And it is still not your place to tell them how much of what they earn they deserve to keep
If I steal all your money, did I "earn" it, and "deserve" to keep it? When we're dealing with the modern economy, The line between "earn" and "steal" is a HELL of a lot blurrier than you seem to imagine -- and in many places essentially fails to exist.
Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.
Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.
Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Armed citizenry was one of the cornerstones of the American Revolution and foundation of the country, so it became something of a core value for many people -- regardless of its modern repercussions. Imagine if the French government decided that the number of people with cirrhosis of the liver was far too high, and so they decided to make wine illegal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armed citizenry was one of the cornerstones of the American Revolution and foundation of the country, so it became something of a core value for many people -- regardless of its modern repercussions. Imagine if the French government decided that the number of people with cirrhosis of the liver was far too high, and so they decided to make wine illegal.Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.
Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
That i guess i can understand. There would be people rioting in the streets if the Danish government decided to outlaw beer.
...Your comment makes me think you didn't watch this video.And so, somehow, being successful (or lucky enough to be born into a family of means, which nobody can choose to do BTW), one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??
I'd love to be a multi-billionaire or what have you, but I know that I have not worked hard enough to be one, nor been fortunate enough to be born into a family of means. I can live with that...
It's not a penalty or robbery.
Seriously, go back and really LOOK at the data in that video. If you had to pay for a something in the federal budget, who are you going to even be able to get money from?
Is it more fair to:
A) Raise the taxes of the top 5% by around 2%
B) Confiscate the entire wealth of the bottom 40% of AmericansBoth would reduce the deficit this year by the same amount. Unfortunately one couldn't really be repeated with the same results next year though.
Not strictly true, since that was wealth distribution, not income and we don't normally tax wealth. A 2% tax on the wealth of the top 5% would be a huge increase.
The general point holds though. You have to go where the money is and for the last 3-4 decades more and more of it has been going to the very top.
I'm sorry, I meant to say tax their income.
A 2% tax on income of the wealthiest 1% (alone) yields $75 billion per year.
The bottom 40% are worth $108 billion.The top 1% make every year almost as much as the bottom 40% have managed to scrounge together in their entire lives.
Edit: sorry, that's wrong, the top 1% in one year make
You know what, every response to you is now going to be a demand of an apology and retraction for your statements in the save vs sexism thread. You have nothing useful to say, so until you do that, I'll assume your just trolling.
Armed citizenry was one of the cornerstones of the American Revolution and foundation of the country, so it became something of a core value for many people -- regardless of its modern repercussions. Imagine if the French government decided that the number of people with cirrhosis of the liver was far too high, and so they decided to make wine illegal.Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.
Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
It's interesting. I don't know the history of gun control in other countries, but I did recently run across this intriguing sentence in a book about the revolutions of 1848:
"The national guard ought to have been Louis Phillippe's most loyal defender, for its establishment was one of the triumphs of the July days of 1830. The right of citizens to bear arms was one of the most insistent liberal demands thoughout this period, and when Louis Phillippe was willing to grant it, this seemed proof that his new monarchy would have a force to guard its constitution."
--Revolutions of 1848: A Social History by Priscilla Robertson (1952)
I don't know if they got rid of that under Louis Bonaparte or later, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Paris Commune played a role.
All the way over here, the Paris Commune scared the bejeesus out of the bourgeoisie. In most cities that have National Armories downtown, their construction was inspired by fear of workers revolution (or so I have heard--I never independently looked that one up).
Vive le Galt!
EDIT: Well, I didn't find anything really, but I find it interesting that this book, New York's Historic Armories: An Illustrated History, apparently has a whole chapter on armories built in the 1870s and '80s.
I'm still hoping to hear more suggestions on how to reduce criminal access to guns from the gun rights activists.
If you need to have a gun because criminals have them too, then you are admitting criminals having guns is a problem.
How do we reduce the number of guns in criminals hands?
Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.
Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
It doesn't make any sense to a lot of us, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That i guess i can understand. There would be people rioting in the streets if the Danish government decided to outlaw beer.
We tried that already. I do not recommend it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing strikes me in the whole "criminals with guns" discussion -- "criminal" isn't a binary flag. As strong as the human tendency to divide the world into us/them good/bad is, I'm not sure doing so is useful in this debate.
One thing strikes me in the whole "criminals with guns" discussion -- "criminal" isn't a binary flag. As strong as the human tendency to divide the world into us/them good/bad is, I'm not sure doing so is useful in this debate.
Exactly. It's the same as when gun rights advocates accuse others of wanting to only take guns away from "law-abiding citizens" ("Law-abiding citizens" is the phrase of choice; it is almost always used verbatim). The problem is that everyone is a "law-abiding citizen" until they commit a crime, and then they're a "criminal". Unless they're conservative, in which case it's fine to have committed criminal acts in the past, as long as you have no immediate plans to commit more criminal acts.
When I was 11 I stole a $2 keychain from a Disney store. I didn't even own any keys. I was caught, and thankfully the whole thing was dealt with without involving law enforcement. But that was a criminal act. Does that mean I'm still a criminal? Or am I a law-abiding citizen? When did my "criminal" label wear off? Does it have an expiration date?
Separating the world into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens" is just lazy thinking. Lazy thought has no place in this discussion. If you're the type of person to make this kind of binary distinction, you can safely remove yourself from the debate. No one will mind.
That i guess i can understand. There would be people rioting in the streets if the Danish government decided to outlaw beer.We tried that already. I do not recommend it.
One thing strikes me in the whole "criminals with guns" discussion -- "criminal" isn't a binary flag. As strong as the human tendency to divide the world into us/them good/bad is, I'm not sure doing so is useful in this debate.
Criminals are people who get caught committing crimes.
Of the criminals who are caught with guns, a fairly large majority obtain their guns in non-legitimate ways, or through methods left open by the NRA.
These aren't abstracts I'm talking about. This isn't a purely philosophical debate. They are processes and methods that are well known. Gun dealers who break the law, but without good prior cause, the ATF can't investigate them to examine their records, the only place any cause exists to investigate them.
Guns don't magically appear like mana from heaven.
Congress actually just passed a bill that included a clause that gun dealers are not required to track their inventory, nor present records of said inventory for inspection to anyone.
|
And it is still not your place to tell them how much of what they earn they deserve to keepIf I steal all your money, did I "earn" it, and "deserve" to keep it? When we're dealing with the modern economy, The line between "earn" and "steal" is a HELL of a lot blurrier than you seem to imagine -- and in many places essentially fails to exist.
The problem is your side does not want to fix the issue of how they earn, just to take from those who you think must be evil to have more than you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is your side does not want...
A far bigger problem is that you're way too quick to assign two opposing "sides" and then declare what the other "side" does or doesn't "want." If there are only two possible "sides" for this, then I do not actually exist, and you're debating your own mad, impossible hallucinations.
I, personally, would like to provide greater opportunity for social mobility based on merit, and also to eliminate the "buying" of our representatives (so that they no longer act solely in the interest of a very few wealthy donors). That way, people who work harder might actually have a better chance to succeed, and people who scam the system to become wealthy might have some accountability. If that makes me "the other side," then does that mean that you are against social mobility and against hard work paying off? Obviously not -- because your arguments in favor of retaining legitimate earnings tell me otherwise. However, you seem not to see how the system has come to be rigged so powerfully against upward mobility, and how much of our entire legal and economic system is now geared towards concentrating more and more of our aggregate wealth in the hands of an increasingly small number of people -- the ones who are paying to elect the people passing the laws governing that system.
One thing strikes me in the whole "criminals with guns" discussion -- "criminal" isn't a binary flag. As strong as the human tendency to divide the world into us/them good/bad is, I'm not sure doing so is useful in this debate.Exactly. It's the same as when gun rights advocates accuse others of wanting to only take guns away from "law-abiding citizens" ("Law-abiding citizens" is the phrase of choice; it is almost always used verbatim). The problem is that everyone is a "law-abiding citizen" until they commit a crime, and then they're a "criminal". Unless they're conservative, in which case it's fine to have committed criminal acts in the past, as long as you have no immediate plans to commit more criminal acts.
When I was 11 I stole a $2 keychain from a Disney store. I didn't even own any keys. I was caught, and thankfully the whole thing was dealt with without involving law enforcement. But that was a criminal act. Does that mean I'm still a criminal? Or am I a law-abiding citizen? When did my "criminal" label wear off? Does it have an expiration date?
Separating the world into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens" is just lazy thinking. Lazy thought has no place in this discussion. If you're the type of person to make this kind of binary distinction, you can safely remove yourself from the debate. No one will mind.
Rather than simply lazy thinking isn't it possible such terminology use is reflective of federal law which prohibits possession of firearms by convicted felons? Nor are conservatives alone in this type of binary thinking. There's a poster in this very thread who purports to be in favor of stricter gun laws in order to prevent criminals from getting them that claims to have avoided participating in an occupy movement due to outstanding warrants for their arrest.
Furthermore federal law prohibiting firearm possession treats an individual convicted of felony stealing the same as someone convicted of felony assault. That's pretty binary as well.
I've decided to start a pro-crime alias. Hold on a second...
Criminals are people who get caught committing crimes.
Of the criminals who are caught with guns, a fairly large majority obtain their guns in non-legitimate ways, or through methods left open by the NRA.
These aren't abstracts I'm talking about. This isn't a purely philosophical debate. They are processes and methods that are well known. Gun dealers who break the law, but without good prior cause, the ATF can't investigate them to examine their records, the only place any cause exists to investigate them.
Guns don't magically appear like mana from heaven.
Congress actually just passed a bill that included a clause that gun dealers are not required to track their inventory, nor present records of said inventory for inspection to anyone.
Just for the sake of argument:
Jaywalker = criminal -> no guns for you.
At-large Serial Killer = not a criminal -> Here's an uzi?
Yes, it's tongue-in-cheek, but I do think it illustrates the point.
Let's start with some tunes.
No, but, srly, down with gun control!
Last of Warsaw Ghetto Survivors Calls for Rebellion Against Israeli Occupation
This article made me cry.
Hee hee!
Rather than simply lazy thinking isn't it possible such terminology use is reflective of federal law which prohibits possession of firearms by convicted felons?
Some of its use, certainly. But it is used persistently and consistently in that exact form, and overwhelmingly so big a single "side" of the issue, which means it's much more likely that it is an accepted rhetorical phrasing designed to frame the issue a certain way.
By emphasizing everyone else as a "law-abiding citizen" it paints them as perpetually law-abiding, ignoring the possibility (and, indeed, absolute certainty) that many of those "law-abiding citizens" will eventually hop the fence and become (to their eyes, at least) "criminals". The reality is, of course, that every criminal starts out as a law-abiding citizen (save non-citizens, obviously).
Nor are conservatives alone in this type of binary thinking.
Certainly not, but they are uniquely predisposed towards using the language I'm highlighting.
Furthermore federal law prohibiting firearm possession treats an individual convicted of felony stealing the same as someone convicted of felony assault. That's pretty binary as well.
It's up to lawmakers to determine where the line is drawn. That said, grand larceny (a felony) and robbery (a category of violent offenses) are often separated by little more than circumstances. It does not strike me as highly unreasonable to prohibit those with grand larceny convictions from owning firearms.
Criminals are people who get caught committing crimes.
Of the criminals who are caught with guns, a fairly large majority obtain their guns in non-legitimate ways, or through methods left open by the NRA.
These aren't abstracts I'm talking about. This isn't a purely philosophical debate. They are processes and methods that are well known. Gun dealers who break the law, but without good prior cause, the ATF can't investigate them to examine their records, the only place any cause exists to investigate them.
Guns don't magically appear like mana from heaven.
Congress actually just passed a bill that included a clause that gun dealers are not required to track their inventory, nor present records of said inventory for inspection to anyone.
Just for the sake of argument:
Jaywalker = criminal -> no guns for you.
At-large Serial Killer = not a criminal -> Here's an uzi?Yes, it's tongue-in-cheek, but I do think it illustrates the point.
No, it's not for the sake of the argument. Your comparison is ridiculous and not what I am advocating at all. And in fact, I challenge you to find a post where I've advocated giving anyone access to guns (other than hunting long weapons). So trying to paint that as my position informs me that you aren't actually paying attention to my position.
The ATF cannot require a firearms dealer to conduct an inventory to check for lost or stolen firearms.
Firearm dealer records cannot be inspected to check to for criminal activity, they can only be accessed in limited scope investigations.
The public is also not allowed to see the ATF database on guns it has traced that were recovered by law enforcement in relation to crimes. Congress has determined that we the public aren't allowed to know this kind of information: where criminals get their guns.
Some of its use, certainly. But it is used persistently and consistently in that exact form, and overwhelmingly so big a single "side" of the issue, which means it's much more likely that it is an accepted rhetorical phrasing designed to frame the issue a certain way.
By emphasizing everyone else as a "law-abiding citizen" it paints them as perpetually law-abiding, ignoring the possibility (and, indeed, absolute certainty) that many of those "law-abiding citizens" will eventually hop the fence and become (to their eyes, at least) "criminals". The reality is, of course, that every criminal starts out as a law-abiding citizen (save non-citizens, obviously).
]
I'll grant predominantly that's true, but you won't find much more than parroting of party line from the majority of proponents on either side. The reality is that it is a byproduct of the political system. Many on each side will parrot their sides sound bites. *shrug*
As is obvious I think despite our different political affiliations we obviously agree on this issue. Obviously not all conservatives think that way. Reductionism of a disparate group like an American political party into one homogeneous group is binary thinking as well. The reality is that we are likely to see a reevaluation of the conservative platform. It's already being discussed here in Missouri and is reflective in the plans being put forward by Florida republicans for immigration reform. It NEEDS to happen because the far right do not reflect the views of the majority of Americans. Both parties succeed or fail based on their ability to attract centrist members of their own parties and generally centrist independents.
Certainly not, but they are uniquely predisposed towards using the language I'm highlighting.
No argument with you there. .
It's up to lawmakers to determine where the line is drawn. That said, grand larceny (a felony) and robbery (a category of violent offenses) are often separated by little more than circumstances. It does not strike me as highly unreasonable to prohibit those with grand larceny convictions from owning firearms.
Of course it is up to lawmakers. But setting aside the fact that the term grand larceny is falliing into disuse since the adoption or partial adoption in many states of the model penal code (here in Missouri, a modified model penal code state for instance Mo. Revised Statute 570.030 is simply entitled "stealing." It covers values less than $500 as a class A Misdemeanor, and values greater than $500 as a felony of varying degrees dependant upon value) there is quite a large difference between those crimes. One involves force and the other doesn't. Shoplifting a computer is different that robbing someone at gunpoint.
Many similar crimes are delineated by a change in a few circumstances. That's why juries are often given instructions on lesser included charges. Having tried many cases myself simply to the idea that the facts only fit a lesser included I'm fairly comfortable with that process. Saying its only a matter of circumstance is a bit disingenuous. If I possess 34 grams of marijuana and get caught I can still own a gun. If I have one more gram I can't.
The reality is that perhaps you missed my point that federal law does not delineate in ANY way between ANY felony. I am equally barred from the possession of a firearm whether my felony is driving one too many times without a license, growing a single pot plant, keying a car, shoplifting a TV, robbing a person through intimidation, or killing someone.
My point is that in the same way all criminals are law abiding citizens at some point, not all felons are equally dangerous. We have to draw the line somewhere of course, but it doesn't have to be at any felony conviction of any sort.
Of course it is up to lawmakers. But setting aside the fact that the term grand larceny is falliing into disuse since the adoption or partial adoption in many states of the model penal code (here in Missouri, a modified model penal code state for instance Mo. Revised Statute 570.030 is simply entitled "stealing." It covers values less than $500 as a class A Misdemeanor, and values greater than $500 as a felony of varying degrees dependant upon value) there is quite a large difference between those crimes. One involves force and the other doesn't. Shoplifting a computer is different that robbing someone at gunpoint.
As my legal education is limited largely to study of the law as codified in the state of California, I'm not really fit to comment on robust implementations of the MPC. I'm simply noting that it is not infrequently the case that there are relatively minor differences between the circumstances of crimes like larceny and crimes like robbery (in fact, there is sometimes no difference at all, as is the case when a charge of robbery is plead down to a lesser offense).
In the end, given that we already have a lengthy history of abridging rights - even Constitutionally-granted rights - of convicted felons, I am not especially conflicted about making sure we get the line spot-on.
The reality is that perhaps you missed my point that federal law does not delineate in ANY way between ANY felony. I am equally barred from the possession of a firearm whether my felony is driving one too many times without a license, growing a single pot plant, keying a car, shoplifting a TV, robbing a person through intimidation, or killing someone.
My point is that in the same way all criminals are law abiding citizens at some point, not all felons are equally dangerous. We have to draw the line somewhere of course, but it doesn't have to be at any felony conviction of any sort.
You are absolutely right, and this is certainly an area that I'd like to see some compromise on. But policy creation is always imperfect. We do what we can.
Criminals are people who get caught committing crimes.
Of the criminals who are caught with guns, a fairly large majority obtain their guns in non-legitimate ways, or through methods left open by the NRA.
These aren't abstracts I'm talking about. This isn't a purely philosophical debate. They are processes and methods that are well known. Gun dealers who break the law, but without good prior cause, the ATF can't investigate them to examine their records, the only place any cause exists to investigate them.
Guns don't magically appear like mana from heaven.
Congress actually just passed a bill that included a clause that gun dealers are not required to track their inventory, nor present records of said inventory for inspection to anyone.
Just for the sake of argument:
Jaywalker = criminal -> no guns for you.
At-large Serial Killer = not a criminal -> Here's an uzi?Yes, it's tongue-in-cheek, but I do think it illustrates the point.
You'll also note that I've been talking about guns recovered during crimes mostly. So I'd really love to see the report where someone got both a jay-walking charge and a gun related charge in the same incident.
75% of firearms recovered in crimes are handguns.
33% of those handguns are 3 years old or newer (from manufacturer date)
Approximately 25% of the weapons in criminal hands are NEW handguns.
That means that people involved in the transport or sale of new handguns are selling them to the street. I'd like to find ways to catch these people and thereby reduce the flow of NEW handguns to the street.
Obama Does Social Security and Medicare
"With Barack Obama putting his plan to cut Social Security and Medicare expenditures into writing in his Federal budget proposal the ability of those who voted for him to credibly deny his years of publicly stating he would do so disappeared. The pathetic pleas from liberals and progressives who only a few short months ago were assuring the unwashed masses Mr. Obama was on the cusp of a ‘liberal’ renaissance if only doubters would join them in granting him another term are today as empty as their assurances were then."
Hmm. Who does that remind me of?
Oops. I was wrong. Obama wants your grammie to eat catfood.
"Mack" is short for "Merrimack"
Bank robbers are cool.
You know I can't read anything by the new alias without the song Mac the Knife going through my head.
Let's start with some tunes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I can't read anything by the new alias without the song Mac the Knife going through my head.
Daily Show investigates gun control in Australia.
What is robbing a bank compared to owning one?
--Bertolt Brecht
(PS., Break with the Democrats, including Capuano!)
More words of wisdom from Tracy Marrow
I know I should leave well enough alone, but, I can't.
And because I don't think I've posted this in the past week or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |