Gun Control Anyone?

[LorenS]

Re: Liberty is not an Absolute

Tons of drugs cross the US Mexico border every year. Thousands of weapons from Mexican police, Mexican military and from Central America enter the Mexican black market every year.

CNC machining and 3D printers can produce fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. We have loads of CNC machines and 3D printers in the US and they are getting cheaper all the time. http://www.smithy.com/


There are no US gun laws that will markedly reduce the number of weapons available to criminals.

Given those facts and the fact that armed Americans prevent thousands of crimes every year it is clear that the gun haters are not at all interested in decreasing crime. They only want to remove certain guns (all of them eventually) from the tax payers.

I don't care that I don't "need" 20 round magazines. My need is not the issue, there is no socially redeeming feature of making 20 round magazine possession a crime.

The private prison industry is grinning all the way to the bank. Meanwhile the real causes of crime (mostly the absence of fathers) continue unabated.

Another poster obliquely hit on a key issue. We have a serious lack of penis control in this country. Most criminal behavior is a direct result of irresponsible reproduction and non existent parenting by baby daddies. It's time for the men of this country to be men, to control their behavior and become responsible again.

We can't solve Chicago with less guns or more guns. Chicago needs socially responsible men.

[bart]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Very logical. But it supports the idea that a big magazine helps you shoot more people, which was the reason for restricting big magazines to reduce school shooting fatalities.

Many people had said "changing the clip is so fast it doesn't matter". I don't buy that, because anything that complicates the process slows it down and makes a failure more likely.

Nothing is perfect as far as *any* proposed solution to the general issues of gun control, including magazine size. But at least you do see one very valid reason to have large magazines, besides the police and military having them.

As far as slowing the psychos down possibility, of course. But I don't recall any mass shootings where the psycho only had one gun. And even the Aurora shooter had a jam on his rifle with the huge magazine, and immediately switched to 2 (3?) other guns. It also remains my basic opinion that the real problems are way more in the area of the psychos or criminals, not the guns.

And to make it clear, I am not in favor of the truly huge magazines - 50+ round capacity (just off the top of my head number).

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Here it comes...

I do not agree with the way you are framing this discussion.

Either we possess Invidividual liberty or we do not. If we do, then neither you nor anyone else can dictate what I do as long as I don't infringe on anyone elses same inalienable rights. It's about tolerance.

So, as I see it, you're advocating for a tyranny of the majority (ie Democracy). But guess what, eventhough the masses have been convinced that they can negotiate our liberties, that's not how this nation's framework is configured. And people like me, will continue to fight to maintain our individual liberty, no matter how the masses are maniipulated by a super-sophisticated propaganda machine that seems to escape even the most "educated" of minds.

It's unfortunate that so many of the variables that spark these dialectics are left unsaid, undiscussed, and ridiculed or ignored when discussed. Godel proved "G" to be true in formal systems, essentially saying that there are statements which are true but unproveable. Well, we have the same dynamic within our social systems, and understanding G would drastically alter the public's perception of the issues at play.

I am most definitely NOT advocating for a tyranny of the majority.

I honestly cannot fathom how you jumped to the conclusion that I, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, am somehow support tyranny of the majority.

10+ years ago a large chunk of America went on a massive nitrous oxide injected cheap credit spending spree and cocooned themselves at home with high end home theatre systems, granite countertops, and commercial grade kitchens while a tiny sliver of society went to war.

Effectively, a rather large chunk of society went into the financial fetal position.......hoping the dot com equity collapse and the wars would just go away.

Then their McMansion Cocoon bubble that allowed them to find comfort in a financially indebted fetal position collapsed.

Even borderline retards would be able to ascertain that there are some fundamental structural problems with the US.

But unlike here at iTulip.....where even some pretty smart folks need even smarter folks to better understand the complexity and enormity of the problems we face, most Americans would be unable to cogently convey the debth and breadth of the problems the nation faces.

So like the "flight" response in the pre real estate collapse cocoon fetal position, this has sparked a "fight" response in the form of people buying firearms to respond to a largely unknown, but very real threat.

Hence my comment about the book Wisdom of Crowds......I think it is pretty relevant to the spike in firearms sales in the US over the last 4+ years.

It may take a bunch of highly educated and trained aeronautical engineers and technicians to fix a "747", but even someone who is illiterate and has never flown before can tell if the "plane" is broken.

Firearms cannot fix a "747", but they can play a small role in preventing the plane for being stolen...or maybe in a future case....recover the "plane" from the outsourced leaseholders.

Maybe a labor/management analogy would be more relevant.........where privately owned firearms provide a means by which management can not as easily screw the labour.

I'm of the belief that negotiations would be highly beneficial....but that does not mean I think they are likely, or even simply possible.

Imagine if the President and the US Legislature agreed to the following:

*Bust up the Big 6 Mass Media outfits controlling the vast majority of US media(like Ma Bell back in the day) to provide increased ownership diversity(and a return to ownership limitations to prevent the current corporatized Goebbels-like Ministries of Propaganda)

*Eliminate or better control excessive special interest influence and control in the political process.

Would it then be worth having a limitation on 7 round or 10 round or eleventeen round magazines and requirements for secure storage of firearms?

Of course it would.

But that's not going to happen because it is not part of the gun control narrative.

The current mass media fueled gun control narrative achieves three things:

1) It distracts attention from far more existential threats/problems, win or lose

2) It is shaping opinions/perspectives away from "deterrence of tyranny" and towards "hunting, target shooting, and individual self defense".

3) It completely ignores the question of WHY are so many average/rational(but largely big picture ignorant) people buying so many firearms?

I'd LOVE to see the author of Wisdom of Crowds discuss firearms sales of recent years.

[cbr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I cannot even comprehend the debate, much less the actions of our federal government.

it is crystal clear that the federal government the right and obligation to PREVENT states from passing gun control laws infringing the right of citizens to bear arms.

the federal government has NO right to regulate firearms or any other weapons, in any manner.

it has NO right to even comment on it, unless a state governments attempt to infringe on those rights, in which case it must protect the rights of citizens against the regulating state.

the only right anyone has to debate it is their first amendment right.

the first and second amendment, together, being the sole true protections against tyranny of government and vested interests.

we are so far away from proper government no one even comprehends what it is.

[DSpencer]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I cannot even comprehend the debate, much less the actions of our federal government.

it is crystal clear that the federal government the right and obligation to PREVENT states from passing gun control laws infringing the right of citizens to bear arms.

the federal government has NO right to regulate firearms or any other weapons, in any manner.

it has NO right to even comment on it, unless a state governments attempt to infringe on those rights, in which case it must protect the rights of citizens against the regulating state.

the only right anyone has to debate it is their first amendment right.

the first and second amendment, together, being the sole true protections against tyranny of government and vested interests.

we are so far away from proper government no one even comprehends what it is.

Very good points. No gun control plan should be "debated" or "negotiated" without first debating the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Anyone with knowledge of history should be firmly against that idea.

The whole idea of "common sense regulations" and "long overdue national discussion" is simply infuriating. People who value their individual liberties are not interested in "debating" giving them up for nothing in return. Nor should they be.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

And to make it clear, I am not in favor of the truly huge magazines - 50+ round capacity (just off the top of my head number).

Magazine size really is pretty self limiting. Police routinely carry 15 - 19 round magazines, because that's about as big a magazine as you can fit in the handle of a hand gun. Civilians, along the same lines, mostly buy regular capacity magazines just like the police.

In rifles 20 round magazines are pretty big and heavy. The Army dose use 30 round magazines, but they stick out so far they are a real nuisance. I never used any 30 round magazines while I was in the Army.

Pretty much anything over 30 rounds for a rifle magazine just does not work well or is so big no one wants to carry them.

This is the reason that the magazine capacity issue is so hotly debated. On the up side physics limits the size, on the down size the ignorant and politically motivated try to set an artificial limit. The natural weight vs size vs cost "compromise" has already been reached and is generally accepted in the marketplace.

So, if you outlaw anything over 20 rounds you won't get much complaint, because physics is already on your side. If you go for a 10 round limit you are cutting into the legitimate self defense needs of some people (otherwise why make exceptions for cops and bodyguards?).

[BadJuju]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i am sorry JuJu. I will pray for you and your friend. It's all I can do.

Thanks for the kind words, sir.

[Onlooker]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i cannot even comprehend the debate, much less the actions of our federal government.

It is crystal clear that the federal government the right and obligation to prevent states from passing gun control laws infringing the right of citizens to bear arms.

The federal government has no right to regulate firearms or any other weapons, in any manner.

It has no right to even comment on it, unless a state governments attempt to infringe on those rights, in which case it must protect the rights of citizens against the regulating state.

The only right anyone has to debate it is their first amendment right.

The first and second amendment, together, being the sole true protections against tyranny of government and vested interests.

We are so far away from proper government no one even comprehends what it is.

+1

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I cannot even comprehend the debate, much less the actions of our federal government.

it is crystal clear that the federal government the right and obligation to PREVENT states from passing gun control laws infringing the right of citizens to bear arms.

the federal government has NO right to regulate firearms or any other weapons, in any manner.

it has NO right to even comment on it, unless a state governments attempt to infringe on those rights, in which case it must protect the rights of citizens against the regulating state.

the only right anyone has to debate it is their first amendment right.

the first and second amendment, together, being the sole true protections against tyranny of government and vested interests.

we are so far away from proper government no one even comprehends what it is.

This needs to be sent to every newspaper, lawmaker and social studies teacher.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I cannot even comprehend the debate, much less the actions of our federal government.

it is crystal clear that the federal government the right and obligation to PREVENT states from passing gun control laws infringing the right of citizens to bear arms.

the federal government has NO right to regulate firearms or any other weapons, in any manner.

it has NO right to even comment on it, unless a state governments attempt to infringe on those rights, in which case it must protect the rights of citizens against the regulating state.

the only right anyone has to debate it is their first amendment right.

the first and second amendment, together, being the sole true protections against tyranny of government and vested interests.

we are so far away from proper government no one even comprehends what it is.

While I don't disagree with you, I think the Commerce Clause has proven to be a legal and useful tool for those who advocate gun control.

So while I think you are correct(morally/ethically), I think you might be quite wrong(legally).

[reggie]

Re: Here it comes...

I am most definitely NOT advocating for a tyranny of the majority.

I honestly cannot fathom how you jumped to the conclusion that I, as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, am somehow support tyranny of the majority.

Great. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.

10+ years ago a large chunk of America went on a massive nitrous oxide injected cheap credit spending spree and cocooned themselves at home with high end home theatre systems, granite countertops, and commercial grade kitchens while a tiny sliver of society went to war.

Effectively, a rather large chunk of society went into the financial fetal position.......hoping the dot com equity collapse and the wars would just go away.

Then their McMansion Cocoon bubble that allowed them to find comfort in a financially indebted fetal position collapsed.

Even borderline retards would be able to ascertain that there are some fundamental structural problems with the US.

But unlike here at iTulip.....where even some pretty smart folks need even smarter folks to better understand the complexity and enormity of the problems we face, most Americans would be unable to cogently convey the debth and breadth of the problems the nation faces.

I believe the focus of blame for these problems lie elsewhere, but that's also an extremely complex matter and best suited for another thread, or perhaps even another forum.

So like the "flight" response in the pre real estate collapse cocoon fetal position, this has sparked a "fight" response in the form of people buying firearms to respond to a largely unknown, but very real threat.

Hence my comment about the book Wisdom of Crowds......I think it is pretty relevant to the spike in firearms sales in the US over the last 4+ years.

I can't prove it [yet], but I simply don't believe the data on gun/ammunition sales. How can we be sure that this is not more propaganda? Certainly, this is a question that I suggest is worth contemplation and discussion.

It may take a bunch of highly educated and trained aeronautical engineers and technicians to fix a "747", but even someone who is illiterate and has never flown before can tell if the "plane" is broken.

While there maybe an army of "experrts" telling the public what is broken, why it is broken, and how to fix it, it is my contention that the vast majority of this army of experts are misleading the public into further destructive acts, which will continue to erode this nation's economic and geopolitical standing in the world.

Imagine if the President and the US Legislature agreed to the following:

*Bust up the Big 6 Mass Media outfits controlling the vast majority of US media(like Ma Bell back in the day) to provide increased ownership diversity(and a return to ownership limitations to prevent the current corporatized Goebbels-like Ministries of Propaganda)

*Eliminate or better control excessive special interest influence and control in the political process.

Great start, but it's not going to happen unless the people take over. The systems of power are heavily dependent on framing the discourse via media & political institutions, for this drives neural [brain] development in their target audiences, and therefore creates willing or harmless subjects.

I'd LOVE to see the author of Wisdom of Crowds discuss firearms sales of recent years.

Wisdom of Crowds is a paradigm being sold to the technocracy not because crowds produce any wisdom, but because crowd behavior is easier to predict than individual behavior (more rational), and further, far easier to manipulate through a variety of techniques. So, are crowds really driving supposed increased gun sales, or is the media feedback of this supposed phenomena driving increased sales, or, are sales increasing at all?

Lake, you may be interested in a video I just posted in the forum - a presentation by Stafford Beer (famous operational researcher) that addresses uncovering systemic problems within society and how to work toward the will of the people. I've also included a link to Stafford's book called "Designing Freedom", which delves into his work in greater detail. Beer worked with a team of scientists in Allende's Chile, establishing & deploying the types of social systems he epouses.

[bart]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Magazine size really is pretty self limiting. Police routinely carry 15 - 19 round magazines, because that's about as big a magazine as you can fit in the handle of a hand gun. Civilians, along the same lines, mostly buy regular capacity magazines just like the police.

In rifles 20 round magazines are pretty big and heavy. The Army dose use 30 round magazines, but they stick out so far they are a real nuisance. I never used any 30 round magazines while I was in the Army.

Pretty much anything over 30 rounds for a rifle magazine just does not work well or is so big no one wants to carry them.

This is the reason that the magazine capacity issue is so hotly debated. On the up side physics limits the size, on the down size the ignorant and politically motivated try to set an artificial limit. The natural weight vs size vs cost "compromise" has already been reached and is generally accepted in the marketplace.

So, if you outlaw anything over 20 rounds you won't get much complaint, because physics is already on your side. If you go for a 10 round limit you are cutting into the legitimate self defense needs of some people (otherwise why make exceptions for cops and bodyguards?).

Well said and thanks for the balance.

[Onlooker]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

This needs to be sent to every newspaper, lawmaker and social studies teacher.

The problem is that they (a large majority, anyway) just wouldn't get it. We've evolved so far from our constitution's core principles and the concept of limited government and inalienable rights that they would just look at you with a blank stare.

And then there's the 9th amdt, which is basically ignored by almost all, even by too many with a libertarian viewpoint, IMO. For instance, the debate about the 2nd amdt. Why do we have to parse the language there to find a right for us to keep weapons to defend ourselves? As many more eloquent than myself have pointed out, here and elsewhere, that's an inalienable human right, period. And so we just play into the gun control crowd's hands by continuing the parsing of 18th century language, instead of making the argument under the 9th amdt. Makes me crazy!

I realize the difficulties presented by the lack of specificity (by design, of course) of the 9th amdt. But that doesn't mean we should allow it to be effectively thrown away. Makes for a tough fight, but one that's worth it.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The problem is that they (a large majority, anyway) just wouldn't get it. We've evolved so far from our constitution's core principles and the concept of limited government and inalienable rights that they would just look at you with a blank stare.

It's worse than blank stares. They actually disagree with the concept of liberty. People I talk to- educated professional people- believe our times are too dangerous to "allow" our "inalienable rights". That, and conversely, "you worry too much!"

The propaganda campaign War on Terror has been a huge success. It couldn't have suceeded without such a good public education system.

And then there's the 9th amdt, which is basically ignored by almost all, even by too many with a libertarian viewpoint, IMO. For instance, the debate about the 2nd amdt. Why do we have to parse the language there to find a right for us to keep weapons to defend ourselves? As many more eloquent than myself have pointed out, here and elsewhere, that's an inalienable human right, period. And so we just play into the gun control crowd's hands by continuing the parsing of 18th century language, instead of making the argument under the 9th amdt. Makes me crazy!

I realize the difficulties presented by the lack of specificity (by design, of course) of the 9th amdt. But that doesn't mean we should allow it to be effectively thrown away. Makes for a tough fight, but one that's worth it.

Do we have any Justices on the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution anymore, aside from how to get around it?

[c1ue]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Controlling magazine size is stupid.

You can build your own magazine. It ain't hard, especially if you've got one that already fits. Yes, you have to play around with the spring, but between youtube and experimentation - it isn't the least bit difficult to do.

As for sales: a gun is a big toy for many people - on par with a big screen TV these days. There are lots of people who looked at the price tags for these 'assault rifle' type guns and just couldn't justify spending the $1K and above for it. It is exactly like threatening to ban the Super Bowl. Most people who can afford tickets wouldn't go because it is expensive, but threaten to make it the last one and watch the fireworks.

I've been helping a friend look for some guns - not a gun nut at all but is an existing gun owner. He now wants to buy, when before he was going to buy but hadn't gotten around to it.

The various flavors of the threatened guns have all gone up in price by 40% or more, even higher in many cases; the stores which sell them are all in terminal overload, and the profile of these otherwise expensive and pointless toys has been raised tremendously.

So all in all, Obama has done the gun industry a huge favor. A Colt 6920, for example, a low to mid end AR15 knockoff, could be bought for $800 a couple years ago. Up until early December, you could buy one in many non-CA or NY Wal Marts for $1097. Now they're selling for $2K and up, where you can find one.

Great job of gun control indeed.

I'd also note that people who don't shoot have no idea what ammunition needs are like. There are a significant number of people who are hobbyists and/or competitors in shooting. These folks go through thousands, if not tens of thousands of rounds every month.