National School Walkout

[carpedm9587]

But you have no problem taking away rights.

I have no problem removing a "right" that does not exist.

None of this changes my point, not only was it easier to buy firearms when I was young, it was much easier. It doesn't matter who or who isn't buying guns or how many, if the goal of the NRA was to make firearm ownership easier they are doing a terrible job! BTW you can thank Obama for a lot of the increase in gun sales:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi.../#728fa3a67f4e

I am very aware of the "we might lose our guns, let's go buy more" phenomenon.

If a criminal with a firearm came into my home to do harm, and I do not have a firearm to defend myself and family you have effectively removed my right of self defense. Unless you don't think I have a right to defend myself and family.

No - we have required that you earn that gun as a privilege - meeting the requirements for having one. And we would have limited the total number of guns you may have. And we will have. at the same time, significantly reduced the probability that this scenario will play out because there will be (in time) fewer guns. And your answer does NOT respond to what I asked. It just repeats an NRA talking point - it is a deflection. The question was how an invented THING became an inherent "right." Was that at the moment of its' invention? Did it happen later? And how is this "thing" bound to the human person in a way that no other object is? After all, a crossbow will help you defend yourself, but we don't have an inherent right to that? So will shuriken, throwing knives, a well locked house, and the list goes on. But we do not seem to have "inherent rights" to any of these things. ONLY a gun. What, exactly, is it about a gun that makes it an "inherent right?"

I never said I would kill anyone Carp, why are you lying about me?

Your statements were that you hoped people who were fighting against gun rights remembered who had the guns. When pressed on it, you made it clear you would take up arms against fellow citizens and specifically stated you would have that right because "they would be the aggressors." Yes - you did not say the words "I will kill them," but I specifically cited the reality that, if the laws change, and law enforcement came for your guns, they would use "proportional force" and you defended your right to "defend yourself." I noted several times that you had the right to defend yourself - in a court of law, but you did not have the right to take up arms against law enforcement or fellow citizens. You defended that right several times, and this is the first time you have suggested you would not fire on fellow citizens. So which is it?

Right they seem reasonable because they agree with you....

Actually, I have come to agree with them. It wasn't more than a week or so ago that I was arguing for temperance - tighten the background checks, create the universal database, and fund research so we can know what to do. Those were my three points - the last one being "because we lack objectively derived data." I wanted to balance reasonable gun control with respecting the "right" to own a gun. Then it became clear to me that this whole "we respect the constitution" thing is a smokescreen - and we have been, for decades now, allowing an entire population who place "guns" above their fellow citizens to arm themselves. As that began to dawn on me, I began to dig more into the existing data, and into the 2nd Amendment. You, and the kids, and what I have found in my research, have shown me that I was wrong. The is no "right" to own a "thing." It's a chunk of metal. No human being has an inherent right to own a chunk of metal - whatever shape it may take. No human being has an inherent right to a possession. The entire notion is ludicrous.

The 2nd Amendment is a dangerous amendment. It has been used by gun lovers for decades now to justify the proliferation of a possession that does harm. Guns are not a right. They are a privilege - like driving a car, or having a job. They should be treated as such. It may not happen in my lifetime, but we WILL eventually get there.

[Sparko]

We are not suggesting taking away your rights. We are saying you never had them and the Constitutional framers were wrong and the amendment needs to be disposed of.

And what exactly have I failed to answer?

You failed to answer if you would go along with giving up your rights if "the people" changed the constitution to create a dictatorship where you have no rights. You seem to think that if "the people" vote away their right to bear arms, we should all play nice lackies and go along with it. But would you go along with it if the people gave away the rights you value? Or would you fight back?

[Sparko]

I have no problem removing a "right" that does not exist.

What makes you the arbiter of what rights "exist?" After all, you are a relativist. You don't believe any rights actually exist. To do do would require you to believe in objective rights. Which would totally mess up your entire world view on morality.

[carpedm9587]

I have no problem with this kind of post manipulation. Your intent is not to distort or ridicule what was posted, but to organize your response in a logical fashion. I am in support.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812246

Nothing you say here is wrong, AFAICT, I just consider it irrelevant. The damage done by cars is a by-product of their use, and the damage done by NOT having them would be extensive. We are continually working to make vehicles safer, and are (hopefully) moving to a time when automation will significantly reduce accidents by taking human judgment/impairment out of the equation. The gun is designed to do harm. It is in a different class. The first is a mode of transportation that has damaging side effects. The second is a weapon designed to do harm.

I am not questioning the right to self defense, and I have never heard anyone else do so. THAT is what the second amendment SHOULD be about, IMO. Instead, the language is specifically about "arms" so it has fed the gun-rights contingent for decades, perhaps centuries. So this is what I see.

Because the 2nd Amendment has been used to foster a "gun culture" (as some call it), we are awash in guns. Because we are awash in guns, we have the very thing that the second amendment purports to protect killing our citizens in un acceptable numbers, including children in our schools - which has become a #1 target. Countries that have shifted to "guns as a privilege" instead of "guns as a right" have seen extreme reductions in their incidence of gun-related crime/violence. Yes, it will take us some time to get there. But the gun-rights advocates own some responsibility in creating this mess. They created the proliferation of guns, and now they are using the high incidence of gun-violence as an excuse for why they need to not only keep their guns, but demand more. They refuse any reasonable request to improve safety by requiring simple things like gun lockers, universal background checks, and so forth. Every attempt to say, "we don't want to take your guns - just help us keep people safer" falls on deaf ears. So I believe the time has come to say, "enough." The majority of this country does not have to be targets in a shooting gallery because the minority "wants their guns" and refuses to help do anything to reduce the violence. Someone's claim to "right of self-defense" ends when their method kills their fellow citizens in enormous numbers. Today, statistically, 3% of our population owns 50% of the guns. That means about 10 million people own 160 million guns. That's an average of 16 guns per person! Someone tell me this is all about "self-defense?" Just the simple rule of limiting people to 2-3 guns would cut our domestic arsenal almost in half!

Now I do not know what "guns as a privilege" would look like. Limit the number of guns a person can own? Require mandatory training and testing repeated at specific intervals? Mandate gun lockers? Smart weapons? Limit guns to "tool use (e.g. ranch/farming)? Require hunters to "borrow/lease" a weapon to go hunting? I have no idea. That is to be worked out.

Yes, it will take years to bring the gun count down. We will have a period of uncertainty in that process. But when we have reversed what the gun-rights advocates have wrought, then the argument "I need a gun to protect myself from people with guns" will simply no longer be a factor, because guns will be rare.

The fly in the ointment, IMO, is the coming of 3D printers with the ability to create firearms. It can be done today, but imperfectly at best. However, someday soon we will be able to download a template, buy the raw materials, and print pretty much anything we need at home. That will create an entirely new problem. I have no idea how we're going to deal with that.

[Sparko]

The is no "right" to own a "thing." It's a chunk of metal. No human being has an inherent right to own a chunk of metal - whatever shape it may take. No human being has an inherent right to a possession. The entire notion is ludicrous.

You just did a hatchet job on the 5th amendment and the entire notion of our right to own anything privately: property, homes, etc.

[carpedm9587]

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

But gun-rights advocates resist the universal background checks that would tell us who those people are - and the NRA regularly resists providing proper funding for the creation of a reliable background check database, largely because they can then keep saying, "look, it's not working - why bother?" And the requirement to periodically renew the background check is resisted, though it is the only way I know of to determine if someone's mental state (or criminal history) has changed AFTER they acquired a gun.

[carpedm9587]

You failed to answer if you would go along with giving up your rights if "the people" changed the constitution to create a dictatorship where you have no rights.

I didn't see that question - and the answer, obviously, is no. It's somewhat of a silly question.

You seem to think that if "the people" vote away their right to bear arms, we should all play nice lackies and go along with it. But would you go along with it if the people gave away the rights you value? Or would you fight back?

A dictatorship is not a representative democracy - so you're mixing apples and oranges. EVERYONE should fight a dictatorship. The better question is "what would I do is the people of this country voted to repeal the 1st amendment? I would first resist that in every legal way I possibly could. I would petition, engage the media, start protests, start an educational campaign, and so forth. If, after all that trying, the majority of the people in this country voted to repeal the 1st amendment, I would recognize that as the will of the majority. Then I would find a different country to live in because this would no longer be the right country for me.

But I need not worry - the right to speech IS an inherent right. Freedom to worship (or not) as I see fit IS an inherent right. The right to own a "thing" is not. No one yet has shown exactly what this right derives from. It is a vapor. The FFs made a mistake in their language - maybe even their intent. It needs to be reversed.

[carpedm9587]

What makes you the arbiter of what rights "exist?" After all, you are a relativist. You don't believe any rights actually exist. To do do would require you to believe in objective rights. Which would totally mess up your entire world view on morality.

The people are. What the majority decides they wish this country to be, is what this country will be. If the people vote to repeal the 2nd, that will be what the people want.

[carpedm9587]

You just did a hatchet job on the 5th amendment and the entire notion of our right to own anything privately: property, homes, etc.

Actually - not. The 5th amendment reads: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'm going to presume you are referring to the underlined portion. This states that the government cannot deprive someone of property (which is the part you are referencing, I assume) without due process. It does not mean that anyone has an inherent right to have any particular property/possession. It merely means, if someone has it, the government cannot deprive them of it without due process. So I do not have an inherent right to have a house. If I DO have a house, I have the inherent right to keep that possession and the government cannot take it from me without due process. I do not have an inherent right to own a car (as I have been reminded so many times, even by you). If I DO have a car, I have the inherent right to keep that possession and the government cannot take it from me without due process.

So if the 2nd is repealed, the equivalent of eminent domain can be used to compensate people for their guns and collect them. A mandatory buy-back program, once the 2nd is repealed, would pass constitutional muster.

[Roy]

Utter nonsense Roy, there are far more regulations to today, many more hoops to jump through.

My link shows that it is not only possible but relatively easy to buy a gun without going through any regulations or hoops beyond finding a private seller. I also note that you deleted my further cite regarding these so-called hoops requiring no action on behalf of the purchaser and a delay of less than an hour. Having a 38-minute wait is not "many more hoops to jump through".

Like I said, when I was 14 I walked into a local gun store and purchased a Beretta 20 gauge shotgun without an adult with me.

Apart from the age limitation, the situation is unchanged. You can still walk into a gun store and buy a shotgun.

[Roy]

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Yet you object to any and all means of doing so.

[seer]

But gun-rights advocates resist the universal background checks that would tell us who those people are - and the NRA regularly resists providing proper funding for the creation of a reliable background check database, largely because they can then keep saying, "look, it's not working - why bother?" And the requirement to periodically renew the background check is resisted, though it is the only way I know of to determine if someone's mental state (or criminal history) has changed AFTER they acquired a gun.

Hey I'm a gun-rights advocate, and I have no problem universal background checks, as far as the renewing thing, not so much. If you run a foul of the law, or have some kind of documented mental break that should be reported.

[seer]

Yet you object to any and all means of doing so.

What, where?

[seer]

My link shows that it is not only possible but relatively easy to buy a gun without going through any regulations or hoops beyond finding a private seller. I also note that you deleted my further cite regarding these so-called hoops requiring no action on behalf of the purchaser and a delay of less than an hour. Having a 38-minute wait is not "many more hoops to jump through".Apart from the age limitation, the situation is unchanged. You can still walk into a gun store and buy a shotgun.

Roy, do we have more regulations today than in my younger years? Yes or no? Could we purchase firearms almost anywhere without background checks back in the day? Yes. The fact is there are far more regulations today than then. And you know it, you are just grasping for straws. And no, I can not walk into a store and buy a gun without a background check.

[carpedm9587]

Hey I'm a gun-rights advocate, and I have no problem universal background checks, as far as the renewing thing, not so much. If you run a foul of the law, or have some kind of documented mental break that should be reported.

Nice to hear and the universal BG checks.

As for the rest, if the money were allocated to adequately ensure that system were in place to "catch" someone who runs afoul of the law or changes mental health status AFTER passing a background check and securing a firearm, I would agree with you. That would require the NRA and gun-lobby to stand down on their efforts to thwart funding such initiatives. The background check system was mandated by a 2011 law. To date, 11% of the funds required have actually been allocated. When you poke into why the rest has not, it's because the NRA and gun lobby push on their representatives HARD to block the allocation. Why? Because as long as the funds are not allocated, the background-check system is flawed. As long as it's flawed, they can say, "see - waste of time - it doesn't work."

Round and round we go. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a comedy.