LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Kaizer]

Is it weird that I don't associate this situation at all with patriotism?

We haven't really seen how this is hurting all the people yet. The death toll was fairly low and until they have some good ties to foreign terrorists groups and we actually see the stories of the dozens of amputees I'm not feeling the sense that this was an attack on America like 9/11 was.

the only thing ive heard so far was from my fiance. she saw on TV (i'm guessing CNN) that one of the bombers was kicked out of a mosque for being too anti american. heard 3rd-hand from a flimsy source so, yeah. its possible i guess.

[shafnutz05]

Godwin's Law.

What's the law for the words "hicks", "rednecks", or "south" being brought up any time someone is attacking a conservative principle?

[columbia]

Speaking the Truth?

[Sarcastic]

1. How will you convince a gun owner to enter his guns into a database? Say he doesn’t want to. If there is no database, then the government doesn’t know who is failing to register with the database. Sure you can make it illegal to not register, but that’s like making it illegal to drive more than 55 mph on a remote highway where drivers know with certainty that no cops are around for miles.

Hard to get all guns in the database at this point, but this is the exact failure of the government lacking the balls to force this issue years ago. But you have to start somewhere. And maybe you can add some incentive for existing owners to register the older stuff they have. Listen. If you have to register your CAR and whatever else you can think of, there is no reason why one shouldn't register a GUN that can actually kill people. This shouldn't even be an argument, but I believe it is because of all the dumb hicks in the South who think there is a war coming with the government and they just don't want to let go. And, of course, the lobby that keeps pushing and pushing the fight to ensure less regulations and more gunsales.

There are no organizations devoted to banning and confiscating cars. There are organizations—like the Brady Campaign, MAIG, and the VPC—that have the avowed purpose of banning and confiscating guns. While there is not public support for that goal, they view each incremental step of increased gun control as a step towards that goal. Representatives of those organizations have made explicit statements that they want to see the end of private gun ownership.

As I’ve said on here before, gun owners view a national gun registry with the same level of skepticism that a Jew would hold when facing proposals from neo-Nazi organizations for the establishment of a national Jewish registry. In both cases, it’s rather obvious that the purpose of the registry is to serve as Step One for a subsequent Step Two of elimination. For a great many gun owners, there is no way in hell they would ever register anything with the government. And evidence shows that noncompliance has been rampant in past registration efforts. Heck, even in Canada far less than half of gun owners registered their guns with the national database. Do you really think Americans would be even that compliant?

And gun owners are not all “hicks.” From a survey conducted by the NSSF, the typical owner of a modern sporting rifle (called “assault weapons” by anti-gunners) is 35-plus years old, married, and has at least some college education. 88% have attended or graduated from college. 52% report an annual household income of $75k or more, and almost a quarter make $110k per year or more. Sound like a bunch of toothless country bumpkins? I have plenty of friends who shoot, hunt, and own guns, and every one of them is a college graduate with a professional or technical job. Not one is a professional possum hunter.

Don't even compare gun registry to a Jew registry. That's just completely retarded and if those people believe that then they need to see a professional. Talk about paranoia. Same with thing with the government going around homes confiscating guns. There supposedly is 90% public support for the registry anyway, and even a majority in the NRA agree, according to that one guy who left the organization.

Seems like most of the opposition is from the South where people aren't as educated and maybe be why they're so easily persuaded by the NRA with their BS logic. Not sure about your survey but if most gun shootings occur in the South, then there is a reason for that.

[shafnutz05]

Don't even compare gun registry to a Jew registry. That's just completely retarded and if those people believe that then they need to see a professional. Talk about paranoia. Same with thing with the government going around homes confiscating guns. There supposedly is 90% public support for the registry anyway, and even a majority in the NRA agree, according to that one guy who left the organization.

Seems like most of the opposition is from the South where people aren't as educated and maybe be why they're so easily persuaded by the NRA with their BS logic. Not sure about your survey but if most gun shootings occur in the South, then there is a reason for that.

This is exactly why gun owners are so defensive. Shyster just made a point illustrating that the vast majority of so-called "assault rifles" don't even fit the demographic you so adamantly want to pigeonhole everyone into. It's incredible to me...sure, Shyster took the example much further, but why shouldn't gun owners be extremely skeptical of a federal gun registry?

To go on, THE FRIGGING ACLU even spoke out against it. As several have rightfully stated, for the ACLU to take up the mantle of any issue peripherally related to gun control, there is good reason to be alarmed.

And as I've stated before...civil liberties have been eroding steadily for years, and the loss of privacy, etc has exponentially increased after 9/11. Now, many are advocating all gun owners being stored in a federal gun registry containing all of our personal information. And yet, after all of the infringements and "small steps" the federal government has taken to expand their executive power, it is completely unreasonable and paranoid to think eventual confiscation of guns deemed "unsafe" for personal use are an eventual result of forced gun registration.

[MRandall25]

Where are people getting this 90% number from?

[doublem]

the bill of rights doesn't stop at 2. we have had massive police state going on since 9-11. hey just look at how long it took to shut down Boston. forcing people out of their homes, police bringing families milk. ughh. hey, I'm all for the second amendment but what are you going to do to stop the gov't now? and in principle it's a good idea to stop the gov't or police, to keep them in check, but in 2013 its really pointless. hey the fbi can be at your house before you even leave it, that's if they aren't to busy foiling their own terrorist plots

[Shyster]

Don't even compare gun registry to a Jew registry. That's just completely retarded and if those people believe that then they need to see a professional. Talk about paranoia. Same with thing with the government going around homes confiscating guns. There supposedly is 90% public support for the registry anyway, and even a majority in the NRA agree, according to that one guy who left the organization. Seems like most of the opposition is from the South where people aren't as educated and maybe be why they're so easily persuaded by the NRA with their BS logic. Not sure about your survey but if most gun shootings occur in the South, then there is a reason for that.

So do I hold my opinions because I’ve been “brainwashed” by the NRA? Due to my lack of education, perhaps? (Keep in mind that from where I am presently sitting, if I look about 30° up and to the left I will see my B.S. and J.D. diplomas hanging on the wall right next to my Phi Beta Kappa certificate.)

I understand that people don’t like it when others disagree with them, so it’s tempting—but ultimately incorrect—to ascribe ill motives to those who do so. I think you need to realize that the fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are operating out of fear, ignorance, malice, or some other illegitimate reason. I believe you are incorrect, but I don’t assume you hold your positions because you are uneducated. This commentary from Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute may interest you:

Gun Debate Won’t End until There Is Respect on Both Sides
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... both-sides

And do I assume that everyone who is in favor of increased gun control is out to ban guns? No, I don’t. Gun violence is a problem, and people are looking for solutions. But it is the case that there are people who absolutely do not believe in private gun ownership, and some of those people are working for the organizations that promote more gun control. Thus, I view efforts for increased gun control with a great deal of skepticism.

[Shyster]

And as I've stated before...civil liberties have been eroding steadily for years, and the loss of privacy, etc has exponentially increased after 9/11. Now, many are advocating all gun owners being stored in a federal gun registry containing all of our personal information. And yet, after all of the infringements and "small steps" the federal government has taken to expand their executive power, it is completely unreasonable and paranoid to think eventual confiscation of guns deemed "unsafe" for personal use are an eventual result of forced gun registration.

Speaking of increased government power, here’s a video taken of the “voluntary” door-to-door searches that were done in Watertown to search for the bomber. Apparently, none of these officers have ever heard of the Fourth Amendment (or they just don’t care).

[ExPatriatePen]

And as I've stated before...civil liberties have been eroding steadily for years, and the loss of privacy, etc has exponentially increased after 9/11. Now, many are advocating all gun owners being stored in a federal gun registry containing all of our personal information. And yet, after all of the infringements and "small steps" the federal government has taken to expand their executive power, it is completely unreasonable and paranoid to think eventual confiscation of guns deemed "unsafe" for personal use are an eventual result of forced gun registration.

Speaking of increased government power, here’s a video taken of the “voluntary” door-to-door searches that were done in Watertown to search for the bomber. Apparently, none of these officers have ever heard of the Fourth Amendment (or they just don’t care).

Spoiler:

Why should they? It's not like they're going to be held accountable or anything.

[shafnutz05]

That's terrifying

[doublem]

that's a police state.

[Sarcastic]

And as I've stated before...civil liberties have been eroding steadily for years, and the loss of privacy, etc has exponentially increased after 9/11. Now, many are advocating all gun owners being stored in a federal gun registry containing all of our personal information. And yet, after all of the infringements and "small steps" the federal government has taken to expand their executive power, it is completely unreasonable and paranoid to think eventual confiscation of guns deemed "unsafe" for personal use are an eventual result of forced gun registration.

The privacy issue is of concern and we agree on that. I can't predict the future, but the 2nd amendment is what irks me about that whole thing as I don't feel it applies anymore. People seem to want to use the Constitution for what I sometimes think are false reasons. Freedom of speech is another and how it seems to be used to justify seemingly everything today. As I said, I remember an oppressive government and this, yet, isn't it. Try North Korea, for one.

And do I assume that everyone who is in favor of increased gun control is out to ban guns? No, I don’t. Gun violence is a problem, and people are looking for solutions. But it is the case that there are people who absolutely do not believe in private gun ownership, and some of those people are working for the organizations that promote more gun control. Thus, I view efforts for increased gun control with a great deal of skepticism.

You can view them with skepticism and I can understand that, but if guns aren't being banned across the rest of the world and there is virtually no talk of that as far as I know, there is zero chance they're going to be banned here. Maybe in 50 years when we are moving to a different kind of society, one world government mixed with wealthy corporations, like in a sci-fi movie.

And Shyster, you know I respect you, but you also know there are many dumb people in the South, so let's leave it as that. Problem I have is people buying guns off the grid so no one knows who has them or how many and then we all wonder how a tragedy happened.

I still have not heard one single solution from your side that makes any sense in combating the problem. Arming the entire society, as the NRA would like, isn't it. As least with some level of increased control over this stuff, it can get better, although, as I said before, with so many guns around, it may take years to make an impact.

We can go back and forth like this forever and it's just not going to result in anything because we differ here. I am not trying to take your gun away. I'm trying to have owners register so if they sell it to some bastard, we know where he got it from and we can act accordingly. Maybe then the fear will be so high that it will lead to decreased illegal sales, if you get the punishment right.

[Sarcastic]

Speaking of increased government power, here’s a video taken of the “voluntary” door-to-door searches that were done in Watertown to search for the bomber. Apparently, none of these officers have ever heard of the Fourth Amendment (or they just don’t care).

There was one video I watched once where the cops stormed in, scared the hell out of the entire family, shot the family dog dead - the guy kept screaming that they shot his dog which was absolutely horrifying. I don't know what happened in the following weeks or if any of those cops were punished. I can still remember those screams because the audio was pretty loud. That is something you sue for and hope to get a hell of a lot of money.

[tifosi77]

I am a gun guy, but I am not a 2A guy. I quite firmly believe that both sides of the debate in today's world have little grasp on what the 2nd Amendment actually meant in the language of the day, yet both sides frequently point to a desire to return to the original meaning of the Amendment...... and I think both sides would be pretty upset if that came to pass.

Those on the left cite three words from the first clause of the Amendment - "well regulated militia" - ad nauseum and claim that's the extent of the right to keep and bear arms. But they would be beside themselves if we actually did that, because as those words were understood in 1789 would mean a virtual requirement for all able-bodied males to possess the same types of weapons they would be using when the militia mustered; in today's parlance, that means an AR-15 and a pistol of either 9mm or .45 ACP caliber. Each weapon would, naturally, feature several high-capacity magazines. So not exactly the desired outcome.

The right would be beside themselves because militia muster would be pretty much the only context in which individual citizens could use those weapons. And the militia of 1789 was meant to take the place of a standing army, but that is no longer how our military is organized. The militia the Framers were talking about does not, in any real capacity, exist in 2013. Sure, it exists as a matter of legislation (The Militia Act of 1903), but I do not recall ever attending a muster even tho I still have five more years of eligibility to serve.

(Again, we are talking about the federal Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Individual states may have different definitions of this right as regards self-defense, hunting, etc.)

That said, the Amendment has been interpreted over time by our courts to mean something far broader, I think, than was intended. So we now have a situation where we are having a very serious debate over a Constitutional right.... and regardless of my opinions about guns, I get squeamish contemplating restrictions on Constitutional rights. To be honest, I'd almost be less inclined to protest if the debate was about revising the Amendment itself rather than all this bluster about peripheral measures. (Which can't really accomplish anything meaningful, anyway.) There are myriad structural hurdles to clear when talking about amending the Constitution, and so it is largely immune to idiocy. (Largely is not the same as completely) However, simply passing a bill and signing it into law is another matter. It is something that can be done almost cavalierly, and so I am inherently skeptical when that flawed method is used to shape the exercise of rights that are meant to be much more difficult to hinder.

[Shyster]

The privacy issue is of concern and we agree on that. I can't predict the future, but the 2nd amendment is what irks me about that whole thing as I don't feel it applies anymore. People seem to want to use the Constitution for what I sometimes think are false reasons. Freedom of speech is another and how it seems to be used to justify seemingly everything today. As I said, I remember an oppressive government and this, yet, isn't it. Try North Korea, for one.

If you lived under an oppressive government, I don’t understand why are you so blasé about this government heading in the same direction. Are we North Korea? Heck no. We would have to go a long way to get to that. But that doesn’t mean that we should be okay with any slide in that direction. That’s like having someone cut off one of your fingers and you rationalize it by saying “I still have nine left.” I’d prefer to keep all of my fingers to begin with.

You can view them with skepticism and I can understand that, but if guns aren't being banned across the rest of the world and there is virtually no talk of that as far as I know, there is zero chance they're going to be banned here. Maybe in 50 years when we are moving to a different kind of society, one world government mixed with wealthy corporations, like in a sci-fi movie.

There are plenty of nations with stricter gun controls than the United States, and we’re had gun confiscations in places like Australia and Great Britain in the last couple decades. Guns are being banned across the world.

I still have not heard one single solution from your side that makes any sense in combating the problem.

Of what problem? Murder? Men has been killing each other for all of human history. Heck, I’m not religious, but if you’re into the Bible stuff I understand that one of the earliest events in the Bible is that one son of the first human male whacks the other son.

People want an easy solution to violence, so they propose banning guns. But that’s like banning ropes and expecting that suicide will drop. People will still kill each other even without guns. And I’ll propose something right now that I believe will reduce homicide in the United States: legalize drugs. A lot of shootings are drug/gang related, and legalizing drugs will take away the motivation for those shootings.

[MWB]

And gun owners are not all “hicks.” From a survey conducted by the NSSF, the typical owner of a modern sporting rifle (called “assault weapons” by anti-gunners) is 35-plus years old, married, and has at least some college education. 88% have attended or graduated from college. 52% report an annual household income of $75k or more, and almost a quarter make $110k per year or more. Sound like a bunch of toothless country bumpkins? I have plenty of friends who shoot, hunt, and own guns, and every one of them is a college graduate with a professional or technical job. Not one is a professional possum hunter.

The whole discussion of gun ownership in relation to education is kind of pointless. What does a college education have to so with gun safety and proper gun usage? I bet plenty of college grad gun owners aren't responsible gun owns. Honestly, if someone near me is packing, I'd rather it be a "country bumpkin" than not.

Also, regarding those numbers.... How accurate do you think they are? Yes, plenty of college grads would respnd to the survey, but most likely not as many "hicks" would. That says nothing bad about the latter.

[shafnutz05]

You make a fair point. Some people assume that because someone is a "hick", they are completely irresponsible gun owners that will shoot anyone coming on their property on sight.

[MRandall25]

Some people also assume all gun owners are hicks, which is why Shyster even brought up college grads in the first place.

[Sarcastic]

If you lived under an oppressive government, I don’t understand why are you so blasé about this government heading in the same direction. Are we North Korea? Heck no. We would have to go a long way to get to that. But that doesn’t mean that we should be okay with any slide in that direction. That’s like having someone cut off one of your fingers and you rationalize it by saying “I still have nine left.” I’d prefer to keep all of my fingers to begin with.

I'm really not blase about it. Believe me, I share the view about eroding rights with all of you and I am getting worried. I just believe that guns should be registered and kept track of to lessen the spread of those weapons into wrong hands. I don't believe there is anything wrong with owners having to register and regularly submit proof they still have them.

There are plenty of nations with stricter gun controls than the United States, and we’re had gun confiscations in places like Australia and Great Britain in the last couple decades. Guns are being banned across the world.

And does it work? Seems like we're the nation where most shooting happens. Yes, I know.. the culture. But I also feel it's lack of regulation. I don't know what happened in those two countries, but as far as I know you can still own guns there.

And I’ll propose something right now that I believe will reduce homicide in the United States: legalize drugs. A lot of shootings are drug/gang related, and legalizing drugs will take away the motivation for those shootings.

That would certainly help lower then number of incidents. Unlikely to happen, though. But it's more than that, as a lot of shootings are done by people close to the victims. Someone posted a graph a few months ago that was pretty telling.

[shafnutz05]

And does it work? Seems like we're the nation where most shooting happens. Yes, I know.. the culture. But I also feel it's lack of regulation. I don't know what happened in those two countries, but as far as I know you can still own guns there.

A couple things. First off, there is absolutely no denying it is a cultural problem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/

As you can see from the pretty bar graphs, the vast, VAST majority of gun murders are committed by a demographic that makes up 12% of the population. Rather than look at stricter gun controls as the answer, maybe we should ask why black Americans simply can't stop killing each other? Because in my opinion, there is no question that addressing the astronomically higher murder rate among black Americans is probably a lot more relevant as to addressing the issue of murder in the United States.

The facts are the facts. Is a national gun registry going to stop hoods from getting illegal weapons (which they probably own illegally now anyway) and going out gangbanging? I highly, highly doubt it. Nor will most of the other measures that so many politicians insist will lower the murder rate. Isn't it funny that politicians/the media/many people don't seem to want strict gun control until a white person goes and shoots up a bunch of other white people?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

Regarding violent crime like rape and robbery, the UK and Australia are worse off than the United States, despite their extremely strict gun control laws. You know what? I am pretty happy with where I live and my relative risk of being a victim of any of the above crimes. Seeing as the vast majority of this crime is committed by the urban population, my risk factor is quite low as long as I am intelligent about where and where not to visit. To borrow a line from another article I've read recently, America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.

[columbia]

Having what appears to be a permanent underclass doesn't help matters.

[shafnutz05]

Having what appears to be a permanent underclass doesn't help matters.

That certainly doesn't help either, and that's another great idea as to something that should be addressed. But people like to pretend that strict gun control is some kind of magical answer to the murder problem in the United States. It simply is not, and it most certainly won't prevent other types of violent crime, as we've learned from other case studies. As cliche as this sounds, it has a wildly disproportionate effect on law-abiding Americans, and will have little or no effect on the criminals that have grown up in a culture that embraces gun violence.

[King Sid the Great 87]

Maybe if our country was as generous to the poor as they are during times of crisis, violent crimes would go down?

[shafnutz05]

Maybe if our country was as generous to the poor as they are during times of crisis, violent crimes would go down?

Heheh. Quite frankly, I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer either. I honestly don't have a solution to the problem...