Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

January 17, 2013

No it does not. And Militia is not state sponsored nor federally sponsored.

Thankfully the founders left enough notes behind that specifically speak to this:

You're appealing to something outside the Constitution? Whose interpretation of the constitution, or extra-constitutional notes, matter? Yours? The government's?

January 17, 2013

No, it does not.

Yes, it does:

CCC 2316: The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.

January 17, 2013

Yes, it does:

CCC 2316: The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.

Oh, hey. What do you know.

January 17, 2013

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

January 17, 2013

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

It says authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. I'm not saying I agree with the endless laws in place. I will say, however, that authorities do have the duty to make sure that gun ownership doesn't infringe on the right to life. If that means going through a background check, so be it. If that means keeping assault rifles out of the hands of the public, bring it on (like anyone besides the military needs those kinds of guns. Guns are for killing, plain and simple.)

January 17, 2013

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

It is a stronger statement that 'some regulation may be required' it states positively that regulation is a right and duty of the state.

If the state were disarmed to a great degree would you support a great degree of civilian disarmament?

January 17, 2013

It says authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. I'm not saying I agree with the endless laws in place. I will say, however, that authorities do have the duty to make sure that gun ownership doesn't infringe on the right to life. If that means going through a background check, so be it. If that means keeping assault rifles out of the hands of the public, bring it on (like anyone besides the military needs those kinds of guns. Guns are for killing, plain and simple.)

And I think there is a duty for the government to regulate them, to a certain extent. I dont support disarming law abiding people, or telling them that only certain guns/accessories are ok.

Just FYI, Assault Rifles(meaning full auto rifles) have been heavily regulated since 1934, and new production of them was banned in 1986. Preban ones each come with nearly a year of Government NFA paperwork, background checks, and then cost upwards of 20,000$ for something like a full auto m16. They are incredibly expensive, and barely anyone owns them at all.

the other ones you see in the news, are not assault rifles, they merely look like them. They dont function the same, and in fact are not significantly different from millions of hunting/target shooting guns in the USA for the last 110 years, they just have a more modern(sorta, the AR was designed in the 60s) appearance.

It is a stronger statement that 'some regulation may be required' it states positively that regulation is a right and duty of the state.

If the state were disarmed to a great degree would you support a great degree of civilian disarmament?

And that doesnt mean the church would support the same laws as you, just that it is the responsibility of government to enact some laws on the topic. Such as not selling to criminals, etc. If the church has gotten more specific, i would be glad to read it.

No. If we had unarmed police(truly unarmed, even the UK police have access to true military spec guns), i would still want guns for self defense, hunting and recreation and the same ones would still be good at it. However, it would make me a little less angry at arbitrary restrictions if the police went along with them.

No cop would ever be happy walking a beat with a handgun that has half of its ammo capacity blocked off, because it is a needless handicap against criminals, especially so when the criminals are likely not following the law. No one who has ever needed a gun has ever needed *less* ammo.

But if cops need these more capable weapons to deal with and defend from criminals, I dont see why civilians dont. After all, criminals attack civilians WAY more than they ever attack police, and generally the police are responding to deal with criminals that are already posing threats to civilians.

January 17, 2013

AR-15s are NOT assault rifles, no matter what those twits Obama and Biden keep saying.

January 17, 2013

And that doesnt mean the church would support the same laws as you, just that it is the responsibility of government to enact some laws on the topic. Such as not selling to criminals, etc. If the church has gotten more specific, i would be glad to read it.

I never said it did. I simply said that I recalled the Church said that authorities have a right and duty to regulate firearms.

No. If we had unarmed police(truly unarmed, even the UK police have access to true military spec guns), i would still want guns for self defense, hunting and recreation and the same ones would still be good at it. However, it would make me a little less angry at arbitrary restrictions if the police went along with them.

No cop would ever be happy walking a beat with a handgun that has half of its ammo capacity blocked off, because it is a needless handicap against criminals, especially so when the criminals are likely not following the law. No one who has ever needed a gun has ever needed *less* ammo.

But if cops need these more capable weapons to deal with and defend from criminals, I dont see why civilians dont. After all, criminals attack civilians WAY more than they ever attack police, and generally the police are responding to deal with criminals that are already posing threats to civilians.

I think this gets to it. This isn't really about state power. If it were people would be getting on board with squashing the power and influence of the arms industry as they are the prime driver of the militarization of the police (SWAT teams began to proliferate because the industry had managed to get way too much money allocated to the pentagon and there was a glut of armaments which was solved by shifting those resources to police departments). This is about the plain and simple fact that people like guns and knives because they are cool and you can do cool things with them. Which is fine except a lot of people die every year because the US is so saturated with guns.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Hasan

January 17, 2013

The reallity is, restricting certain types of guns have no real effect on people's ability to kill and maim. This has already been proven in the US.

The reallity is, you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence and the fact we have a legally established fundamental right to them.

The uncomfortable reality is that more innocent people (children) are killed from devices such as cars.

If the intent is to protect children and save lives, there are more effective ways of accomplishing this without resulting to emotional, ineffective, unworkable actions that defy reason.

January 17, 2013

The reallity is, restricting certain types of guns have no real effect on people's ability to kill and maim. This has already been proven in the US.

The reallity is, you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence and the fact we have a legally established fundamental right to them.

The uncomfortable reality is that more innocent people (children) are killed from devices such as cars.

If the intent is to protect children and save lives, there are more effective ways of accomplishing this without resulting to emotional, ineffective, unworkable actions that defy reason.

This, I think, is a root issue, that the role of guns in our society is as much a matter of philosophy of technology as anything else. And not everyone accepts that the proliferation of cars in society has been a positive. Rather, like guns, they are counterproductive to their imagined purpose.

The proliferation of cars and guns are both tied to an industrial society that did not exist in the 18th century, and the logic of such a society is very different. I tend to agree with you that "you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence," although I agree probably for different reasons, and I do not rule out the necessity of regulation. To me, the proliferation of armed violence tied up with the industrial violence of the modern state, and thus I do not buy into the Conservative solution that militarizing the people is an antidote, because that's a solution based on an imaginary society that does not actually exist.

Jacques Ellul has some interesting thoughts that are relevant to the current Conservative veneration of the 18th century:

[quote]Technique has rendered traditional democratic doctrines obsoÂlete. This should be regarded as a normal situation, for no political doctrine is eternal. 'When situations change, doctrines must change too. Evolution is necessary, whether it takes place under the inÂfluence of technique or in some other way. But one fact does seem new: what is in question is not merely a change of doctrine; politiÂcal doctrine is being called upon to play a fundamentally different role. In the nineteenth century, political doctrine was strongly preÂscriptive and constitutive; this was consonant both with the whole idealist and romantic movement and with the belief in progress. Men were convinced of the omnipotence of ideas and were preÂpared to put into action doctrines which appeared to them to be just. Doctrinal motives played a role of prime importance in the Revolution of 1789. Napoleon I was disgraced because of his lack of doctrine, a deficiency which Napoleon III sought to overcome. Republics and even monarchies were anxious to apply that docÂtrine which was most just. Political doctrine, whatever its content, established an end to be attained. It represented the best form of government, founded in reason ( rather than in history) and in phiÂlosophy. The problem was to realize the ideal. Doctrine was the criterion of action; it was the judge not so much of whether the acÂtion was well or ill done as of whether the action was valid with reÂspect to the doctrine itself. Even Marx was of this mind; for him also, doctrine represented the end and criterion of action. ManiÂfestly, doctrine dominated political life; it was no mere conceit but

a reality.

With the introduction of technical development into the life of the state, the situation becomes completely different; doctrine merely explicative and justifying. It no longer represents the end; the end is defined by the autonomous operation of techniques. It is no longer the criterion of action; the sole criterion of action consists in knowing whether or not technique has been correctly used, and no political theory can tell us that.

Political doctrine, since about 1914, works in this way: the state is forced by the operation of its own proper techniques to form its doctrine of government on the basis of technical necessities. These necessities compel action in the same way that techniques permit it. Political theory comes along to explain action in its ideological aspect and in its practical aspect ( frequently without indicating its purely technical motives ) . Finally, political doctrine intervenes to justify action and to show that it corresponds to ideals and to moral principles. The man of the present feels a great need for justificaÂtion. He needs the conviction that his government is not only effiÂcient but just. Unfortunately, efficiency is a fact and justice a slogan.

--Jaqcues Ellul, "The Technological Society"[/quote]

January 17, 2013

Good post, Era.

Boils down to a caution of being careful of getting what the dream you wished for, it's not neccesarily what you wanted in application.

Kinda like the kids who asked the magician for wings. Got them and said "I'm an angel!" The magician said "No, you're a buzzard.".

January 17, 2013

Good post, Era.

Boils down to a caution of being careful of getting what the dream you wished for, it's not neccesarily what you wanted in application.

Kinda like the kids who asked the magician for wings. Got them and said "I'm an angel!" The magician said "No, you're a buzzard.".

January 17, 2013

The reallity is, restricting certain types of guns have no real effect on people's ability to kill and maim. This has already been proven in the US.

Whe was that proven and how?

The reallity is, you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence and the fact we have a legally established fundamental right to them.

The uncomfortable reality is that more innocent people (children) are killed from devices such as cars.

If the intent is to protect children and save lives, there are more effective ways of accomplishing this without resulting to emotional, ineffective, unworkable actions that defy reason.

Which is why cars are regulated to great effect. Everything is unworkable until somebody does it. We could clean up a lot of guns pretty easily and it is within the powers of the government to do things to cripples the arms industry. Will they? Probably not. But it is a choice.

January 17, 2013

You're appealing to something outside the Constitution? Whose interpretation of the constitution, or extra-constitutional notes, matter? Yours? The government's?

The founding fathers of the Constitution. Their opinion, their intentions carry the most weight as they were the ones who started everything. A Supreme Court deciding on how to interpret the Constitution was not envisioned by the Founders nor directed to make the pronouncements it does today as it basically invented that "right."

According to guncite.com

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist, No. 29,

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Further analysis on "militia" and "well regulated."

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#MI

The site has loads more to say, but I have found it to be a great resource in understanding what the 2nd Amendment really means and why it is so critical to protect it and follow it.

January 17, 2013

The founding fathers of the Constitution. Their opinion, their intentions carry the most weight as they were the ones who started everything. A Supreme Court deciding on how to interpret the Constitution was not envisioned by the Founders nor directed to make the pronouncements it does today as it basically invented that "right."

So if I can't trust the government, I should trust a website on the Internet? I'm not asking you to prove your interpretation of the Second Amendment, simply asking who decides these things. What if I disagree with you about the meaning of the Second Amendment, and I advocate laws based on my interpretation.

Happened to watch this the other day, you might be interested, an author on CSPAN talking about what he calls the "Frankenfounder" myth, the homogenization of the Founding Fathers into a single mind. He also suggests that the Founders has become a sort of quasi-religious document for some people and interpreted the way they interpret the Bible:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/14131/After+Words+Michael+Austin+Thats+Not+What+They+Meant+Reclaiming+the+Founding+Fathers+from+Americas+Right+Wing+hosted+by+David+Fontana+George+Washington+University+Law+School.aspx

January 17, 2013

So if I can't trust the government, I should trust a website on the Internet? I'm not asking you to prove your interpretation of the Second Amendment, simply asking who decides these things. What if I disagree with you about the meaning of the Second Amendment, and I advocate laws based on my interpretation.

Happened to watch this the other day, you might be interested, an author on CSPAN talking about what he calls the "Frankenfounder" myth, the homogenization of the Founding Fathers into a single mind. He also suggests that the Founders has become a sort of quasi-religious document for some people and interpreted the way they interpret the Bible:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/14131/After+Words+Michael+Austin+Thats+Not+What+They+Meant+Reclaiming+the+Founding+Fathers+from+Americas+Right+Wing+hosted+by+David+Fontana+George+Washington+University+Law+School.aspx

The website provides citations for its quotes. :| If you just dismiss something even with citations, then you really can't trust anything and the issue of the 2nd Amendment is hardly the real matter of concern.

Basically, does it make more sense to base a reference on the starting point of something, or on your own? Again, the 2nd Amendment is immaterial at this point. We could be debating anything.....let's say the Bible. Why should I interpret the Bible in light of the Church that compiled it as opposed to me just opening it and deciding for myself?

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I get an opportunity.

January 17, 2013

The website provides citations for its quotes. :| If you just dismiss something even with citations, then you really can't trust anything and the issue of the 2nd Amendment is hardly the real matter of concern.

Basically, does it make more sense to base a reference on the starting point of something, or on your own? Again, the 2nd Amendment is immaterial at this point. We could be debating anything.....let's say the Bible. Why should I interpret the Bible in light of the Church that compiled it as opposed to me just opening it and deciding for myself?

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I get an opportunity.

The government is not the church, and politics is not theology. Politics is about finding the best ways to live in society, in world that changes.

I am not dismissing anything, but your interpretation of things is probably going to be different from mine. In which case, who decides?

To me, the guiding principle of politics is the here and now, not trying to construct an ideology out of a document written 250 years ago. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

That is not to say I am uninterested in the legal details of these debates. But that is not what motivates me. I do not want to disarm every last person in the country, because that's not going to solve the problem anymore than our prison system solves the problem of crime. But I also don't look at laissez-faire anarchy as a solution, either. There are ways to be creative with law to address problems that we have.

Ultimately, I don't take a worshipful attitude toward the law. I do not lose sleep because people have guns, but neither do I lose sleep because people immigrate illegally, or join gangs, or jaywalk. I do not believe in painting everything with a broad criminalizing brush...society is human, and I think the point of politics and law should be to accommodate humanity as much as possible.

Trying to live by a purist interpretation of a document from the 18th century is like trying to follow the Mosaic law the same way they did in ancient Israel. It doesn't work. Society did not begin or end in the 18th century.

January 17, 2013

Whe was that proven and how?

Which is why cars are regulated to great effect. Everything is unworkable until somebody does it. We could clean up a lot of guns pretty easily and it is within the powers of the government to do things to cripples the arms industry. Will they? Probably not. But it is a choice.

You are more intelligent than that.

Regulate cars to great effect?

Go to the CDC. Under 18 children are more thant 5 times likely to be killed by vehicles than a person under 25 (includes 'gang-bangers') is likely to be killed by a fire arm (intentional and accidental).

Why do we have high performance sports cars that exceed safe speed limits that endanger everyone traveling on the road?

To equivocate guns and car regulation and the desire to save or protect children, consider what is more likely to kill a child by a factor of +5. There's roughly an equivelant number of cars as there are guns, definitely not 5 times as many cars.

Gun laws only restrict legal access to guns. Considering you cannot take 250 million guns away from US Citizens, gun laws are not going to have a significant effect in removing guns from US Society.

It's complete BS to say that new gun laws were/are/or will be effective in saving a significant number of children's lives. Children are endangered in a school by anyone with intent to do them harm. Gun laws are lies that are appeasing emotions of the masses, a political ploy for power and aggrandization, or a manipulation to show how nice a person you are.

January 17, 2013

The government is not the church, and politics is not theology. Politics is about finding the best ways to live in society, in world that changes.

I am not dismissing anything, but your interpretation of things is probably going to be different from mine. In which case, who decides?

To me, the guiding principle of politics is the here and now, not trying to construct an ideology out of a document written 250 years ago. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

That is not to say I am uninterested in the legal details of these debates. But that is not what motivates me. I do not want to disarm every last person in the country, because that's not going to solve the problem anymore than our prison system solves the problem of crime. But I also don't look at laissez-faire anarchy as a solution, either. There are ways to be creative with law to address problems that we have.

Ultimately, I don't take a worshipful attitude toward the law. I do not lose sleep because people have guns, but neither do I lose sleep because people immigrate illegally, or join gangs, or jaywalk. I do not believe in painting everything with a broad criminalizing brush...society is human, and I think the point of politics and law should be to accommodate humanity as much as possible.

Trying to live by a purist interpretation of a document from the 18th century is like trying to follow the Mosaic law the same way they did in ancient Israel. It doesn't work. Society did not begin or end in the 18th century.

Hey......

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Hmmmm.....

Sign In

Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

Recommended Posts

Era Might

Fidei Defensor

4588686

Jesus_lol

Fidei Defensor

4588686

Jesus_lol

Groo the Wanderer

4588686

Anomaly

Era Might

Anomaly

Anomaly

4588686

eagle_eye222001

Era Might

eagle_eye222001

Era Might

Anomaly

4588686

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in