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

[Valley Oak]

Dear Hotspring, my apologies for any and all slights about your character. I get carried away sometimes. The bodies are piling up while we have this discussion and Orlando will not be the last massacre with a lot of dead Americans as a consequence.

One of the reasons why I lobbed the "conjure" accusation at you is because you completely invented the idea that I want the government to storm into hundreds of millions of people's homes all over the country and forcibly take all of their guns away from them. I NEVER advocated for that and I find it frustrating when pro gun folks jump to this unreasonable and fear based conclusion so quickly and carelessly. Also, there is nothing new about the fear you expressed; it's an oooold Right Wing assertion. But I understand that underneath your defense of gun rights you are still a very progressive individual, as your years long posts on Wacco clearly demonstrate.

I find it hopeful that you think the repeal of the 2nd Amendment is 50 to 75 years off. That's actually not a bad calculation and it could very well end up being the case. And you and I surely will not be around to see it. Nonetheless, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we might achieve repeal within the next 30 years, if we are lucky.

But for now, a simple ban on assault rifles (machine guns) such as the Kalashnikov (AR 15), oozies, and all the rest need to be banned immediately. That would be a start and that is what US Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut filibustered for just the other day. We have yet to see how the vote comes down because senate Republicans only agreed to hold a vote on automatic weapons. By the way, the video link I included in this paragraph is fascinating and only lasts 4 minutes. I hope you can spare that much of your time. The victims of gun violence, however, have no time left.

I am sorry but I don't have the time to respond to your many relevant points but I will make a quick reference to our "realities" as you referred to them. First off, you and I, along with more than 310 million Americans, live in the exact same reality: a nation drowning in guns with innocent American citizens dropping like flies EVERYDAY as a consequence. The mass shootings get the priority because if the media covered every single murder that takes place then no one would have enough time in their 24 hour day to see, hear, read about all of the violence that takes place in our violent nation, the United States of America. That's the reality, not a subjective one but an objective one.

What you may be referring to are our individual and subjective points of view, opinions, interpretations, and values. But there is a fundamental difference between what is subjective and what is objective. Scientists, such as astrophysicists, observe nature in order to understand it; the world of science is not made up of subjective fields of study. And it is an objective fact that there are waaaaay too many guns in the US and that something has to be done about it in order to bring some essential sanity and safety to this country, a country that is unique among all post-industrialized democracies regarding this absurd and publicly lethal problem of gun violence. It's almost as if we were in a civil war of some kind or that there were some armed insurgency going on like the S.L.A. or the Weathermen back in the 60s and 70s.

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

[Hotspring 44]

Dear Hotspring, my apologies for any and all slights about your character. I get carried away sometimes.

Apologies happily accepted.If there is any thing that I had said that makes you feel slighted, I extend a handshake and apology too because it's not what I mean to do either.

The bodies are piling up while we have this discussion and Orlando will not be the last massacre with a lot of dead Americans as a consequence.

Unfortunately, that is true, guns or not, but I do agree that some kind of limitations on the availability of semi-automatic high-powered, high-capacity magazine firearms should exist on some reasonable level, and also should be strict rules on where and when and how they can be possessed, transported, proximity to ammunition when in public spaces and transporting, etc..

Without a more defined set of national rules For all 50 states, there will be more tragedies like the nightclub in Orlando Florida unfortunately.
That being said, we really do have a desperate need to address the underlying issues that have been mentioned previously, otherwise in the long run, eliminating easy access to those weapons will not solve the underlying problem.
------------------

One of the reasons why I lobbed the "conjure" accusation at you is because you completely invented the idea that I want the government to storm into hundreds of millions of people's homes all over the country and forcibly take all of their guns away from them. I NEVER advocated for that and I find it frustrating when pro gun folks jump to this unreasonable and fear based conclusion so quickly and carelessly. Also, there is nothing new about the fear you expressed; it's an oooold Right Wing assertion. But I understand that underneath your defense of gun rights you are still a very progressive individual, as your years long posts on Wacco clearly demonstrate.

I find it hopeful that you think the repeal of the 2nd Amendment is 50 to 75 years off. That's actually not a bad calculation and it could very well end up being the case. And you and I surely will not be around to see it. Nonetheless, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we might achieve repeal within the next 30 years, if we are lucky.

But for now, a simple ban on assault rifles (machine guns) such as the Kalashnikov (AR 15), oozies, and all the rest need to be banned immediately. That would be a start and that is what US Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut filibustered for just the other day. We have yet to see how the vote comes down because senate Republicans only agreed to hold a vote on automatic weapons. By the way, the video link I included in this paragraph is fascinating and only lasts 4 minutes. I hope you can spare that much of your time. The victims of gun violence, however, have no time left.

I am sorry but I don't have the time to respond to your many relevant points but I will make a quick reference to our "realities" as you referred to them. First off, you and I, along with more than 310 million Americans, live in the exact same reality: a nation drowning in guns with innocent American citizens dropping like flies EVERYDAY as a consequence. The mass shootings get the priority because if the media covered every single murder that takes place then no one would have enough time in their 24 hour day to see, hear, read about all of the violence that takes place in our violent nation, the United States of America. That's the reality, not a subjective one but an objective one.

What you may be referring to are our individual and subjective points of view, opinions, interpretations, and values. But there is a fundamental difference between what is subjective and what is objective. Scientists, such as astrophysicists, observe nature in order to understand it; the world of science is not made up of subjective fields of study. And it is an objective fact that there are waaaaay too many guns in the US and that something has to be done about it in order to bring some essential sanity and safety to this country, a country that is unique among all post-industrialized democracies regarding this absurd and publicly lethal problem of gun violence. It's almost as if we were in a civil war of some kind or that there were some armed insurgency going on like the S.L.A. or the Weathermen back in the 60s and 70s.

Edward, that is a lot to respond to and it makes it difficult for me to keep my concentration on every single point enough to make a single post as a response to which you requested, but I will try.

As far as dropping like flies is concerned then we have to get into considering other things to compare the gun violence to like the fact that sugar is killing far more people than guns are in the USA. I don't hear you complaining about sugar...
...Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to belittle what you are saying.

What I am saying is that the statistics about the fact that sugar is piling up the dead bodies (as I think you would put it) in the mortuary is not so much seen as being so traumatic and not remotely as horrific as gun violence and the obesity epidemic in America does not effect our emotions in the same way as gun violence.

It is not So easy to point the finger at something like 'sugar' as it is to point at some disturbed person using a firearm to kill masses of people and as a reaction want to eliminate the tool that was used to cause the carnage.

Also, it (the sugar killing people) is not on the front page and evening news all day yet it happens every day 24/7, it is not as obvious as gun violence because it is subtle in comparison, but nonetheless it kills far more 'American" people than gun violence.

That (the underlying causes) is the primary reason why I am saying the hatred, intolerance, fear of the other, etc. really have to be seriously addressed when it comes to the gun violence because without seriously addressing the root cause of any problem and only concentrating on the most obvious or dramatic symptoms of it, and remaining ignorant of the actual underlying root causes for the existence of the problem in the first place, the problem becomes an epidemic and will never ever be solved until the underlying root problems are adequately dealt with in concert with ameliorating the symptoms.

Yes I did watch the short video.
From what I have seen, I don't have any major objections with what has been proposed.
As a matter of fact, it seems preposterous to me that certain types of 'terrorist suspects' (so-called) who are on a 'terrorist watch list' (so-called) are able to so easily purchase the firearms and ammunition in the first place.

That being said, there are people who would be on that list as far as domestic terrorism is concerned who are not from a foreign country whose family have been here for generations, and yet they may be connected with white supremacist, neo-Nazi,Hate groups, and the like etc. whom I think are the ones that would present the biggest problem in a confiscation scheme.

The thing about those (neo-Nazi and similar 'home-grown' hate) groups and the like is that they are already heavily armed and have the means to produce tons of ammunition so it seems to me that over time, quelling the hatred, etc. is the only thing practical thing that I can come up with that's actually going to work in the long-term If we are going to avoid a plethora of disgusting "police actions" like the Branch Davidian siege that happened in Waco, Texas
and Ruby Ridge ID. etc..

There may be more to say but I am getting burned-out on the computer right now...

[Valley Oak]

Without a more defined set of national rules For all 50 states, there will be more tragedies like the nightclub in Orlando Florida unfortunately.

...I do agree that some kind of limitations on the availability of semi-automatic high-powered, high-capacity magazine firearms should exist on some reasonable level...

[Valley Oak]

[Hotspring 44]

I did see that art piece somewhere else in the internet.

Edward, I am compelled to ask:
Was your posting the art piece intended to be constructive to the conversation?...

...Honestly it seems to be more a form of semi-concealed (maybe not so 'concealed') statement of virtual name-calling and could be construed as an attempt at throwing a veiled (maybe not so veiled) ad hominid attack at those here who stated that they believe the second amendment is (currently) equal to and as important as all the other Constitutional Amendments in the Bill Of Rights....

...and furthermore, that someone (or maybe more than one for that matter) here is either troll or somehow hypnotized, or in whatever way somehow is/has being/been 'manipulated' or;__________________ fill-in the blank. by the NRA (gun lobby per se), and therefore the opinions of others (having a completely differing opinion than do you; sometimes ~ 180°) who value and hold dear the principal of the second amendment as being equally important as other 'constitutional' civil rights, that their opinions have no or little validity at all in this conversation.

I think you and all others of us here have the right to have whatever opinions; I am not for censorship of heated disagreements in the least...
...When there is name-calling, weather it be direct, using image, or strong innuendo (art 'image' in this case) as a form of ad hominid attack, to me is a bit insulting, and a bit inane here because as far as I can tell there is really no other reasonable explanation for me to infer it as being...

...IOW, I haven't yet realized any other 'reasonable explanation' other than minimally a snide remark bordering on insult is behind the 'why' you posted that... ... Just IMHO.

It seems not to be something I can contextually construe as constructive to this conversation but I miss things sometimes; so, maybe you could explain it to me/us how it ts constructively a part of this conversation and how it is not meant to be an 'insult'?... ...FYI, I am referring specifically to us here who have posted on this thread and also who posted on the Gun Control Now! thread, I am not referring to the NRA or other gun lobby institutions to consider for that question.

Edward, I am wondering why you did not add more (any?) of your own wording/thoughts to it.
I guess I should ask:
Edward did you create (draw) that art piece?

Edward, I think you may have seen or heard something that 'set you off' is why you posted it(?)

Anyway, regarding (historic judicial) 'legal arguments' pro gun control of citizens 'ownership' and possession of guns being not covered in the second amendment and some refutations of some of those 'legal opinions'...

...There is a well done scholarly read (link below) with references in it, without the hyperbolic BS or strange looking art... ...Or paranoid rhetoric of extremists; as far as I could tell, from the dozen or so pages that I read anyway.

...Hint:
If you choose to check it out, and don't want to read through the first 150 + pages search for “Some thoughts about Carl Bogus” (and / or start on Page 165, ~ @ second whole paragraph).

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2825&context=lawreview

[Hotspring 44]

BTW, FWIW, as I have mentioned:
RE:

...(obviously), if no one had any guns, then no one would get shot or killed by any guns; but, no; we all know that eliminating so much as 'most' guns won't happen in any of our lifetimes... ...But if it did happen, without ridding ourselves of the underlying reasons for the gunfire caused killings, then as I stated previously, there would just be a replacement 'tool' to do the killing, unfortunately.

Example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36808020