After a getting a "WARNO" previously, ASMDSS and Stolen Valor received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as this is Active and Retired members.
Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.
29 Jan 2013 Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective. First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down? In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.
A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?
The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.
If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
---END---
1100 Green Berets Signed the above Letter
Stolen Valor has list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
Good luck finding a consensus to that effect in the psychological community. If anything the majority to studies into the subject have determined the opposite to be true. In the words I made having borrowed an idea from Total Biscuit; "Take a nerd who plays Call of Duty all day, send him to the site of a suicide bombing in Pakistan or Iraq, and let me know how desensitized he is when he sees the bodies children strewn across the street in pieces."
And then there's the dribble about various historical events and precedents, which really aren't necessarily relevant to the gun debate at all. Just something thrown out by pro-gun groups to distract from the actual discussion. Are shoot outs in rural towns in Tennessee between fellow citizens really a valid justification for gun rights/control or is that a whole different set of problems?
However I remember back when the Sandyhook shooting was fresh a discussion with a field that did raise this point and they've raised it as well. Are tragedies like the Colorado Theater Shooting, the Sandyhook Shooting, and Columbine indicators of a gun problem or a mental illness problem? Is it possible that the United States as a country, has policies and a culture pertaining to mental illness, not guns, that has made these things possible? I haven't thought to much on it, being too busy doing other things, but its certainly a position I'd like to hear more about.
It was well thought out and reasonably written with several intellegent points. Obama, Biden, and other clowns like them therefore will pay no attention to it.
The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
Seaward wrote: The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
Seaward wrote: The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
It would make about as much sense to limit beer to 2 percent to cut down on drunk driving fatalities as it does to limit mag size.
Seaward wrote: The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
"clips"? Whats zat?
Ammunition cartridges. Current obsession is that the bigger the mag, the more fatalities it can produce, hence limit the size that a person can carry in their weapon. The argument falls apart when you look at how handguns are the lions share of weapon fatalities in the US by a large margin.
Seaward wrote: The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
"clips"? Whats zat?
Ammunition cartridges. Current obsession is that the bigger the mag, the more fatalities it can produce, hence limit the size that a person can carry in their weapon. The argument falls apart when you look at how handguns are the lions share of weapon fatalities in the US by a large margin.
How in the hell does being a spec ops soldier make you better qualified to discuss the impact of guns in a civilian population than anyone else? Why should we listen to them anymore than we should listen to, I don't know, a bunch of Hollywood celebrities?
Other than, you know, that they're agreeing with the pro-gun people here... therefore their opinions must be well informed.
chaos0xomega wrote: What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period.
Oh, and these stats? Totally misleading bs. You might not have read my post in one of the other gun threads, in which I talked about the NRA's habit of telling lies about gun stats, but it was because another poster was relying on the same kind of nonsense you see above - picking out single year variance and pretending it shows a damning greater trend. You can seen the nonsense right there in the post - a reference to the 1997 ban of firearms, and then a mention that in 2003 gun crimes and gun homicides jumped. Why not the 2002 trend in gun crime, or 2004. Why pick out just the trend from 2002 to 2003?
Because they're lying to you. They're picking out a year where the random variations in stats showed a jump upwards, and gave it to you pretending it was anything more than that. It's why statisticians look at trends over long periods, over a decade or more.
Anyhow, here's the numbers for the number of homicides committed by gun in Great Britain, for each year from 1998 onwards; 2009: 18 2008: 32 2007: 22 2006: 51 2005: 41 2004: 52 2003: 41 2002: 31 2001: 41 1999: 45 1998: 33
As you can see the numbers jump up and down a bit, as you'd expect for any set that is very small compared to the total population. The correlation coefficient is -0.39. That means, year on year, the trend is for gun deaths to drop by .39, or slightly more than 10% of the average of 37 per year.
Which is how actual, decent, analysis is done - trends shown over decades, not by cherry picking one year that shows what you'd like it to show.
"The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind"
lolwut
Its incredibly difficult to take anyone's opinion seriously when making outlandish claims like that.
I furthermore don't understand America's obsession with firearms.
Pretty much this. The Magna Carta, Torah, Bible, Quran Collected works of Martin Luther, a whole lot of scientific documents and reality called and asked for the hyperbole to end.
I've never understood the obsession with the Constitution "because it's old". Being old doesn't have to mean it's useful in society today, otherwise we'd still be using the Code of Hammurabi, a truly old document as opposed to a mere 230-ish years old one.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.
How do you think the first amendment is being restricted at all? Are we going to ban you from thinking or saying what you want? No, however actions are something you can do about in this country and therefore we can stop someone from changing the legislation... where are you interpreting restriction of the first amendment ?
@sebster: Yes, focus on single variants is often shown in arguments whether they be from the Nra, Anti-gun lobbyists or any other persuasively inclined groups simply for the sake of being more persuasive. This is deplorable but an easily recognizable tactic for anyone doing their research (which people should be doing anyway so fool on you if you fall for it)
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.
How do you think the first amendment is being restricted at all? Are we going to ban you from thinking or saying what you want? No, however actions are something you can do about in this country and therefore we can stop someone from changing the legislation... where are you interpreting restriction of the first amendment ?
Probably this part here which can certainly be easily interpreted as a call for a restriction on the first amendment:
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
That was my first thought on reading that section, all though this is not directed specifically at the government and seems to be more of a social commentary thing. With that said, I like my gratuitously violent games and movies, thank you very much. Also, as LordofHats said, there is no consensus by psychologists as a whole that this is accurate, and there are many studies that point out no real correlation between exposure to simulated violence in media like video games and movies and real violent tendencies.
That doesn't mean there isn't good stuff in this letter; we really do need to do more to address serious mental health issues in this country.
"The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind"
lolwut
Its incredibly difficult to take anyone's opinion seriously when making outlandish claims like that.
I furthermore don't understand America's obsession with firearms.
Pretty much this. The Magna Carta, Torah, Bible, Quran Collected works of Martin Luther, a whole lot of scientific documents and reality called and asked for the hyperbole to end.
I've never understood the obsession with the Constitution "because it's old". Being old doesn't have to mean it's useful in society today, otherwise we'd still be using the Code of Hammurabi, a truly old document as opposed to a mere 230-ish years old one.
This document was written for and presumably bt special forces members........ excuse them if they think the document they swore to protect and die for was the greatest one ever written.... if they thought it was gak they wouldnt exactly be putting their lives on the line for it now would they?
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
So they're willing to sacrifice the first amendment in order to keep the second? That's messed up.
azazel the cat wrote: So they're willing to sacrifice the first amendment in order to keep the second? That's messed up.
And more than that, it's just such a fething stupid line of thought. The US has a problem with gun murder that is unique among first world countries. And it has a shed load more guns than any other first world country. So you'd think right there you've got a pretty good idea that having loads of things that are for shooting stuff is linked to all the people getting shot.
But then you've got media violence... something the US has a lot of, but so does every other first world country. You know, all the countries with homicide rates that are about a fifth the rate you see in the US. Hmm, let's see, Britain has the exact same violent movies and video games we do, and they had about 30 gun murders last year... while we had about 10,000. Well that's clearly what it's all about.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.
How do you think the first amendment is being restricted at all? Are we going to ban you from thinking or saying what you want? No, however actions are something you can do about in this country and therefore we can stop someone from changing the legislation... where are you interpreting restriction of the first amendment ?
Because they talk about the problems of violent films and videogames, both of which are protected.
Seaward wrote: The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
"clips"? Whats zat?
Ammunition cartridges. Current obsession is that the bigger the mag, the more fatalities it can produce, hence limit the size that a person can carry in their weapon. The argument falls apart when you look at how handguns are the lions share of weapon fatalities in the US by a large margin.
What I think is humorous is despite the fact you were trying to help in good faith clip:ammunition cartridge about as much as pez dispenser: square candies.
sebster wrote: How in the hell does being a spec ops soldier make you better qualified to discuss the impact of guns in a civilian population than anyone else? Why should we listen to them anymore than we should listen to, I don't know, a bunch of Hollywood celebrities?
Other than, you know, that they're agreeing with the pro-gun people here... therefore their opinions must be well informed.
Maybe because a big part of what Special Forces do is work with foreign populations and resistance movements to train and lead them in unconventional warfare?
Seaward wrote: The trouble is the people who would care about their opinion already agree with them. Those who would not are busy dreaming up five-round mag limits. Excuse me, "clip" limits.
"clips"? Whats zat?
Ammunition cartridges. Current obsession is that the bigger the mag, the more fatalities it can produce, hence limit the size that a person can carry in their weapon. The argument falls apart when you look at how handguns are the lions share of weapon fatalities in the US by a large margin.
Clips aren't magazines. Anytime someone says clip it means they are ignorant. Its like saying my tank's almost empty and I need to fill up my gas tank with oil.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.
How do you think the first amendment is being restricted at all? Are we going to ban you from thinking or saying what you want? No, however actions are something you can do about in this country and therefore we can stop someone from changing the legislation... where are you interpreting restriction of the first amendment ?
Because they talk about the problems of violent films and videogames, both of which are protected.
Hey if you're going to restrict my rights, I'm 100% behind the government restricting all of yours.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.
The second ammendment helps protect the first ammendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Case in point, Syrians are using guns to overthrow a tyrant who looks set to go down even though he has the tanks and planes.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.
The second ammendment helps protect the first ammendment.
Pro-tip: it really, really, reaaaaaaaally doesn't.
Unless of course you are the type of murican that thinks that free speech doesn't exist in the rest of the first world countries.
Just because freedom of speech exists in other first-world countries doesn't mean that the second amendment doesn't help protect our other rights in the US. If we didn't have the 2nd amendment, that does not mean the government would instantly become tyrannical. However, the 2nd amendment helps to guard against that possibility and makes it easier for citizens to do something about it if it does happen.
In no way does that preclude the existence of rights in other countries, and I don't think very many people are claiming that it does.
Clips aren't magazines. Anytime someone says clip it means they are ignorant. Its like saying my tank's almost empty and I need to fill up my gas tank with oil.
Unless you're actually talking about a clip, and not a magazine.
Hordini wrote: Just because freedom of speech exists in other first-world countries doesn't mean that the second amendment doesn't help protect our other rights in the US. If we didn't have the 2nd amendment, that does not mean the government would instantly become tyrannical. However, the 2nd amendment helps to guard against that possibility and makes it easier for citizens to do something about it if it does happen.
Here's the funny conversation that usually follows such claims:
Me: "Hunting rifles don't stop tanks, jet fighters, or drones."
Other Person: "Just because the government is tyrannical doesn't mean the military will back them up!"
Me: "Go find me a tyrannical regime that doesn't have at the very least, nominal support of the military. Go on. I'll wait."
Other Person: "Maybe some of the military will be on our side!"
Me: "That's called a Civil War. And your hunting rifle still ain't gonna do gak."
This argument worked when the only difference between military arms and private arms was that the guy with the military arms was conventionally trained as a combatant. This is no true in the world. The idea that having guns somehow protects the rights of the citizenry from the modern state is absurd, defies all logic, and really just comes down the wishful thinking of some dream scenario where the government is really so bad that we have to use all our hunting rifles to oppose them, while not having to somehow simultaneously oppose the US military or even a few SWAT teams.
Your gun isn't protecting you from the government.
As a Video Game To be Developer I can say that the video game thing is quite wrong. Having seen a few good people actually die, I can say I am no desantized to the situations that happened.
A great example of violence being used as a tool for education would be Spec Ops: The Line
But anyway. I agree with the Special Forces.
LordofHats wrote: Here's the funny conversation that usually follows such claims:
Me: "Hunting rifles don't stop tanks, jet fighters, or drones."
Other Person: "Just because the government is tyrannical doesn't mean the military will back them up!"
Me: "Go find me a tyrannical regime that doesn't have at the very least, nominal support of the military. Go on. I'll wait."
Other Person: "Maybe some of the military will be on our side!"
Me: "That's called a Civil War. And your hunting rifle still ain't gonna do gak."
This argument worked when the only difference between military arms and private arms was that the guy with the military arms was conventionally trained as a combatant. This is no true in the world. The idea that having guns somehow protects the rights of the citizenry from the modern state is absurd, defies all logic, and really just comes down the wishful thinking of some dream scenario where the government is really so bad that we have to use all our hunting rifles to oppose them, while not having to somehow simultaneously oppose the US military or even a few SWAT teams.
Your gun isn't protecting you from the government.
So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?
Hordini wrote: Just because freedom of speech exists in other first-world countries doesn't mean that the second amendment doesn't help protect our other rights in the US. If we didn't have the 2nd amendment, that does not mean the government would instantly become tyrannical. However, the 2nd amendment helps to guard against that possibility and makes it easier for citizens to do something about it if it does happen.
Here's the funny conversation that usually follows such claims:
Me: "Hunting rifles don't stop tanks, jet fighters, or drones."
Other Person: "Just because the government is tyrannical doesn't mean the military will back them up!"
Me: "Go find me a tyrannical regime that doesn't have at the very least, nominal support of the military. Go on. I'll wait."
Other Person: "Maybe some of the military will be on our side!"
Me: "That's called a Civil War. And your hunting rifle still ain't gonna do gak."
This argument worked when the only difference between military arms and private arms was that the guy with the military arms was conventionally trained as a combatant. This is no true in the world. The idea that having guns somehow protects the rights of the citizenry from the modern state is absurd, defies all logic, and really just comes down the wishful thinking of some dream scenario where the government is really so bad that we have to use all our hunting rifles to oppose them, while not having to somehow simultaneously oppose the US military or even a few SWAT teams.
Your gun isn't protecting you from the government.
You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.
I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons. The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.
So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?
I'm still waiting.
Hordini wrote: You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.
I was unware US citizens owned RPG's, SAW's and, C4 (though I admit a clever person could make some of that or something just as good).
I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons.
They're fighting enemies with home bases on the other side of the planet in extremely rough terrain. Unless we're talking about being invaded by China, it's not really applicable. The Taliban also have the benefit of not being under an assault weapons ban.
The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.
Because Syria is a modern state with an effectively lead and administered military. Oh wait, they're not... Right... Do we really need to go over the monumental social, political, and economic differences between a modern fulled developed state and a failing third-world state? The silly part about your examples, is that they all take place under completely different circumstances than the one you propose guns protect US citizens from. Why can't you actually give an example that's on point? I suppose it might be because we have yet to see a modern state undergo such a event... Probably a reason for that but to admit it would ruin the fantasy that owning a gun serves some grand purpose beyond owning a gun.
EDIT: Oh, and how are those rebels doing btw? Still holed up in a city surrounded by the Syrian army? Lets not forget that much of the Arab Spring revolutions were committed by what were largely unarmed citizenries and involved a rather impressive lack of blood considering the last spree of revolutions in region, Syria and Libya being the exceptions.
Note: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, just with the numerous fantasies pro-gun rights groups seem to indulge in.
I'm glad all the gun folks suddenly give a crap about the bill of rights, would have been nice to see them say something over the last 10 years. If the 2nd protects all the other amendments then the gun owners must have been pretty lazy to allow all these attacks to happen. Because they sure let the tyrannical government chip away at the 1st, 4th, 5th...heck, we are assassinating citizens because its too hard to catch them for a trial. But touch the guns that we need to prevent that, even though we didn't, and now suddenly people care?
I'm glad all the gun folks suddenly give a crap about the bill of rights, would have been nice to see them say something over the last 10 years. If the 2nd protects all the other amendments then the gun owners must have been pretty lazy to allow all these attacks to happen. Because they sure let the tyrannical government chip away at the 1st, 4th, 5th...heck, we are assassinating citizens because its too hard to catch them for a trial. But touch the guns that we need to prevent that, even though we didn't, and now suddenly people care?
Hey. They're gonna take the guns away! That's the only right really worth fighting for! With guns!
Perhaps the greatest irony for gun-rights is that its most often associated with the Right, which is also associated with being anti-gay marriage, pro-life, anti-immigrant, pro-strong law enforcement, and a whole list of other things that are so easily painted as being anti-freedom, anti-equal rights (lets not forget a strong military, which essentially entails a strong national government... which they are simultaneously afraid will start taking their rights away and need to be fought with guns XD). All those things guns supposedly protect. Strange bed fellows indeed
I'm glad all the gun folks suddenly give a crap about the bill of rights, would have been nice to see them say something over the last 10 years. If the 2nd protects all the other amendments then the gun owners must have been pretty lazy to allow all these attacks to happen. Because they sure let the tyrannical government chip away at the 1st, 4th, 5th...heck, we are assassinating citizens because its too hard to catch them for a trial. But touch the guns that we need to prevent that, even though we didn't, and now suddenly people care?
I don't agree with much in any of those, but unless they actually violate the Bill of RIghts its not an issue.
Also interesting that people who foam at the mouth about the First Amendment have no problem abridging the Second.
Frazzled wrote: I don't agree with much in any of those, but unless they actually violate the Bill of RIghts its not an issue.
Also interesting that people who foam at the mouth about the First Amendment have no problem abridging the Second.
It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.
So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?
I'm still waiting.
Hordini wrote: You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.
I was unware US citizens owned RPG's, SAW's and, C4 (though I admit a clever person could make some of that or something just as good).
I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons.
They're fighting enemies with home bases on the other side of the planet in extremely rough terrain. Unless we're talking about being invaded by China, it's not really applicable. The Taliban also have the benefit of not being under an assault weapons ban.
The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.
Because Syria is a modern state with an effectively lead and administered military. Oh wait, they're not... Right... Do we really need to go over the monumental social, political, and economic differences between a modern fulled developed state and a failing third-world state? The silly part about your examples, is that they all take place under completely different circumstances than the one you propose guns protect US citizens from. Why can't you actually give an example that's on point? I suppose it might be because we have yet to see a modern state undergo such a event... Probably a reason for that but to admit it would ruin the fantasy that owning a gun serves some grand purpose beyond owning a gun.
EDIT: Oh, and how are those rebels doing btw? Still holed up in a city surrounded by the Syrian army? Lets not forget that much of the Arab Spring revolutions were committed by what were largely unarmed citizenries and involved a rather impressive lack of blood considering the last spree of revolutions in region, Syria and Libya being the exceptions.
Note: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, just with the numerous fantasies pro-gun rights groups seem to indulge in.
You're right in that we haven't seen something like that happen in a first-world nation. I can't tell you I know how it would turn out, because I don't know. I do know it would be ugly, and would probably turn into a civil war of some kind.
In the case of Syria, no, they don't have a first-world military, but their military does have tanks, heavy weapons, and aircraft. I don't know how close the rebels are to winning or losing, but the fact that they're still holding out says a lot. Obviously the situation in the US would not look the same as in other countries, but it would be likely that the military would split, with some siding with the government and some siding with the people who would choose to resist. The exact circumstances are all speculation at this point, but I find it unlikely that the US military would exert its full force on its own people, on its own land. They are not going to start deploying nuclear weapons on the continental US, or carpet bomb American cities. Whatever the circumstances, I'd rather not be unarmed.
And the thing is, it doesn't take some huge civil war apocalypse scenario to have a situation where a weapon would come in handy. All it takes is a bad natural disaster, or a large riot to create a significant number of people who are effectively on your own. There are already tons of rural areas in the US where police response is going to be measured in tens of minutes at the absolute best and in some places it could even be hours, depending on how far out you live. It's completely immoral for the government to disarm law-abiding citizens, and that includes banning things that are currently legal like AR-15s.
And just to be clear, I do disagree about the treatment of video games and other media in the Special Forces letter. I support the 1st amendment as much as I do the 2nd, and I absolutely refuse to choose one over the other. We have both, and that's the way it should stay.
I don't think there is any problem with amending the constitution. It has been done many times, after all.
It would be stupid not to be able to, if it is needed.
There isn't any contradiction between supporting the first amendment and wanting to amend the second amendment.
There is a contradiction between saying that the constitution is awesome, so we don't need to amend it, and suggesting it would be a good idea to restrict freedom of speech.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.
What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?
That guns are a constitutional right; and saving a few lives isn't worth infringing upon it.
But that the constitutional rights to not have searches without warrants, detention without trials, freedom of religion, assassinations without trials can be infringed upon if they save lives.
At least according to 95% of pro-bill of rights (aka pro-gun) people on Facebook.
d-usa wrote: That guns are a constitutional right; and saving a few lives isn't worth infringing upon it.
But that the constitutional rights to not have searches without warrants, detention without trials, freedom of religion, assassinations without trials can be infringed upon if they save lives.
At least according to 95% of pro-bill of rights (aka pro-gun) people on Facebook.
Wait a minute. I'm not sure the anti-gun side gets to argue that there's no popular movement for a complete ban on guns, and then turn around and point to Facebook as their proof that the pro-gun side would love a return to the Quartering Acts.
Okay: I work with tons of military (who often claim to be special forces), and they also haven't raised a finger to complain about the tyranical government being tyranical until they started to talk about guns.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think there is any problem with amending the constitution. It has been done many times, after all.
It would be stupid not to be able to, if it is needed.
There isn't any contradiction between supporting the first amendment and wanting to amend the second amendment.
There is a contradiction between saying that the constitution is awesome, so we don't need to amend it, and suggesting it would be a good idea to restrict freedom of speech.
Amending the constitution and amending the bill of rights in order to further limit our rights are two different things.
And d-usa: Just because people put up with a certain level of tyranny for a certain amount of time doesn't mean they will put up with it forever. Maybe the idea of a gun ban is what it would take to get some peoples' attention and stop trying to justify further limitations on our rights. Everybody has issues that they care strongly about as well, and which issues those are often differ from person to person.
Hordini wrote: You're right in that we haven't seen something like that happen in a first-world nation. I can't tell you I know how it would turn out, because I don't know. I do know it would be ugly, and would probably turn into a civil war of some kind.
I just like pointing out even when disagreeing people can agree. It will suredly be ugly
I don't know how close the rebels are to winning or losing, but the fact that they're still holding out says a lot.
Depends on how one defines winning in losing. If surviving is winning, than their winning. if achieving their actual goal is winning, they lost a long time ago. Syria's government won't be falling anytime soon by all indications (well... Unless they throw out chemical weapons, but then it'll probably be the west overthrowing them, not the rebels and thats just a maybe).
Obviously the situation in the US would not look the same as in other countries, but it would be likely that the military would split, with some siding with the government and some siding with the people who would choose to resist.
And this is where the inherent flaw comes in. Find me an example of a tyrannical rule that didn't have at the very least, have nominal support of the military. US government can't just, swoop in and seize everyone's rights. It takes force, control, and frankly, a militaristic arm. A government that cannot maintain at least nominal control of its monopoly on force cannot be tyrannical because it ends up with no means by which to effectively enforce its tyranny (this is typically an inherent result of mixing one's military with one's law enforcement, something that is for all intents and purposes, is impossible in a developed state that draws distinct lines between civilian political authority and military authority). The US government will never have the support of the military in establishing a tyrannical rule.
The only way such a thing can happen is through tyranny of the majority, which the US has numerous checks in place to prevent, making this scenario unlikely except in situations where that majority is so overwhelming that there won't be anyone around to really offer any opposition.
I don't feel any scenario exists in the foreseeable future that would result in the US actually engaging in an armed citizenry opposing a tyrannical government. The only likely scenarios are ones where right and left continue pulling apart, which becomes a civil conflict, not a rebellion or a revolutions, and given current US politics, that won't be a war against tyranny, but a war for which side gets to be tyrannical.
And just to cut off the head before it flies off on its own, a government does not give up a monopoly on force by letting its citizens own the military equivalent of a pop gun.
It's completely immoral for the government to disarm law-abiding citizens, and that includes banning things that are currently legal like AR-15s.
I don't disagree. I'm merely trying to point out that the grandious "guns protect citizens from tyranny" argument, is a faux reality (at least in relation to the modern United States). It gets thrown out because pro-gun folks want an argument that can actually be argued in American politics, cause lets face it, fear mongering government tyranny is way more effective than appealing to morality.
Except I am pretty sure that if we did a search through the off-topic here you will find that many if the defenders of the 2nd had no problems defending the erosion of other amendments for our safety.
I do agree with you that some kind of government tyranny apocalypse is unlikely, LordofHats, but like I think we probably already agree on, there are a lot of other reasons to have firearms.
And d-usa I'm sure there are 2nd amendment supporters who defended the erosion of other amendments, just how there are certainly 1st amendment supporters who defended the erosion of other amendments "for our safety," but I think that just supports the idea that eroding our rights "for safety" is generally a very bad idea.
Frazzled wrote: Who's saying we haven't seen it in a First World Nation? People seem to be forgetting:
Italy,
Spain,
Germany,
Greece.
near coup in France.
I'm using the phrase developed state, instead of first world (this may be my fault though cause I'll bet people will use these interchangeably where as in my mind they identify two different things), for a reason and I'm noting the radical advances of a modern military compared to those of the 19th century for a reason.
The dynamic has changed. What's the difference between a US citizen in 1860 and a US soldier in 1860? Not much; a uniform, conventional training in combat, maybe a higher quality fire arm. Canons are all a soldier could claim to have that a civilian wouldn't. What's the difference between a US citizen in 2010 and a US soldier in 2010? Body armor. Fully automatic weapons. Hand grenades. Air borne and ground based heavy weapons platforms. Electronic surveillance and information gathering on a scale no civilian could match. Even police forces have access to some of these things. The idea that the 2nd amendment provides for an armed citizenry capable of militarily opposing the US government, is horribly outdated.
Given France's almost stereotypical political instability throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, they're hardly a proper comparison. They may be developed by economic and social standards but they didn't have political stability. Likewise, we can look back and see how terribly weak Italy was throughout much of the modern period, economically, socially, politically. Italy wasn't even a state until the second half of the 19th century. Spain wouldn't be a fully developed nation until the second half of the 20th (and today both Italy and Spain are economically precarious). Last I checked Germany went through a long line of governmental transitions that did not involve citizens storming the capital with their guns, and like Italy, Germany didn't become a state until the second half of the 19th century. The US if it has one thing going for it, has been a united state (no pun) for 200 years, baring a 6 year conflict in the mid-19th century that only cemented the political stability of the state post war.
And Greece? Um, they're still not a first world country, nor a developed one.
Frazzled wrote: Wait so now you're saying Italy, Spain, Germany, and France aren't developed states? The top two strongest members of the EU aren't developed?
What armed revolution happened in any of those states in the last 50 years? The fall of Franco's Spain? Reunification of Germany? The EU hasn't been around that long, and if you bothered to read some history, you'd know that three of those states would not stable in any sense until after WWII (even France remained somewhat unstable after WWII with De Gaul around). One could even say Germany ceased being a state between 1945 and 1994, being divided and all. Stop confusing the modern status of these states with their past.
Just throwing it out there: I supported the erosion of our civil.rights for the past decade (twas but a teenager), but now that i'm more mature and more aware I very much regret it.
Also, I'm curious why nobody is pointing out that the Supreme Court established that the 2nd Amendment allows for the ownership of all arms "in common use" by the military? I want my fully automatic weapons damnit!
chaos0xomega wrote: Also, I'm curious why nobody is pointing out that the Supreme Court established that the 2nd Amendment allows for the ownership of all arms "in common use" by the military? I want my fully automatic weapons damnit!
Cause we still take a page from the big book of Andrew Jackson from time to time
Frazzled wrote: Wait so now you're saying Italy, Spain, Germany, and France aren't developed states? The top two strongest members of the EU aren't developed?
What armed revolution happened in any of those states in the last 50 years? Stop confusing the modern status of these states with their past.
Armed revolution, civil war, coup, and military dictatorship:
Germany: That whole Hitler thing and the horror of Euro disco music.
Italy: 1) Mussolini Fascist dictatorship. 2) Quasi war against internal communists in the 50s and 60s.http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/explore/country.cfm?country=Italy
Greece: Quasi war against internal communists in 50s and 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War France: attempted coup by the Legion to stop the giving up of colonies. 1961
Frazzled wrote: Germany: That whole Hitler thing and the horror of Euro disco music.
Euro disco... Ew. Hitler didn't take over Germany by armed force and no citizens took up arms against him. Hitler seized the government by popular support. And not in the last 50 years.
Italy: 1) Mussolini Fascist dictatorship. 2) Quasi war against internal communists in the 50s and 60s.http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/explore/country.cfm?country=Italy
No one in their right mind would even suggest Italy was a developed state until at least the late 1970's. Kind of goes along with rampant political, social, and economic insanity.
Still not sure why you're bring up Greece. They haven't been developed or first world, or anything comparable to the rest of these states you list since 100 BC and Greece wasn't really a state then either. And lets not even get into how a quasi-war is called a quasi-war instead of a war.
France: attempted coup by the Legion to stop the giving up of colonies. 1961
Oh no, post-World War II France suffered from a rapid decline in world status and military power coupled with a crippled economy and the De Gaul years (shiver) and suffered political instability for it? My god... Its almost unlike their state collapsed. Good job though. You found something in the last 50 years (technically 52 but we'll round down) thus proving me wrong and clearly there's no point in suggesting that France in 1961 may not be the same state it is today in the EU and clearly the Legion could try and take over again at any moment. Lets hope the Parisians have enough guns to stop the impending apocalypse.
So to summarize your statement:
Only Germany appears to be a first world country, and that doesn't count either because WWII is like, a long time ago, like before the first IPAD which is like when dinosaurs were around like you know. .
Frazzled wrote: So to summarize your statement:
The political, social, and economic status of a state fluctuates over time and contrary to common belief, much of Europe suffered hard times into the mid-20th century, marked by rampant political and economic uncertainty that the United States hadn't endured since the turn of the century.
Yes. Frazzles. You're completely correct. Isn't history grand?
Still not sure why you're bring up Greece. They haven't been developed or first world, or anything comparable to the rest of these states you list since 100 BC and Greece wasn't really a state then either. And lets not even get into how a quasi-war is called a quasi-war instead of a war.
Actually, according to the UN Greece is a developed nation, more so then Russia. It actually ranked 29th in the world. Guess who ranked 28th? The UK.
Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.
LordofHats wrote: Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.
I'd proffer Switzerland and Norway disagree with that. Curse you Swiss and your awesome rolls!!!
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.
What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?
The pro-gun movement wants to keep their rights to guns uninhibited for the sake of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government whilst simultaneously suggesting that free speech be limited by that government.
That's what it looks like when you turn the irony up to 11.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.
What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?
The pro-gun movement wants to keep their rights to guns uninhibited for the sake of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government whilst simultaneously suggesting that free speech be limited by that government.
That's what it looks like when you turn the irony up to 11.
Who's suggesting free speech be limited by the government, and how?
Well let's look at what they said, huh, I don't see any advocation of a government ban or censorship on free speech in any way. I see a plea aimed towards the entertainment industry to please think of the children when they create products that are violent, but nowhere does it ask for government intervention.
For a movement that is usually proud of its reading comprehension in comparison to its opponents they really dropped the ball in this thread.
LordofHats wrote: Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.
I'd proffer Switzerland and Norway disagree with that. Curse you Swiss and your awesome rolls!!!
I'll amend my statement to former Imperialist powers then (unless Norway and Switzerland had empires no one ever told me about XD)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Who's suggesting free speech be limited by the government, and how?
The document in the Op suggests censoring violence from media will reduce gun crime. Which is silly on its face but censorship is censorship
Also thanks for painting me and a feth ton of other 2A advocates with the "blanket" brush d-usa. I guess I'll stop protesting the patriot act, NDAA, and the president's on going and illegal drone war so I can be in step with everyone else. *rolls eyes*
Ratbarf wrote: Well let's look at what they said, huh, I don't see any advocation of a government ban or censorship on free speech in any way. I see a plea aimed towards the entertainment industry to please think of the children when they create products that are violent, but nowhere does it ask for government intervention.
For a movement that is usually proud of its reading comprehension in comparison to its opponents they really dropped the ball in this thread.
"Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged."
How exactly do they plan on discouraging it? Ignoring that this is a blatant plea for censorship, either by self choice or law, it's a clear call that they don't think this form of expression is valid on a faulty scientific basis. Which is kind of dumb.
LordofHats wrote: Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.
I'd proffer Switzerland and Norway disagree with that. Curse you Swiss and your awesome rolls!!!
I'll amend my statement to former Imperialist powers then (unless Norway and Switzerland had empires no one ever told me about XD)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Who's suggesting free speech be limited by the government, and how?
The document in the Op suggests censoring violence from media will reduce gun crime. Which is silly on its face but censorship is censorship
if the government does it, its censorship. If a public campaign and parents do it, its not.
To be fair to Frazzled, it is true that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece have all suffered militaristic coups, attempted coups or dictatorships in the past 90 years.
Then again, many other European states such as the UK, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia, have not.
It clearly isn't a simple matter of have guns == freedom/have no guns == slavery.
For one thing, if criminals can always get weapons even if illegal, why would they side with the tyrannical government that suppresses them?
As well, logically, a legally or illegally armed populace can split and form sides in support of and against a tyrannical government. See the USA, Mexico, the USA, Libya, Greece, and other examples.
Ratbarf wrote: Well let's look at what they said, huh, I don't see any advocation of a government ban or censorship on free speech in any way. I see a plea aimed towards the entertainment industry to please think of the children when they create products that are violent, but nowhere does it ask for government intervention.
For a movement that is usually proud of its reading comprehension in comparison to its opponents they really dropped the ball in this thread.
"Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged."
How exactly do they plan on discouraging it? Ignoring that this is a blatant plea for censorship, either by self choice or law, it's a clear call that they don't think this form of expression is valid on a faulty scientific basis. Which is kind of dumb.
Since it does not ask for a law or any kind of government action on this it's a plea for self censorship, so it has nothing whatsoever that is against the first amendment unlike what various people have been espousing in this thread.
I agree with you on the dumb part, but the fact that the statement is dumb does not make it anti first amendment.
Self-censorship is how the system works at the moment. There is no legal censorship of films or games. The producers operate a voluntary code to classify them into age groups.
Yet the Special Forces guys are calling for more restrictions on films and games in order to curb the rising tide of violence.
Thus, either the SF guys are ignorant, or they are calling for legal action.
They aren't even calling for restrictions, they call for a discouraging of their being produced. Again, no call for any kind of legal intervention. Y'all are essentially putting words in their mouths.
Kilkrazy wrote: Thus, either the SF guys are ignorant, or they are calling for legal action.
Or ignorantly calling for legal action without realizing it
But I feel like that entire section was just randomly thrown in there. Even a cursory look at the subject reveals that the issue is very hotly debated, with studies going both ways. Calling it in one direction while ignoring the other side is rather poor form.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Y'all are essentially putting words in their mouths.
Or following the implication to a reasonable conclusion. Of course, we all realize the industry itself will never swear off violence. So the only way that'll ever happen is if a law is made (but of course that's not happening either. Violence makes too much money).
Also thanks for painting me and a feth ton of other 2A advocates with the "blanket" brush d-usa. I guess I'll stop protesting the patriot act, NDAA, and the president's on going and illegal drone war so I can be in step with everyone else. *rolls eyes*
I did say "a lot", not all, and going by the people I know. Using my scientific Facebook poll I used to have 4 people protesting all that stuff instead of the 25 "protect the bill of rights" folks that show up now. If you do a search in the OT you will find that a lot of the defenders of the bill-o-rights here are okay with the patriot act, NDAA, etc...
Ratbarf wrote: Y'all are essentially putting words in their mouths.
Or following the implication to a reasonable conclusion. Of course, we all realize the industry itself will never swear off violence. So the only way that'll ever happen is if a law is made (but of course that's not happening either. Violence makes too much money).
You see it isn't reasonable conclusion that they are referring to legal action because that would be against the 1st amendment and they are very dedicated to protecting the constitution.
Plus, discouraged in this sense likely means more along the lines of people should be discouraged from buying Apple Products. No stated intention of legal intervention, yet under your paradigm I'm calling for a legal ban on everything Apple.
Legal action actually would be the most likely result of such a call. Nothing says stop what your doing and change your ways like a multi-million dollar law suit
But then we all know that's probably never gonna work either.
So really the vets are just spewing... Whatever it is their spewing.
Ratbarf wrote: So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?
I like living in the real world. Want media to stop producing violent content? Pass a law to the effect. Only way in hell that'll ever happen (of course such a law will never pass, so really they're just blowing out air but the entire thing kind of comes off that way a little bit).
But what do I know. I'm just sitting here typing with one hand and trying to reach 100 with a paddle ball.
Ratbarf wrote: So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?
I like living in the real world. Want media to stop producing violent content? Pass a law to the effect. Only way in hell that'll ever happen (of course such a law will never pass, so really they're just blowing out air but the entire thing kind of comes off that way a little bit).
But what do I know. I'm just sitting here typing with one hand and trying to reach 100 with a paddle ball.
Maybe they were speaking more towards things like parents actually policing what their children are subjected to. Limiting the amount of time on said games, or watching violent tv and movies.
Now, I'm just guessing here, much like you, but given that these people are more then likely of the conservative cut, that's where I'd think they'd be most likely to go thar route. I'm just speaking from my own point of view, since I feel it's the parents responsibility to care for their children, and not the governments.
One of my favorite parts of the thread is that some folks feel:
The 2nd Amendment is outdated/old fashioned/can't work and should be done away with. It is good and proper to limit weapon types and magazine capacity.
AND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.
Just because YOU feel Big Gov't Regulation is The Answer to every problem you shouldn't assume others feel the same way. I suspect the author of that document would love the video game companies to police themselves up without more Federa involvement and would want parents to do their jobs.
Also, want to throw in a plug for a relevant book to the topic, "On Killing" by a (now retired) LTC Grossman, discusses the evolution of training which enables a very high percentage of troops to pull a trigger on another human in combat compared to WW2, and then goes and discusses how modern video games mirror some of the methods but do so without the 'laws of war' and other decision making tools and lessons on ethics/ROE the soldiers are given. It is an interesting read.
Ratbarf wrote: So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?
I like living in the real world. Want media to stop producing violent content? Pass a law to the effect. Only way in hell that'll ever happen (of course such a law will never pass, so really they're just blowing out air but the entire thing kind of comes off that way a little bit).
But what do I know. I'm just sitting here typing with one hand and trying to reach 100 with a paddle ball.
Maybe they were speaking more towards things like parents actually policing what their children are subjected to. Limiting the amount of time on said games, or watching violent tv and movies.
Now, I'm just guessing here, much like you, but given that these people are more then likely of the conservative cut, that's where I'd think they'd be most likely to go thar route. I'm just speaking from my own point of view, since I feel it's the parents responsibility to care for their children, and not the governments.
Nope. here's the quote as a refresher:
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
They are clearly not saying "limit the consumption of violent media". They are very clearly implying the limitation to its production.
Oh yes, and traditionally, the conservatives in the US do not lean towards parents policing what their children are subjected to... they tend to lean towards themselves policing what all children are subjected to. As demonstrated by virtually every complaint made to the FCC in the last 20 years.
CptJake wrote: OAND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.
A.) We don't "feel" that way. It's not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that video games are protected art under the first amendment, as evinced by the near-unanimous rulings of nearly every court that has ever ruled on video game related legislation, including of course the court that matters most.
B.) The ratings system is not government imposed. It's wholly voluntary, and created by the industry, just like the MPAA is voluntary and created by their industry. Neither board has even a tenuous link to the government.
Seriously, read a little before you form an opinion.
So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?
I'm still waiting.
Hordini wrote: You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.
I was unware US citizens owned RPG's, SAW's and, C4 (though I admit a clever person could make some of that or something just as good).
I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons.
They're fighting enemies with home bases on the other side of the planet in extremely rough terrain. Unless we're talking about being invaded by China, it's not really applicable. The Taliban also have the benefit of not being under an assault weapons ban.
The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.
Because Syria is a modern state with an effectively lead and administered military. Oh wait, they're not... Right... Do we really need to go over the monumental social, political, and economic differences between a modern fulled developed state and a failing third-world state? The silly part about your examples, is that they all take place under completely different circumstances than the one you propose guns protect US citizens from. Why can't you actually give an example that's on point? I suppose it might be because we have yet to see a modern state undergo such a event... Probably a reason for that but to admit it would ruin the fantasy that owning a gun serves some grand purpose beyond owning a gun.
EDIT: Oh, and how are those rebels doing btw? Still holed up in a city surrounded by the Syrian army? Lets not forget that much of the Arab Spring revolutions were committed by what were largely unarmed citizenries and involved a rather impressive lack of blood considering the last spree of revolutions in region, Syria and Libya being the exceptions.
Note: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, just with the numerous fantasies pro-gun rights groups seem to indulge in.
Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.
CptJake wrote: AND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.
Just because YOU feel Big Gov't Regulation is The Answer to every problem you shouldn't assume others feel the same way. I suspect the author of that document would love the video game companies to police themselves up without more Federa involvement and would want parents to do their jobs.
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory organization that assigns age and content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines, and ensures responsible online privacy principles for computer and video games in Canada and the United States.
There are no laws passed by the federal government concerning the game industry. The only laws on books are state laws banning the sale of M games to minors, which are pointless laws because retailers had long adopted those policies of their own volition by the time they were being passed.
Also, want to throw in a plug for a relevant book to the topic, "On Killing" by a (now retired) LTC Grossman, discusses the evolution of training which enables a very high percentage of troops to pull a trigger on another human in combat compared to WW2, and then goes and discusses how modern video games mirror some of the methods but do so without the 'laws of war' and other decision making tools and lessons on ethics/ROE the soldiers are given. It is an interesting read.
It's interesting as Grossman offers a very strong and knowledgeable view into the psychology of a soldier. Unfortunately his section of video games is essentially a stream of dribble born from the wake of violent media debates of the early 90's and doesn't have the same quality as the rest of his book. In short, sir Grossman should have stuck to what he knew well, rather than make off handed commentary about what is essentially a myth created by modern politics to distract/shift focus from the actual issue of violence in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.
Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.
Did Relapse just claim most gun owners are vets? Lulz!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.
CptJake wrote: OAND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.
A.) We don't "feel" that way. It's not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that video games are protected art under the first amendment, as evinced by the near-unanimous rulings of nearly every court that has ever ruled on video game related legislation, including of course the court that matters most.
B.) The ratings system is not government imposed. It's wholly voluntary, and created by the industry, just like the MPAA is voluntary and created by their industry. Neither board has even a tenuous link to the government.
Seriously, read a little before you form an opinion.
About 20 minutes to hit the mine field.
So, we have established that the 1st Amendment clause about free speech intended to protect political speech does indeed cover entertainment and a slew of other types/classes of speech and when a state tries to infringe on that right 'For the Children' or 'For the Collective good of society' they correctly get slapped down. 7-2, a darned good slapping. I suspect the guys who wrote the opening article get that too.
BUT you are okay with attempts to infringe on the 2nd Amendment by states, municipalities and the Feds, since it is For the Children or for the Collective Good of us all.
Folks can buy violent games because they want to and it is their right. Societal costs have no bearing on that right. Folks can buy AR15s and 30 round magazines because they want to and it is their right. Societal costs have no bearing on that right. Yet some of you disagree with that and feel entitled to infringe on that right (or more accurately have the gov't do it for you with your encouragement).
Again, thanks. I was wondering how long it would take.
d-usa wrote: Who keeps on advocating this hypothetical removal of the 2nd and the taking of your guns?
It is highly likely that any kind of further gun regulation would result in guns being taken away from some people, unless they were grandfathered in. The magazine limit especially would result in a large amount of now illegal property that would likely have to be confiscated without compensation.
Relapse wrote: Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.
Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.
I don't think you give people enough credit for being able to make do until heavier weapons could be obtained.
Relapse wrote: Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.
Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.
Huh, it's amazing what five years can do for a country's perception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.
It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.
It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.
As a member of the military, I'd say the bet isn't that safe.
Especially the well trained part. Most folks in the Air Force couldn't find the safety switch on an M-16 from their ass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.
It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.
I'm sorry but do you really think 150+ million guns in the US are owned by exclusively vets? Or rather, that at least half of the population have served in the military? Or that I had to sign away 4+ years of my life to learn how to handle a gun? Anecdotally speaking here, but you're wrong on at least one person.
You have some good points, some dumb. But my point was I'm just sick of gun debates. Obama and his slowed plan needs to stop along with the NRA and their bs stats. And all these posts. I remember Dakka OT was full of pics of boobs and fun times. Not people arguing with each other over views they already have and aren't going to change. Bring back the fun!
Edit: Ah Dakka changes the are word to slowed I was confused there for a second.
CptJake wrote: Again, thanks. I was wondering how long it would take.
Oh, your clever ruse at appearing not to know what the hell you are talking about was actually a devious trap, intended to reveal my rank hypocrisy since "I'm okay with attempts to infringe on the 2nd Amendment by states, municipalities and the Feds, since it is For the Children or for the Collective Good of us all".
Of course, your Machiavellian scheming sort of breaks down when you consider I never endorsed any of the things you are stating I endorsed, and certainly not for the reasons you state I did. But who knows - perhaps instead of the current perception, which is a poster who is talking out of their ass about things they don't know anything about, I just hit the third level if your Inception-like strategy to finally resolve this thread.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Took the words right outta my moawf...
Neverthanless... the point of all this is to have a civil discussion.
Relapse wrote: It was well thought out and reasonably written with several intellegent points. Obama, Biden, and other clowns like them therefore will pay no attention to it.
Exalted
Well, except for the part about desensitizing children with violent games, it honestly sorta felt like they were trying to make an excuse.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Jamie Foxx is racist?
His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
Good luck finding a consensus to that effect in the psychological community. If anything the majority to studies into the subject have determined the opposite to be true.
I also like the implication that, while media producers are exploiting something they know nothing about, these Special Forces soldiers are qualified in social psychology regarding media consumption by children.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Jamie Foxx is racist?
His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.
I don't know he might have intended that as a joke, I can't imagine that being a serious statement although I need context.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Jamie Foxx is racist?
His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.
I don't know he might have intended that as a joke, I can't imagine that being a serious statement although I need context.
Tell that to the Kramer guy who had his career ruined by making a joke along those lines. Yet people just yawned when Jamie Foxx did it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.
It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.
I'm sorry but do you really think 150+ million guns in the US are owned by exclusively vets? Or rather, that at least half of the population have served in the military? Or that I had to sign away 4+ years of my life to learn how to handle a gun? Anecdotally speaking here, but you're wrong on at least one person.
You have some good points, some dumb. But my point was I'm just sick of gun debates. Obama and his slowed plan needs to stop along with the NRA and their bs stats. And all these posts. I remember Dakka OT was full of pics of boobs and fun times. Not people arguing with each other over views they already have and aren't going to change. Bring back the fun!
Edit: Ah Dakka changes the are word to slowed I was confused there for a second.
I'm not saying that guns are owned exclusivly by vets, but that I venture that a large portion, and by that I mean significant number of gun owners are vets. Of course, I should add that I'm going off what I see in my area. I'm with you totaly on being sick of the fact that you can't go a day without being bombard with this by the news.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
Jamie Foxx is racist?
His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.
I don't know he might have intended that as a joke, I can't imagine that being a serious statement although I need context.
Tell that to the Kramer guy who had his career ruined by making a joke along those lines. Yet people just yawned when Jamie Foxx did it.
But this is getting way off topic.
He was definitely getting some milage from the whole killing the whiteman line of talk.
dogma wrote: I also like the implication that, while media producers are exploiting something they know nothing about, these Special Forces soldiers are qualified in social psychology regarding media consumption by children.
It's at least within the realm of possibility. Most 18x/180A's are pretty well-educated.
Ouze wrote: Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.
Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.
What about routinely putting their lives in danger makes them experts in domestic policy?
I've been using a keyboard for 20 years, and I'm not an expert in network security.
If we were having a discussion about the best way to destroy a bridge, or to kill an insurgent from 1500 yards, or fast rope from a helicoper, then their experience would lend weight to their arguments. Since this is not within their purview, it does not. They simply do not have any more expertise on the topic of gun violence in the United States or constitutional law then do I, or Jamie Foxx.
Hell, at least Jamie Foxx is willing to put a face to his opinions. This is hardly better then one of those internet petitions.
dogma wrote: I also like the implication that, while media producers are exploiting something they know nothing about, these Special Forces soldiers are qualified in social psychology regarding media consumption by children.
It's at least within the realm of possibility. Most 18x/180A's are pretty well-educated.
So are most Hollywood producers, directors, and executives.
Though, for what its worth, neither group really has the high ground here. At best I would guess that whoever prepared the letter did some cursory, directed research with the intent to find supporting opinions within academia; as that's usually as far open letter producers tend to go. In large part because what you would actually need to do in order to establish academic consensus is a comprehensive review of existing research, something that requires a lot of time and effort even if you have a background in the field.
Kind of upset that someone cited Total Biscuit as an authority on desensitization caused by video games. I mean that's well... kind of... umm.
From a psychological standpoint we know for facts that kids are excellent at observational learning, it's how they learn to do a lot of what they do. In fact one of the best arguments to have is whether a child is learning to mimic specific behavior or if the child has learned to mimic all of the behaviors for a reward. This is where we get the whole concept of kids learning to swear from their parents, how children can learn to become racist, or how they live their lives.
We know that if a child does watch a violent act and such an act is rewarded, then the child has an increased chance of recreating that behavior. Of course this was done by Bandura in what is commonly known as the BoBo Doll experiment. Then they watched two adults in a room and noticed that when one adult beat up the other and stole the toys the other had, the violent adult was announced the winner. In this case children were also increasingly likely to attempt to recreate the acts or to act similarly to the adult who had "won". Children will do what they think produces the best outcome and if they see the best outcome then they decide to copy it.
Now one thing that is incredibly laughable is the thought of banning all firearms, this is impossible. May it decrease the number of homicides with firearms, yes it might. Or it could backfire like it did in Chicago. I'm not just talking about their ban, but the fact that some confiscated weapons end up on the streets again. Not saying Chicago is corrupt, but it is. Unfortunately as long as there is a gun on the planet, someone will use it as a weapon. Doubly unfortunately the worlds' governments feel that guns are the best thing for their soldiers to have pending a war or some sort of conflict. Let's face it, guns are great at doing what they were designed to do. As long as guns are used anywhere in the world, they will find their way into someone's hands.
So we have proven studies that show that children model their behaviors based on the success of a model and the fact that guns will always exist and will always be present where we don't want them to be.
Now on to Australia, it's a shame that the decrease in firearm homicides coincided with a decrease in overall homicides which includes those done with anything besides a gun. It's easy to say that gun control caused the overall homicide rate to go down, but the homicide rate had been in decline since the 80's and gun laws were passed in the 90's. On another note, firearm suicide rates decreased, shame the overall suicide rate jumped up.
Whenever one looks at an increase or decrease in homicide rates it is very important to look at the overall picture, no matter the side you take. The crime rate in the US is high in regard to other nations and we have similar rates of violent crimes compared to the Australians. We just plain have a high crime rate.
The United States is in a pickle of a pickle because we seem to be utterly slowed when it comes to fixing certain problems such as gun violence or teen pregnancy, both of which we're very high in. The proposed fix for teen pregnancy is education about everything to do with sex, not just an abstinence only approach. This practice has been shown to help cause a decrease in unwanted pregnancies and has helped prevent the spread of STDs amongst teens in areas that use it.
Why can we not do the same with firearms? There is a large amount of accidental death caused by mishandling of firearms and I will personally say that guns are something people should know how to safely interact with. I could not care less if an individual knows how to fire it, I care about the individual knowing how to store it safely, how to make sure it does not go off and injure another on accident, and most importantly knowing that they are not toys to be played with.
Children are susceptible to mimicking behavior and lord knows how many times a teenager has actually said that they could snipe in real life because they play CoD. They may want to act it out, they may want to seem cool and mess with a gun, they go out and buy airsoft guns that look like the real thing. Most importantly they do this without any sort of formal education about the weapons. Much like sex, most kids learn about guns from peers or the media because guns aren't something that most people talk about with their children. It's hard to explain to your 8 year old that if he shoots a person they may not ever come back so some parents just completely ignore the situation.
One day we will discover proper education techniques for this situation.
Out of all this it's important to note that demographics may play a key role in this. Ultimately we are products of our environment and low social status increases exposure to such crimes and acts of violence. That's something that needs to be fixed and unfortunately cities find a way to actually fix crime rates. It's actually amazingly simple, all they do is tear down the low-income housing. All of a sudden the poor, who have a higher chance of being criminally involved, disappear because they can't afford to live in those areas.
The worst argument anyone can propose is that we should pass a law that prevents gun ownership because it may save a life. We do lot's of things to potentially save lives, we install fire dousing systems in our schools, we have fire escape, evacuation routes, and we have also interred people based on their ethnicity because they may be spies, we have prosecuted an entire race of people because they may be terrorists, we have allowed the government to listen in on us, and we have given up liberties and rights for the sake of keeping that one hypothetical person alive.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said that any society willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose both.
side notes:
Azazel, liberals also contributed to the limitations provided towards media. Things like the ESRB were championed by the likes of Hillary Clinton for example. Both sides have fought against the media in some shape or form.
halonachos wrote: Kind of upset that someone cited Total Biscuit as an authority on desensitization caused by video games. I mean that's well... kind of... umm.
If it makes you feel any better, his real name is John Bain. Either way, a quotation isn't necessarily cited because the argument from which its drawn is profound, but because the sentiment expressed within captures the meaning of what the citing party is attempting to express.
Children are susceptible to mimicking behavior and lord knows how many times a teenager has actually said that they could snipe in real life because they play CoD. They may want to act it out, they may want to seem cool and mess with a gun, they go out and buy airsoft guns that look like the real thing. Most importantly they do this without any sort of formal education about the weapons. Much like sex, most kids learn about guns from peers or the media because guns aren't something that most people talk about with their children. It's hard to explain to your 8 year old that if he shoots a person they may not ever come back so some parents just completely ignore the situation.
One day we will discover proper education techniques for this situation.
The two issues aren't really comparable. I highly doubt that ignorance of the possible effects of firing a gun at someone is the primary contributor that motivates someone fire, or even point, a gun at someone. Compare this to teen pregnancy where ignorance of how pregnancy occurs, and what can be done to prevent it without simple abstinence, is almost certainly a major contributor.
As for education techniques, we already know what they are in both cases. Its simply that in the former case the problem (accidental firearm related deaths) isn't seen as significant enough to warrant concern, and in the latter there is significant opposition to sex education in general, and comprehensive sex education in particular.
halonachos wrote: Kind of upset that someone cited Total Biscuit as an authority on desensitization caused by video games. I mean that's well... kind of... umm.
The application of common sense doesn't take much more than common sense, so I guess really I'd advocate Total Biscuit as an authority on common sense. It doesn't take much logical reasoning to realize that if video games and violent movies were a major factor in causing violent crime as some 'experts' continually claim, it would be a world wide epidemic afflicting everyone but Australia and countries that don't have electricity. Which it isn't so at worst, they can only have some indirect link in causing violent crime, which no one has been able to definitively prove and numerous studies have suggested could be false.
So in the end, blaming the media is just some facade thrown up by people who really don't want to deal with actual issues. If it helps I think the entire gun debate is such a facade. It's easier to argue a gun problem than to argue poverty, mental illness, or drug war problems.
If it makes you feel any better, his real name is John Bain. Either way, a quotation isn't necessarily cited because the argument from which its drawn is profound, but because the sentiment expressed within captures the meaning of what the citing party is attempting to express.
And I'll explain it for those who missed it: The idea that a violent video game like Call of Duty can be equated to representing actual violence is absurd. Call of Duty is like a game of paint ball with red bloches shooting out.
What John Bain actually said was that fictional violence desensitized viewers to fictional violence (which in the case of FPS games and Horror/Slasher films, actually makes a lot of sense considering the trend in those genre's towards increasingly brutal fictional violence). I merely took the idea and expressed to point out the stupidity in claiming someone who is exposed to this fictional violence will somehow be emotionally and morally immune to the horrors of actual violence. I doubt I'd be able to stomach the scene of a suicide bombing, uncensored by a computer programmer who him/herself has probably never seen one. Because frankly, for a video game commentator, his statements make quite a bit of sense.
