Gun Control Now!

All this talk of needing assault rifles to combat the governement is such a joke. The US military has the most advanced weapons in the world. If they go after you, your assault weapon is not going to do much against a tank or a drone or a battalion. Violence simply breeds more violence. The corporate masters are not people my friend -- they are institutions that 'we the people' need to fight against thru local sustainable community living and sophisticated social media and brilliant court battles. We have to organize and use the democratic tools we have to smartly evolve... The tired old us-against-them paradigm has got to be composted. We all need clean water, pure air, wholesome foods and love to survive and I don't think that comes from the freedom to own a gun and shoot whatever we are afraid of... The key to revolution is evolution!

No, you miss the point of an armed society, its so the cost to others makes them think twice about trying to enslave us. If we have no way to stand up they just run us down, just like any other bully. We gotta be ABLE to stand up to them, its enough cowards. They are taking us like sneaks in the night. Killing our education system, killing the economy so we need food stamps and the other shit they give the cripples they turn society into, by rewarding lazy and those we call the entitlement people. NOT with a better more successful way, but through bulling and smoke and mirrors. I hope America wakes up before its too late.

B

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mamazon:

All this talk of needing assault rifles to combat the governement is such a joke. The US military has the most advanced weapons in the world. If they go after you, your assault weapon is not going to do much against a tank or a drone or a battalion. Violence simply breeds more violence. The corporate masters are not people my friend -- they are institutions that 'we the people' need to fight against thru local sustainable community living and sophisticated social media and brilliant court battles. We have to organize and use the democratic tools we have to smartly evolve... The tired old us-against-them paradigm has got to be composted. We all need clean water, pure air, wholesome foods and love to survive and I don't think that comes from the freedom to own a gun and shoot whatever we are afraid of... The key to revolution is evolution!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by busyb555:

No, you miss the point of an armed society, its so the cost to others makes them think twice about trying to enslave us.

---

this goes straight to the heart of the problem - and shows why I don't think we're going to see much restriction on gun ownership.

if this seems to be an outlandish and unjustified fear to you, you don't much worry about gummint taking your guns, so you're receptive to regulation. Restrictions just don't seem to be that big a deal, and a few limits on "gun rights" seem equivalent to limits on OHV [Off-Highway Vehicle] recreation in public lands - annoying to those who like the activity, but ultimately not a big deal for most.

If you think you're in imminent danger of enslavement, however, the stakes are huge. Any limits put you on a slippery slope to Obamaland where you're told that you can't buy large sodas and have to pay for health care for third-world babies whose parents have snuck into our country, while the parents sit around and collect welfare.

Personally, I think we have a problem where people are too willing to limit the rights of OHV users since they don't participate in the sport themselves. But if people killed schoolkids with dirtbikes, or offed themselves with quads when they were depressed, or backed their rock-crawler over their wives when they were pissed off and drunk, I'd be more receptive to regulation of them. Unfortunately for those of us who don't buy into what I consider a paranoid fantasy of a threatening government and scary gangsters roaming our neighborhoods, there's a huge number of people who think suicides, random killings, and crimes of passion that turn deadly are just the unfortunate but inevitable price to pay. It's not that they don't care about those things (though they tend to think they're strictly attributable to the failings of an individual than to "society"), they're just so scared of the REAL potential threats that we can't limit guns without absolute, incontrovertible evidence that all bad things will be completely stopped by any legal restriction.

so, I think the bottom line is we're screwed. Limiting guns would clearly limit gun violence; I don't think the evidence that gun-violence is unchanged by regulation is particularly convincing. But in the end, that's not the question that gun-ownership advocates want answered. They want to know how to keep the gummint from enslaving them, and the thugs from raping their puppies, and unless you can show them that they're really and truly safe from such an outcome, they damn well need their guns!

I'd like to suggest the possibility of refraining from critical name calling. Sharing with others, whether we agree or not, helps us to understand others perspectives and to allow for the free flow of information. If we name call, things become disrespectful, polarized, and the emotion is the topic not the subject at hand. We are all different in what we believe to be true, and let's leave space to agree to disagree respectfully.

Back to the original topic... here is a rebuttal to 2^nd amendment being ratified to preserve slavery from Dr. Ray Kessler who is a professor of criminal justice at Sul Ross State University. https://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/

"David Kopel’s 1998 article (https://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1998/4/kop.pdf) “The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century,” in 1998 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1359 is an excellent rebuttal to Carl Bogus’ theory that the Second Amendment was ratified to protect slavery. The article is a long and thorough historical review. The material on Bogus’ theory starts at p. 1515 (fn. 647).

Bogus’ piece (https://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm) is at 31 U.C. Davis Law Review 309 (1998). It turns a relatively obscure, constitutionally incorrect, and unimportant point in the debate into the centerpiece of the amendment.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I do, but not from lunatic fear mongers.

Did you see the article about the origins of the second amendment - so private militias could be formed to prevent the slaves from revolting? I think the second amendment should have been revoked once the slaves were free and all guns be outlawed. Be a real hunter and use a bow and arrow!

At the moment, no one is talking about outlawing guns, we're just talking about preventing the guns that can create mass carnage quickly. (semi-automatics and high capacity cartridges). What's wrong with that? :waccosun:

---

>>>No, you miss the point of an armed society, its so the cost to others makes them think twice about trying to enslave us. If we have no way to stand up they just run us down, just like any other bully. We gotta be ABLE to stand up to them, its enough cowards. They are taking us like sneaks in the night. Killing our education system, killing the economy so we need food stamps and the other shit they give the cripples they turn society into, by rewarding lazy and those we call the entitlement people. NOT with a better more successful way, but through bulling and smoke and mirrors. I hope America wakes up before its too late.


So if I'm to take this note seriously, there's a man in Sonoma County stocking up assault weapons, perhaps in league with a private militia, to pursue armed rebellion against whichever governmental or economic forces he regards as "trying to enslave us." I guess it's that unquenchable desire to carry forth the august traditions of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Confederacy, the KKK, and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

I might be in total agreement with the writer about exactly which policies are taking us "like sneaks in the night," or I might not (given that I'm probably one of those "entitlement people" for whose benefit the writer is being enslaved.) I might even feel a twinge of guilty satisfaction (counterproductive though it'd be) if someone tossed a stink bomb into the local CVS. But this flap-jawed paean to terrorist squads -- and any fool can see that's the only option being proposed here -- is as naive as it is despicable.

On the other hand, if he's not actually stocking up and practicing every weekend, he's just putting us on.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

My gosh, what part of "doesn't add up" don't you get. The data in the Carter study and in each and every place guns are in hand of citizens violence goes down and safety goes up. Check out Israel where everybody gets gun training and most have the. Compare that to the UK and lets not forget Obamas Chicago where there are more deaths than Afghanistan with places that guns are in the hands many.

Guns make the criminals have to face fear so they find the soft spots like the gun free zones. I can tell you that we just do not agree on most things. I hope you and your pals wake up before its too late for this fine country.

Bruce

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

this goes straight to the heart of the problem - and shows why I don't think we're going to see much restriction on gun ownership.

if this seems to be an outlandish and unjustified fear to you, you don't much worry about gummint taking your guns, so you're receptive to regulation. Restrictions just don't seem to be that big a deal, and a few limits on "gun rights" seem equivalent to limits on OHV recreation in public lands - annoying to those who like the activity, but ultimately not a big deal for most.

If you think you're in imminent danger of enslavement, however, the stakes are huge. Any limits put you on a slippery slope to Obamaland where you're told that you can't buy large sodas and have to pay for health care for third-world babies whose parents have snuck into our country, while the parents sit around and collect welfare.

Personally, I think we have a problem where people are too willing to limit the rights of OHV users since they don't participate in the sport themselves. But if people killed schoolkids with dirtbikes, or offed themselves with quads when they were depressed, or backed their rock-crawler over their wives when they were pissed off and drunk, I'd be more receptive to regulation of them. Unfortunately for those of us who don't buy into what I consider a paranoid fantasy of a threatening government and scary gangsters roaming our neighborhoods, there's a huge number of people who think suicides, random killings, and crimes of passion that turn deadly are just the unfortunate but inevitable price to pay. It's not that they don't care about those things (though they tend to think they're strictly attributable to the failings of an individual than to "society"), they're just so scared of the REAL potential threats that we can't limit guns without absolute, incontrovertible evidence that all bad things will be completely stopped by any legal restriction.

so, I think the bottom line is we're screwed. Limiting guns would clearly limit gun violence; I don't think the evidence that gun-violence is unchanged by regulation is particularly convincing. But in the end, that's not the question that gun-ownership advocates want answered. They want to know how to keep the gummint from enslaving them, and the thugs from raping their puppies, and unless you can show them that they're really and truly safe from such an outcome, they damn well need their guns!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by busyb555:

The data in the Carter study and in each and every place guns are in hand of citizens violence goes down and safety goes up. Check out Israel where everybody gets gun training and most have the. Compare that to the UK and lets not forget Obamas Chicago where there are more deaths than Afghanistan with places that guns are in the hands many.
Bruce

---

I wish I could believe this argument, but taking gun ownership statistics from other countries and extrapolating results to apply to the United States does not play out in reality. One has to take into account each country's social norms about how conflict is handled. Even within a country there are different neighborhoods where one could cherry-pick statistics to back a particular point one wishes to make. For example - I'm sure you could find gun ownership statistics from a rural farming community that match statistics from a neighborhood in Oakland. Both would have a high percentage of gun ownership and I am guessing that those two communities would have very different reports about the violent used of guns against people. I'm sorry I don't have the time to actually get those statistics for you all, but I hope my point comes across.

The conversation about gun ownership touches on so many different aspects within our communities. I don't find it very useful to try to come to agreement on all of it in one big swath of a statement. Gun ownership for hunting, personal safety, community safety, a joyful hobby for target practice, a farm tool, a "safety blanket" for those who feel safer with a gun in the house, etc. are all different conversations in my mind. I could not address them all by saying we should or should not own/ban guns of any sort. Trying to continue a discussion in that vein sure feels like spinning our wheels on ice. It might feel thrilling but we aren't getting anywhere.

Can this conversation tease out some thread to be worked upon? Maybe we could agree to talk about something a little less charged than personal safety or government police state situations .. . . . would a gun as a farm tool be easier to start with?

I agree with that (bringing a gun to a confrontation) in general for the non-law enforcement peoples, but, however with some reasonable exceptions that I won't get into here....
...https://www.elyrics.net/read/j/johnn...wn-lyrics.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

My sense is that by bringing a gun to a confrontation you are actually increasing the likelihood that you will be shot. Non-violently capitulating to whatever the demand an the moment is probably the safest thing to do, if unpleasant at the moment and its aftermath. But at least you are still alive.

---

I am not so sure that the "they" (the inferred as to being {the} 'liberal' elected officials, 'law enforcement personnel, etc. ET; All)... ...What about the ones who are not 'liberal' elected officials" by definition but are everything other than that "liberal" thing?

Anyway I think the 'they' fear being unelected by the masses who 'elected' them into office in the first place. Weather the "they" are 'liberal' or not does not seem to make any difference, (IMHO), because it is the ideia that the other side (so-called) is armed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

......They hate the public.

---