Another perspective.

[russ1943]

Ideology, Politics and Guns…………………………….
.......Chait's distinction between liberalism and conservatism may have even more to say about the debate over gun control than about economic issues. As should be unmistakable from the comments to this blog, the opposition to gun control arises from a deeply felt ideology. Restrictions on guns are impermissible per se, as invasions of a "god-given" freedom.

In contrast, gun control proponents start with the existence of a problem (100,000 Americans killed or wounded every year by gunfire) and propose various reforms not because they are valuable per se, but because they are seen as pragmatic ways to attack the problem. Indeed, there is much debate in the gun control community over which reforms will be effective, much as there is robust debate among liberals generally about what economic policies will be effective.

This kind of internal debate is foreign to the "gun rights" crowd, for which the freedom to possess and carry guns is an unquestioned good and the only task is to identify and defeat threats to that freedom. The work of scholars showing the benefits of gun regulation, or the danger of gun carrying, is automatically dismissed as "biased" because it cannot be reconciled with the "gun rights" ideology. Chait's description of conservative economic reasoning is equally true of "gun rights" reasoning: "It begins with the conclusion and marches back through the premises."......................
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/ideology-politics-and-gun_b_780570.html
At the time I posted this, there were 462 comments.

[lawodevolution]

1. Bottom line is

Gun control is like a doctor giving a patient a cough drop for a nasty productive cough with bloody phlegm. If a doctor treated the symptom to get out of having to treat the underlying cause which could be cancer or TB etc I think he'd be sued. Politicians are treating the symptom of violent crime with gun control but ignoring the underlying causes. This will not solve the problem. If we can make it clear that they can't play around with gun control anymore, that option is off the table, they will have to address the underlying causes of violence which are poverty, education, proper and consistent punishment, all of which have been neglected while politicians have been screwing around with gun control. Politicians are lazy and gun control is easier than solving our real problems. I think it's time that Americans make it clear to our leaders that we want real solutions and NO more gun control.

[Remmah2]

2. +1

Nice!

[safeinOhio]

3. Just like those

that scream about any common sense ideas on public health care yell SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, the zealots on the gun rights issue scream GUN CONTROL GUN CONTROL. Any restriction, even if constitutional are seen as that first step to taking away everyones guns, just like the unfettered capitalist scream that any social program is a sure road to communism. Rights and social policies are not black and white ideologies in the real world. All have reasonable restrictions and can have benefits for the majority. It becomes useless to even try to argue with ideological capitalist or gun rights zealots as every issue becomes spin for a "pure" way of thinking on those issues.

[pipoman]

5. Except

most gun control proposals of "reasonable restrictions" have already been and are in place. What are left are demonstrably ineffective or already proven ineffective 'feel good to some' restrictions. Can you name any constitutional "reasonable restriction" which has not already been demonstrated to be ineffective? The only one I can think of is the fabled "gun show loophole" which cannot be addressed from the federal level, not for lack of will from either party, but for lack of constitutionality.

[safeinOhio]

8. and if only

true unfettered capitalism were unleashed there would be no jobless and money and wealth would tickle down on everyone.

Of course if NCIS checks on sales by FFL dealers is constitutional, it stands to reason that sales by private sources would be unconstitutional. Even if done on a state level, the anti gun control crowd would be up in arms. Those "reasonable restrictions" already in place need to be repealed according to some, even if effective because they interfere with unfettered machine gun ownership as guaranteed by the 2nd.

[pipoman]

11. I don't know who you are referring to who wants to

repeal existing laws like NICS. Certainly not NRA. OTOH I think that the machine gun registry should be reopened on constitutional basis and likely will at some point. Not the machine gun registration requirements, only the registry. As for private sales, the unconstitutional part is federally requiring NICS for intrastate private sales of personal property, the feds have no jurisdiction. I don't want the feds to set a precedent for controlling intrastate commerce, they have already bastardized the commerce clause beyond anything the founders would recognize as reasonable. At the state level, an NICS requirement would be completely constitutional IMO, and is in place in some states now...problem with that is lack of public support in many states. The NRA, and by proxy it's members, have supported many, even most of the existing regulations which in fact are "reasonable". The cries by some that pro 2nd advocates want to repeal all existing regulations are simply lies.

[Callisto32]

21. "Of course if NCIS checks on sales by FFL dealers is constitutional, it stands to reason that ..."

"It stands to reason" is not an argument. I see no reason why BOTH cannot be constitutional. You suggest these two things are corollary, but they have little to do with one another.

[Euromutt]

44. Whaddya mean, "it stands to reason"?

The constitutionality of federally mandating a NICS check is based on the Commerce Clause, because the overwhelming majority of firearms that are sold by FFLs to private buyers are not manufactured in the state in which they are sold, and such sales thus constitute interstate commerce. I can even grudgingly accept that this applies--à la Wickard v. Filburn--to an AR-15 carbine (an OLyArms K3B) I own that was manufactured in the same county as the FFL from whom I bought it and in which I was living at the time of purchase (Thurston County, WA, meaning the weapon didn't cross county lines, let alone state lines, to get from manufacturer to buyer), on the grounds that buying an OlyArms meant I wasn't buying a Bushmaster, Stag, DPMS or whatnot. Though I'll note that that argument really only works for models of firearms such as the AR and 1911, which are made many manufacturers in many different states; if you live in Massachusetts, you're not going to find a J-frame that was made out-of-state, say, just like you're not going to find a Glock assembled in or imported into a different state if you live in Georgia.

Similarly to the Brady Act, the Commerce Clause permitted Congress to impose the Gun Control Act of 1968, under which interstate transfers between private parties were (in effect) prohibited, and required to go through an FFL. Thus, the only remaining legal transfers are intrastate, by dint of which, they fall outside the Commerce Clause, and it would thus be unconstitutional for Congress to (attempt to) impose restrictions (e.g. requiring a NICS check) on such transfers. The only way the federal government could impose a NICS check on private-party transfers is if it repealed the prohibition on interstate private-party transfers, and then imposed a NICS check requirement on all private-party transfers, on the grounds (again, per Wickard v. Filburn) that the ability to acquire a firearm intrastate affects your demand to acquire the same weapon interstate, and thus affects interstate commerce.

Short version: the fact that requiring a NICS check for transfers from FFL to private party is constitutional does not mean that federally imposing NICS checks on private party sales would be.

[PavePusher]

14. The problem, of course....

is that government is very good at taking power, and never gives it back without prolonged legal or physical struggles... and that only rarely.

[Callisto32]

20. Your view of rights, I think is a little wobbly. See the reproduction of an older post of mine:

"For those of you from outside this forum, or who have forgotten about me in my long absence here is the same old disclaimer: I am a libertarian, (note the lower case "l"), not a Democrat, or anything that could probably be confused therewith.

I would say that if the bill states that you cannot get an abortion on the public tab, it is fine. Of course, I don't think that the state should be paying anybody's medical bills, and certainly not calling it a right to receive health care. Here is why. For something to be a right, I believe, it must be able to be fulfilled entirely by the voluntary actions of the person asserting the right. So, for example, you would have the right to enter into contracts with medical professionals for the tender of care in exchange for any valuable consideration you may agree upon. You cannot simply have a right to health care. Because if you have a right, you cannot rightly be denied it, and so someone HAS to provide that service for you. This is tantamount to enslaving the person who is forced, by your "right," to provide a service. Firearms are the same way. If there was a bill that was going to use tax (read: "stolen") funds to provide the populace with firearms, that would be wrong too because of the force involved in moving the wealth around. But, if someone can acquire a firearm and all of the accoutrement, and use that firearm, both in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, then he has a right to possession of that firearm."

You are correct, rights are NOT based on ideology. Either something is a right, or it is not.

[krispos42]

26. I don't think anybody here supports near-zero gun laws in the US.

Which is what the capitalist fundamentalists want. The point behind the pro-gun people here is that what is "reasonable" and "effective" by and large has already been done, at least in terms of laws passed, and the general feeling is that new proposed laws are about discouraging the "culture" of guns with the goal of making gun ownership complex and costly so that fewer choose to partake in it.

In contrast, what the capitalist fundamentalists want actually does diminish the economy and the ability of people to be in business for themselves.


There are very very few people that are actually anti-capitalist; most just want more regulations for capitalism so it doesn't consume the country with greed. There are far more that are anti-gun and whose goal is to see gun ownership reduced to as near zero as possible.

[one-eyed fat man]

4. Hmmmm

"Indeed, there is much debate in the gun control community over which reforms will be effective."

I must be missing it. The only debate I see is what kind of deception can be used most effectively to slice off another little piece of the loaf. The whole anti-gun movement has been based on shifting goalposts and changing rules. Time and time again they redefine what they claim are "reasonable" or "common sense" prohibitions while in all cases every one of the organizations' charters calls for the complete elimination of civilian gun ownership.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

They even outlined a few of the intentional deceptions they planned on using to achieve their eventual goal.

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Their apologists piously bleat about the victims of gun crime, yet their leaders boldly proclaim:

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, 1996, Washington Post

Leaders of the gun control movement have unashamedly and publicly proclaimed how they intend to reach their goals. They have shown themselves to be complete, total and absolute liars, except for ONE TRUTH:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

".....they are seen as pragmatic ways to attack the problem."

They have made clear what they see as the problem. Ordinary Americans will not simply roll over and give up their guns. So they lie, cheat, dissemble, connive, and deny their real intentions.

They claim, we don't want your guns. We only want common sense controls. Yet the charter of every gun control group has the eventual prohibition of private firearms as its goal. They have stated countless times they are willing to incrementally, over time, gradually tighten the noose while claiming the contrary.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

The only unanswered question about gun control proponents is, "Were they lying then and are they still lying now?"

"The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Awfully hard to disregard that statement, especially when they have said they are willing to lie to achieve it. Makes it really, really hard to believe when you claim now they didn't mean it. And like every snake oil peddling charlatan, should anyone call them on the failure of their remedy, they glibly proclaim the "dose" wasn't big enough!

[littlewolf]

6. +1000

Thank you

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. What a great collection of quotes. Thanks! n/t

[X_Digger]

7. If it were true that the gun control crowd were pragmatic-

Why have none of them ever wondered why violent crime (including the use of guns) dropped by 2/3 since peaking in the early 90's? A pragmatist would explore that drop and ask how it can be further extended.

"It begins with the conclusion and marches back through the premises."

Methinks Dennis projects. As the quotes in post number four demonstrate, their ideology is sacrosanct, and they're working toward that goal, facts to the contrary bedamned.

This kind of internal debate is foreign to the "gun rights" crowd, for which the freedom to possess and carry guns is an unquestioned good and the only task is to identify and defeat threats to that freedom.

Unquestioned? No, proven in study after study? Yes. NCVS, etc.

[safeinOhio]

10. Once again.

Correlation does not equal causation. If so and if there is ever a spike in crime, will you call for stringent restrictions on hand gun ownership? Or will there be a new spin to cover that. Like correlation does not equal causation.

Just like tax breaks for the ultra wealthy causes wealth, if you leave of deficits. Ayn Rand and Ted Nuggent have this all covered.

[pipoman]

12. The difference is

he isn't referring to a "spike" unless 20 years equal a spike. How do you explain a consistent 20 year reduction in violent crime parallel to a consistent 20 year increase in gun numbers and people carrying those guns publicly? Surely you must at least wonder if there is any correlation? After all "Correlation does not equal causation", but it doesn't rule it out either..certainly many times correlation does equal causation.

[X_Digger]

13. Nowhere did I imply causation between the two.

But a pragmatist will explore a trend that is going in the right direction and ask, "Why?", "How can I increase that trend?", "What has changed, and how can I add to that change?"

The fact that you ignore such a drop to the peril of your ideological hobby horse is quite telling.

[spin]

18. Crime may spike if the war between drug gangs in Mexico ...

spreads into the states. Even today much of our crime is drug related and often involves gangs fighting over turf.

Restricting gun ownership for honest firearm owners or confiscating firearms will have little effect on gang crime. Similar to spraying the flames rather than the base of the fire, it's ineffective.

I believe that our War on Drugs has been, is and will continue to be a total failure. If we don't admit this in the near future, our country will suffer the results.

[safeinOhio]

23. I can see a spike in those

right wing militias exercising their 2nd Amendment solutions as spoken of by the new tea party types. If the Hutaree militia had succeeded in it's plan to murder 100 cops because they felt the government was about to take away their gun rights,look out 2nd Amendment. Go to the SPLCs web site to see the expansion of right wing hate groups in your own area.
If the cat food commission is taken seriously in their attempt to take away all safety nets for the poor and middle class, we might start to see the same unrest as in Europe now. As with any other social phenomenon, violence ebbs and flows. Of course no one here would every tie gun ownership to lower crime rates as a direct correlation as the 20 year decrease in crime seems to be tied to gun ownership, just as the 20 year increase in obesity is too.

I have never been in favor of restricting gun ownership for honest firearm owners or the confiscating of legal firearms. Yet, in this black and white world of gun rights you respond with that comment in regard to my post.

[spin]

27. Your comment...

"Correlation does not equal causation. If so and if there is ever a spike in crime, will you call for stringent restrictions on hand gun ownership? Or will there be a new spin to cover that. Like correlation does not equal causation."

led me to believe that if crime rate spiked, you would favor restricting handguns. My point is that honest citizens are not the root cause of the crime problem. If you honestly look at your comment you might realize why I thought the way I did. I personally do not care if you are pro or anti-RKBA. You do claim to be pro-RKBA but if you say something that I find I disagree with, I will of course respond. While I am pro-RKBA, my personal positions have caused other pro-RKBA posters to disagree with me. For example, I favor a system where all purchases of firearms would have to go through a NICS background check. I also favor a mandatory firearms safety class before a person could purchase a firearm. (With an exception for cases where a person was in immediate danger.)

Only a few of the gun owners that I have known over my years of shooting belonged to a militia and I could easily count them on one hand. One time a person who appeared to be a militia member stopped by the pistol range where I usually enjoyed shooting and tried to recruit members. He was very disappointed in his success and left to never come back.

The militia is a very small fringe group of shooters and of course it will be used as an example by groups such as the Brady Campaign of why we need to closely regulate and confiscate firearms such as assault weapons. The fact is that the law enforcement community was on the ball and had a well placed undercover agent. Tight regulation of firearms would do little to prevent potentially dangerous militias from obtaining them, just as tight regulation does little to prevent criminal gangs from obtaining weapons. Proactive police work is a far better solution.

[safeinOhio]

29. The only restriction I'm for on handguns

is a requirement for NICS background checks on private purchases. I am not against registration for handguns only. I think there needs to be a trail of ownership to trace where guns used in crimes came from. None of that would prevent law abiding citizens from buying, owning and carrying handguns.

[oneshooter]

37. So you are for the registration of all handguns?

"I am not against registration for handguns only"

No matter what type,caliber, or intended/designed use? Would this include those in use by the Police and Military?

Would this be a State list or a Federal list? Who would be in charge of it?

Would there be any restrictions on its use, and/or public release?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

50. Waiting for an answer. n/t

[Glassunion]

51. I doubt that you will receive one. n/t

[oneshooter]

52. I know. He talks a lot but doesn't want to answer any questions directed to him. n/t

[jazzhound]

53. If we all had $5.00 for every dodged question in this

forum we could throw ourselves one hell of a party.

(Or make multiple large donations to 2A supporting entities.)

I'd like to think that lurkers take note of this (and other) evidence of disingenuous argument from one side of the debate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. If you think *that's* inconvenient for him, look at this:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x274573

safeinOhio (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-13-09 04:00 PM
Original message
Support the 2nd Amendment and not the NRA
You can now do it with this group.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about
The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is a national grassroots organization committed to safe and responsible gun ownership. We are a mainstream group of hunters who are looking to belong to a gun owners association that doesn't have a radical agenda.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x347635


Class, can we say "false flag operation"?

[spin]

41. I, of course, totally oppose registration on handguns ...

We differ in how we support RKBA. I see some value in registration of handguns but not enough to justify the expense and the hassle. I'm fortunate to live in Florida where there is no registration. I found the following article sums up my views.

It's time to eliminate handgun registration in Michigan
November 16th, 2009

In 2008 Michigan admitted that the farce that was the handgun "Safety Inspection" system was simply handgun registration in everything but name. This law required anyone who acquired a handgun to bring it to the local police department within 10 days for a mandatory "Safety Inspection."

***snip***

Last year the legislature finally 'fessed up to the joke. They eliminated the ruse of the "Safety Inspection," and instead just required Michigan pistol owners to fill out the registration paperwork on their own and provide it their local police, who will then forward it to the Michigan State Police.

This change, while refreshing in it's honestly, does not go far enough. The pistol registration system does nothing keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Anyone who purchases a handgun from a gun shop undergoes a Federal background check which makes the Michigan registration redundant. Any criminal who acquires a handgun is certainly not to show up at the cop shop to register it. So, what's the point?

All the registration process does is violate the rights of law abiding citizens, intrude on their privacy, waste government resources, and make people who don't know any better feel good. With the current economic emergency it makes much more sense to eliminate the whole process and free up resources at both the local and state level. Wouldn't it make more sense to have local police departments out catching bad guys, instead of entering legal gun owner's info into computers? Wouldn't the money spent by the Michigan State Police to operate and maintain this registry be better spent putting more Troopers on the road?pemphasis added
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-detroit/it-s-time-to-eliminate-handgun-registration-michigan

In my opinion, allowing or requiring people who buy a firearm from a private citizen to undergo an NICS background check would accomplish far more than a registration system.

[Pavulon]

39. What EXACTLY do you want?

please tell me how the tens of thousands of gun laws need to be modified to achieve your goals. Again be specific.

[Callisto32]

22. Correlation does not equal causation.

Agreed.

However, the liberalization of firearms laws certainly has NOT caused increases in crime. Since crime has been going down over the same period, you see.

[safeinOhio]

30. You assume too much.

We don't know for a fact that some of those laws have hampered an even greater reductions in crime.

[pipoman]

57. Nor can it be established

that prohibitions on carrying machine guns have not enabled more crime.

[Callisto32]

58. No, you don't understand what I said.

Anti RKBA said that if we liberalize firearms laws, crime would INCREASE. I'm not a government agency, I don't get a smaller increase in my budget than I wanted can call it a CUT. It did NOT increase. This, I know, and must assume NOTHING to get there.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Oh, it's perfectly understandable- the anti-RKBA people just want to deny or ignore it.

"It" being:

Anti RKBA said that if we liberalize firearms laws, crime would INCREASE.

They most certainly did, and for quite a while- and now they have abandoned one of their longtime articles of of faith.


Combine that with the examples of anti-RKBA mendacity quoted in post #4 above, and it's clear that these people are not

acting in good faith.


Any further 'compromise' with them should only entail not prosecuting them for fraud. They should be thankful

if they are left only with the NFA of 1934 and the NICS system.

[pipoman]

56. I think the 'causation' quote is completely over used

Actually, very often, correlation does in fact equal causation. Not always of coarse, but it seems to me that this statement has come to mean, at least to some, that correlation never equals causation, and that is an absolutely laughable fallacy. Further causation cannot even be established without some sort of correlation. So in reality causation is always determined by correlation, just not always the other way around.

[Callisto32]

59. Of course I didn't mean "never."

I simply agreed that correlative date does not, on its own, establish causation. I am happy, though, calling correlation close to 1 a cause; at least in my personal calculations in life. I simply wouldn't publish such a thing in a scholarly journal without further evidence.

[one-eyed fat man]

24. Much simpler than that

Your position on wealth redistribution is based solely on your steadfast belief(hope?) that Government's hand in YOUR pocket is putting money IN.

The uber rich will avoid taxes regardless. From things as simple as one Massachusetts senator keeping his yacht in Rhode Island to keep from paying thousands in property tax to Massachusetts. The wealthy do not sit in grubby government clinics waiting their turn to see a specialist. They hop on the Lear and go to Sweden, Switzerland, or the Mayo Clinic as it suits them.

They do have that option, to take their ball and go home. When the Carter Administration levied confiscatory luxury taxes on airplanes and yachts, what happened? As the President of Beech Aircraft noted, the government collected a few hundred thousand dollars in taxes, while Beech laid off 1500 employees. He was pretty certain those good Union families would rather have been building airplanes than collecting Food Stamps. Boat-builders on both coast suffered similarly.

The wealthy just bought airplanes from Aerospatiale and spent more time on the Riviera.

Making Bill Gates or Warren Buffett suffer just because you hate other peoples' success won't do squat. They do more good with the money they give away than all the folks indignant about it.

[safeinOhio]

31. I know Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett

both have stated they support higher tax rates for the super rich. I guess they just aren't neo-cons.

[one-eyed fat man]

48. My social circle is much more plebian.

Mostly old soldiers, aviators and their widows. (Unlike you, I can't say, "I know Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett")

But you should know you DON'T HAVE TO WAIT!!!!!!!!!

You and your phalanx of rich people itching to pay more taxes simply because it’s the right and decent thing to do HAVE always been able to simply send the IRS a check as big as you can write. You don't have to wait for the tax cuts to expire and be forced to do it.

It’s very telling that nobody now pays more taxes than he is legally required to pay. And this is true in spite of the fact that there are (you tell me) myriad rich people who think they pay too little in taxes and who want the government to force those who think they pay too much taxes to pay more.

Why not see how much revenue the government can voluntarily raise from rich people before forcibly taking money from them?

We could do this simply by adding to the IRS Form 1040 the following series of checkoffs:

( ) Check here if you would like to make a donation to the government equal to 10% of your taxable income

( ) Check here if you would like to make a donation to the government of an amount equal to 5% of your taxable income

( ) Check here if you would like to make a donation to the government of an amount equal to ___ % (insert percentage of your choice) of your taxable income

( ) Check here if you do not want to make a donation to the government

For the common good, of course.

Instead of donating to private charity or the arts are these folks willing to check one of the first 3 boxes shown above and redirect their largess to the place you obviously believe it will do the most good: The federal bureaucracy?

[safeinOhio]

54. I think it has been shown

that the middle class and lower income folks donate a greater percentage of their income than the wealthy.

I remember Warren said that because his millions every year come from dividends, not wages, he only has to pay 15%. He bemoaned the fact that his secretary's earned wages were taxed at 30%. Strange that unearned income is taxed at half what wage earners are taxed.

My guess is that your friends make as much or more than mine do.

[oneshooter]

55. Are you avoiding the questions on Post #37? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

60. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

"My guess is that your friends make as much or more than mine do."

You're the one on a first name basis with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

I'd reckon as I am unacquainted with even a single billionaire I must be friends a whale of a lot more ordinary folks and we make up for it in volume?

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Nice idea, but fine words butter no parsnips (to quote Mark Twain).

So how much 'excess income' have Warren and Bill donated directly to the Feds?


If Buffett honestly thinks that people with his level of income should pay more in taxes, he should be cutting the IRS a rather

largish check and delivering it publicly to set an example.


Once again, we need to watch what the hands do and not what the mouth says...

[haifa lootin]

35. Your point is well taken, but the 'luxury tax' was enacted in 1990

a good while after Carter was out of office. I was actually a long time friend of O.A. Beech (who was of course Olive Ann, a woman who used her initials so her gender wouldn't be overly obvious) and attended her funeral just a couple years after that. (I don't know who the head cheese at Beech was then, Olive was on the board of Raytheon mostly in a figurehead status but I doubt the comment came from her, although it would absolutely be in character.)

oh can I edit that?...after I posted I was wondering about a couple of details and found this

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/09/06/78288/index.htm

[one-eyed fat man]

42. hell being old

I knew I had seen the story but forgot where and scrambled some details. . Thanks for the link. But I think the gist of it holds. In their zeal to fuel class envy with a little 'make the rich pay' grandstanding Congress accomplished squat.

People who would have liked to buy new airplanes did not buy them, workers who would have been employed building the airplanes were idle, and the government got next to no revenue.

"The Congressional Joint Tax Committee had estimated that the luxury tax would raise $6 million from airplane sales alone in fiscal 1991. The actual take? $53,000."

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. That's the third time you've conflated laissez-faire capitalism and gun rights in this thread

I rather doubt you've seen anyone here esposing Friedmanesque unfettered capitalism.

I'd also doubt you've ever seen anyone here advocating an unfettered, Hobbesian market in firearms.

What you have seen here are people who don't think that your definition of 'reasonable' and 'common sense' gun laws

are either reasonable or sensible. That hardly makes them crypto-libertarians.



It seems to be the fashion amongst you lot- Portray those whose definition of "reasonable gun regulation" differs from yours

as right-wing stooges or plants.



You should be aware that you're not the first to try this in the Gungeon. There were a few before you who

were rather more strident about it. The last and most prolix gave the impression that she felt that she was single-

handedly fighting off the barbarians.

[safeinOhio]

32. I am only comparing the

black and white, no compromise arguments used by any zealot. I'm sure the same would fit communist, religious or space alien zealots too. I'll be glad to compare non economic hard liners next time to not offend you.

[Pavulon]

28. 2 supreme court cases for gun rights.

your side is at a crossroads. you can see the light or continue on like those who fight against the outcome of brown vs board or roe v wade.

The law is clearly not backing you.

[safeinOhio]

33. The law of the SC

also supported the Citizens United and Bush vs Gore. I have not seen any court decisions on back ground checks. Sounds like you would support back ground checks on private sales if the Courts support it. I'm with you brother on that.

[Pavulon]

38. no point. its a bamboozle. smoke and mirrors. Pass an ammendment

do something if you want to take rights, you have no excuse with two SC cases. gun law is the appearance of giving a fuck about people killing each other over drugs. It is easier than say, legalizing drugs, and dealing with socio economic issues and mental health. Hey did you hear about 4loko, you should work on banning it. I mean its why people drive drunk.

But if you think some silly gun law is going to fix something feel free to work on passing it..

No one will touch it, its a political impossibility (and stupid) and will never even hit the floor. Its done, the choice of the anti people is how to respond to the reality that is out there now.

[safeinOhio]

46. Live by the Supreme Court and

die by the Supreme Court. As I said there has been no cases on the constitutionality of background checks. Feel free to bring it to the SC. You may not be such a SC supporter afterwards.

"Hey did you hear about 4loko, you should work on banning it." Show me where I supported any ban. The same logic would put you in the make sure convicted drug dealers, gang bangers, terrorist and rapist have easy access to handguns group.

[Pavulon]

49. The fact they already have their access, like the drug ban

is a teachable moment, so are gun laws. Criminals have access to drugs and guns, regardless of they laws the rest of us follow.

I dont give a shit about the court, they are a means to an end. They are a vector to secure a right from people who in their myopic view of the world use gun law to appear to "fix" problems.

Again, its a bamboozle, far easier than addressing the issues causing violence to happen. No background check is needed for person to person sale.

Gun control is dead, the work now is reversing stupid laws and setting universal access requirements.

[east texas lib]

34. Your post's last sentence contains excellent talking points if you're running for office...

However, it contains little of relevance to the subject at hand unless Atlas Shrugged has a 30 round magazine, a bayonet lug or one can fit Ted Nugent in a holster and employ him to defeat a would-be killer. The bottom line is that the elites of society (of which the likes of Sugarman, Shcumer, Metzenbaum et al are a subset) live in a world far divorced from the lives of mere commoners that might actually require a firearm to survive a hostile situation.

Yet they would deem to make the rules that the rest of us would have to live by. Further, they would use any means to achieve their aims, including deception and the usurpation of the Bill of Right's protections. They cannot be publicly truthful for fear of failure. Sensibilities, mores, customs and trends can change over time. But human nature, i.e. what atrocities humans are capable of perpetrating on each other does not. The Bill of Rights was written recognizing this simple fact. Those that would strip the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment from ordinary people stand with an august body of some of the worst perpetrators of almost unimaginable horrors throughout humanity's history.

The pattern is always the same. Disarmament in the name of safety and the public good. Ever increasing control exerted over the now helpless population. Finally, elimination of all segments of the population considered undesirable by those in control of the society. Those who cannot grasp this lesson condemn themselves and/or their descendants to extinction. It is happening today in many areas of the world. It will happen here if we permit it.

[PavePusher]

15. '"god-given" freedom. '

There are many people who don't believe in god, but still believe in freedom and freedom to "keep and bear".

If free will exists, then freedom and rights are human choices.

[haifa lootin]

36. Ha ha ha ha...contrast the Bill of Rights with the 10 Commandments

one restricts what the government may do, the other threatens individuals with eternal torture for being snotty to the Big Asshole in the Sky.

[Callisto32]

61. That is a stunningly offensive and ignorant comment....

[AtheistCrusader]

62. You forgot 'accurate'

[Callisto32]

63. Really?

"Getting snotty"

Let's forget that the last six are entirely regarding proper interaction with other people, and are concepts codified in modern law. The fourth basically says to not forget to take time to smell the roses. The third basically says not to swear false oaths. It is placed in the context of God, but I think we can agree that breaking oaths or swearing false ones is bad. The first two are about proper respect for the creator of the universe. Granted, you might not agree that there IS a creator of the universe, but it is hardly as trivial as "getting snotty."

Sorry if I find the support for the utter disrespect of the deeply held beliefs of a large portion of the world's people in fairly bad taste.

[haifa lootin]

67. You mean it's not in the sky?

:shrug:

[Callisto32]

68. See post 63.

[pipoman]

45. Yea, the "god given" thing is a bit much,

but it is, in the courts, meant to mean inherent or unalienable..it has been a concept of US law since the beginning and probably even goes farther back than that to English common law. I think we must embrace the concept of some rights being unalienable regardless of our religious affiliation.

[PavePusher]

16. Another note...

All the Huff-n-Puff articles by Helmke, Hennigan, Sugarmann, et al, always seem to devolve to the pro-2A people asking "Where's your evidence?" and the anti-2A side saying "You big poopy-heads...".

Interesting, that.

[Callisto32]

19. "This kind of internal debate is foreign to the "gun rights" crowd..."

simultaneously oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the "'gun rights' crowd."

The freedom to possess and carry guns is not always seen as an unquestioned good. Rather, for those of us who approach the issue from the perspective of personal liberty, it is a matter that possessing and carrying guns is not malum in se. Attempting to regulate such a thing, rather than the actual harmful act, is reprehensible authoritarianism to us dismissed not because it cannot be reconciled with my ideology, but because restricting the rights of another when the exercise of that right does not harm another or another's property IS malum in se.

[jazzhound]

40. As X_Digger points out, Henigan projects.

You don't have to leave the Democratic Underground Guns Forum to plainly see which side of the debate argues from deeply felt ideology and which side argues from a pragmatic position with fact-based arguments backed up with citations.

Between 1967 -- 1986 there was a 2/3 decrease in the number of gun-related accidents while the gun supply rose 173%. While correlation does not equal causation, you would think that an "empathetic pragmatist" would be intensely interested in exploring why/how this occurred, no? Not as much as the slightest curiosity however from Dennis Henigan and his ilk w/regard to statistics like these. If the true intent of the gun "control" crowd was to save lives (rather than to control) they would give a damn about exploring these types of statistical relationships.

Birds of a feather flock together. You can deduce much about Mr. Henigan by virtue of the fact that he regularly quotes the discredited hack Arthur Kellermann:

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Mags/Gun-Banner-Books.pdf

[Euromutt]

43. Henigan has to resort to generalization to make his point

As an atheist, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "god-given right" because no god exists to give it. My perspective on private ownership of firearms is that, when a government refuses to accept responsibility for protecting its individual citizens, and the concomitant liability for failing to protect them, it abdicates the authority to deprive those citizens of the means to protect themselves.

Astute readers of Gary Kleck will, of course, spot that Henigan's claim that the gun control crowd bases itself on empirical evidence rather than ideology is also so much bullshit, because the gun control crowd only looks at the negative side of the ledger, and refuses to acknowledge there even is a positive side (i.e. the prevention of the completion of violent crimes as a result of the victim driving the assailant to flight or surrender with the threatened defensive use of a firearm, or incapacitating the assailant by use of a firearm). The fact is that the gun control lobby is ideologically motivated to a very similar extent as the "'gun rights' crowd"; its members rely only on empirical evidence that supports their belief--which they arrived at by emotion, not reason--that Guns Are Bad. That makes their position slightly more sophisticated than that of those who defend gun rights as being purportedly "god-given," but at the same time, it makes the position more dishonest and hypocritical. The reaction of the Brady Campaign and other gun control advocacy organizations to the work of Gary Kleck and John Lott was pretty much identical to the reaction Henigan attributes to "'gun rights' ideologues" upon being confronted with research findings that are not to their liking. For the record, I should state I don't actually buy Lott's "more guns, less crime" hypothesis either, but I can do a damn sight better than dismissing it on the basis of mendacious ad hominems, like the one that Lott's work was funded by the Olin-Winchester corporation (his chair was funded by the Olin Foundation, which makes the allegation the equivalent of claiming that every Nobel laureate is in the pay of Dynamit Nobel Defence GmbH).

[benEzra]

47. Ummm-hmmm. Is that why outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out is such a top gun control priority?

That legislating rifle aesthetics is a "pragmatic way" to "attack the problem" of criminals killing the innocent and each other, most with illegally possessed handguns, knives, and blunt objects?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

How about limiting carry licensure to the wealthy, politically connected, and campaign donors? Is that a "pragmatic way" to "attack the problem" of criminals killing the innocent and each other?

Face it, most of the gun control lobby's priorities from the '90s to the present were faith-based moral crusades against teh evil gunz, not pragmatic proposals aimed at reducing gun violence.