TheWhiteknife, I want you to tell me what you are concerned might happen if everyone is required to register their firearms.
I already know what your answer will be, I wager. I just want you to actually type it out so you and others get to read what the logical endpoint of your legal agenda represents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, honestly I dont. I really dont.
Edit- and Ive posted before Im ok with some felons buying guns. I guess it depends on what exactly the felony is. I think there should be some mechanism that allows certain felons to become normal people, with full rights again.
That's the thing for me. No 'reasonable' alternative is being proposed by "pro-2nd amendment" people. Those are pretty broad terms.
By "reasonable" I mean any.
By "pro-2nd amendment" I mean, anti-gun control for whatever reason.
We have a problem with people being killed by guns in this country. The number of people killed here (by guns) is much higher per capita than any other similar country. Every time that a liberal offers a solution, it's shot down as violating some right, but no alternative is ever proposed, except for ignoring the problem.
If you're okay with the level of gun violence in this country, you should argue for the status quo.
If you aren't okay with it, you need to offer SOMETHING. I'm open to dialogue, maybe my ideas aren't the best. Tell me what a better solution looks like. 30,000+ deaths per year from guns is not acceptable to me.
Additionally, gun rights advocates often say "well, the criminals have them, so I want them too". So clearly they are worried about the criminals having guns.
Present an idea to reduce the number of guns in criminals hands. Or present an idea to help us find that idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My solution: Decriminalize drugs, public works programs, free health care, free education.
Oh yeah, and overthrow capitalism.
Oh yeah, and overthrow capitalism.
Are you suggesting the non-violent overthrow of capitalism?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I'm not fussy. I'll take it either way.
TheWhiteknife, I want you to tell me what you are concerned might happen if everyone is required to register their firearms.
I already know what your answer will be, I wager. I just want you to actually type it out so you and others get to read what the logical endpoint of your legal agenda represents.
Generaly speaking...not meaning to put words in Whiteknife's mouth, it is usualy a fear of two things...
1) The country being invaded by a forgein power and using such a regestry to form a hit list...as the Nazis did in France. And many other invaders have done.
or
2) The goverment becomes 'rogue' and removes the right of citizen's to bear arms. As history shows it is the usualy first step in 'rogue' type goverment.
Usualy the pro-gunregstry people than point out that this is just rampant parnoia. Ignoring history.
Is that what you are fishing for?
If so can you point out why we should ignore history's lessons?
How America will some how be immune to invasion or the goverment taking over from now to eternity?
By the way...I am for background checks as long as you can contest it, I am all for a waiting period, I would even suggest that guns should be Id locked(usualy via fingerprints) to the buyer...if they wish to sell it the new buyer must go through the background checks, etc. to get the gun changed to his/her to his ID. I am also for gun safety classes and such. I am not even totally against a national regestry...but I really have never heard a response to what I think are genuine fears(as history as shown) other dismissing it as parnoia.
You know, I'm not fussy. I'll take it either way.
Yeah but you would be against rope being made illeagle I guess as it is tough to hang people without rope?
TheWhiteknife, I want you to tell me what you are concerned might happen if everyone is required to register their firearms.
I already know what your answer will be, I wager. I just want you to actually type it out so you and others get to read what the logical endpoint of your legal agenda represents.
Generaly speaking...not meaning to put words in Whiteknife's mouth, it is usualy a fear of two things...
1) The country being invaded by a forgein power and using such a regestry to form a hit list...as the Nazis did in France. And many other invaders have done.
or
2) The goverment becomes 'rogue' and removes the right of citizen's to bear arms. As history shows it is the usualy first step in 'rogue' type goverment.
Usualy the pro-gunregstry people than point out that this is just rampant parnoia. Ignoring history.
Is that what you are fishing for?
If so can you point out why we should ignore history's lessons?
How America will some how be immune to invasion or the goverment taking over from now to eternity?
By the way...I am for background checks as long as you can contest it, I am all for a waiting period, I would even suggest that guns should be Id locked(usualy via fingerprints) to the buyer...if they wish to sell it the new buyer must go through the background checks, etc. to get the gun changed to his/her to his ID. I am also for gun safety classes and such. I am not even totally against a national regestry...but I really have never heard a response to what I think are genuine fears(as history as shown) other dismissing it as parnoia.
1. There is no foreign government that can invade the US. Arguing that they will not only be able to invade but take enough control of the populous to use it against them is rediculous.
2. The government doesn't care about your guns being used against the army. If they wanted to institute a police state, the level of firearms available to the average citizen and the relative levels of training make the population's guns more or less irrelevant.
You argue that pro-gunregistry is ignoring history. Perhaps we just choose not to ignore the dozens of countries that have successfully implemented programs restricting gun ownership and have seen dramatic decreases in the fatalaty of crimes.
1. There is no foreign government that can invade the US. Arguing that they will not only be able to invade but take enough control of the populous to use it against them is rediculous.
Yup...the French probably thought the same thing too before WW2. You are saying that the US will be the most powerful country forever?
2. The government doesn't care about your guns being used against the army. If they wanted to institute a police state, the level of firearms available to the average citizen and the relative levels of training make the population's guns more or less irrelevant.
Than why is it without fail one the first act of police states? If guns in privbate cirizens hands don't matter?
You argue that pro-gunregistry is ignoring history. Perhaps we just choose not to ignore the dozens of countries that have successfully implemented programs restricting gun ownership and have seen dramatic decreases in the fatalaty of crimes.
No I am not ignoring that personaly...as I said I am totaly against a national registry. It is jutst once the response to two valid fears against them is pretty much like the above.
1. There is no foreign government that can invade the US. Arguing that they will not only be able to invade but take enough control of the populous to use it against them is rediculous.Yup...the French probably thought the same thing too before WW2. You are saying that the US will be the most powerful country forever?
No, they didn't. There was a reason the region was a spiders web of alliances between countries of mutual size. The US boarders no nation with the military strength to control a passive region the size of the US, let alone a hostile one.
2. The government doesn't care about your guns being used against the army. If they wanted to institute a police state, the level of firearms available to the average citizen and the relative levels of training make the population's guns more or less irrelevant.Than why is it without fail one the first act of police states? If guns in privbate cirizens hands don't matter?
Apparently, you seem to think that the US military is the same as the militaries of a 3rd world nation.
You argue that pro-gunregistry is ignoring history. Perhaps we just choose not to ignore the dozens of countries that have successfully implemented programs restricting gun ownership and have seen dramatic decreases in the fatalaty of crimes.No I am not ignoring that personaly...as I said I am totaly against a national registry. It is jutst once the response to two valid fears against them is pretty much like the above.
That is because both of those fears are not valid or reasonable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, honestly I dont. I really dont.
Edit- and Ive posted before Im ok with some felons buying guns. I guess it depends on what exactly the felony is. I think there should be some mechanism that allows certain felons to become normal people, with full rights again.
That's the thing for me. No 'reasonable' alternative is being proposed by "pro-2nd amendment" people. Those are pretty broad terms.
By "reasonable" I mean any.
By "pro-2nd amendment" I mean, anti-gun control for whatever reason.
We have a problem with people being killed by guns in this country. The number of people killed here (by guns) is much higher per capita than any other similar country. Every time that a liberal offers a solution, it's shot down as violating some right, but no alternative is ever proposed, except for ignoring the problem.
If you're okay with the level of gun violence in this country, you should argue for the status quo.
If you aren't okay with it, you need to offer SOMETHING. I'm open to dialogue, maybe my ideas aren't the best. Tell me what a better solution looks like. 30,000+ deaths per year from guns is not acceptable to me.
Additionally, gun rights advocates often say "well, the criminals have them, so I want them too". So clearly they are worried about the criminals having guns.
Present an idea to reduce the number of guns in criminals hands. Or present an idea to help us find that idea.
We have an alternative, it is called the Constitution........
We do NOT have a gun problem, we have a violent criminal trash problem.
I'm still not hearing any suggestions on how we can limit criminals access to guns. If your pro-gun rights, present an idea you'd accept. I don't want to take your rights away. I want fewer criminals to have guns. How do we do that?
Get the criminal trash to join the Glorious People's Revolution.
They'll have less time to kill each other if they're trying to kill Rahm Emanuel.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd guess that if you ameliorate poverty, improve employment and quality of life, increase access to effective physical and mental health care and drug rehab, end the war on drugs -- then the murder rate drops, regardless of what you do with guns. Because there will be fewer disgruntled people looking to use them to settle scores, fewer criminals looking to use them as a fast-track ticket out of poverty or into their next heroin fix, fewer violently insane people left untreated.
I suspect that stuff would work WAY better than a simple registry! But enacting all that would require something more along the lines of what Comrade Anklebiter is espousing. By embracing the exact opposite conditions -- a massive wealth gap, dwindling access to affordable health care, skyrocketing incarceration rates for nonviolent crime -- we create the violent criminal trash problem ourselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally. A post in a politroll thread I can favorite.
Also, let this be a lesson to you Paizonians all: You meet Comrade Anklebiter for drinks downtown and you'll end up singing revolutionary socialism.
Vive le Galt!
I don't disagree with that Kirth and as a long term solution we should also be looking at those kinds of solutions. I don't think that is mutually exclusive to reducing the number of illegal guns, or making it possible to catch people illegally selling guns.
In regards to poverty and crime, it is symptom management, but I think mitigating gun violence is a symptom worth managing.
That is because both of those fears are not valid or reasonable.Caineach, Tuvia Bielski would like to disagree.
Right, so because assault weapon nuts have delusions of grandure and want to fight the US industrial complex, or some nebulous enemy that could defeat it, with their stockpiles we should let them continue to accumulate them? Sorry, but if these people are mentally ill enough to think that this will both come to pass and they will matter, I don't want them having weapons.
In the event of a foriegn invader, it will be the military weapons that survive and not the crappy knockoffs in the hands of civilians that will matter.
There are legitamet reasons to have weapons, but not every weapon is created equal and not every weapon can be justified the same way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generaly speaking...not meaning to put words in Whiteknife's mouth, it is usualy a fear of two things...
1) The country being invaded by a forgein power and using such a regestry to form a hit list...as the Nazis did in France. And many other invaders have done.
That "hit list" would be close enough to a list of adults in the country as to be functionally equivalent.
or
2) The goverment becomes 'rogue' and removes the right of citizen's to bear arms. As history shows it is the usualy first step in 'rogue' type goverment.
Usualy the pro-gunregstry people than point out that this is just rampant parnoia.
That's because it's rampant paranoia.
Ignoring history.
It's not ignoring history.
Is that what you are fishing for?
Absolutely. I just wanted you to outline that the only reasons to oppose registration are if you believe that the United States is or will be vulnerable to takeover either by its own hostile government, or a foreign power. Since those are both paranoid right-wing fantasies, no one should feel bad about shuffling your views to the bottom of the list of considerations.
If so can you point out why we should ignore history's lessons?
Because that's not what history teaches us. That it has ever happened does not mean that history is showing that it is likely to happen here.
How America will some how be immune to invasion or the goverment taking over from now to eternity?
Because neither of those things will ever happen. Ever.
but I really have never heard a response to what I think are genuine fears(as history as shown) other dismissing it as parnoia.
Because no other response is even remotely necessary. It is paranoia, straight up. I could explain why it is paranoid - and I can support it with history, which you really seem to like a lot - but I really don't think you'd care. I have a feeling that, even if I were able to magically demonstrate, with utter believability, that the United States will never be subject to takeover, foreign or domestic, you'd still be opposed.
Yup...the French probably thought the same thing too before WW2. You are saying that the US will be the most powerful country forever?
The United States will be the most militarily powerful nation certainly up to (and likely well past) the point where conventional firearms ownership is a factor in deciding military conflicts. In fact, one could argue that we're already well past that, at least for war under certain parameters.
Than why is it without fail one the first act of police states? If guns in privbate cirizens hands don't matter?
Go ahead and give us a list of modern military superpowers that have turned into violent, oppressive police states.
The reason most police states are threatened enough by citizens owning conventional weaponry is that most countries which become police states have militaries that tend to operate much closer to parity with armed citizenry than modern military superpowers do.
The idea that your average AR-15 owner is capable of making any kind of effective stand against a modern military superpower (even in aggregate) is another right-wing fantasy - one that is horrifyingly popular, by the way.
We have an alternative, it is called the Constitution........
We do NOT have a gun problem, we have a violent criminal trash problem.
The Constitution is not holy writ. We have a gun problem, and the Constitution is getting in the way of solving it. That's okay, though. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to rework the Constitution in order to make anything like real progress.
And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!
Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that.
And on this day, Hoplophobia single-handedly dismantled the gun control movement by mentioning Switzerland, which had definitely never been done before!
Globally, lax gun control and widespread firearm ownership are positively correlated with levels of violent crime.
Finally. A post in a politroll thread I can favorite.
Also, let this be a lesson to you Paizonians all: You meet Comrade Anklebiter for drinks downtown and you'll end up singing revolutionary socialism.
Vive le Galt!
you know, I always hear your posts as if you had a heavy russian dialect. I suspect it's your nick, as I usually tend to think of revolutionaries as french. It's ironic, seeing as how comrade has it's roots in french.
Regardless, you're no doubt my favorite poster on the political threads.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why, thank you, but my accent is rather boringly American television with hints of New England.
I don't disagree with that Kirth and as a long term solution we should also be looking at those kinds of solutions.
But we're not going to, are we? Not with Chicago shutting down its schools and mental health clinics, not with Obama offering cuts in Social Security and Medicaid. Not with a "socialist" health care plan written by a stooge of the pharamaceutical plutocrats forcing working people to shoulder the burden of health care costs. Not with Obama's administration promising to carry out the war on drugs.
Nope. Just stop and frisk and gun control.
Psst, Citizen Betts, please don't forget us fantasists on the left!
Vive le Galt!
But we're not going to, are we? Not with Chicago shutting down its schools and mental health clinics, not with Obama offering cuts in Social Security and Medicaid. Not with a "socialist" health care plan written by a stooge of the pharamaceutical plutocrats forcing working people to shoulder the burden of health care costs. Not with Obama's administration promising to carry out the war on drugs.
A-freaking-men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring history.It's not ignoring history.
Is that what you are fishing for?Absolutely. I just wanted you to outline that the only reasons to oppose registration are if you believe that the United States is or will be vulnerable to takeover either by its own hostile government, or a foreign power. Since those are both paranoid right-wing fantasies, no one should feel bad about shuffling your views to the bottom of the list of considerations.
If so can you point out why we should ignore history's lessons?Because that's not what history teaches us. That it has ever happened does not mean that history is showing that it is likely to happen here.
How America will some how be immune to invasion or the goverment taking over from now to eternity?Because neither of those things will ever happen. Ever.
Just as an aside here. It should probably be pointed out that during WWII, the only reason the Japanese did not invade the west coast is, according to their own military documents, they were aware that US citizens were armed and it deterred them from doing so. Just ... you know. History.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Than why is it without fail one the first act of police states? If guns in privbate cirizens hands don't matter?Go ahead and give us a list of modern military superpowers that have turned into violent, oppressive police states.
Soviet Union
The entirety of the Eastern bloc.
China
Iraq
Iran
Pakistan
Many "Little tin-pot African countries" *
Germany
Shall I continue? I'm pretty sure you could come up with a majority UN vote with the number of countries that turned into violent, oppressive police states where disarming the citizens was part of the agenda.* Quote from Yes, Minister
Just as an aside here. It should probably be pointed out that during WWII, the only reason the Japanese did not invade the west coast is, according to their own military documents, they were aware that US citizens were armed and it deterred them from doing so. Just ... you know. History.
I'm going to want an actual source for that if you want it taken seriously. A quick poke around the internet only finds it sourced to a private conversation between a Japanese officer and an ardent gun rights supporter after the war.
There were a lot of far more practical reasons the Japanese didn't invade.
Were there many reasons why Japan did not attempt a US invasion? Yes. Resources, the Battle of Midway, not in expansionist objectives, etc.
Did remaining military officials state, after the war, when asked that one reason they did not was because of the armed citizenry? Yes.
Does discounting the last reason because it doesn't fit your narrative for your argument sound like a typical lefty ploy? YES.
Yes. Its called hyperbole used correctly.
No, they didn't. There was a reason the region was a spiders web of alliances between countries of mutual size. The US boarders no nation with the military strength to control a passive region the size of the US, let alone a hostile one.You do know there this crazy new invention called boats....that go on the water right.
There this other crazy invention called airplanes which actualy fly right?
Both of which as been used to invade countrys before.
Also I disagree a passive populace would require no military control...as they are passive. You are right a hostile populace would require a large military occupation to control. ?If the population was armed.
Apparently, you seem to think that the US military is the same as the militaries of a 3rd world nation.
Just a minor point most police states don't actualy use military to control their population...usualy it is police force that does usualy made fromn it of loyal thugs. As the miltary's loyalty is in question...especialy when used against a civilian population.
That is because both of those fears are not valid or reasonable.And this is why the two sides can never come to agreement.
I have other things to do now I'll be back to respond to Mr. Betts later tonight.
But just want to make point...if a invasion of the US does happen...or the goverment becomes a police state...I would want the means to fight it...this does not mean I see it working. As a matter of fact I think the chances would not be high...though I think it is possible. But as a free person I want the right and the ability to go out fighting.
Then you need to show what you're going to do about those violent criminals to reduce gun violence. Give me a viable answer and we can leave guns alone.
Well seeing as how its been trending downward almost every year for the last 40 years, I fail to see why we need to do anything.
Amusingly, Ive read that one factor that may contribute to that downward trend may be the readily availibility of violent games and shows to vent off steam. Ill see if I can find a link.
EDIT
Yes. Its called hyperbole used correctly.And still no evidence.
The quote that (I think) hes referring to was never said by any imperial soldiers. If he's thinking of the "Rifle behind every blade of grass" quote, Im pretty sure its from US issued war propaganda with the quote falsely attributed to Yamashita. Ill try to find a link for that too.
From back when the government wanted everyone armed and also asked private citiens to send rifles to Britian to arm their citizens too.
EDIT
Yamamoto, not Yamashita. And I dunno where I got the war propaganda thing from, but according to wiki, its attributed to Macarthur's historian:
Scott Betts, I want you to tell me what your worried will happen if we continue to not have a registry? That crime will continue to decrease?
Just as an aside here. It should probably be pointed out that during WWII, the only reason the Japanese did not invade the west coast is, according to their own military documents, they were aware that US citizens were armed and it deterred them from doing so. Just ... you know. History.
Is it your belief that the knowledge that citizens may be armed will be the deciding factor between choosing to invade and choosing not to invade the United States for any military superpower otherwise capable of doing so?
Soviet Union
The entirety of the Eastern bloc.
China
Iraq
Iran
Pakistan
Many "Little tin-pot African countries" *
Germany
Shall I continue? I'm pretty sure you could come up with a majority UN vote with the number of countries that turned into violent, oppressive police states where disarming the citizens was part of the agenda.
That's not what I asked for. I asked for a list of modern military superpowers which had done so. The only one on that list which maybe qualifies is the Soviet Union, but I hesitate to call that modern. China isn't a police state, Germany certainly isn't a police state, and Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and the entirety of the African continent put together don't qualify as a military superpower.
Do countries turn into violent, oppressive police states? Sure.
Do modern, military superpowers go from democracy to violent oppressive police states? Not even a little bit.
Well seeing as how its been trending downward almost every year for the last 40 years, I fail to see why we need to do anything.
"Gun violence rates dropped 2% from last year! Therefore, nothing more ought to be done!"
Incredible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember why I ignore you now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does discounting the last reason because it doesn't fit your narrative for your argument sound like a typical lefty ploy? YES.
Does manufacturing "evidence" to boost their otherwise bankrupt credibility sound like it came right out of the conservative playbook? Absolutely.
You'll find that (in the link above) George Mason University's History News Network has awarded 4 Bachmanns (out of a possible 5, Bachmanns being awarded for the public demonstration of particularly laughable historical knowledge) to the claim that the Japanese were reluctant to invade because of an armed citizenry. As they put it, no well-respected historian actually believes that was the case.
If you want to make stuff up to support your claims, make stuff up. But don't make stuff up and then repeat it for decades. That worked fifteen years ago, maybe, but today we're always one solid Google search away from finding a reputable source that debunks intellectual dishonesty.
You're done here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember why I ignore you now.
But you don't, do you?
Regardless, when someone points out that you're being incredibly callous by saying that we only had 98% of the gun-related deaths we had the previous year, and therefore we don't need to do anything more than we're already doing (despite thousands of people still dying, and mounds of evidence pointing to the ability of well-crafted gun control legislation to curb this), the correct response is not to ignore what you were just told.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott Betts, I want you to tell me what your worried will happen if we continue to not have a registry? That crime will continue to decrease?
I'm worried that people whose deaths might have been prevented by sorely-needed gun control legislation will die.
The difference between my worry and your worry is that mine will come to pass, every single day.
Ok whats the rate vs say 1975? Last year was actually a spike. Whats the rate from 50 or 40 or 30 years ago? Tell us that Scott Betts. Use your internet powers to save us all from ourselves, because YOU seem to think we cant find out on our own. (hint: its more than 2%)
Here, Ill do it for you From those "gun-nuts at Berkely
I ignore you because I dream of a future where not only crime is down, but being a jerk and relying on demonisation of one's opponents is too.
How many people have been killed by their own govenrnment in the last 100 years? 300 million? more? And more are killed EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I reject the idea of American exceptionalism. We are no diferent than anyone else. Bigger now, sure. But not different