What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

At Least they'll Never-Ever go for our Guns! (1 Viewer)

I'd fully support a mandatory buy back program for AR-15 style rifles.   
It’s just a semi-automatic rifle that looks mean.  Ban it and you would end up with people buying a different looking semi-automatic rifle.

You could try and ban semi-automatic weapons, but then the “gun nuts” would have been right all along.

 
It’s just a semi-automatic rifle that looks mean.  Ban it and you would end up with people buying a different looking semi-automatic rifle.

You could try and ban semi-automatic weapons, but then the “gun nuts” would have been right all along.
It's not just that it's semi-automatic.  It's the power of the rifle and the damage it can inflict on the human body.  

I suppose I would also be in favor of other powerful semi-automatic rifles to be banned but I am not knowledgeable enough to know which ones nor where exactly to draw the line.

 
It's not just that it's semi-automatic.  It's the power of the rifle and the damage it can inflict on the human body.  

I suppose I would also be in favor of other powerful semi-automatic rifles to be banned but I am not knowledgeable enough to know which ones nor where exactly to draw the line.
It’s no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber.  It’s popular because it’s easy to assemble/disassemble, modular, and looks cool.  Many versions of it would still be sold under the old assault weapons ban parameters.

 
It’s just a semi-automatic rifle that looks mean.  Ban it and you would end up with people buying a different looking semi-automatic rifle.

You could try and ban semi-automatic weapons, but then the “gun nuts” would have been right all along.
This is what makes it so difficult.  There really isn't a specific definition for an AR rifle that people are giving.  I could turn my Marlin 60 .22 rifle into an AR style but it's just used as a varmint gun.  There would need to be a specific caliber or semi-auto rifles that they ban and not just a vague term such as an AR.

 
It’s no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber.  It’s popular because it’s easy to assemble/disassemble, modular, and looks cool.  Many versions of it would still be sold under the old assault weapons ban parameters.
OK.  I think you understand my point, though, even if I don't think you agree.  By the way, when thinking about this, this article popped in my mind.

 
It's not just that it's semi-automatic.  It's the power of the rifle and the damage it can inflict on the human body.  

I suppose I would also be in favor of other powerful semi-automatic rifles to be banned but I am not knowledgeable enough to know which ones nor where exactly to draw the line.
As rifles go it is not at all powerful.  The  trade off in choosing the caliber of cartridge for it is that they are so light, so underpowered, really, that you can carry twice as many rounds.  they have relatively very little weight.   It is about number, not power.

 
OK.  I think you understand my point, though, even if I don't think you agree.  By the way, when thinking about this, this article popped in my mind.
He’s describing the difference between a rifle and a handgun.  The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are handguns.  It doesn’t seem that odd that he might be unused to seeing the differences in an ER setting.

 
This has nothing to do with my views.  Are you going out of your way to be so dense not to see what I'm saying?  You're using incomplete data to support your view.  I am trying to explain how it's not complete data to use.  I'm not pushing any agenda here.
There's no free thinking with SC....if it doesn't fit the narrative, he simply unapologetically responds with something that will get him back on his talking points.  He knows what you mean better than you do as is obvious in that post.  He's not genuinely interested in anyone's perspective other than the one that agrees with him.  If it doesn't engagement is pointless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does this mean exactly?
It means, exactly, that he does not understand that the standard chambering of an AR 15 is actually a relatively weak round, suitable for wounding men and varmint hunting, but not really designed for efficient killing of anything larger than say 40 pounds.  Sure, in my hands it may be a deadly weapon, but not generally. He did seem to appreciate the weight explanation, of more rounds over deadly rounds when it was set out.

For those that don't get it, say 100 V.C. are charging our position.  If I have large caliber ammunition I maybe kill 10 leaving 90 still charging.  If I wound 50 because I have more shots, well that stops the charge as they tend to their wounded, who, in battle conditions die days later after requiring a great deal of resources.

 
It means, exactly, that he does not understand that the standard chambering of an AR 15 is actually a relatively weak round, suitable for wounding men and varmint hunting, but not really designed for efficient killing of anything larger than say 40 pounds.  Sure, in my hands it may be a deadly weapon, but not generally. 
I'm aware :)

It seems he may be another member of our population who wants to ban the AR because they're black , plastic and scary looking but don't really know anything about them it other than that.

Theres alot of that going around

 
I'm aware :)

It seems he may be another member of our population who wants to ban the AR because they're black , plastic and scary looking but don't really know anything about them it other than that.

Theres alot of that going around
Remember when the iconic scary gun was the AK 47?  Oh, and AR's, with full rails, are scary looking. 

 
I'm aware :)

It seems he may be another member of our population who wants to ban the AR because they're black , plastic and scary looking but don't really know anything about them it other than that.

Theres alot of that going around
I am appreciative of the posts by jonessed and Ditkaless Wonders that explained the similarity with other rifles.

I don't think you read what I wrote if you came to the conclusion that I want them banned because they are "scary looking".  In fact, I provided to a link to jonessed that explained my concerns.  Perhaps you ignored that to make a funny.  I'm not sure.

I will have to revisit my position about gun bans.  Unfortunately, my position will be stricter than it was.  I support the use of rifles by responsible sportsmen but I do not believe citizens have a constitutional right to own weapons that can so easily kill people in mass.  I'm not sure where that line should be drawn however.

 
I am appreciative of the posts by jonessed and Ditkaless Wonders that explained the similarity with other rifles.

I don't think you read what I wrote if you came to the conclusion that I want them banned because they are "scary looking".  In fact, I provided to a link to jonessed that explained my concerns.  Perhaps you ignored that to make a funny.  I'm not sure.

I will have to revisit my position about gun bans.  Unfortunately, my position will be stricter than it was.  I support the use of rifles by responsible sportsmen but I do not believe citizens have a constitutional right to own weapons that can so easily kill people in mass.  I'm not sure where that line should be drawn however.
Do you believe that they do not, or that they should not?  Just seeking clarification. 

Myself, I believe they do.  I question whether they should, and I would support restricting the right further, but only through the contemplated constitutional process, not through legislation or judicial interpretation by activist judges.

 
Do you believe that they do not, or that they should not?  Just seeking clarification. 

Myself, I believe they do.  I question whether they should, and I would support restricting the right further, but only through the contemplated constitutional process, not through legislation or judicial interpretation by activist judges.
Do not. 

 
Do not. 
Interesting.  Thanks for sharing.  Are you one who bases this on the militia language of the 2nd amendment or upon something else?

Oh, and if you do not care to share further I certainly understand.  Any who put their reasoning out there are likely to get assailed for doing so, often in quite unseemly fashion.

 
Interesting.  Thanks for sharing.  Are you one who bases this on the militia language of the 2nd amendment or upon something else?

Oh, and if you do not care to share further I certainly understand.  Any who put their reasoning out there are likely to get assailed for doing so, often in quite unseemly fashion.
Yes, the "well regulated militia" language. Despite that, though, there are weapons today that were unimaginable to the authors.  We all believe there should be restrictions on the most dangerous -- nuclear weapons as an absurd example.  I've never read a compelling argument where that line would constitutionally need to be drawn.

 
I am appreciative of the posts by jonessed and Ditkaless Wonders that explained the similarity with other rifles.

I don't think you read what I wrote if you came to the conclusion that I want them banned because they are "scary looking".  In fact, I provided to a link to jonessed that explained my concerns.  Perhaps you ignored that to make a funny.  I'm not sure.

I will have to revisit my position about gun bans.  Unfortunately, my position will be stricter than it was.  I support the use of rifles by responsible sportsmen but I do not believe citizens have a constitutional right to own weapons that can so easily kill people in mass.  I'm not sure where that line should be drawn however.
I wasn't trying to make a funny, but you posted that youd support a buyback of the ARs because of the power of the gun.

No offense, but that tells me you don't really know anything about ARs. Or at least you didn't when you wrote that.

I'm sure you know now that people own ARs that are calibered .22 which as far as rifle rounds go is not "powerful".

I quoted your post and responded. I did not read the entire page then scroll back up and reply

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the "well regulated militia" language. Despite that, though, there are weapons today that were unimaginable to the authors.  We all believe there should be restrictions on the most dangerous -- nuclear weapons as an absurd example.  I've never read a compelling argument where that line would constitutionally need to be drawn.
I mentally note that when he 2nd was written they had also contemplated allowing, and it is in the Constitution because they did allow Marques of Reprisal.   These allowed privateers, pirates really, independent individual citizens to have ship of war and to capture ships of war of opposing militaries for the economic prize of it and to keep them or sell them to the government.  This is a strong indication that the second may speak to more than firearms when it talks of arms. I mean they knew and sanctioned having ship of war in private hands.  The equivalent of that today would be stunning.  At any rate I appreciate you sharing.  Your viewpoint is share by many who I admire. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If an AR is chambered with 223 it is very lethal. At over 3200 fps and 1300 foot pounds of force it is 3 times as powerful as a 9 mm handgun. Are 9 mms lethal?

Sure if its chambered with 22s it's less likely to be lethal in one shot but I can definitely kill a human with a 22. And if not kill one can do an incredible amount of internal damage with a 22 bouncing around in your rib cage and through your organs.

 
There are some people out there that really cling to the newer interpretation of the 2nd amendment - you know, the one that the modern NRA really loves.  I believe they are a minority of the citizenry, albeit a very vocal minority.  And a well-funded and organized minority.  That message amplification has been to their benefit.  I have heard loud and clear (many times over) their talking points and rationale for what they want.  So if it makes them feel better, message received.

What I really never quite understand is why they want it.  And why do they want it so damn badly?  Why does their desire to possess these objects make them so fervent as to see their personal desires (not needs) as more important than the safety and lives of so many others?  So many innocent lives that have been lost as a result - why is this the thing they choose to be so invested in?

I know many gun owners.  Responsible ones.  Ones that also see the logic in greater restriction (not elimination) of something that is non-essential to life since it leads to greater liberties for more humans as a result.  So I always have hope.  I know that this isn't a binary situation on the whole.  I do believe it can get better, even if it takes one slow and small step at a time.  But still I wonder - what drives that minority to be so selfish as to not care past the point of their itchy trigger finger?  

 
There are some people out there that really cling to the newer interpretation of the 2nd amendment - you know, the one that the modern NRA really loves.  I believe they are a minority of the citizenry, albeit a very vocal minority.  And a well-funded and organized minority.  That message amplification has been to their benefit.  I have heard loud and clear (many times over) their talking points and rationale for what they want.  So if it makes them feel better, message received.

What I really never quite understand is why they want it.  And why do they want it so damn badly?  Why does their desire to possess these objects make them so fervent as to see their personal desires (not needs) as more important than the safety and lives of so many others?  So many innocent lives that have been lost as a result - why is this the thing they choose to be so invested in?

I know many gun owners.  Responsible ones.  Ones that also see the logic in greater restriction (not elimination) of something that is non-essential to life since it leads to greater liberties for more humans as a result.  So I always have hope.  I know that this isn't a binary situation on the whole.  I do believe it can get better, even if it takes one slow and small step at a time.  But still I wonder - what drives that minority to be so selfish as to not care past the point of their itchy trigger finger?  
I was laughed at in the other thread for this explanation. The reason is unfettered freedom for 200 years. It's the same reason most Americans want the right to be able to speak out against their government or President without fear of being thrown in the gulag. The same reason we want the biggest houses, the fastest cars, the largest gas guzzling SUVs, and the 77 pack of natty light. We're Americans. We consume at levels that other countries can't even fathom. Whether it's gas, beer, or bullets, it's what we do. And how we show the rest of the Earth's population that we just don't give a ####. Maybe that't the reason people trek 100's of miles across the deserts to come to this country.  Freedom. 

 
I was laughed at in the other thread for this explanation. The reason is unfettered freedom for 200 years. It's the same reason most Americans want the right to be able to speak out against their government or President without fear of being thrown in the gulag. The same reason we want the biggest houses, the fastest cars, the largest gas guzzling SUVs, and the 77 pack of natty light. We're Americans. We consume at levels that other countries can't even fathom. Whether it's gas, beer, or bullets, it's what we do. And how we show the rest of the Earth's population that we just don't give a ####. Maybe that't the reason people trek 100's of miles across the deserts to come to this country.  Freedom. 
If this is an honest answer, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I would, however, politely challenge it. It seems that a few things have been smashed together in such a way as to assign virtue or value to concepts where perhaps it is inappropriate. Our freedoms aren't unfettered - they are enumerated and (over time) restricted to ensure that essential freedoms are protected but not overused to the extent that they infringe on another person's liberties. The freedom of speech as you listed is a great example. It is there but it is not unlimited and comes with responsibilities.

Then you dive right into talking about unabashed consumerism as if greed and consumption equals freedom. How do you make that leap from foundational freedoms to an SNL-style mocking of modern American retail attitude? Reminded me of the Simpsons Canyonero commercial.

And showing the rest of the Earth that we DGAF? Do you really think that is what the founding fathers aspired to for this great nation? I would encourage you do do some deep thinking about what you have been exposed to, read, listened, and watched over the years that has made you combine these ideas into a Dr Frankenstein version of American freedom.

So no, I'm not laughing at you. I'm concerned for you. And saddened that you may have convinced yourself that all this stuff you wrote is more important than perhaps protecting the lives of others by allowing a subset of that consumption desire to be slightly curtailed. 

 
If this is an honest answer, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I would, however, politely challenge it. It seems that a few things have been smashed together in such a way as to assign virtue or value to concepts where perhaps it is inappropriate. Our freedoms aren't unfettered - they are enumerated and (over time) restricted to ensure that essential freedoms are protected but not overused to the extent that they infringe on another person's liberties. The freedom of speech as you listed is a great example. It is there but it is not unlimited and comes with responsibilities.

Then you dive right into talking about unabashed consumerism as if greed and consumption equals freedom. How do you make that leap from foundational freedoms to an SNL-style mocking of modern American retail attitude? Reminded me of the Simpsons Canyonero commercial.

And showing the rest of the Earth that we DGAF? Do you really think that is what the founding fathers aspired to for this great nation? I would encourage you do do some deep thinking about what you have been exposed to, read, listened, and watched over the years that has made you combine these ideas into a Dr Frankenstein version of American freedom.

So no, I'm not laughing at you. I'm concerned for you. And saddened that you may have convinced yourself that all this stuff you wrote is more important than perhaps protecting the lives of others by allowing a subset of that consumption desire to be slightly curtailed. 
I think the founding fathers had no idea what this country would look like 200 years later. When I think about what it could look like in another 200 years, I don't think we could do any better job at writing something to protect against all possible outcomes. 

This was your original statement:

But still I wonder - what drives that minority to be so selfish as to not care past the point of their itchy trigger finger?
I gave a bunch of other examples in my reply. How can people be so selfish as to drive a gas guzzling SUV, drinking and driving, or any number of other things that pose a potential risk to society? That was the point that I was making. We got this way by consuming what we wanted, when we wanted. Nobody was there to tell us to slow down, think about the environment, or think about those around us. If you think people are selfish as not to care about others, just look at people killing themselves through global warming or smoking cigarettes. They don't care enough about their own children or grandchildren, why should they care about someone else's? 

In order to grow into a super power we had to have the freedom to grow. That freedom has evolved into greed. People, companies, and even our own government doesn't care about what others need. It's about taking as much as they can. Society is conditioned to do the same. 

I think it's a lazy statement on your part to single out people with itchy trigger fingers, but ignore the masses that are hurting people in much worse ways. 

 
I think the founding fathers had no idea what this country would look like 200 years later. When I think about what it could look like in another 200 years, I don't think we could do any better job at writing something to protect against all possible outcomes. 

This was your original statement:

I gave a bunch of other examples in my reply. How can people be so selfish as to drive a gas guzzling SUV, drinking and driving, or any number of other things that pose a potential risk to society? That was the point that I was making. We got this way by consuming what we wanted, when we wanted. Nobody was there to tell us to slow down, think about the environment, or think about those around us. If you think people are selfish as not to care about others, just look at people killing themselves through global warming or smoking cigarettes. They don't care enough about their own children or grandchildren, why should they care about someone else's? 

In order to grow into a super power we had to have the freedom to grow. That freedom has evolved into greed. People, companies, and even our own government doesn't care about what others need. It's about taking as much as they can. Society is conditioned to do the same. 

I think it's a lazy statement on your part to single out people with itchy trigger fingers, but ignore the masses that are hurting people in much worse ways. 
I'll be really honest here, I don't think you communicate as clearly as you think you do.  Reading your original response I (and I'm going to guess others on this board) interpreted your SUV/house/Natty Light comments to be almost applause lines about "American freedom."  Now it seems like you are saying those are critiques.  It's very confusing to me, and I'm not sure what to take from what you are saying. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.  Unfortunately the format of a message board doesn't really allow us the fluidity of a conversation to ask questions and clarify meaning in a quick manner to allow us to better respond.

When you state that in some/many aspects our "freedom has evolved into greed" I will agree with you.  I think that when it comes to lots of our problems that is somewhere in the roots.  Your last line - I feel - is an assumption wrapped up in an oversimplification.  You are assuming that I'm ignoring people that are hurt through other means.  That isn't true, and I'm not sure where you drew that from.  As I've grown up I like to think I've become far more empathetic to people that suffer in all sorts of ways.  There's an old saying that goes something like "when you are young if you aren't liberal you don't have a heart - and when you get older if you aren't conservative you don't have a brain." My story is more the opposite. 

For various reasons I identified early in my life as a Republican.  Even in high school I can remember making statements that today make me cringe thinking about it - statements that would today align me with the alt-right.  When I registered to vote I registered Republican and remain that way today.  For a while I really got into Libertarianism.  I read books by Ron Paul, was intrigued by expansive liberty, saw taxation as terrible, etc. But as I got older I began to look outside my admittedly very small circle of exposure.  I became more aware of what others suffered from.  Be it due to race, income, religion, the great geographical lottery of birthplace, etc.  My perspective grew and I found myself drifting more to the political center.  Sometimes I lean left, sometimes I lean right.  But I really try to educate myself before (and after) making up my mind.  My efforts are to stay open-minded and willing to accept (and challenge) new evidence to further develop my outlook. 

When I posted in a thread about guns, I spoke about my opinion about guns.  I didn't think I needed to lay out my belief system about every social issue in order to justify my opinion about the tragedy that befalls many people due to the proliferation of guns in our nation.  What I did try to do was express my confusion about people's love of guns (and as you aptly put - the consumerism around it that is generated by the economical interests at play by those that benefit from the money poured into the industry).  My confusion about how that love for a hobby transcended love for other humans.  

People often point to the 2nd Amendment to defend this right.  I'll end this by quoting you as I think this is another truth you may believe in but may not want to apply equally: "I think the founding fathers had no idea what this country would look like 200 years later." I agree.  Let's take that attitude and apply it to refining their thoughts into what we need for our nation today.  These were very forward-thinking men.  I think they'd be very disappointed in us if we tried to live today like they did and never attempted to evolve for the better with the blueprint they gave us.

 
I'll be really honest here, I don't think you communicate as clearly as you think you do.  Reading your original response I (and I'm going to guess others on this board) interpreted your SUV/house/Natty Light comments to be almost applause lines about "American freedom."  Now it seems like you are saying those are critiques.  It's very confusing to me, and I'm not sure what to take from what you are saying. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.  Unfortunately the format of a message board doesn't really allow us the fluidity of a conversation to ask questions and clarify meaning in a quick manner to allow us to better respond.

When you state that in some/many aspects our "freedom has evolved into greed" I will agree with you.  I think that when it comes to lots of our problems that is somewhere in the roots.  Your last line - I feel - is an assumption wrapped up in an oversimplification.  You are assuming that I'm ignoring people that are hurt through other means.  That isn't true, and I'm not sure where you drew that from.  As I've grown up I like to think I've become far more empathetic to people that suffer in all sorts of ways.  There's an old saying that goes something like "when you are young if you aren't liberal you don't have a heart - and when you get older if you aren't conservative you don't have a brain." My story is more the opposite. 

For various reasons I identified early in my life as a Republican.  Even in high school I can remember making statements that today make me cringe thinking about it - statements that would today align me with the alt-right.  When I registered to vote I registered Republican and remain that way today.  For a while I really got into Libertarianism.  I read books by Ron Paul, was intrigued by expansive liberty, saw taxation as terrible, etc. But as I got older I began to look outside my admittedly very small circle of exposure.  I became more aware of what others suffered from.  Be it due to race, income, religion, the great geographical lottery of birthplace, etc.  My perspective grew and I found myself drifting more to the political center.  Sometimes I lean left, sometimes I lean right.  But I really try to educate myself before (and after) making up my mind.  My efforts are to stay open-minded and willing to accept (and challenge) new evidence to further develop my outlook. 

When I posted in a thread about guns, I spoke about my opinion about guns.  I didn't think I needed to lay out my belief system about every social issue in order to justify my opinion about the tragedy that befalls many people due to the proliferation of guns in our nation.  What I did try to do was express my confusion about people's love of guns (and as you aptly put - the consumerism around it that is generated by the economical interests at play by those that benefit from the money poured into the industry).  My confusion about how that love for a hobby transcended love for other humans.  

People often point to the 2nd Amendment to defend this right.  I'll end this by quoting you as I think this is another truth you may believe in but may not want to apply equally: "I think the founding fathers had no idea what this country would look like 200 years later." I agree.  Let's take that attitude and apply it to refining their thoughts into what we need for our nation today.  These were very forward-thinking men.  I think they'd be very disappointed in us if we tried to live today like they did and never attempted to evolve for the better with the blueprint they gave us.
Sorry for the confusion. I'm not an author or one that can convey his opinions effectively. (that's been pointed out numerous times here) You asked how someone can be so selfish when it comes to gun control. My opinion is because of unfettered freedoms. It's become more and more evident that everyone feels their freedoms are being challenged at every turn. Gun owners are no different. I don't assume all illegal immigrants are rapists or murderers, I don't assume all Muslims are terrorists. Yet, current society wants to lump all gun owners as being bad people. Therefor, we must pass laws to prevent all gun owners from killing people. We have laws that address issues when someone shoots another person. We have laws that address when an illegal immigrant rapes someone. Yet, we see people fighting for the rights of law abiding immigrants and Muslims. Is anyone (other than gun owners) fighting for the rights of law abiding gun owners?

As to the comparisons to over consumption, that was my attempt to draw a line between what some would call an unnecessary gun and an unnecessary vehicle. Does a big SUV get someone from point A to point B any more effectively than a Honda Civic? (I'm talking about the soccer mom with 2 kids that never leaves the city). Does that SUV have a greater impact on the environment? Does it have a greater risk of injury to other drivers on the road in the event of an accident?  Does a 77 pack of Natty Light lead to excessive drinking? When we look at the right to excess, that's what American Freedom is all about. I'm able to own 10 cars, 10 guns, or 10 widgets because as long as I'm not hurting someone, then we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. (whatever that my be to each individual person) We are now at a point in society where the freedom to own a gun is questioned due to the increase in mass shootings. That freedom is at question. Whenever that happens, there is going to be a subset that will be effected more than the others. That subset is the group that tends to be the most vocal. They have to be, because there is a lot of noise coming from the large group on the other side. 

 
Sorry for the confusion. I'm not an author or one that can convey his opinions effectively. (that's been pointed out numerous times here) You asked how someone can be so selfish when it comes to gun control. My opinion is because of unfettered freedoms. It's become more and more evident that everyone feels their freedoms are being challenged at every turn. Gun owners are no different. I don't assume all illegal immigrants are rapists or murderers, I don't assume all Muslims are terrorists. Yet, current society wants to lump all gun owners as being bad people. Therefor, we must pass laws to prevent all gun owners from killing people. We have laws that address issues when someone shoots another person. We have laws that address when an illegal immigrant rapes someone. Yet, we see people fighting for the rights of law abiding immigrants and Muslims. Is anyone (other than gun owners) fighting for the rights of law abiding gun owners?

As to the comparisons to over consumption, that was my attempt to draw a line between what some would call an unnecessary gun and an unnecessary vehicle. Does a big SUV get someone from point A to point B any more effectively than a Honda Civic? (I'm talking about the soccer mom with 2 kids that never leaves the city). Does that SUV have a greater impact on the environment? Does it have a greater risk of injury to other drivers on the road in the event of an accident?  Does a 77 pack of Natty Light lead to excessive drinking? When we look at the right to excess, that's what American Freedom is all about. I'm able to own 10 cars, 10 guns, or 10 widgets because as long as I'm not hurting someone, then we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. (whatever that my be to each individual person) We are now at a point in society where the freedom to own a gun is questioned due to the increase in mass shootings. That freedom is at question. Whenever that happens, there is going to be a subset that will be effected more than the others. That subset is the group that tends to be the most vocal. They have to be, because there is a lot of noise coming from the large group on the other side. 
The thing is your right to a gun was never unfettered. It wasn't meant to be. This new 2nd Amendment understanding flies in the face of precedent going back to right after the Constitution was ratified. The founders knew what gun control laws were as the nation had them. The 2nd didn't end any of them. Not one. And in fact courts decided time again this was the case. What we have now is a perversion of the actual intent. And it's literally killing us. 

 
Further no rights are really unfettered. We have libel laws because free speech isn't unfettered as one example. There can be no truly unfettered,  suicide pact right in a functioning civil society. There must be some limits. 

 
The thing is your right to a gun was never unfettered. It wasn't meant to be. This new 2nd Amendment understanding flies in the face of precedent going back to right after the Constitution was ratified. The founders knew what gun control laws were as the nation had them. The 2nd didn't end any of them. Not one. And in fact courts decided time again this was the case. What we have now is a perversion of the actual intent. And it's literally killing us. 
Right. When it comes to things like a ICBM or an RPG, there are limits to what a person can own. We have restrictions on fully automatic weapons since 1935. So, I guess that means we're at the logical "next step". The end goal is obvious. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it's there.

As to your last line, the same could be applied to the 18th and 21st Amendment. We have a perversion with alcohol as well. It too is killing us. Until we become serious about changes in all areas that are causing loss of life, then it's difficult for me to take people serious about gun control. For me, it looks like it's bandwagoning. 

 
Right. When it comes to things like a ICBM or an RPG, there are limits to what a person can own. We have restrictions on fully automatic weapons since 1935. So, I guess that means we're at the logical "next step". The end goal is obvious. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it's there.

As to your last line, the same could be applied to the 18th and 21st Amendment. We have a perversion with alcohol as well. It too is killing us. Until we become serious about changes in all areas that are causing loss of life, then it's difficult for me to take people serious about gun control. For me, it looks like it's bandwagoning. 
We have restrictions on alcohol. We even still have dry counties. So there is no unfettered right to it either. 

 
Right. When it comes to things like a ICBM or an RPG, there are limits to what a person can own. We have restrictions on fully automatic weapons since 1935. So, I guess that means we're at the logical "next step". The end goal is obvious. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it's there.

As to your last line, the same could be applied to the 18th and 21st Amendment. We have a perversion with alcohol as well. It too is killing us. Until we become serious about changes in all areas that are causing loss of life, then it's difficult for me to take people serious about gun control. For me, it looks like it's bandwagoning. 
It's hard to tell sometimes if people drawing the line between gun control and other health issues (motor vehicle safety, substance abuse, etc) is stemming from a genuine concern, deflecting, or some other tactic.  I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are genuinely concerned about the health and well-being of all humans. So let's break down what is currently in place:

As for alcohol - and as @NCCommish showed above, there are restrictions.  There are age limitations.  In some places there are quantity limitations. In some places full restriction.  If you have been consuming too much and are potentially a harm to yourself or others there are restrictions. 

Over time we've seen similar things with tobacco.  The health warnings weren't always there, and depending on where you live there are restrictions on where you may smoke in public places.

With motor vehicles we see legislation around its hazardous intersection with alcohol and other intoxicating substances.  We see limitations based on past behaviors both through legislative means and insurance abilities.  There are certain safety aspects that are required to make vehicles street legal.  When you bring up issues with cars and their effects on the environment, again this is something that has been (at least attempted) to be legislated.  There are restrictions as to emissions, and some that were put in place for the industry overall to work towards more efficiency to help reduce negative environmental results.  

Heck, we even see legislation around food.  Sometimes you are required to post nutritional content in restaurants.  Some cities tax high-sugar beverages. The FDA regulates certain aspects.  We see legislation all around us that is aimed to keep us safe that we totally take for granted.

Being that all of that has been shown, now what?  Does every single person that espouses any suggestions about gun control have to personally demonstrate to you their lifelong credo and works to better the world in every area that could affect a human? To what end? Why don't you employ a little "benefit of the doubt" on the issue?  Start by assuming the people you are having these discussions with are also in favor of helping humans in the other areas of concerns.  Then, instead of creating some odd litmus test about what else they must care about, just listen to their POV and suggestions, and have a conversation about those ideas on their own merits.  When someone keeps pointing off in another direction during these back-and-forths, it doesn't really help create the impression that you want to find a solution.  Instead people come away feeling as if you have some other motive at play.

 
Polish Hammer said:
It's hard to tell sometimes if people drawing the line between gun control and other health issues (motor vehicle safety, substance abuse, etc) is stemming from a genuine concern, deflecting, or some other tactic.  I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are genuinely concerned about the health and well-being of all humans. So let's break down what is currently in place:

As for alcohol - and as @NCCommish showed above, there are restrictions.  There are age limitations.  In some places there are quantity limitations. In some places full restriction.  If you have been consuming too much and are potentially a harm to yourself or others there are restrictions. 

Over time we've seen similar things with tobacco.  The health warnings weren't always there, and depending on where you live there are restrictions on where you may smoke in public places.

With motor vehicles we see legislation around its hazardous intersection with alcohol and other intoxicating substances.  We see limitations based on past behaviors both through legislative means and insurance abilities.  There are certain safety aspects that are required to make vehicles street legal.  When you bring up issues with cars and their effects on the environment, again this is something that has been (at least attempted) to be legislated.  There are restrictions as to emissions, and some that were put in place for the industry overall to work towards more efficiency to help reduce negative environmental results.  

Heck, we even see legislation around food.  Sometimes you are required to post nutritional content in restaurants.  Some cities tax high-sugar beverages. The FDA regulates certain aspects.  We see legislation all around us that is aimed to keep us safe that we totally take for granted.

Being that all of that has been shown, now what?  Does every single person that espouses any suggestions about gun control have to personally demonstrate to you their lifelong credo and works to better the world in every area that could affect a human? To what end? Why don't you employ a little "benefit of the doubt" on the issue?  Start by assuming the people you are having these discussions with are also in favor of helping humans in the other areas of concerns.  Then, instead of creating some odd litmus test about what else they must care about, just listen to their POV and suggestions, and have a conversation about those ideas on their own merits.  When someone keeps pointing off in another direction during these back-and-forths, it doesn't really help create the impression that you want to find a solution.  Instead people come away feeling as if you have some other motive at play.
Before I respond, I want to make sure we are on the same page. First off, this thread is a discussion about the confiscation of firearms. Not additional regulations. I've mentioned a dozen times that I'm for background checks for all gun purchases. Even those between two private parties. I suggest that the gun transfer be made through a licensed firearms dealer for a minimal fee (the fee is important, because without regulations, some dealers will charge more than is required). I've also suggested that magazine capacities be limited to 6 rounds (the same as a revolver). This would force mass shooters to reload  more frequently which buys time to subdue them, have the police arrive, have victims escape or possibly have the weapon jam. I also suggested that assault rifles be limited to 22 caliber only. This would reduce the killing power of the weapon, while also allowing gun owners to legally own the weapons. (conversion kits could be supplied instead of buybacks or confiscation) I'm also okay with some of the proposed training and storage proposals. But those, along with the proposed insurance requirements are less about prevention and more about making victims and their families whole. 

With that out of the way, we can concentrate on the proposed confiscation or criminality of gun owners, should certain bans be passed into law. And how there is no proposal to ban any of them.

Alcohol vs Guns -  If I want to buy alcohol, regardless of my past criminal history, I am able to do so. In order to purchase a gun, there are some states that require paperwork and possible background checks to do so. There is no state that I am aware of that requires a background check to buy alcohol. If you're buying a handgun, then the process is even more stringent (at least in my city). Thinking about the possible ways that an underage person could get access to alcohol vs guns, you see a clear difference. In addition to friends or even strangers that may buy a six pack for a teenager, there's the ability to steal alcohol from a parents home. There are a half a dozen grocery stores within a 5 mile radius where alcohol is unlocked and accessible to shoppers. I've caught hundreds of people stealing in my lifetime. To think that an underage drinker couldn't possibly steal alcohol is ignoring the issue. By comparison, every gun store I've been to keeps the guns locked either in a case, or in a cabled rack. At present time, if a 16 year old kid brought a gun to school, it would be treated much worse than if he brought a bottle of Jack Daniels. The way we market and protect each from falling into the wrong hands is obvious. 

Cigarettes (or chewing tobacco) vs Guns - This is one that is used by gun owners to counter the argument of "what's the purpose". If someone can apply the theory to guns, and that guns serve no purpose, then why haven't cigarettes been banned? There was a lot of stats and conversation in the other thread about suicide. So, I guess, as long as someone is not hurting anyone else by smoking, then society is okay with the loss of life and the impacts on the insurance industry. But, when it comes to guns, it's assumed that all gun owners are on the verge of hurting someone. It's the stigma that keeps the anti gun crowd riled up. The anti gun crowd likes to counter this argument with "nobody ever killed a bunch of school kids with a carton of cigarettes". But that isn't the point of "what's the purpose".

Cars vs Guns - This is the one that people like to think is the solution. I've heard more than once "Yes, let's regulate guns like cars". The problem with that solution is that most of the regulations with cars is reactionary. I've pointed out numerous times that I could go buy a car in a matter of a few minutes. Private party sales are not handled through city, county or federal authorities until 2 weeks - 1 month after the purchase has been made. I don't need to have insurance until I go to license the vehicle with the county. There are stats on the number of uninsured drivers on the roads. But, we want to monitor gun owners and make sure they carry insurance if they own a firearm? Would anyone suggest that we allow someone to buy a gun and then go register it a month later? So, if I was a person without a license or a multiple dui offender, I could buy a car without anyone checking as to whether or not I'm a threat. I could drive that car to any number of stores and buy as much alcohol as I want. Again, without any proactive restrictions. By contrast, if I was a convicted felon and I tried to purchase a firearm, I would be denied. Are we seeing the difference? And I haven't even touched on the proposal of banning guns or alcohol. As to regulation around alcohol, there are zero preventive measures that prevent a dui. Even if you want to site over consumption and bartenders cutting a person off. That usually only happens in the extreme cases. Anyone that has been to a bar for more than a few hours will see multiple patrons that have been drinking the whole time. Bartenders don't put people on a drink count. They only cut someone off once they become belligerent. The proof of this is the number of people that are arrested for DUI's every year. I would be curious to know how many of them were served at a public establishment. Even if they started a drink count, a person could just go from one bar to the other to start the count over. Again, nothing is preventing someone from driving drunk.

More Cars vs Guns -  You mentioned regulations around cars being street legal. We don't do anything to limit or ban cars from being modified in a way to make their speeds dangerous. There are some states that have inspections to make them safer in general. Headlights/taillights working, etc. But, a Ferrari that goes from 0-60 in 4 seconds can pass that inspection. It doesn't mean that the driver will be restricted from driving 200 miles an hour when he leaves the DMV. There are tons of hot rods on the road that are street legal. They're able to achieve speeds well in excess of the limits, and they don't have proper restraints or air bags. Many of those cars are exempt from inspection rules because they are grandfathered in. So, not only do they pose a risk due to speed, they also harm the environment due to their lack of emissions compliance. But, nobody wants to ban those. 

Food vs Guns - You didn't mention anything about banning foods. You mentioned regulations and taxing. I did a quick search to see what foods are banned in the U.S. Some of them are banned because of political view, not necessarily health risks. (horse meat?)  One that was on the list was sassafras oil because it is a major carcinogen that can cause liver and kidney damage. (but we won't ban cigarettes, which also has carcinogens). Could I kill someone with a bottle of sassafras oil?  Probably not very quickly, but it's banned. 

With all that, we're back to the concerns I have about banning (and more importantly, confiscating) guns. Where have we done that in any of the comparisons I listed above? Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we ban alcohol, cars, or even cigarettes (maybe). I'm also suggesting that we don't ban guns. I'm pointing out the emotional over compensation to a problem that needs to be addressed. If the main stream media covered every DUI death for 24 hours after they happened, maybe society would have the same emotional response. I'd compare it to the recent fire at Notre Dame Cathedral. They were having trouble getting people to donate prior to the fire. Due to a tragic incident, people are now racing to make a difference. This is the same thing that is happening with each mass shooting. While sad, let's make decisions void of emotion.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top