Yay, GUNS!

[Willie71]

See the real world, the one where there is a murderer around every corner requiring me to live in fear, desperate for a gun? No thanks. I much prefer to look at the probability someone wants to harm me or my family, and not put them at risk for a gun accident.

 

You can keep your fear and paranoia.

It's the liberals who reinvent meanings, such as well regulated militia=every individual, independent citizen? Good Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me patience.

[iNow]

During that period, there were several times where I and my wife were glad to have guns, We both carried, and brandished them on three separate occasions.

 

I hope your boy is doing better now, and I'm glad you were able to use your guns to help your family remain secure and feel a bit safer. What a horrible situation. Sounds like you handled it like a great dad and your son is lucky to have you.

 

Just a quick reminder, though, that most of us here aren't talking about taking guns away. Many of us are gun owners ourselves. We're simply looking for ways to ensure all gun owners across the land are as safe and responsible and well trained with them as you obviously are with yours.

 

It's a shame we can't be allies in this desire to improve the current status quo since you're clearly setting the example to which more gun owners should aspire.

[waitforufo]

It's the liberals who reinvent meanings, such as well regulated militia=every individual, independent citizen? Good Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me patience.

You can't even get that right. Militia means every able bodied independent person. If you don't have an armed populous you can't raise a militia. Well regulated means properly functioning. Like a well regulated clock. Owning guns means you will be familiar with the firearm you bring when the militia is called.

 

Why did I bother. In one ear and out the other. Simply doesn't register with a person with your world view of a government that brings nothing but sun shine, lolly pops, and rainbows all at the expense of other people. You know, a liberal.

 

I hope your boy is doing better now, and I'm glad you were able to use your guns to help your family remain secure and feel a bit safer. What a horrible situation. Sounds like you handled it like a great dad and your son is lucky to have you.

Thank you, he is doing much better. He should be graduating from the community college in June with a certificate in automotive machining. He did have one relapse that I know about just after his one year sobriety anniversary, but immediately afterwords sought counselling. I still worry, but I have hope. Methamphetamine is a cruel mistress.

 

You know I'm glad I live on the red side of Washington state. The police told me straight up that their job was not to protect the public but to find and arrest those that had already broken the law. The officer said that would likely be too late for me and my family, so I should carry a gun. He issued my concealed carry on the spot and told me to have my wife come in a get one. My son was in rehab lock down.

 

Just a quick reminder, though, that most of us here aren't talking about taking guns away. Many of us are gun owners ourselves. We're simply looking for ways to ensure all gun owners across the land are as safe and responsible and well trained with them as you obviously are with yours.

 

It's a shame we can't be allies in this desire to improve the current status quo since you're clearly setting the example to which more gun owners should aspire.

I'm sure your intentions are good, but the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. The problem I have with liberals is that they seem to believe that if their intentions are noble, that the consequences of their actions are irrelevant. Like Hillary saying "what difference does it make?" It is not my intention to insult you by saying this, but instead to wake you up. One day you will wake up and all your freedoms will be gone and you will be powerless to do anything about it.

[iNow]

The pavement on a road to perdition is not the issue under discussion. Asking why we cannot even enact improvements that over 90% of Americans and 70% of gun owners support is.

 

To anyone reading this, watch this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlx3GEsM1pQ

 

 

If you refuse (for reasons unrelated to schedule or bandwidth) or choose instead to simply be spoon fed prepackaged snippets and edited commentary, then I urge you to consider the very real possibility that you are (whether intentionally or not) part of a problem we have a realistic chance at improving.

Edited January 6, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

That phrase is dependent on the assumption that it's needed for a "well ordered militia".

Well, you don't have one.

 

 

The people have the authority to takes any and all rights away from individuals.

 

 

When your rights interfere with my right to preservation of life, then the government has the Constitutional right to regulate your rights.

 

The major obstacle to reasonable gun regulation in the US is the mistrust a significant fraction of voters have for the advocates of gun regulation. And this mistrust is well founded, as is visible in those quotes. They are typical quotes.

Briefly: a well-regulated (not "well ordered") militia requires private firearm ownership, not the other way around, in the 2nd Amendment. The people in the US do not have the authority to take any rights away from individuals without due process of law, and all rights granted to the people are held by each and any of the people referred to. The existence of one right is not a legitimate reason for actual infringement of another - even if there were some sense in which the risk of gunshot were a general one unavoidably borne by the population at large (it is not). ( You'd end up with no rights very quickly, on that logic, each one depriving you of the others - that's not just a slippery slope, it's an engraved request to be kicked down it)

 

I believe it is liberals that are constantly rewriting the constitution by inventing new meanings for words and phrases

You're wrong about that, as past and recent events have shown (Citizen's United, etc). The writers of the Constitution were liberals, and their fellow liberals have been happy with and faithful to the language down the centuries.

 

 

 

I do encourage you however seek the dictionary you mention above. Webster's has a good copy

All modern dictionaries with "Webster" in the name are inferior, especially in the usage prescriptions most critically involved in discussions here.

 

 

 

It's the liberals who reinvent meanings, such as well regulated militia=every individual, independent citizen? Good Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me patience.

You are in error. A well regulated militia does require a well-armed private citizenry - each and every individual, independent citizen - and did at the time so obviously as to need no elaboration. It's a necessary condition, however insufficient. The only reason militia are even mentioned there is to make clear that the arms at issue were military grade weapons - the kind of weapons that the kings and princes and lairds had forbidden their peasants, in the direct and family experience of many American citizens, because a well armed peasantry is hard to keep subjugated. Edited January 6, 2016 by overtone

[waitforufo]

The pavement on a road to perdition is not the issue under discussion. Asking why we cannot even enact improvements that over 90% of Americans and 70% of gun owners support is.

 

To anyone reading this, watch this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlx3GEsM1pQ

 

 

If you refuse (for reasons unrelated to schedule or bandwidth) or choose instead to simply be spoon fed prepackaged snippets and edited commentary, then I urge you to consider the very real possibility that you are (whether intentionally or not) part of a problem we have a realistic chance at improving.

Why listen to the incessant blathering of a want to be king? You keep quoting these BS percentages. If they were true, congress would be enacting the gun control legislation you want so dearly. In fact, gun control is a low priority issue. Hence no congressional action. O but wait, who needs congress whey you have a king?

Edited January 6, 2016 by waitforufo

[Ten oz]

Why listen to the incessant blathering of a want to be king? You keep quoting these BS percentages. If they were true, congress would be enacting the gun control legislation you want so dearly. In fact, gun control is a low priority issue. Hence no congressional action. O but wait, who needs congress whey you have a king?

We have 3 branches and not merely two. It isn't President vs Congress and nothing else. If Obama was actually breaking the constitution and acting as a "king" the Supreme Court could over rule and Congress could impreach. It is pure nonsense the way individuals like yourself carry on about Obama behaving like a "king". We have very clear checks and balances in place that Obama obviously hasn't violated.

[iNow]

Why listen to the incessant blathering of a want to be king? (snip) who needs congress whey you have a king?

.

 

You keep quoting these BS percentages. If they were true...

They are, and asserting they are not does not change that central fact. Please let the rest of us know when you're ready to begin making an argument based in reality.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-guns-in-the-united-states/

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx

 

[imatfaal]

.

 

They are, and asserting they are not does not change that central fact. Please let the rest of us know when you're ready to begin making an argument based in reality.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-guns-in-the-united-states/

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx

 

 

Damn you iNow and your continued use of facts and figures - why can't you rely on innuendo and slander like most decent folks.

[StringJunky]

 

Damn you iNow and your continued use of facts and figures - why can't you rely on innuendo and slander like most decent folks.

Yes, damn him. In the absence of data we have much more freedom to wave our arms.

[Phi for All]

Yes, damn him. In the absence of data we have much more freedom to wave our arms.

 

If you stick your head up your ass and deny it exists, the facts don't matter. It just looks funnier when you're waving your arms.

[dimreepr]

Those of us that appreciate the quality and value of INow’s post also realise the facts and reason will fall on deaf ears, because, for some reason living in a democratic/republic country is one step away from a dictatorship and see a gun as some sort of protection.

 

The very definition of childish thinking is saying my dad is bigger than yours, so leave me alone, and is as naive as saying my gun is bigger than yours, so I’m safe.

Edited January 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

. O but wait, who needs congress whey you have a king?

Just in case anyone wants to se the source of the data that shows that Republicans are the ones who seek to rule like kings.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

 

 

 

Incidentally, I think minus nine repo points for a single post in under a day may be a record.

Edited January 7, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

Those of us that appreciate the quality and value of INow’s post also realise the facts and reason will fall on deaf ears, because, for some reason living in a democratic/republic country is one step away from a dictatorship and see a gun as some sort of protection.

 

There would definitely be problems in transition to a system like the UK's, and I think that's what stops most Americans from even imagining it's possible. I'd like to formally declare that being killed by a gun and being killed by a car being equally likely is unacceptable, and screw the transition problems.

 

I think the far right wing is only using half it's brain in this instance. They can't get over the thought of not having a handgun, to see that it's OK because nobody else is supposed to have one either. They claim some people will still get guns, while ignoring the fact that gun deaths in the UK are as common as getting killed by agricultural machinery in the US. Can you imagine 4 million people dying in the US, and only ONE was from a gun?

 

It's hard for me to understand why ignorant people think allowing the whole citizenry to have guns allows them to be safer. They think they can protect their families with their guns because in the few situations they fear the most, they think they could get to it in time, or not have it taken from them, or not shoot through their own walls to hit family and neighbors. The fear blinds them to obvious facts.

 

If we kept our current law enforcement budgets and did away with handguns, response times would increase. I don't know about life in the sticks, but in major cities (at least Denver) the police do NOT recommend you get a gun. I know several members of the DPD, and none of them want more guns on the streets. If the guns weren't there, how much safer would everyone be?

[waitforufo]

.

 

They are, and asserting they are not does not change that central fact. Please let the rest of us know when you're ready to begin making an argument based in reality.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-guns-in-the-united-states/

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx

 

It's not the number of executive orders that's at issue. It's the content of those orders. Presidents don't write laws, they enforce them. When a president writes a law he attempts to make himself king. The fact that Obama has the lowest number of executive orders, simply makes him the laziest law enforcement executive on your list.

 

Again with the polls. Well in case you didn't know, the only polls that matter in the United States are taken on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November every other year. It's called voting. The members of congress elected during these polls are then supposed to determine which bills are allowed to become law by presidential signature. If there are no bills approved by congress for gun control sitting on the president's desk then there can be no new gun control laws. If the people wanted gun control laws, they would they would make sure they elected the candidates that favored gun control during that poll call voting.

 

So if you are so concerned with facts, its a fact that a president can't create laws without a bill approved by congress. Obama, by creating his own laws without an approved bill, is acting like a king. I know you are his loyal subjects, but get a clue.

Edited January 7, 2016 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Be specific. What laws are you suggesting Obama is "creating?"

[waitforufo]

He is independently defining who is in the gun business and therefore who can be controlled by the BATF.

[iNow]

He is independently defining who is in the gun business and therefore who can be controlled by the BATF.

There's nothing independent about it. The BATF, DoJ, and other organizations were all involved, and it's not like some extreme position is being taken. A person who is in the gun business is someone whose principle goal is to make money by selling guns.

 

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person who “devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

 

Under federal law, conducting business “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that “the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.”

 

Consistent with this approach, federal law explicitly exempts persons “who make occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

OH, THE HUMANITY!!!1!!one!

...and we thought the holocaust was bad. Little did we know what this secret Kenyan Muslim socialist marxist dictator would impose from his throne!

[overtone]

There would definitely be problems in transition to a system like the UK's, and I think that's what stops most Americans from even imagining it's possible. I'd like to formally declare that being killed by a gun and being killed by a car being equally likely is unacceptable, and screw the transition problems.

Yet another quote that illustrates where the mistrust comes from.

 

 

It's hard for me to understand why ignorant people think allowing the whole citizenry to have guns allows them to be safer. They think they can protect their families with their guns because in the few situations they fear the most, they think they could get to it in time, or not have it taken from them, or not shoot through their own walls to hit family and neighbors. The fear blinds them to obvious facts.

One of the obvious facts is that most people's guns aren't very dangerous - safer than motorcycles, safer than swimming pools, safer than a lot of things that people don't get all panicky over -

 

another obvious fact is that besides the silly daydreams they do and very often have proven effective in self defense, properly described. The US is in many places a dangerous place, with a violent and vulnerable population still afflicted with economic oppression as well as racial and religious hostility, and the threat of a gun present has prevented a lot of bad stuff from happening to good people.

 

Which in many people's view makes up for the bad stuff happening to bad people who brought it on themselves that is the great bulk of the non-suicide, non-police, gun violence in the US.

 

Sure the gun nuts are nuts. But a sound approach to gun control would begin by making their case in its strong form, not its loud and crazy. If your argument for gun control rests on manipulated and bogus statistics, mockery of nutjobs, and denials of the implications of your recommendations (how do you plan to reduce the number of guns in private hands in the US without confiscating them?), it's not to be trusted with power.

Edited January 8, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

Our dear fuhrer was approached by CNN to do a townhall on the topic of guns which occurred last night. If you're willing to risk his devilish propaganda entering your brain, watch here:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMK8FFntzbw

 

 

Clearly, the antichrist has risen.

[dimreepr]

One of the obvious facts is that most people's guns aren't very dangerous - safer than motorcycles, safer than swimming pools, safer than a lot of things that people don't get all panicky over -

 

 

But we can easily do without motorcycles and swimming pools if it’s for the greater good, they aren’t actually needed to live your life; what I can’t understand is why otherwise intelligent people seem to think a gun is NEEDED to live, rather than, all too often. the antipode.

Edited January 8, 2016 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

There's nothing independent about it. The BATF, DoJ, and other organizations were all involved, and it's not like some extreme position is being taken. A person who is in the gun business is someone whose principle goal is to make money by selling guns.

 

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

 

OH, THE HUMANITY!!!1!!one!

...and we thought the holocaust was bad. Little did we know what this secret Kenyan Muslim socialist marxist dictator would impose from his throne!

The BATF, DOJ, and likely all the other organizations you fail to mention are part of the executive branch. Your king is their boss.

 

Please state the existing law approved by congress the your king's executive order is enforcing.

 

Here is the fact sheet from your king's executive order.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

 

It includes this:

 

 

 

• A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
• Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
• There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

So if you purchase or sell a firearm you are "engaged in the business." It doesn't matter the number of guns you purchase or sell. If you don't have the required license you can go to prison.

 

What law passed by congress says that? Please tell me.

 

By the way, if you have an FFL licence your search and seizure rights. You and your home can be searched without a warrant.

 

Your king is opening a door that you will regret having been opened. You may find Obama to currently be a benevolent king catering to your current desires, but he may not remain so, and he will not always be king. Perhaps a future king will write an executive order defining when life begins, or define a period of gestation when life becomes viable outside the womb, for example. I'm sure when that happens the attorney general appointed by such a king will say something like "If it saves one life, it will be worth it" like Loretta Lynch said about the executive order the king she serves signed. No need to bring up the Supreme Court. That can be taken care of with another executive order.

 

When you tear down the constitution to get your way, there is a price to be paid. You will pay it.

 

 

But we can easily do without motorcycles and swimming pools if it’s for the greater good, they aren’t actually needed to live your life; what I can’t understand is why otherwise intelligent people seem to think a gun is NEEDED to live, rather than, all too often. the antipode.

Firearms are NEEDED for liberty. Life is not worth living if you are a slave. Ask Patrick Henry.

Edited January 8, 2016 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

 

Firearms are NEEDED for liberty. Life is not worth living if you are a slave. Ask Patrick Henry.

I have no firearms.

I have liberty.

You are simply wrong.

Why would I need to ask someone else?

Why do you keep saying things that are obviously wrong?

Are you not aware that doing so makes you look like an idiot?

[Willie71]

If you hear something often enough, like guns are needed for Liberty, you eventually accept it as truth without really thinking about it. It's batshit crazy when you think about it, but people blindly accept it.

[overtone]

But we can easily do without motorcycles and swimming pools if it’s for the greater good, they aren’t actually needed to live your life; what I can’t understand is why otherwise intelligent people seem to think a gun is NEEDED to live, rather than, all too often. the antipode.

Interesting question. You'll find people who are pretty devoted to their motorcycles.

 

But a careful inquiry into that question is not going to be simple. For starters, here's a factor: we have a long history of racial oppression in the US, and it worked partly - significantly - by disarming black people. That is also how the red people were subjugated. And how the brown people were robbed, in Texas and New Mexico. And how the yellow people were initially - back in the home country - made so poor they emigrated to be borderline slaves also forbidden weapons. And the people most devoted to guns=freedom in the US are to a large extent the cultural heirs of the ones who did that oppressing and that subjugating - culturally, that's the heritage. And it's not ancient history - the young boys joining in the famous firebombing and beatings of the Freedom Riders, (one bus of whom were saved because by rumor an undercover cop among them, by rumor the guy often described as a State Trooper "arriving late", was carrying a gun, when they were supposed to be unarmed, therefore vulnerable), were part of a cohort now in their 60s. They remember the role of disarmament in this: http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/freedom-riders-1961/

Edited January 9, 2016 by overtone