Good gun control policy in CA

[BraveUlysses]

What about carrying guns in bars, nightclubs or courthouses?

Yes of course I'm aware felons lose their right to vote, but this thread isn't about voting is it?

[nando]

I expect that you're quite educated on gun use and ownership, and proper storage. so should people who are irresponsible/uneducated have the same rights as you?

doesn't the document specifically say "well regulated"? wouldn't that imply rules to keep certain people from doing dumb stuff like shooting up schools?

and anyway, "arms" is a pretty loose definition. A rocket launcher is "arms" but you can't just go buy one..

[frankenbeemer]

I expect that you're quite educated on gun use and ownership, and proper storage. so should people who are irresponsible/uneducated have the same rights as you?

doesn't the document specifically say "well regulated"? wouldn't that imply rules to keep certain people from doing dumb stuff like shooting up schools?

and anyway, "arms" is a pretty loose definition. A rocket launcher is "arms" but you can't just go buy one..

Well regulated was used (at that time) to imply "proficient" , I believe you knew this, Nando.

This is the best (IMHO) study of the second amendment, written by a prominent legal scholar (and ACLU member), and is worth reading at least twice.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

From the Yale Law Journal 1989.

[mrsleeve]

What about carrying guns in bars, nightclubs or courthouses?

Yes of course I'm aware felons lose their right to vote, but this thread isn't about voting is it?

If your not drunk then why not, after all its already ILLEGAL to carry a weapon when your too drunk (.08 ) to drive too drunk to carry....... As far as the govt is concerned anyway, private property rights and allowing the proprietor to make that determination might be a better way to go about it. The govt has to have its sanctum where only it can have firearms right???

Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun - Chairman Mao Zedong (the little red book)


A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the charter of the user - Theodore Roosevelt


Nando: if you fail to remember the last time I explained this that its on you. But "regulated" in the context of the 2a does not convey the meaning you think it does or are implying it does. Frank has generalized it for you already. I believe a right is for all, I suppose we should put conditions and training on free speech, free press, and freedom of religions too right........ After all history has proven time and time again the pen is mightier than the sword.

[marshallnoise]

for sure the parents are at fault, but isn't it highly likely that they were law abiding gun owners?

I mean, let's take your point about other "things" that can kill. like cars - except you need a license to drive a car (although the requirements are pretty low, you still need one). Why not require a license to own a gun? Something that would require training and being responsible with storage.

The license is called the 2nd Amendment in case you forgot.

[marshallnoise]

it's a right that some people shouldn't have, no? because they go crazy and shoot a bunch of people, or they're irresponsible and leave it where a 7 year old can get their hands on it. is that not a problem?

I'm not certain, but I don't think they had problems with nut jobs walking into schools and killing everyone back in the 1700s. am I wrong?

last I saw, the redcoats weren't roaming the streets and the military could crush even well armed civilians.

You do realize that there were LESS restrictions on ownership of guns in the 1700s than there are today, right?

The problem we have is a societal one, not inanimate objects. A rock is as much as a murder weapon as your fist or a crowbar or a mailbox. The user is the one who determines everything and inanimate objects cannot animate. They are not culpable, they cannot empathize nor can they rationalize.

The who matters more than the what and is the only way to answer the why an event occurred. So when you blame the what, you absolve the who and convict the victims to more whys.

[nando]

Where did I write that it was the guns fault? please point it out - I don't think you can. you're arguing against a point I never made.

so, we should let EVERYONE have a gun? including convicted felons? mentally unstable people? because it's a "right"? are some people not responsible enough to own a weapon?

a rock is hardly comparable to a rifle, anyway. sure, you can throw it at me, but at least I can dodge it. by the time I hear you shooting me I'm already dead.

is the solution still to do nothing?

[marshallnoise]

Where did I write that it was the guns fault? please point it out - I don't think you can. you're arguing against a point I never made.

Failure to put 100% of the blame on the only thing able to influence an inanimate object is where you assign blame to the gun. You will say it is true that if that person didn't have a gun, no crime would have been committed or it at least wouldn't have been the same crime (use of a firearm for murder). "Yeah, but if the gun didn't exist, no one would have been killed." If wishes and "buts" where fairies and nuts, oh what a Merry Christmas it would be.

Taking that thought further, if you restrict access of guns to everyone (not just the insane, unstable and unfit) when you suggest that people should have licenses to own a gun, for whatever reason. Restricting people from accessing guns does not modify behavior, it just takes the guns away (as if the gun is the problem and not the behavior of the person). So yeah, you did blame the gun.

so, we should let EVERYONE have a gun? including convicted felons? mentally unstable people? because it's a "right"? are some people not responsible enough to own a weapon?

It is ironic that you put words into my mouth much in the same way you suggested that I did in your original response.

There is a fine line you walk when you begin to say some are more qualified than others. One day a democrat might be considered "unstable" and be denied their right to own a gun, or free speech, or peaceably assemble. Could be a Tea Party member who is denied these rights. Maybe a Christian, maybe a Jew.

Giving power to a centralized government to take away rights given to man by God means whomever is in charge gets to declare who is mentally fit or unfit.

Ever crack a history book about England? The whole reason why the government in the United States was banned from establishing a state religion is because "The Church of England" was either Catholic or Protestant depending on which king or queen was in power at the time. And MANY people died due to this too. After all, mankind is fickle and loves to dominate/persecute other men. Even though history is clear, some people still blame religion and not the king/queen. See the similarity there?

Because of this, it should be for each individual state to decide for themselves who is fit or unfit. If you DON'T like your gun laws in the state you live in, you may move to another state you DO like their gun laws.

This is the whole point of Federalism and why the federal government has been specifically restricted from taking away any rights granted to all citizens by the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments): So that a man might escape a tyrannical state as he sees fit. You can't escape the federal government. But you can escape Arizona for California.

a rock is hardly comparable to a rifle, anyway. sure, you can throw it at me, but at least I can dodge it. by the time I hear you shooting me I'm already dead.

If I wish you death, does it matter which method I choose? You'll be dead anyway. After all, it is MY INTENT that determines how I use a firearm, or a rock, or a crowbar. And I very much doubt you can sanitize the world of objects used in murder.

Magically wave a wand and all guns disappear, then fine. But we know you live in a fantasy world if you believe that restricting access to guns solves anything other than making criminals and the government (but then I repeat myself) more emboldened. Because the only people who you can take guns away from are those who obey the law. The government sees itself as the law and the lawless aren't interested in obeying the law anyway.

Therefore, restricting access to firearms via registration (national or otherwise) tilts the balance of society the wrong direction. Owning a firearm is like owning a royal flush in a game of poker: not exactly something you want to disclose to anyone. Especially the government or criminals.

is the solution still to do nothing?

Rhetorical question answered: The solution is to deal with the mentally ill as we did for ages; remove them from society (not kill, but quarantine). But this requires setting a specific set of morals and standards of behavior to determine what is normal and what isn't. Then it involves never deviating from that standard, ever. For without benchmarks for normal behavior, you can make anyone insane. (See above comment about the Church of England.) This is difficult because it requires drawing lines in the sand. There were unspoken lines drawn in the sand for centuries in this country, then we blurred them to the point that it is a felony and conviction as a sex offender for peeing on the side of the road or an 18 year old boy having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. We fucked up something perfectly good, just and moral...for what? Freedom?

The second solution is to enforce laws already on the books. Making laws and not enforcing them accomplishes nothing. While you are at it, modify laws that aren't clear, remove injustice in the laws, then honor those laws with 100% commitment. This makes those folks who have the capacity to choose right and wrong actually make a choice. Right now, there is almost no risk for breaking laws. Ask the guy who robbed me (and 13 other people) when I was working at a bank. He got out in 4 years just to rob another 5 banks.

The third solution is to educate and arm the populace with law abiding citizenry. (see comment above). There is no more polite society than an armed society. An armed society checks poor behavior before someone even thinks about it.

The fourth solution is realization by everyone that bad shit happens to good people all the time. Are you gonna ban cancer too? I'll tell you what, if people were involved in casting cancer on people, people would restrict access to cancer immediately!

[einhander]

^ What a load of jibberish.

[marshallnoise]

^ What a load of jibberish.

:golfclap:

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[nando]

no, I agree, what a bunch of nonsense.

so you want to impose your moral standards on everyone else? huh? what does that have to do with responsible gun ownership?

quarantining the mentally ill? is this the 19th century? I know you'd like to go back and live in the 1850's when they locked people up who were sick (and black people were slaves), but here in the 21st century we have this thing called science and medicine, when people are sick we should try to make them better. also, they're people, not animals.

I never said anything about registering guns, either. you're making another argument about a point I never made.

if you want to kill me with a rock, go ahead and try. I'll have a fighting chance. but if you pull out a gun point blank and shoot me in the back, I'm dead. also, you aren't going to take out a bunch of innocent bystanders trying to kill me with a rock.

banning cancer? what a pointless argument.

[mrsleeve]

Yes closeing up nearly all the mental instutions and dumping thoes in that system back into the general population with little to no oversite or suppervison was such a great move huh....

As unpalatable in todays society as it maybe, its still a conversation that needs to be had

[marshallnoise]

no, I agree, what a bunch of nonsense.

so you want to impose your moral standards on everyone else? huh? what does that have to do with responsible gun ownership?

quarantining the mentally ill? is this the 19th century? I know you'd like to go back and live in the 1850's when they locked people up who were sick (and black people were slaves), but here in the 21st century we have this thing called science and medicine, when people are sick we should try to make them better. also, they're people, not animals.

I never said anything about registering guns, either. you're making another argument about a point I never made.

if you want to kill me with a rock, go ahead and try. I'll have a fighting chance. but if you pull out a gun point blank and shoot me in the back, I'm dead. also, you aren't going to take out a bunch of innocent bystanders trying to kill me with a rock.

banning cancer? what a pointless argument.

You are right, we should ban guns.

Licensing requirements is registration. You did say that people should be licensed to own guns much like operating cars.

Where did I say MY standards and morals would be imposed on anyone? I said a set of standards and morals should be universalized. Mentally ill people are humans, but until your fabulous science can actually heal the mentally ill, they should be removed from society as they are a danger to everyone else and themselves. What is so bad about that? One might make a very good argument that "science/medicine" has done more harm by drugging our kids to the point of removing "humanity" from them to the point where they go out and murder.

Who determines what "responsible" gun ownership looks like without first setting a standard as to what is responsibility is in the first place? I personally see it as responsible to have a gun at the ready at any moment in my home should a need arise. You probably would see it as irresponsible to have a loaded gun anywhere but locked up in a safe. At that point, you might as well not own a gun as it is useless in an emergency. Who is applying a set of standards now?

Again, why do you refuse to acknowledge that people murder people? The tool used is not relevant to the discussion at all. You again refuse to question my murderous intent and instead believe it more important to remove the gun from my hands because...

I'll have a fighting chance. but if you pull out a gun point blank and shoot me in the back, I'm dead. also, you aren't going to take out a bunch of innocent bystanders trying to kill me with a rock.

You continue to treat the symptom, not the cause. Cannot you see that?

I believe the gun control argument is born out of several things: Laziness, emotional appeal and power grab.

When the murderer is addressed (you know, the one who pulls the trigger), excuses are given and the murderer is absolved of their crimes; after all, they are victims of society or aren't being chemically altered enough. Its harder work to reform man's heart than it is to ban objects that the man can use against other men. Laziness.

What about the children? How many more school shootings is it going to take to get guns off the streets? Oh I know! We'll make everyone have to get a license to own one, then when it is used in a crime, we can blame the licensee for not being responsible enough when a murderer uses their gun illegally! That'll stop murders from happening! Yeah!!! No, you shift blame from the murderer to the owner of the weapon, again, fixating on the weapon and it's whereabouts. Emotional appeal.

So what is the real reason for restricting access to guns? Power. Remove/limit access to firearms and you create another dependent class. When the government and criminals have guns, both rule over those who do not.

Call it gibberish, but refusal to deal with the heart of the murderer and the conditioning we foster in our society for creating murderers is madness or pure evil for it neither removes murderers nor protects victims.

[nando]

Yes closeing up nearly all the mental instutions and dumping thoes in that system back into the general population with little to no oversite or suppervison was such a great move huh....

As unpalatable in todays society as it maybe, its still a conversation that needs to be had

no, I agree that we need to do something better with the mentally ill - but the problem is many of them are poor or homeless and can't afford care on their own, and spending on mental health hasn't exactly been a top priority. but locking them up isn't a good enough answer - being sick isn't a crime.

[nando]

You are right, we should ban guns.

Licensing requirements is registration. You did say that people should be licensed to own guns much like owning cars.

Where did I say MY standards and morals would be imposed on anyone? I said a set of standards and morals should be universalized. Mentally ill people are humans, but until your fabulous science can actually heal the mentally ill, they should be removed from society as they are a danger to everyone else and themselves. What is so bad about that? One might make a very good argument that "science/medicine" has done more harm by drugging our kids to the point of removing "humanity" from them to the point where they go out and murder.

Who determines what "responsible" gun ownership looks like without first setting a standard as to what is responsibility is in the first place? I personally see it as responsible to have a gun at the ready at any moment in my home should a need arise. You probably would see it as irresponsible to have a loaded gun anywhere but locked up in a safe. At that point, you might as well not own a gun as it is useless in an emergency. Who is applying a set of standards now?

Again, why do you refuse to acknowledge that people murder people? The tool used is not relevant to the discussion at all. You again refuse to question my murderous intent and instead believe it more important to remove the gun from my hands because...



You continue to treat the symptom, not the cause. Cannot you see that?

I believe the gun control argument is born out of several things: Laziness, emotional appeal and power grab.

When the murderer is addressed (you know, the one who pulls the trigger), excuses are given and the murderer is absolved of their crimes; after all, they are victims of society or aren't being chemically altered enough. Its harder work to reform man's heart than it is to ban objects that the man can use against other men. Laziness.

What about the children? How many more school shootings is it going to take to get guns off the streets? Oh I know! We'll make everyone have to get a license to own one, then when it is used in a crime, we can blame the licensee for not being responsible enough when a murderer uses their gun illegally! That'll stop murders from happening! Yeah!!! No, you shift blame from the murderer to the owner of the weapon, again, fixating on the weapon and it's whereabouts. Emotional appeal.

So what is the real reason for restricting access to guns? Power. Remove/limit access to firearms and you create another dependent class. When the government and criminals have guns, both rule over those who do not.

Call it gibberish, but refusal to deal with the heart of the murderer and the conditioning we foster in our society for creating murderers is madness or pure evil for it neither removes murderers nor protects victims.

more drivel?

when did I ever say "ban guns"?