My (not so) short “rant” against an Incorrect so-called “gun control”...

[Valley Oak]

Oh come on, Hotspring; that is a reckless and totally untrue slogan from the Right Wing and pro-gun lobby.

Which government, federal, state, county, or city, ANYWHERE in the US has tried to confiscate guns? I would really like to eat some humble pie on this because to the best of my knowledge I have never heard of such a thing. Sure, there might be some exceptional situations where the government confiscates guns from criminals like McVeigh but aside from that I'm completely unaware of any attempt by any government to systematically confiscate people's guns.

Not only is that ugly accusation trite, it is TOTALLY false.

Depends what it is a “start” to.
If it is a start to forcibly confiscating all guns, than it is at best a misnomer for real acceptance, tolerance, and 'peaceful' co-existence etc.. ...which is the real 'goal'... ...isn't it?

[Valley Oak]

Yes, we can go after the "soul" of every one of the more than 310 million Americans in our vast land. But we are not going to succeed 100% and we are going to continue to have shootings.

All of your suggestions, or at least almost all of them, are excellent and need to be implemented. But there will still be bloodshed in numbers way too high to be acceptable.

I get the impression that you think that with your approaches we will be able to eliminate, let's say, 95% of all mass shootings and just shootings in general. I beg to differ strongly. First off, MOST mass shootings will continue to take place unabated by the group of recommendations that you made. Secondly, even with that 5% that you SEEM to imply, is too much!

One mass shooting is too many! We need sensible and effective gun control legislation, the kind that you and most Americans do not want to have. And ultimately, yes, maybe it is indeed the "American soul" that we need to go after, just like we did on the gay marriage issue. People need to change their hearts and minds and that is the only way we will be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

That is a very legitimate and most valuable question to be asking. ...

[Hotspring 44]

Oh come on, Hotspring; that is a reckless and totally untrue slogan from the Right Wing and pro-gun lobby.

Specifically what is it I said which you are referring?

Which government, federal, state, county, or city, ANYWHERE in the US has tried to confiscate guns?

In part there is this:
California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure

And even closer to what it could 'look like' over and above the comparatively minor issue that California was doing as described in the linked article above, there is: Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms …

I know some of this below video is hyped-up a bit but there is real footage of police abuse and incorrect gun control.
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkUG1F2JiI

...As I have been saying and suggesting is that IF currently (legally) owned guns are at some point in the future deemed to be illegal or incorrectly thought to be by law enforcement (like some of what happened during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) to possess (fire arms), which has been suggested by mentioning Australia's doings regarding gun control, then yes there would be major problems when it is INCORRECTLY interpreted or legislated and thereby enforced wrongly.

Anyway the issue in New Orleans as noted in video above was an example of how “incorrect” use of law enforcement and declarations, etc. causes damage to both the political and to people which, in practice ends up only exacerbating the ill conceived paranoid fantasies on both sides of the gun control and anti-gun control sides.

I would really like to eat some humble pie on this because to the best of my knowledge I have never heard of such a thing.

I hope you have a healthy appetite.

Sure, there might be some exceptional situations where the government confiscates guns from criminals like McVeigh but aside from that I'm completely unaware of any attempt by any government to systematically confiscate people's guns.

Well the California thing as noted above may be within the bounds of that, but, as we know from the occupy protests and countless other mostly 'peaceful' protests that law enforcement, at the drop of a hat, will use excessive force.

Considering the nature of the whole controversial gun control thing is the potential for mass killings to enforce laws like that kind of what I think are or would be 'incorrect' should constitute considering pause to the reactionary, impulsive, and emotionally charged desire for everyone to conform to what you think is so perfectly righteous (get rid of all guns because you don't feel a need for one because as you stated you feel safe where you are being without one).

...Not only is that ugly accusation trite, it is TOTALLY false.

Please specify exactly what I said that is so "TOTALLY false"...
...BTW, FWIW, Disagreeing does not "TOTALLY false" one make.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward, One wrongful killing is too much as far as I am concerned.

All of your suggestions, or at least almost all of them, are excellent and need to be implemented. But there will still be bloodshed in numbers way too high to be acceptable.

Your viewpoint against guns is prejudicial and you are proud of it, even though I disagree with the gist of your logic I get it what you are saying and I get it that in this case you are far to one side of the issue, further than I am from the 'middle' that is for sure.

Yes, we can go after the "soul" of every one of the more than 310 million Americans in our vast land. But we are not going to succeed 100% and we are going to continue to have shootings.

A 100% success rate with most things in human endeavor is vastly unrealistic to expect, The world would be so much better with that 95% success rate don't you think?

I get the impression that you think that with your approaches we will be able to eliminate, let's say, 95% of all mass shootings and just shootings in general. I beg to differ strongly. First off, MOST mass shootings will continue to take place unabated by the group of recommendations that you made. Secondly, even with that 5% that you SEEM to imply, is too much! One mass shooting is too many!

One wrongful killing is too many, mass or not as far as I am concerned.

We need sensible and effective gun control legislation, the kind that you and most Americans do not want to have. And ultimately, yes, maybe it is indeed the "American soul" that we need to go after, just like we did on the gay marriage issue. People need to change their hearts and minds and that is the only way we will be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Edward I am perplexed at your statements; on one hand you say

I get the impression that you think that with your approaches we will be able to eliminate, let's say, 95% of all mass shootings and just shootings in general. I beg to differ strongly.

Then you say

And ultimately, yes, maybe it is indeed the "American soul" that we need to go after, just like we did on the gay marriage issue. People need to change their hearts and minds and that is the only way we will be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

... ...Isn't that the gist of what I have been eluding to as getting to the actual nitty gritty of the actual 'underlying' 'root causes' of the "epidemic"?...
...NO, I am not referring to the 2nd amendment, I am referring to the actual violent animosities, intolerance, indifference, hatred, unfounded fears, towards "the other" etc.. as being causative of the so-called epidemic...

...What I am more clearly trying to elaborate is that the 'gun violence' is symptom of problem, not causative, guns are inventions and tools, so are knifes, do you have any knifes in your kitchen? If you do I am sure you are not inclined to use it to kill anyone but; what was the first metallic knife ever made in human history intended to do?...
...I don't think it was to slice an apple... ...Just sayin.

[Thad]

There it is

Treat the cause not the symptoms and this brings it back to religion and whats behind the mask of religion.

... ...Isn't that the gist of what I have been eluding to as getting to the actual nitty gritty of the actual 'underlying' 'root causes' of the "epidemic"?...
..NO, I am not referring to the 2nd amendment, I am referring to the actual violent animosities, intolerance, indifference, hatred, unfounded fears, towards "the other" etc.. as being causative of the so-called epidemic... .

[Valley Oak]

But pursuing the betterment of people's nature alone will not deter gun violence. We need to curb, if not eliminate, the existence of guns in the US.

There it is

Treat the cause not the symptoms and this brings it back to religion

[Thad]

Did Timothy McVeigh use a gun?

When someone has an intent they will use whats available.

such an old cliche but "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

Due to the limited resources of the American Public, choose a better battle that would be closer to the core.

There is no escaping the need to address religion it will not magically disappear over time. If you look at it as logic that has veered off the trail of Truth then to discover those places provides an argument for others to change their minds.

For instance.

Jewish dietary laws had as an origin the lack of a science and refrigeration to explain why such a thing was.
God said it was so and that was good enough.

But now that the reasons why they became can be explained, it takes it out of the world of Dogma and into understanding and a particle of faith has been replaced by a particle of logic and that is our only hope, to replace dogma with understanding a particle at a time.

The animosity of Islam can be traced back to Isaac and Ismael. Of any place to focus on to have the largest effect at this time would be there.

But pursuing the betterment of people's nature alone will not deter gun violence. We need to curb, if not eliminate, the existence of guns in the US.

[Valley Oak]

This reply is also for Hotspring and his two most recent posts:

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that we need to prohibit gun use, accessibility, and the fact that there are too many guns around. That has to be put under control.

You are arguing in favor of maintaining the current climate of guns and you are refusing to recognize that this is the problem. The education of human nature alone cannot and will not abate mass shootings in the future.

While we argue over this, the clock is ticking towards the next shooting. Your position defends our nightmare situation, which needs to be addressed ASAP. The cadavers are piling up and your arguments are not helping; in fact, they perpetuate tragedy by continuing a society armed to the teeth with guns.

This is unsustainable. How can you be so stubborn? Why don't you try telling this to the families of the loved ones who died not only in Orlando but everywhere else in the US?

Stop being so willfully ignorant and defending a crazy society with a gun for every man, woman, and child in the US, a country with more than 310 million people.

Did Timothy McVeigh use a gun?...

[Thad]

Should you be successful in this endeavor you will bring into play martial law and a not so civil war.

...You are deliberately ignoring the fact that we need to prohibit gun use, accessibility, and the fact that there are too many guns around....crazy society with a gun for every man, woman, and child in the US, a country with more than 310 million people.

[Valley Oak]

Utter and absolute foolish nonsense!

Look at healing your own soul, you and Hotspring, because it is your attitudes that prevent the obvious solution to the nightmare situation in this crazed country.

Should you be successful in this endeavor you will bring into play martial law and a not so civil war.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward, I am glad you are not my Doctor.

But pursuing the betterment of people's nature alone will not deter gun violence. We need to curb, if not eliminate, the existence of guns in the US.

[Valley Oak]

Why is that? Because you prefer Dr. Frankenstein who recommends mass shootings with hundreds of millions of guns all over the country where any deranged asshole can pick one up quickly, easily, and cheaply and murder 50 people within a short period of time at the local club or shopping mall???

Please do some soul searching and find yourself a better "doctor."

Edward, I am glad you are not my Doctor.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward, Your sarcasm is undermining your argument, IMHO.
Get rid of all the knifes, machetes in USA while you are at it because you never know when some "deranged asshole" (or group of 'terrorist thugs) "can pick one" (or more) "up quickly, easily, and cheaply and murder" (lots of) "people within a short period of time at the local club or shopping mall" (or train station, etc.)...
...
Interesting that in one of your posts you mentioned Timothy McVeigh at all because the mass killing he did in Oklahoma was not by using guns.
...On April 19, 1995, a truck-bomb explosion outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, left 168 people dead and hundreds more injured. The blast was set off by anti-government militant Timothy McVeigh, who in 2001 was executed for his crimes. His co-conspirator Terry Nichols received life in prison. Until September 11, 2001, the Oklahoma City bombing was the worst terrorist attack to take place on U.S. soil.

Note: it was already illegal to make those bombs.
Yes more restrictions were put into place to make it more difficult to acquire the raw materials but there are still those who, if they wanted to who could get those same materials with relative ease; (I suspect either with or without a "permit").

Edward, you imply that I don't want there to be (any) 'reasonable' laws in place to keep semiautomatic guns out of the hands of the terrorists and deranged individuals etc.. That is not the case but I am against an overaggressive ("incorrect") approach like a nationwide confiscation program as what ultimately you are advocating for by insisting on repealing the 2nd amendment and other statements you have made.

Buyback incentives like they have in Los Angeles, Oakland and other place from time to time have gotten all kinds of guns out of commission and certainly did prevent some wrongful killings; I am not against that when it is voluntary.

I am not against reasonable regulations on the sales of assault weapons such as AR-15 and large capacity magazines etc... ...But considering the attitudes of those who already have stockpiles of the guns and ammo (there are in my estimate several million of them) it would be idiotic to believe that any confiscation program across the United States would not be hugely violent.

Furthermore, to even consider using the militarized (state and local) police (which is minimally what it would take in most states to confiscate anywhere near even 1/2 of the vast number of guns that you already admit are out there) is like throwing gasoline on the fire you say you want to extinguish.

BTW, are you done with your 'pie' yet?

Why is that? Because you prefer Dr. Frankenstein who recommends mass shootings with hundreds of millions of guns all over the country where any deranged asshole can pick one up quickly, easily, and cheaply and murder 50 people within a short period of time at the local club or shopping mall???

Please do some soul searching and find yourself a better "doctor."

[Hotspring 44]

All guns?... ...even all the police and military?... without first eliminating the hatred, intolerance, and fear of the 'other, etc.??... ...That will never fly... ..is doomed to fail and exist only in fantastic fantasy-land idealism within the thoughts of some, I suppose.

I don't think anyone here has suggested a one thing "alone" (other than may be Edward {IE: repealing the 2nd amendment}) will end the "epidemic" of mass killings.

Meanwhile the international arms race festers.

But pursuing the betterment of people's nature alone will not deter gun violence. We need to curb, if not eliminate, the existence of guns in the US.

[Valley Oak]

Please try to keep your posts together because I will miss many of your points, as I already have.

In your post, below, I get the feeling you are nitpicking and I'm not going to waste my time with that.

The central point is that we need to do something about gun violence and you are arguing, essentially, against doing something effective to get it under control.

What I'd like you to tell me is the following: What is it exactly that concerns you so much about repealing the 2nd Amendment. I would really like to know this, please.

Thank you

All guns?... ...even all the police and military?... without first eliminating the hatred, intolerance, and fear of the 'other, etc.??... ...That will never fly... ..is doomed to fail and exist only in fantastic fantasy-land idealism within the thoughts of some, I suppose.

I don't think anyone here has suggested a one thing "alone" (other than may be Edward {IE: repealing the 2nd amendment}) will end the "epidemic" of mass killings.

Meanwhile the international arms race festers.

[Hotspring 44]

I think that the very real points I presented with questions hit a chord and it is a cop-out for you to poo-poo it with the comment that you won't 'waste' your time with it.... ...Not nitpicking, IMHO; but taking what you said literally and also to it's logical conclusion and sending it back to you from a different angle of perspective.

In your post, below, I get the feeling you are nitpicking and I'm not going to waste my time with that.
The central point is that we need to do something about gun violence and you are arguing, essentially, against doing something effective to get it under control.

No, I am not arguing, essentially, against “doing something effective", I just happen to disagree with your radical approach to it; But you on the other-hand seem to insist on exactly what would very likely inflame violent reactions, more harsh resentment of government 'intrusions' etc. and has the potential to spark another American Revolution; (to repeal the 2nd amendment.).

What I'd like you to tell me is the following: What is it exactly that concerns you so much about repealing the 2nd Amendment. I would really like to know this, please.

Thank you

To make a long explanation shorter, It is a constitutional issue. It takes a constitutional convention to change anything or would repeal anything in the constitution.


During a congressional constitutional convention anything can be brought to the floor not just a pet issue like gun control.

Article V

• The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

A more direct, personal and specific answers to your question:
In what is left of my lifetime, I don't believe that the taking of guns (confiscation) from the 'citizenry' (which in essence is what you are proposing) is possible without imposing a police-state (False Flag comes to mind as a way to divide the people)...
...The following quote is a from a website I have pasted in:

So Common … There’s a Name for It
The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.
“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

which is exactly one of the perceived reasons the second amendment exists in the first place...
...It would spark another civil war and in so doing would completely obliterate your expressed intent of eliminating 'gun' related mass killings.

And then there are more subtle reasons, to point a couple of them:
Consider who in in congress now, would you really trust them to not change and or repeal any other constitutional 'rights' or meanings?.. ...I don't, trust that, least not now.

Edward you’re a radical, no, actually I would say an extremist better defines it when it comes to comparing what you think should be done with the constitution and the average congressional representative's.

Your 'extremist' viewpoint against the 2nd amendment does not jive with the average American at this point in time.
Even if it did, like the 'drug war' it would be a dismal failure at this point in human evolutionary time.

[podfish]

Oh come on, Hotspring; that is a reckless and totally untrue slogan from the Right Wing and pro-gun lobby.

Which government, federal, state, county, or city, ANYWHERE in the US has tried to confiscate guns?

and, really, it doesn't matter. The existence of privately-owned guns is more likely to be an excuse for a government's home invasion than a deterrence for one. If "they" want your guns, they're gonna get them.

The only plausible reason to own guns for self-defense is if you think that the government (in the form of police, etc) can't do it for you. Which is possibly true. The point of limiting individual access to guns is to make it easier for government to do that job. If the ownership of guns is by definition criminal, then the government/police has an easier time removing them from society. If instead you want to reserve the right to defend yourself, you have to accept that you're more likely to need such defense. Unless you don't want government to do much; thus the association of right wing politics with pro-gun stances. If you don't want a government to be capable of defending you, then I guess you're gonna have to do it yourself after all.

[Hotspring 44]

If instead you want to reserve the right to defend yourself, you have to accept that you're more likely to need such defense.

Agreed.

Unless you don't want government to do much; thus the association of right wing politics with pro-gun stances. If you don't want a government to be capable of defending you, then I guess you're gonna have to do it yourself after all.

In fact quite true in many places, the 'police' can't... ...and in some places won't, come to; whereas you are truly on your own to protect yourself by what ever ('reasonable') means you see fit; particularly in some very rural areas of NM, TX, and AZ near the US and Mexico border; there are many other places too.

Too many so-called “progressive liberals” seem to pigeon-hole everyone who thinks that ownership of guns per se is a constitutional right as being some sort of a right-wing gun freak and yet there is a sentence in the 2nd amendment :
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
… So there is the dig for both sides of the “gun control” issue:

1- For the anti gun absolutists who believe that no one should have any gun what-so-ever, the 2nd amendment has to be repealed; which is not likely to happen any time soon.

2- For the pro gun 2nd amendment absolutists who believe any guns, even war aircraft, tanks, gunships and missiles etc. should be legal for “law abiding” citizens to own and possess they seem to shy away from the “well regulated Militia” part of it.

Whereas for the anti-gun 'lobby' the 2nd amendment is their Nemesis.

Whereas for the pro-gun 'lobby' the 10th amendment is still more less in legal limbo as to where the federal has jurisdiction in regards to the 'well regulated militia' and if the states have power to choose what that actually means for their state.
I foresee another Supreme Court case in the future... ...or a constitutional convention to amend the 2nd amendment... ...or maybe both if the SCOTUS rule against what a future ~2/3 majority in congress disagrees with.

Another 'convoluted' (IMHO) aspect of the absolutist anti-gun lobby; (in particular, those who identify themselves as 'liberal progressives' that want to force a repealing of the 2nd amendment and ban all gun ownership of the 'citizenry') is that they are strongly against a police-state, and don't want martial law which would be a necessary step to actually confiscate all guns from the citizenry...
...They say they are against violence but it would be everything but 'peaceful' to realize totalitarian seizure of guns from the American citizenry.

[Valley Oak]

All very well stated.

I'd like to point out, though, regarding your statement below, in which I put in a quote bubble, people do not have the choice between having, or not having, law enforcement in their midst and they do not have the choice to exclusively defend themselves either.

If I'm not mistaken (and of course I could be), there is a constant, creeping "philosophical" attitude that can be read in between the lines when folks debate the 2nd Amendment, gun control, etc...

It's as if Americans actually believe that they have a choice between society today and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "natural human," where we can all go off, whenever we have a temper tantrum with our government, and live in the woods with our own gun. This is the wet dream that the American Right-Wing jacks off to everyday of their lives and what drives much of their political "discourse" and their truly delusional narrative surrounding guns and the 2nd Amendment.

What I find particularly frustrating is that this attitude is proliferated extensively among the left/progressive/liberal camp and they don't realize that it only serves to HURT them, not help them. Whenever someone on the left argues in favor of the gun madness here in the US (giving way to the Orlandos and Sandy Hooks), they are unwittingly doing the dirty work of the Right Wing, the NRA, gun lobby, arms manufacturing corporations, the Republican Party, etc.

Many of those people can be found right here in this "Conscious Community." How sad.

...If you don't want a government to be capable of defending you, then I guess you're gonna have to do it yourself after all.

[Hotspring 44]

That is a quote from podfish https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?118162-My-(not-so)-short-%93rant%94-against-an-Incorrect-so-called-%93gun-control%94&p=203227#post203227

Both podfish's post and the one from Edward I have thoughts about -
1- (from podfish's post): “Unless you don't want government to do much; thus the association of right wing politics with pro-gun stances. If you don't want a government to be capable of defending you, then I guess you're gonna have to do it yourself after all.”

In my families situation we 'wanted the 'police' to 'defend' us but reality was that MOST of the time that was NOT the case... ...In other words, in the last sentence above statement which is in bold italic type does not describe the reality that I have had first-hand experience in... ...Too much in the box limiting if all is limited to only that one mind-frame...

Example:

When I was a youngster and my parents moved us to a place 15 miles from the nearest town that at the time the sheriff's office was over 40 miles away on roads with few turnouts or passing lanes and few shoulders to pull over on; we were expecting the police to protect us...

...The fact at the time was

1- NO telephone service so calling the police was impossible, (cell phones were not invented yet)

2- We did not have guns for the 1st couple of years but,

3- after the rapes and assaults some of us in the subdivision had enough of the threatening hippie-haters who were coming to the subdivision (the local-yokel’s called it “hippie hill”) to rape the “hippie” women and girls and also beat-up all who got into their way, so,

4- many of us got ourselves guns and were instructed on how to use and maintain them by our friends who were ex army veterans from the Vietnam and Korean war, some of them happened to be members of the NRA... ...and also, BTW, long-haired... …”hippies”! We were also instructed on how, where, and when to take cover which is most of the time more important then how to take aim and shoot the guns... ...I think we call that "Run, Hide, Fight" these days.

5- We weren’t trigger-happy like how Edward seems to be eluding to that all people who feel the 'need' for guns for defending themselves at home who live in the woods are either 'Right Wing' or "jacks off at" whatever Edward fantasizes the reasons would be.

In my experience at that place and time it was more peaceful with us (mostly "left wing' 'liberal' Hippies") having the guns than without them than it would have been experiencing more rapes, beatings and home invasions and actual destruction of homes (which did happen a couple of times) based on the 'hatred' towards us, the back-to-the-lander's “Hippies” and “queers”; which is what we were called by the intruders...

...{BTW, for clarification, at that time any man in most places in rural California, (never mind the deep South), having long hair were frequently targeted for what we now call "hate crimes" and were cat-called names such as but not limited to 'queer', “faggot”, “homo”, "pussy" etc. It was horrible!!!).... ...I could go on but on this point... ...lastly; I still sometimes have PTSD symptoms from those days and I am GLAD I had guns when I was there, but I was not so glad at the reality that I may have had to use one to defend myself or one of my family member's life against a deadly attacker or become a victim or a statistic.

6- The “local-yokel’s” got wind of us being armed, after that they were very rarely seen on the subdivision making any trouble as was before.

Not everybody is a self defense expert (even they can be ganged-on and beat) and contrary to some peoples (mostly “city” people) imaginations there are many locations where the police just are not able to cover and in MOST of those areas, the Sheriff actually recommends that homeowners be armed just so they can protect themselves and their property... ...Yes “property” too, but not so much here in California.

I'd like to point out, though, regarding your statement below, in which I put in a quote bubble, people do not have the choice between having, or not having, law enforcement in their midst and they do not have the choice to exclusively defend themselves either.

This is the wet dream that the American Right-Wing jacks off to everyday of their lives and what drives much of their political "discourse" and their truly delusional narrative surrounding guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Literally the first part of what you said there is factual per se ("they do not have the choice to exclusively defend themselves") because this is “a nation of laws” but the second part of what you said is in a literal sense (IMHO) ridiculous.

Anyway, I cite the “Castle Doctrine” specifically California:

PENAL CODE SECTION 187-199...

...198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

people do have the right to defend themselves with deadly force under particular situations; yes even in California.

If I'm not mistaken (and of course I could be), there is a constant, creeping "philosophical" attitude that can be read in between the lines when folks debate the 2nd Amendment, gun control, etc...

Yes Edward you are not, IMHO, “mistaken”, I think you are correct about that, including you as far as "philosophical attitude” is concerned, I might add; although your direction on that, I am sure differs from what you are pointing to.

...It's as if Americans actually believe that they have a choice between society today and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "natural human," where we can all go off, whenever we have a temper tantrum with our government, and live in the woods with our own gun...

Nothing wrong with ('lawfully') living “in the woods with our own gun”... ..Do you have something against people living in the woods per se or is it (as I suspect) 'anyone' with a gun living anywhere?

What I find particularly frustrating is that this attitude is proliferated extensively among the left/progressive/liberal camp and they don't realize that it only serves to HURT them, not help them. Whenever someone on the left argues in favor of the gun madness here in the US (giving way to the Orlandos and Sandy Hooks), they are unwittingly doing the dirty work of the Right Wing, the NRA, gun lobby, arms manufacturing corporations, the Republican Party, etc.

Many of those people can be found right here in this "Conscious Community." How sad.

Much of that is :BS: That is the same kind of attitudes that divides the Bernie Sanders Democrats, Greens, and the “establishment” Democrats; It is one of the republican-like absolutist attitudes like the “either you are with us”... (IE: 100%) ...or you are against us” "Bush Doctrine" psychopathy which feeds into the stalemate of which exists that impedes needed “reasonable” change, (not just limited to 'reasonable' gun laws but everything)... ...Reminds me of some "right here in this "Conscious Community."" who have incorrectly blamed the Green Party for Al Gore's loss to G.W. Bush because of Florida’s poll results which has been proven to be false...

...Whereas same thing here with what I am talking about, referring to the term: “Incorrect so-called “gun control” … ...In other words, going after a symptom (such as suggesting doing away with the 2nd amendment and confiscating all guns from the citizenry is the only way) and not put the needed energy into the underlying cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U

[podfish]

That is a quote from podfish https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?118162-My-(not-so)-short-%93rant%94-against-an-Incorrect-so-called-%93gun-control%94&p=203227#post203227

Both podfish's post and the one from Edward I have thoughts about -
1- (from podfish's post): “Unless you don't want government to do much; thus the association of right wing politics with pro-gun stances. If you don't want a government to be capable of defending you, then I guess you're gonna have to do it yourself after all.”

In my families situation we 'wanted the 'police' to 'defend' us but reality was that MOST of the time that was NOT the case... ..

that wasn't meant to be an absolute - I don't say "ONLY if you don't..." or "ONLY right wing.."
your case as you describe it requires a totally different line of discussion. It's a good argument against an absolute ban on guns. I think it would be an interesting starting point for a discussion of how people in such situations would be regulated and protected, though.

[Valley Oak]

Hotspring, there is an overarching theme here that you are completely blind to. I alluded to the gay marriage movement in a previous post to illustrate how most Americans were on the wrong side of history before marriage equality was finally legalized last year in 2015. The reason why I used that example is because I wanted to draw a parallel to the now hot issue of guns in America.

You are on the wrong side of history with guns and you are going to lose. It's just a matter of time.

Because these kinds of social struggles can last decades, you may not even be alive when it happens. But the question of gun control/violence (call it whatever you want to) is not a matter of "if," it is a matter of when. That is what you refuse to realize while you swirl around in your milieu of self-righteous, quasi schizophrenic rhetoric, which is disconnected from reality. You conjure up "arguments" on the fly based on the "religion" of the 2nd Amendment and all of the delusional, romantic narratives surrounding it. These fantasies are spun by special interests such as the NRA and gun manufacturing corporations who are happy to have people like you do their bidding and lining their pockets while they laugh all the way to the bank. The saddest part of all of this is that they are laughing at the expense of all of the dead people who are the victims of gun violence in America. The American people have an insane attitude when it comes to guns and you are a prime example of it. You are being lied to and used and you don't even realize it because you don't want to see it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Better yet, grow up!

That is a quote from podfish https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?118162-My-(not-so)-short-%93rant%94-against-an-Incorrect-so-called-%93gun-control%94&p=203227#post203227...

[Valley Oak]

I think that a good compromise would be to let the states decide. But in order to have that happen, we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Having any law written into the Constitution necessarily forces it down everybody's throat. Gay marriage is a basic human right that needs to be forced down the throats of all 50 states in order to protect the rights of the LGBT community so they can get married.

But guns are a different matter. They are a continual, bloody threat to public life and safety. The only solution is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. In this way, the Confederate states, like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Virginia, the Carolinas, etc, can continue to be armed to the teeth and shooting themselves up while they sing songs of freedom and the right to bear arms. While other states, such as the "Left Coast" (Washington, Oregon, California) and other states around the country will be able to have the strictest gun laws or even the abolition of guns altogether, which would be the best path.

But while we have that Stone Age 2nd Amendment, nothing is going to change!

that wasn't meant to be an absolute - I don't say "ONLY if you don't..." or "ONLY right wing.."
your case as you describe it requires a totally different line of discussion. It's a good argument against an absolute ban on guns. I think it would be an interesting starting point for a discussion of how people in such situations would be regulated and protected, though.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward I disagree with your assessment of me in a personal respect. You are wrong on much of who I am in this regard.
I never said that "never" will the 2nd amendment to be clarified, changed or repealed in time.
I have been saying that the outright confiscation of guns as a 'reasonable' immediate thing to do is not reasonable and not going to happen, and for now it would be overreacting and "incorrect".

Furthermore, I lived where I lived, I am who I am Based on my experience.
My experience is mine, not yours, you judge me here brashly based on your assumptions and even more so, on your 'Prejudices.

Compared to what America is now as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned you are off by about 50 - 75 years. In 50 - 75 years, yes lots of things in the constitution could and will likely be added and that includes some things changing or may be even repealing the 2nd amendment.... ...Or new amendments.

Marriage as meaning only between a man and woman was never written into the constitution, the 2nd amendment is.
Your point is noted but it does not compare to a a literal and crucial portion of the bill of rights; because of that it is a weaker and more flawed argument than you may like it to be.

That being said, If you don't think I recognize real actual changes you mentioned and others not mentioned here, you be very incorrect!

The terminology "wrong side of history" is subjective.
We will not be alive when we and our generation becomes 'history'. Who knows what judgments will be made on our history in the future.

Oh, by the way, I am not competing to 'win' or 'lose' I am making conversation in hopes to find understanding so that a 'reasonable' and correct "so-called gun control" that is realizable and not end up being incorrectly hurried into an unnecessary likely to be violent confrontation, or winds up into subjecting many parts of America to a virtual police state to accomplish ridding the guns but not first recognizing, addressing, and coming up with, and doing things that will in large part solve the UNDERLYING PROBLEMS.
RE:

Because these kinds of social struggles can last decades, you may not even be alive when it happens. But the question of gun control/violence (call it whatever you want to) is not a matter of "if," it is a matter of when.

I agree with that, and it is well within the theme of what I have been saying in the first place.
I disagree with the idea that repealing the 2nd amendment immediately, which is essentially what you have said here as the what to do; particularly because there is still remaining so much intolerance, hatred, fear of the other etc. which has to be dealt with to some not so small extent before repealing a portion of the Bill of Rights can be reasonably expected to work.

Acceptance of gay marriage took time because in those decades of time more people eventually became not so hateful and fearful towards it, not because 'law enforcement' of 'it was causative of the change; it was not a police action per se... ...IOW, The country did not have to impose a police state for that change to take place.

Hotspring, there is an overarching theme here that you are completely blind to. I alluded to the gay marriage movement in a previous post to illustrate how most Americans were on the wrong side of history before marriage equality was finally legalized last year in 2015. The reason why I used that example is because I wanted to draw a parallel to the now hot issue of guns in America.

You are on the wrong side of history with guns and you are going to lose. It's just a matter of time.

Because these kinds of social struggles can last decades, you may not even be alive when it happens. But the question of gun control/violence (call it whatever you want to) is not a matter of "if," it is a matter of when. That is what you refuse to realize while you swirl around in your milieu of self-righteous, quasi schizophrenic rhetoric, which is disconnected from reality. You conjure up "arguments" on the fly based on the "religion" of the 2nd Amendment and all of the delusional, romantic narratives surrounding it. These fantasies are spun by special interests such as the NRA and gun manufacturing corporations who are happy to have people like you do their bidding and lining their pockets while they laugh all the way to the bank. The saddest part of all of this is that they are laughing at the expense of all of the dead people who are the victims of gun violence in America. The American people have an insane attitude when it comes to guns and you are a prime example of it. You are being lied to and used and you don't even realize it because you don't want to see it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Better yet, grow up!

RE:

You conjure up "arguments" on the fly based on the "religion" of the 2nd Amendment and all of the delusional, romantic narratives surrounding it.

specifically, what are you referring to?... ...

Edward, not conjuring anything. I have real life experiences.
Obviously you don't have the same kind of experiential background as I do not very many people do.

Most people in America now live in urban areas. I have never lived in an urban area and most the time I have lived in a rural area.

There is a big difference in what one can expect as far as police protection is concerned in a rural area versus a suburban area versus a urban area, all have their unique differences.
I am a little bit miffed that you think I am “conjuring” up something.

The fact is that there are people in America that exist today who are basically law-abiding citizens whom will not give up their guns peacefully, I am not conjuring up that...
...Edward, you may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
You can say that I am conjuring that up until you're blue in the face but I hope the situation doesn't end up being such that it would prove me correct because then you would be, in principle, on the 'wrong side of history'.

I chose what I chose to think because of my personal experiences, as do you (I think). The NRA is not my spokesperson, never was
Unless I need a lawyer, I speak for myself.

Edward you have made several 'incorrect' assumptions of people (particularly me in this case) who disagree with you on this hot button topic...
...A lot of those last few sentences you wrote above, it seems to me, are 'creeping' into more of a spewing rant against other peoples realities who also happen to have different life experiences than you, who also disagree with your viewpoint on so-called gun control; IMHO...

...Your 'reality' is obviously not the same as my 'reality'...
...Edward I know better than to try to change your mind here, that was never my intent.
Of course I am all for 'reasonable' and 'correctly' managed violence ending, including limitations on who has access to weapons that have the potential to enable a single person or small number of people to mass kill others.

Repealing the 2nd amendment at this point in time as you so vociferously insist on is reckless today and will be for decades to come.
At this juncture, there are other steps that need to be taken that would be more effectual towards the goal of ending mass killings of innocent people than to force a constitutional convention onto the floor to repeal the second amendment because as mentioned before, that would open up a whole can of worms and has the potential for other parts of the Bill of Rights to be repealed, modified, or just plain ruined.


P.S. I wrote this before seeing Edward's last post before this one

[Hotspring 44]

But while we have that Stone Age 2nd Amendment, nothing is going to change!

Maybe maybe not but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

[Hotspring 44]

that wasn't meant to be an absolute - I don't say "ONLY if you don't..." or "ONLY right wing.."

OK Cool

your case as you describe it requires a totally different line of discussion. It's a good argument against an absolute ban on guns.

Yes...

I think it would be an interesting starting point for a discussion of how people in such situations would be regulated and protected, though.

And yes.

[rossmen]

To assume that law enforcement authorities will be responsible for protecting your safety anywhere is irresponsible and dangerous. Whether using guns or not is your strategy, calling cops is a bad idea. They are trained killers with the force of a legal monopoly on violence. I have never called the cops and dealt with extreme situations where if I did so, somebody might have died. Cops have been called on me, and it went ok, because I know the danger. Go ahead and use them as a threat if you must, but don't pull the trigger, you might regret it.

....In fact quite true in many places, the 'police' can't... ...and in some places won't, come to; whereas you are truly on your own to protect yourself by what ever ('reasonable') means you see fit; particularly in some very rural areas of NM, TX, and AZ near the US and Mexico border; there are many other places too....

[rossmen]

On second thought, this is an expression of my white male privilege. I don't mean to put down law enforcement officers even if I don't agree with how they are recruited and trained. And I do believe they are necessary in the present society. I have been fortunate to not have required their assistance, to have suffered only slightly from their efforts, and to get along great in volunteer positions. And the danger is real. They are an effective threat, and if you call, someone might die. Best as a last resort when concerned about saftey.

The point is, gun ownership is a reasonable and responsible choice if you believe violence is necessary to foster saftey. More so than calling law enforcement.

To assume that law enforcement authorities will be responsible for protecting your safety anywhere is irresponsible and dangerous. Whether using guns or not is your strategy, calling cops is a bad idea. They are trained killers with the force of a legal monopoly on violence. I have never called the cops and dealt with extreme situations where if I did so, somebody might have died. Cops have been called on me, and it went ok, because I know the danger. Go ahead and use them as a threat if you must, but don't pull the trigger, you might regret it.

[Icssoma]

seems like lots of people need to have this discussion.
i want to go back to the idea of just banning assault & assault style weapons. i think if we can grab the moment this is possible, & important.
[on another post, another time, we need to look at brain chemistry imbalances, the role it has played in mass shootings, (& domestic violence mass shootings, which too often number in the 4-6 range. of course the one's that are solo, dual or three are unacceptable)] .

[Valley Oak]

Like I already stated in an earlier post, to which you already responded, this kind of reform can take decades and you and I may not live long enough to see it. But the 2nd Amendment someday will be repealed.

Maybe maybe not but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.