Gun Rights and Politics

[Verran]

Freedom to choose.

Care to elaborate on that at all? Freedom to choose what? What you said doesn't really help me link it to the subject at hand.

[Andrewr05]

That is exactly it Verran, how much is necessary?

and what constitutes necessary?

 

 

It the pursuit of happiness thing.

 

The problem is without going by "the majority overrules" its hard to gauge what and what not to do based on who wants to be happy doing what.

Majority does not mean correct, of course the majority can be correct but to simplify it it:

Majority = Popular opinion

 

An unrelated matter but somewhat relevant.

 

The smoking ban.

 

Smoking is part of some peoples pursuit of happiness and some people may say it is a liberty.

 

Even though we know smoking is slowly harming others it is still the revocation of the smokers pursuit of happiness to force them outside and disallow them to enjoy themselves

and

Forcing people to sit in the same room with smokers when they don't want to also has the same effect, it takes away from their pursuit of happiness

 

I suppose were in a conundrum.

Kind of...

 

Smoking is not necessary for survival so we can argue that they can just quit if they don't want to go out side to smoke.

but then again liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't imply that something is necessary.

 

We know that second hand smoke isn't good, we KNOW that first hand smoke is worse.

 

Now this is one of those "how much" regulation things...

 

As far as restaurants go, I'd rather not be inhaling smoke while I'm trying to eat.

Back in the day the merely had a separate smoking section.

(of which the smell still lingered from but it wasn't horrible)

Now you just cant do it at all.

 

A restaurant is fine for restriction I suppose, as its hard to keep it separate without making a separate room.

Plus although a restaurant isn't necessary it does provide necessary things; Food and Drink

and also there are minors/children in a restaurant

 

 

but then we get to bars/pubs/taverns

as stated smoking isn't necessary, but neither is drinking alcohol

Now I'm not saying that everyone who drinks alcohol because its not necessary must be subjected to smoke, but would it not be a reasonable thing to ALLOW smoking in bars/pubs/taverns that specified that they would be smoking in said place?

I think so...

 

Now as afar as other places such as airports, bus terminals, subway stations etc I think they should designate areas for smoking but not allow smoking in the main areas.

(as it is in a lot of places)

Why?

 

Because there are people that HAVE to be in those places to travel and I don't think non-optional places should subject you to such things

 

Now as far as the bars/pubs/taverns go, that is completely 100% option that you go to any such place under almost all circumstances.

 

 

So I am FOR regulation for a lot of things it just matters to me what is regulated and why.

 

It just seems like they took the easy way out.

Instead of specifying any further what types of places you can/can't smoke lets just put it all into one bill/law whatever the hell and get it passed, it will save us the hassle.

 

So many people are keen to get rid of things that they themselves don't do.

 

"I don't drink, so I'll vote yes for this law that say you can't purchase X on X"

or

"I don't go to bars so this wont bother me, so I'll vote yes for this law that say you can't drink X in a bar on X"

or

"I don't even smoke but I'll vote yes passing this law the TELLS other people that they cant do it"

 

That is only referring to drinking and smoking as well, I'm willing to bet that happens quite a lot.

 

People are so keen to dismiss the rights of others and then ###### and complain when theirs are taken away.

 

 

 

 

Now back to something relavent.

 

I'm willing to bet that that happens to weapon/firearm laws as well.

 

Someone isn't into shooting guns, didn't grow up with them, isn't accustomed to them, isn't around them often, isn't knowledgeable about them, etc.

Those are the people we don't want making uninformed decisions on out rights to own firearms.

 

The same goes for any laws, we need to open peoples minds.

 

Just because you don't do it doesn't meant that it shouldn't be done.

 

 

AND

 

I'm done, I dunno if that even made a damn bit of sense...

 

Oh well...

 

 

I'm off to work.

 

/rant

[Verran]

Smoking is part of some peoples pursuit of happiness and some people may say it is a liberty.

If you're going to battle the "pursuit of happiness" stuff, you're in for a real treat. Think of all the things that could be part of a person's pursuit of happiness. Can you not think of one thing that could make someone happy that you wholeheartedly believe should be illegal? Stealing makes thieves happy. Fires make arsonists happy. Murders make gangsters happy. I mean the list goes on and on. I just don't think pursuit of happiness is really applicable in this sense.

 

Someone isn't into shooting guns, didn't grow up with them, isn't accustomed to them, isn't around them often, isn't knowledgeable about them, etc.

Those are the people we don't want making uninformed decisions on out rights to own firearms.

That's fair. You feel you're getting a bad rap from some people who lack the understanding that you have. And I'm sure you're right, but what's the solution? Only people who've owned guns can vote on gun regulations? Wouldn't you love that! I own a BB gun, does that count? Where do we draw the line? .22's and up? I mean you get into all sorts of craziness there.

 

People vote on everything. We're never going to be able to restrict who votes one what. Not only are there all sorts of complications in the details of deciding who can vote on each bill, but surely you can see the bias in allowing only gun owners to vote on gun bills.

[LoArmistead]

I'm RE-quoting this because I think it's the most important point for me, and it's where I was going with the "purist" line. Gunners act disgusted with new restrictions and imply that any restriction is a violation of their rights, yet most of them too believe in restriction. It's false. It's fake. People like to paint it like it's 100% freedom vs. banning guns entirely. That's the conversation they WANT to have. But in actuality, both sides are rather close and we just disagree on HOW MUCH restriction is necessary.

 

 

I've realized this the whole time, my argument against the "degree" of restriction is that if an outright ban has been shown to be ineffective, what degree short of that will show real improvement? It may have a .01% likelihood of stopping Billy Bob from shooting someone, but how many gun crimes are committed by Billy Bob and other people who obtained their weapons through legal means? A vast majority of gun crimes by career criminals are with guns that are not legally obtained (stolen, black market), therefore they did not go through the same restrictive process of obtaining it, and thus aren't affected by it. So in effect I think it boils down to - Constitutional rights aside, are the man hours and countless billions of dollars over time used to enforce those restrictions worth what is likely to be a negligible decrease in the number of gun-related deaths? If the reason for the restriction is to reduce deaths, wouldn't those same man hours and tax dollars be better spent enforcing traffic regulations and vehicle safety, which is much more likely to show a real decrease in deaths, especially innocent deaths (seeing as how most gun deaths are gang bangers killing each other off willingly)?

 

Not to mention, we don't have a constitutional right to a horse a buggy, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms.

[LoArmistead]

Care to elaborate on that at all? Freedom to choose what? What you said doesn't really help me link it to the subject at hand.

 

 

I added this on, but I figured you might miss it since it paged over:

 

Freedom to choose.

 

Private insurance companies are unable to operate unprofitably. Government is.

 

If government exceeds its budget, it can raise prices (taxes) or just print more money. Competitive private industries that cannot maintain their budgets go out of business.

 

The ultimate goal of a nationalized system in the US is to undercut private insurance by charging attractively lower premiums at a loss and eventually driving them from the playing field, leaving only government coverage standing. It's funny how when private firms become monopolies, the government is swift to strike them down, but who is supposed to stand up to government when it becomes a monopoly, and even a monopsony at the same time? This is why the founding fathers forbade government from interacting in private matters like this, it's hypocritical, it's massively inefficient as virtually all nationalized programs are, and it puts a centralized bureaucracy in control of the private decisions made by private individuals. Not to mention the only way to fund it is to redistribute wealth, take from Peter to pay Paul, allow B and C to decide what D shall do for A, and therefore it further nurtures the welfare state, and incites more social strife and class warfare (which is what political parties like the UK's Labour and the US's Democrats and modern Republicans florish on - the politics of envy).

 

The founding fathers were against ideas like these for very good reason, and I tend to agree with them.

[Verran]

I've realized this the whole time, my argument against the "degree" of restriction is that if an outright ban has been shown to be ineffective, what degree short of that will show real improvement?

So why try? That's what you're saying, right? You've determined through your very scientific opinionating that since previous attempts at bans have failed*, nothing short of it can have any positive effect either. So let's just give up. Regulation obviously can't work so lets just start selling hand guns in vending machines. If what you're saying is true then even the restrictions that we all agree on are no good, so do away with them too! Right?

 

Of course I'm exaggerating here. But my point is that while your opinion here may be right, when applied to legal action it doesn't work.

 

*This has been mentioned often and I don't want to get into it too much but you should acknowledge that in Europe, for one example, many citizens don't believe that it has failed. Again, until we VERY strictly define failure in this setting, this is really NOT a fact.

 

Private insurance companies are unable to operate unprofitably. Government is.

etc...

I don't support government heath-care, I believe in reducing the welfare state significantly, and I don't see the need to go any further because I still don't see what this has to do with gun rights.

[LoArmistead]

So why try? That's what you're saying, right? You've determined through your very scientific opinionating that since previous attempts at bans have failed*, nothing short of it can have any positive effect either. So let's just give up. Regulation obviously can't work so lets just start selling hand guns in vending machines. If what you're saying is true then even the restrictions that we all agree on are no good, so do away with them too! Right?

 

I'd be willing to have a trial run and see. I'm not saying restrictions short of an outright ban won't have any effect at all, but will the benefits outweigh the costs? It seems superficial to put a price on human life, but actuaries in the government do just that every day when formulating their legislation.

 

 

I don't support government heath-care, I believe in reducing the welfare state significantly, and I don't see the need to go any further because I still don't see what this has to do with gun rights.

 

Correct me if I'm misreading you, Roadie, but I believe it was his way of paving the way to the SS argument? In which case proving I'm not the only psycho here

 

It starts with "Health care for the children by taxing the evil tobacco companies!!" We all rejoice, and our hearts are warm and fuzzy. It then turns into optional govenrment plans that you can opt into in lue of private coverage, funded by raising taxes on me. Then, when private insurance is a thing of the past, government will be the only buyer and seller of health care, and our freedom to choose is gone. It's basically the same thing I was pointing out with the history of the income tax, and why I feel it applies to gun ownership as well. SS, indeed.

[Verran]

I'm not saying restrictions short of an outright ban won't have any effect at all, but will the benefits outweigh the costs?

I'm a government worker and I can safely say that my belief is that if we cut every program whose benefits didn't outweigh the costs, there would be no programs. Maybe that's a good thing, but that brings us back to the idealist thinking that doesn't work in our world.

 

When someone you know dies because some demented old fart was packing heat at a grocery store, you'll change your tune. You're just saying you'd "try it" because you know it'd never happen, but I don't believe for a second you'd vote for it.

 

Correct me if I'm misreading you, Roadie, but I believe it was his way of paving the way to the SS argument? In which case proving I'm not the only psycho here

I don't have any responses for this until someone can explain what it has to do with this thread. Seriously, I just don't see it.

 

All you're doing is just giving more examples of SS, which I specifically begged you to stop doing because I understand the concept perfectly.

[Silverfox]

Could one argue on the whole issue of 'Founding Fathers'?

 

What of them? The USA has grown exponentially since its creation, probably more so than any other 'new' nation. The ideals applied to a country that was the size it was at the time. One wonders whether the Founding Fathers ever anticipated the USA being as it is today.

 

Yes, they had aspirations of being a great nation, which have more than been met; but could they really anticipate how much society, technology and culture would have changed? Economic, political and legal policies circa 400 years ago, are rarely going to stand the test of time; amendments are needed, which by the looks of things, has taken place with restrictions to a degree.

 

I totally understand that a vast percentage of gun crime will be from weapons acquired illegally, but on the flip side, if guns were never made available in the first instance, could you not argue that gun crime would be significantly lower? (though never fully eradicated, as wills find ways of course)

 

Weren't guns back then practically manual loading with one bullet at a time? You know, musket style, or perhaps 6-shot revolvers? Did your Founding Fathers ever anticipate 12 gauge buckshots, Uzi 9mm or semi-automatics?

 

As with a number of topical discussions of late, they seem to raise more questions than answers in my opinion; but then that's what makes them discussions, rather than lectures.

[LoArmistead]

I'm a government worker and I can safely say that my belief is that if we cut every program whose benefits didn't outweigh the costs, there would be no programs. Maybe that's a good thing, but that brings us back to the idealist thinking that doesn't work in our world.

 

When someone you know dies because some demented old fart was packing heat at a grocery store, you'll change your tune. You're just saying you'd "try it" because you know it'd never happen, but I don't believe for a second you'd vote for it.

 

You're right, I probably wouldn't, but then again I have never taken a stance to remove all gun restrictions, only a stance to stop any further ones.

 

I don't have any responses for this until someone can explain what it has to do with this thread. Seriously, I just don't see it.

 

All you're doing is just giving more examples of SS, which I specifically begged you to stop doing because I understand the concept perfectly.

 

I know you understand it. I know I do. I know Roadie does. But, we feel that it is a very real threat, I'm sure it won't come up again, as long as you realize why we believe it is a very real concern that happens in the real world.

[Verran]

One wonders whether the Founding Fathers ever anticipated the USA being as it is today.

We all like to think we know what 'they' wanted, and it usually aligns heavily with our own personal beliefs

 

I think I can safely say that most of them probably hoped the country would never become what it is today, on many fronts. I think if you interpret what those smart people wrote back then as 'ideals' and not as rules to be interpreted 100% literally, then we've probably veered far from their hopes, including on gun rights. Is that because of technological and societal changes they could never have forseen? Probably maybe, but we'll never know. Come to think of it, our country was founded by Christians and they're really good at following really old rules! OK, over the line maybe, but somewhat humorous and a small bit of food for thought.

 

I totally understand that a vast percentage of gun crime will be from weapons acquired illegally, but on the flip side, if guns were never made available in the first instance, could you not argue that gun crime would be significantly lower? (though never fully eradicated, as wills find ways of course)

See this is an excellent point and where I was trying (rather unsuccessfully) to go with my definition of failure asterisk. What timeline do we have to observe before we can declare a gun ban (as an example... AS AN EXAMPLE... I don't support gun bans!) a 'failure'? It seems to me that the cultural changes necessary to really reduce violence and crime would be incredibly slow moving. Is it not a fair point to wonder if after a few generations of getting used to new rules people's outlook and the general culture might change? I mean you can't just yank guns out of people's hands and expect their ideals to change over night, but just because they don't change overnight doesn't mean they never will.

[Verran]

I know you understand it. I know I do. I know Roadie does. But, we feel that it is a very real threat, I'm sure it won't come up again, as long as you realize why we believe it is a very real concern that happens in the real world.

I do see your point and I do agree with you that it is very real. That's something I've never intended to question. But I DON'T believe that it is reason enough on it's own to shoot down () a gun proposal. I'm not just going to drop all discussion of any proposal because someone shouts SS.