.... or insanity... on a larger group of others.

What I find inexplicably strange is that two of three people who both claim that violence isn't "the answer" appeal to violence as "the solution". How do you explain that? Either you think non-violence works to achieve the world you want, or you don't. If violence works, then is it also not an equivalent problem?

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:36 AM

Quote:
Let's start with: I agree with you. The type of firearm available isn't the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness and mass murder.

Hello,

I'm glad we agree on this much.

Quote:
It allows a single person (sane or not) a more or less efficient force multiplier with which to impose his or her will.... or insanity... on a larger group of others.

Is this the actual concern, and the reason for the desire to limit magazine size? I have seen the desire to limit magazine size frequently mentioned in these sorts of conversations. I feel that it is being suggested that it's simply not safe to give human beings too much ability to mow down their fellow man. Perhaps even a seemingly sane person might misuse the ability. Or perhaps a legitimately sane person might have his immense firepower appropriated by a criminal or maniac.

Is this the actual concern? Please tell me if this is so, because it seems like it might be a legitimate concern if true.

Quote:
What I find inexplicably strange is that two of three people who both claim that violence isn't "the answer" appeal to violence as "the solution". How do you explain that?

Violence is the last tool in the toolbox of a man who has completely run out of better ideas. That does happen from time to time. It's not 'THE solution' or even 'the PREFERRED solution' but rather 'the last option.'

I do think it's an option that should be available to be employed as a last resort. Unlike some people, you won't find me grinning about the prospect.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

JO753

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:02 AM

Quote:

Maybe if she had military training and hardware.

You haven't been keeping up with the state of the art.

1,000 yards sounds crazy to me too. But it's actually nothing special these days with a good quality rifle and scope. And next month anybody with 20 grand and a hankerin for the latest gizmoz who haz never fired a gun in their life will be able to hit the bullz eye at that distance on their 1st shot.

http://www.gizmag.com/trackingpoint-precision-guided-firearms-scopes-d
igital/25264/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6ef65f1da8-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:21 AM

Anybody want to help?

http://wh.gov/nlxi

Its just a petition, so likely to get nowhere, but it's just a couple uv clicks.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I wanted to address this first, because I hear the word assault rifle a lot.

I will respond to your other message presently.

I can see that an assault rifle would be more of a problem in these situations if they were used in these situations. However, assault rifles currently have restrictions that make them both difficult and time consuming to obtain while being cost prohibitive.

I think this is why legal assault rifles and other legal fully automatic weapons are rarely used in crime. As for the illegal ones, I'm not sure what reasonable steps can be taken against them. They are already illegal.

--Anthony

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and has not been renewed. Now there is still a ban on fully automatic weapons, but that is not an issue.

Unlike the movies full auto setting on weapons was never meant to gun down swarms of people but to put rounds down range to suppress enemy movements. Accuracy goes to hell in full auto. The newer versions of the M-14 no longer even have a full auto setting for this reason.

When I'm talking about assault rifles in this case I'm taking about guns like the AR-15. They are designed for combat and are very efficient weapons for killing multiple people.

Now I understand that other weapons could be used, and that gun control is only a piece of the puzzle. Mental health problems and the failure to our health care system to deal with them are a huge part. Also the fact that ammo is not restricted more.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:15 PM

Quote:

When I'm talking about assault rifles in this case I'm taking about guns like the AR-15. They are designed for combat and are very efficient weapons for killing multiple people.

Hello,

Assault Rifles have, at the minimum, a burst fire mode which qualifies them as fully automatic weapons under Federal law. Assault weapons were never banned by the assault weapons ban. Instead we have:

Quote:
When I'm talking about assault rifles in this case I'm taking about guns like the AR-15. They are designed for combat and are very efficient weapons for killing multiple people.

There is nothing magical about an AR-15. It is functionally identical to any semiautomatic rifle. So I am left to conclude that your issue is either with A) appearance, B) magazine capacity, or C) the semiautomatic action itself.

Which is it?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

GEEZER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I continue to have misgivings, Geezer. Although perhaps some of your ideas are salvageable in regards to addressing the problem. Just not the forced confinement and treatment thing. Did you watch Dollhouse? See Sierra's backstory? Bad enough as the system currently is without giving MORE power for that.

I am wide open for suggestions as to how to do something, in a responsible manner, about getting potentially dangerous folks into treatment voluntarily.

Unfortunately, until the mental health system can be changed, we have to deal with what we got. It's pretty obvious that there are folks who are too dangerous, to themselves and others, to be left without care. Letting them go until they harm others isn't a very good solution. Neither is confiscating the property of millions of folks who've broken no laws, and are extremely unlikely to ever do so.

So to me the treatment option, even if sometimes involuntary, seems a less bad solution.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You've taken a big step onto illogic. If frem and geezer follow your logic (haven't checked back into the thread yet to find out) they've followed the same Wile E Coyote step.

Let's start with: I agree with you. The type of firearm available isn't the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness. (mass murder is another problem.) What does the "type of firearm available" do?? It allows a single person (sane or not) a more or less efficient force multiplier with which to impose his or her will.... or insanity... on a larger group of others.

Don't know about Frem and Anthony, but my general point has been that maybe we'd be better off trying to deal with madness and insanity rather than their tools. Some of my comments have been what I thought were obviously hyperbole, to match some of the more empassioned ones I've seen, but apparently I forgot the [hyperbole][/hyperbole] UBB codes.

I'm still trying to get someone to talk about treating the people, rather than the tools, as a solution, but I'm afraid the "blame the guns" dogma is far too entrenched.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:41 PM

Quote:
And next month anybody with 20 grand and a hankerin for the latest gizmoz who haz never fired a gun in their life will be able to hit the bullz eye at that distance on their 1st shot.

fàng pì. That's like that argument that video games are turning kids into killers. No matter how much you see guns used on television or how detailed the Call of Duty games get, most people who've never fired a gun are unaware of a number of things they have to compensate for - many of 'em will have a hard time even finding the safety unless they actually HAD prior experience with a gun.

And even if your example about hitting one big guy at 1000 yards first time shooting a gun with anything but hard to obtain exorbitantly expensive or military gear were possible... even if a first timer got one shot off - ONE - that made the target... all forty nine other people would scatter and you'd be hard pressed to find a first time shooter who can accurately hit moving targets even with a scope. And that's considering they'd have to aim each time because they wouldn't yet know how to compensate for the kick back to line up a shot one after the other.

In short, no way, no matter what some high fallutin' businessman looking for a buck tries to flimflam you with.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:55 PM

Hello,

I suspect the fellow attributes nearly supernatural qualities to the technology, not realizing that even very sophisticated technology benefits from a person well skilled in its use.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So to me the treatment option, even if sometimes involuntary, seems a less bad solution.

Ask everyone to laugh hysterically while maintaining a straight face. Insane people cannot do this at will. The people who aren't insane but cannot do it would be easily identified with a few questions.

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is nothing magical about an AR-15. It is functionally identical to any semiautomatic rifle. So I am left to conclude that your issue is either with A) appearance, B) magazine capacity, or C) the semiautomatic action itself.

Which is it?

Saying an AR-15 is functionally identical to any semiautomatic rifle is like saying a .50 caliber bold actions sniper rifle is the functionally identical to a .22 bolt action.

The overall design, with would include its magazine capacity, of an AR-15 or a semi-auto AK is to make it better in combat. They are light weight, low recoil, compact design weapons that have quickly targeting multiple individuals in mind. There is a reason that militaries use rifles with these design feathers in combat.

It does not take much to see the difference in these two weapons...

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:53 PM

Hello,

This is a Ruger Mini-14, caliber .223. It is a popular hunting and sports
rifle. It has a 5 round magazine and a wooden stock:

********************
********************

This is a Ruger Mini-14, caliber .223. It is a popular hunting and sports
rifle. It has a 5 round magazine and a synthetic stock. This one is shown
with attachable scope rings so that the hunter or sportsman can employ a
telescopic sight.

********************
********************

This is a Ruger Mini-14, caliber .223. It is a popular hunting and sports
rifle. It has a 20-30 round magazine, wooden stock, and telescopic
sight. It has a flash suppressor.

********************
********************

This is a Ruger Mini-14, caliber .223. It is a popular hunting and sports
rifle. It has a 20 round magazine and a synthetic folding stock.

********************
********************

This is a Ruger Mini-14, caliber .223. It is a popular hunting and sports
rifle. It has a 100 round drum magazine.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4603737628672978&pid=1.7

You may notice that all of these examples start with the words, "This is a
Ruger Mini-14."

A semiautomatic hunting and sports rifle reconfigured by various owners.

In practice, matches every capability of an AR-15 rifle. (Possibly more
reliable, depending on who you ask.)

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:01 PM

Okay, and....

Do you need a 20 round mag for hunting, no. You also don't need it for home protection. You also don't need a folding stock or a pistol grip to hunt. The exceptions might be for someone that is disabled a pistal grip might be needed.

See all that can go into regulations very easily.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:11 PM

This is a real gun....

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Okay, and....

Do you need a 20 round mag for hunting, no. You also don't need it for home protection. You also don't need a folding stock or a pistol grip to hunt. The exceptions might be for someone that is disabled a pistal grip might be needed.

See all that can go into regulations very easily.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359]

Hello,

All of that DID go into regulations. The Assault Weapons ban, as previously mentioned, did not ban assault weapons. It regulated magazine size, style of stock, and attached accessories. It also banned some weapons that had a scary appearance or bad reputation, but which would not otherwise have been prohibited. Not being a retroactive ban, it didn't actually remove any of this stuff from circulation. It simply prevented additional such items from being manufactured or imported.

So, we're not talking about assault weapons. We are talking about banning various attachments and options on regular semiautomatic rifles.

So far, you list:

A) Banning pistol grips, which make shooting much more comfortable.
B) Banning folding stocks, which make rifles easier to stow.
C) Banning large magazines. (Shall we say a 10 bullet limit?)

Presumably you do not intend to outlaw semiautomatic weapons outright.

Are your new regulations proposed to be retroactive or will existing articles be grandfathered in?

Do you imagine any exceptions for Americans who can prove that they have completed a proficiency and safety course related to the weapons, or do you see such weapons as unnecessary, period?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a real gun....

]

Hello,

One of my favorite fantasy weapons from sci-fi. :-)

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

NIKI2

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:49 PM

Wow. I go away for a day and look what happens! I, too, see a whole lot of talking past one another and of getting sidetracked, and misunderstanding, and taking things wrongly, etc., etc. It's sad this has devolved into something which has caused such animosity between people who normally like one another. Not too surprising, I guess, given the entire nation has been hit hard by Sandy Hook, while the gun lovers are afraid of what the result might be. By the way, gun purchases have spiked massively since Friday, and sales of the gun the shooter used are through the roof--to the point where many gun shops can't keep them in stock. Of course, Walmart hasn't yet run out...still shocks me that GUNS are sold at Walmart!

So I'm catching up, waaaaay into the discussion. Bear with me

I was going to clarify that Anthony's statement about voting laws, as I saw it, was a way of saying "THEY SAID it wasn't disenfranchising anyone"--his way of comparing it to gun laws and saying "THEY SAY they won't take away our guns". But Kiki's remarks brought me up short: Yes, there IS no comparison. The idea that anyone SAYS they won't do this or that, then they do it, is somewhat of a valid point. But comparing voter ID laws to gun restrictions is a totally false comparison, I agree.

Quote:
He's setting up a false equivalency as a premise. It's a non-starter.

Exactly.

Mal4 has stated the same thing I've been trying to say all along:

Quote:
it seems clear to me that Anthony is terribly afraid of losing his basic rights - which really are in no danger - that any kind of discussion of gun control, much less a *compromise* is impossible.

I would remove the word "basic", myself; it has seemed to me many times that Anthony fears losing ANY of his "rights", even the tiniest one, and that any discussion of restriction of rights takes him immediately to a "10", and he will find reasons, rationalizations, comparisons forever to keep making the same point over and over: "Nobody should be allowed to take away ANY of my rights." I understand some of this comes from his background, but the absolutism defeated me long ago, and I think any effort to get through to him on such things is doomed to failure. He will argue forever. He has said in the past, if anyone remember, that he thinks citizens should have the rights to tanks, and about anything else--tho' here he seems to have modified that stance. The ONLY point I've seen him willing to give on is that he's willing to have his gun ownership restricted--to exactly the same as the police's rights are restricted. That's another discussion I won't get into. I'm surprised to see you agree to outlaw magazines exceeding 10 rounds, Anthony; I may be mistaken in that it wasn't you but was others here who felt otherwise and debated the usefulness of high-quantity clips/magazines/whatever.

That Anthony believed his comparison was valid:

Quote:
it wasn't a 'joke' so much as a way of comparing two situations by placing the other person in my shoes.

should be telling. There is no such comparison. I don't know why he can't see that, but all I can figure is it comes back to the same thing:

Quote:
what I see when someone talks about whittling away my rights with a few common sense restrictions.

Voting RIGHTS equate to gun RIGHTS to him. It's about rights; he can't see beyond that and he can't see the horrible LACK of comparison.

The statement

Quote:
assault rifles currently have restrictions that make them both difficult and time consuming to obtain while being cost prohibitive.

causes me to ask: What do you mean by "assault rifle"? That's what many call the AR-15 used in Sandy Hook, as well as the movie-theater shooting, and is what I believe most people consider an "assault rifle". Ma

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a real gun....

“Obviously the amend does not apply to arms that cannot be carried — it’s to “keep and bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to — it’ll have to be decided.” - USSC Justice Antone Scalia.

`

NIKI2

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:09 PM

Well, while I was typing all that, I see the thread has moved on. As to the currently-proposed gun bill by Feinstein, it would do the following:

Quote:
“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession [of assault weapons],” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

also

Quote:
We exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not fall under the bill.

That's from Feinstein herself, while of course gun advocates are saying things like

Quote:
This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”. The law “would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government".

That's bullshit, as is obvious from Feinstein's statement. But you'll be hearing stuff like that in coming weeks.

And, of course, from the right:

Quote:
On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Louis Golmert proposed giving teachers assault weapons.... Chris, I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.” http://www.politicususa.com/senate-democrats-seek-gun-control-bill-hou
se-gop-give-teachers-assault-weapons.html

Which assault weapons the bill would ban hasn't yet been specified, and there are other bills aside from Feinstein's, one of which bans just the high-quantity clips. Personally, I would also like to see the loophole closed on gun-show sales not needing background checks, as well as better enforcement of existing laws. That's where I stand.

Whether anything can or will be done...well, I'm holding my breath.

ETA: To answer Anthony's question

Quote:
A) appearance, B) magazine capacity, or C) the semiautomatic action itself.

I object to the magazine capacity and the semi-automatic action. And I disagree with your statement that the AR-15 is like any other semi-automatic, as explained in my previous post. It is designed specifically to attract people who want something easy to handle and especially easy to be accurate with, according to the professional I heard...if it is "essentially the same", why is it the number one selling rifle in the country?

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:24 PM

Hello,

I've spent a lot of time here trying to have this discussion while being told that it's impossible to have this discussion with me. It's rather frustrating. I am currently in the process of finding out what restrictions are proposed and why, to see where I can find common ground.

In that interest, I will comment on the bullets Niki has posted.

Quote:
• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

I am in favor of this, in regards to searching for felony convictions.

Quote:
• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

I am in favor of this only when talking about employees whose job it is to handle the firearms. There are many stores that sell a variety of products, and I think it's okay to hire an ex-criminal to collect shopping carts from the parking lot, ring up slacks, or bag groceries.

Quote:
• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

I am not in favor of this. Misdeamanors are by their nature minor trespasses against others. One could find oneself charged with misdeameanor assault in a variety of circumstances that do not actually indicate a violent or unstable personality.

Quote:
• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

Is this about concealed weapons permits? This was actually already the case when I acquired my concealed weapons permit in Florida. However, I don't think that concealing a weapon or not concealing a weapon is a particularly significant distinction in terms of public safety. I guess I don't approve of this one. It would be wiser to have people complete a gun safety course before buying a gun. (Under the caveat that the course is not designed to deny gun rights, but rather to help ensure they are used responsibly.)

Quote:

• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

Is this still with the concealed weapons permit? I don't want anyone convicted of domestic violence to have a gun. I don't care if they have a concealed weapons permit.

Quote:
• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

This is fine by me. Probably we should also change military recruitment age to 21.

Quote:
• The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent)

Only if there is an easily accessible review process for getting off the list. I've heard all kinds of nonsense regarding this list. I want there to be some burden of evidence for people to be put on the list and some way for people to challenge the ruling and get a timely and fair review.

Quote:

and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent).

With the caveat that the owner knows the weapon has been lost or stolen.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:40 PM

Why would you not be in favor of anyone wanting to buy a gun having to take a saftey course?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:44 PM

Quote:
Why would you not be in favor of anyone wanting to buy a gun having to take a saftey course?

Hello,

Sometimes I feel you are not reading what I write.

Was I unclear?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:03 PM

I appologize, I did miss read that part.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I appologize, I did miss read that part.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359]

Well, I've been writing a lot of material, it's probably easy to miss a relevant word or two.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
All of that DID go into regulations. The Assault Weapons ban, as previously mentioned, did not ban assault weapons. It regulated magazine size, style of stock, and attached accessories. It also banned some weapons that had a scary appearance or bad reputation, but which would not otherwise have been prohibited. Not being a retroactive ban, it didn't actually remove any of this stuff from circulation. It simply prevented additional such items from being manufactured or imported.

So, we're not talking about assault weapons. We are talking about banning various attachments and options on regular semiautomatic rifles.

So far, you list:

A) Banning pistol grips, which make shooting much more comfortable.
B) Banning folding stocks, which make rifles easier to stow.
C) Banning large magazines. (Shall we say a 10 bullet limit?)

Presumably you do not intend to outlaw semiautomatic weapons outright.

Are your new regulations proposed to be retroactive or will existing articles be grandfathered in?

Do you imagine any exceptions for Americans who can prove that they have completed a proficiency and safety course related to the weapons, or do you see such weapons as unnecessary, period?

I think we can talk about banning assault weapons, and those based on "true" assault weapons. We can also ban some modifications to allowed firearms.

As for number of rounds, I would say limit to 5 for Rifles, 8 for shotguns, 10 for Pistols.

Existing Gun could remain with the owner provided no one in the same home has any existing mental health issues. Those guns could not be sold or transferred to any other owner and would have to be turned in when the owner dies.

Permits and safety classes should be required for all firearms. As well as full registration of each weapon. All sales would have to be made through a licensed dealer so that background checks, licenses and registrations can be checked. A license would also be required to buy ammo, and only be allowed to purchase of weapons registered to that license.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:51 PM

Quote:
I think we can talk about banning assault weapons, and those based on "true" assault weapons. We can also ban some modifications to allowed firearms.

Hello,

I think I illustrated pretty well that the term 'assault weapon' and 'based on assault weapon' is fairly meaningless, and that you probably need to create a criteria based on concrete features you consider dangerous, not the word 'assault weapon.'

Quote:

As for number of rounds, I would say limit to 5 for Rifles, 8 for shotguns, 10 for Pistols.

I don't quite understand these limits. What inspired you to choose them? Do you realize that such a limit would outlaw several lever-action rifles from the late 19th century? Or did you intend the rifle limit to apply exclusively to semiautomatic rifles, and not manually actuated arms?

Quote:
Existing Gun could remain with the owner provided no one in the same home has any existing mental health issues. Those guns could not be sold or transferred to any other owner and would have to be turned in when the owner dies.

Would the owner's estate be credited for the value of the arms in question? And would the owner be fully compensated if they elected to surrender the weapon early?

Quote:
Permits and safety classes should be required for all firearms.

What is the purpose of a permit? Given that safety courses and background checks are part of your plan, what is the permit designed to accomplish?

Quote:
As well as full registration of each weapon. All sales would have to be made through a licensed dealer so that background checks, licenses and registrations can be checked.

Would you be willing to limit access to the registry so that it could not be used except when investigating a crime with a court order?

Quote:
A license would also be required to buy ammo, and only be allowed to purchase of weapons registered to that license.

Is this license the aforementioned permit?

Would you be willing to accommodate some training or safety course that would allow someone to obtain prohibited weapons and/or accessories? Or do you consider the prohibited weapons so inherently injurious to the public safety that they should not be allowed under any circumstances or exceptions?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NIKI2

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:10 PM

No, Anthony, that one stumped me, too.

Quote:
permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

Quote:
It would be wiser to have people complete a gun safety course before buying a gun.

What is the difference between the two? What am I missing?

Uh, Nick:

Quote:
Existing Gun could remain with the owner provided no one in the same home has any existing mental health issues.

DAMN! Here we go again. So you'd take away my husband's guns? This thing about "mental-health issues" continues to piss me off; it's bandied about like we're all the same, like everyone with a mental-health issue is a danger. I say again: How many people with a potentially SERIOUS, dangerous, mental-health issue do you think would ever seek treatment if they knew it meant they could never have a gun, or that their mother/father/husband/wife would have to get rid of any guns they have around, once they were diagnosed with, for example, DEPRESSION?!? How many parents/husbands/wives would seek help for their child/spouse if they knew it would mean they'd have to get rid of their guns and couldn't protect themselves in future? You really think that would HELP?

Nobody addressed this when I spoke up about it before; somebody bloody well better address it as this discussion goes forward nationally, because the implications are ENORMOUS. You would deny us all the right to defend ourselves because we sought treatment? Think about that.

Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote, and no, Anthony, I wouldn't "be willing to accommodate some training or safety course that would allow someone to obtain prohibited weapons and/or accessories". And I propose we change "assault weapon" to "semi-automatic weapon", for clarity purposes. I'm not sure what, aside from semi-autos, would be considered an assault weapon; please educate me if there are others. But that seems the easiest way to clear up the distinction.

And finally, Anthony, I am thrilled beyond belief (NOT joking) to see you ARE able to accept some restrictions on your rights regarding this issue. I take back most of what I said; I still believe it's a special issue for you, but I'm glad it's not as adamant as I thought it was.

What do you think of the gun-show loophole? I think we already know your opinion of internet sale of guns, I seem to remember we discussed that one before--wait, on the other hand, you just said you'd approve of background checks; how does that fit with internet sales?

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE