Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

Ah... got ya.

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

I think that it's incumbent on those who wants it repealed to justify Amending the Constitution.

I have my own reasons for wanting to keep it, but it's purely pragmatic. The bad guys will always be armed... no amount of laws/bans/restrictions will change that and I'm not waiting for some "government official" to bail my ass out if I'm still alive.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

the point is its a freedom we fought long and hard for, many gave their lives so that we would have those freedoms, to remove even one of them is like saying they gave their lives for nothing but you say its a social freedom, ok what are human freedoms? the right to be free? some countries still have slaves, the right to breathe fresh air? don't tell that to China, the right to go where we want to go? then why do countries have borders? what are human rights to you? the Constitution is our Human rights for America, our rights do not exist outside of this country for us, but they do exist here for us, our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yet that is not the case in the whole world so even those cannot be human rights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

We can argue about whether or not some rights are indeed inalienable but that would get us off on another tangent.

I freely admit that the constitution can be changed and amendments can be repealed. We've gone through that process 27 times already. It is extremely unlikely that the 2nd amendment could get repealed in the current politicial environment or in the near future but it's certainly possible. All of the numerous state constitutions that have gun ownership clauses in them could also be changed, each state has a process for that.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

the point is its a freedom we fought long and hard for, many gave their lives so that we would have those freedoms, to remove even one of them is like saying they gave their lives for nothing but you say its a social freedom, ok what are human freedoms? the right to be free? some countries still have slaves, the right to breathe fresh air? don't tell that to China, the right to go where we want to go? then why do countries have borders? what are human rights to you? the Constitution is our Human rights for America, our rights do not exist outside of this country for us, but they do exist here for us, our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yet that is not the case in the whole world so even those cannot be human rights.

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

yeah meant declaration, the bill of rights is the first 10 Amendments of the constitution, except those rights existed before, the south was not fighting for their right to have slaves, they were fighting for their right to make their own decisions (one of which was slaves), as far as the death penalty goes, you commit a crime you give up certain rights, like felons and such cannot vote, nor have the right to bare arms.

Still unsure how owning a man made invention thats about...700 ish years old is a "Basic Human Right". A basic human right that apparently trumps all over rights from the zeal that people have in defending that right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Still unsure how owning a man made invention thats about...700 ish years old is a "Basic Human Right". A basic human right that apparently trumps all over rights from the zeal that people have in defending that right.

It's a right because it's listed right there in the Bill of Rights and in several state constitutions. We're entitled to it because it's guaranteed by law that we have it. There are basic human rights, such as the right to self defense, for which gun ownership is well suited but no you don't have a basic human right to own a specific type of tool or object.

This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

yeah meant declaration, the bill of rights is the first 10 Amendments of the constitution, except those rights existed before, the south was not fighting for their right to have slaves, they were fighting for their right to make their own decisions (one of which was slaves), as far as the death penalty goes, you commit a crime you give up certain rights, like felons and such cannot vote, nor have the right to bare arms.

...which means those rights aren't inalienable at all! What a shocker!

lloks like some are putting up a call to arms for the LGBT community to arm themselves to defend themselves.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/6612/west-hollywood-inundated-poster-rainbow-gadsen-hank-berrien

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

I would argue that the rights still exist they're simply not recognized by ISIS and are subsequently violated by them. For instance, everyone has the right to be secure in their own person, nobody has the right to murder or rape somebody else. ISIS might go around murdering and raping people because they're physically capable fo doing so but their ability to murder and rape doesn't mean that they have a right to murder and rape people. Because everyone has a right to be secure in their own person everyone also has the right to self defense so people can resist attempts by ISIS to murder or rape them and if people have to kill ISIS members to prevent those ISIS members from murdering and/or raping them those killings are justifiable and don't qualify as murder.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Said bluntly:

It is not our job to defend exercising an existing right. It is the job of those wishing to restrict or take away that right to explain why they feel the need to do so, explain the process they intend to take, and the associated costs. Once we understand your intent/goal we can see if your process/means actually address the intent/goal (most proposed gun control measures do not) and then we can judge if they are worth the associated cost.

The spoilered video helps explain what is involved in banning guns in the US:

After seeing Obama's remarks during the Orlando memorial:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-visiting-families-victims-orlando/story?id=39885188

I can't fething wait till he's retired and I'm EVEN LOOKING forward to the HRC Administration.

Why is it that Obama calls for some reflection on our rights, whenever someone abuses our liberty, and yet nary says a word about Islamic extremisms?

 whembly wrote:
After seeing Obama's remarks during the Orlando memorial:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-visiting-families-victims-orlando/story?id=39885188

I can't fething wait till he's retired and I'm EVEN LOOKING forward to the HRC Administration.

Why is it that Obama calls for some reflection on our rights, whenever someone abuses our liberty, and yet nary says a word about Islamic extremisms?

you do realize HRC is following in his shoes? she has yet to mention the reason other then to push for gun control and so forth, even some democrats are saying Obama should say it is what it is, and if HRC does not get behind that too it will hurt her in the election.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Still unsure how owning a man made invention thats about...700 ish years old is a "Basic Human Right". A basic human right that apparently trumps all over rights from the zeal that people have in defending that right.

Swords, spears, bows and arrows, crossbows, maces, pikes, warhammers, etc.
Weapons have been around for a lot longer than 700 years and basic human rights slightly longer than that.

Throughout history most of those rights have been restricted to one extent or another.

Where do these rights come from? The mere fact that we exist means we have those rights.

Here is why:

The two things we see debated here are the freedom of speech and the right to self defense.

The right of speech comes from the fact that we have brains that are capable of cogent and critical thought and the ability to express those ideas and by so doing affect our communities. Suppression of that speech may be detrimental to the development and survival of that community.

Similarly the right to self-defense and ownership of the best available weapon comes from the fact that no one has the right to deprive you unjustly of your life.

Only by the due process of law may those rights be taken from us.

The US Constitution lists these rights as what government cannot take from you, and unlike other countries these are not privileges granted to us from the crown but are demonstrably inherent rights born into mankind as a whole.

actually the restriction of weapons is relatively new, before the past hundred years there was not really a restriction on weapons in civilian hands, the only real restriction was cost.

Hence why I said "best available weapon".

I don't think I mentioned anything about restrictions, although many of those have come about through misuse by others.

I think we are at critical mass where any more action by the US government toward firearms (past what encroachments already exist) would cause huge problems.

If we're going to start straying into veiled "the people will rise up and fix the problem" territory, we're about done here.

xraytango wrote:
Hence why I said "best available weapon".

I don't think I mentioned anything about restrictions, although many of those have come about through misuse by others.

I think we are at critical mass where any more action by the US government toward firearms (past what encroachments already exist) would cause huge problems.

problem is states are limiting guns in small ways when and where they can like here in California several laws are about to be signed and/or approved, they are:

Assembly Bill 1664 would reclassify hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” These are constitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. The changes would happen quickly at the expense of gun owners and without public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013 and the California State Sheriffs’ Association has opposed this legislation.

Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that can be readily convertible. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.

Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include to long guns. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.

Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10 year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.

Senate Bill 880, similar to AB 1664, would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” These are constitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and no public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.



Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”

Senate Bill 1235 would require the Attorney General to maintain information about ammunition transactions and ammunition vendor licenses and would authorize specified agencies, officials, and officers to disseminate the name of a person and the fact of any ammunition purchases by that person, as specified, if the subject of the record has been arraigned, is being prosecuted, or is serving a sentence for domestic violence or is the subject of specified protective orders. First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried -- and failed -- at the federal level. SB 1235 would impose drastic and unjustified restrictions on law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to reduce violent crime.

Senate Bill 1407 would make it a crime under California law for an individual to manufacture a firearm without first obtaining California Department of Justice (DOJ) approval to do so and subsequently engraving a DOJ-provided serial number on the firearm. This legislation should be opposed because it will effectively nullify the long-standing and constitutionally protected activity of building one’s own firearms. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2014.

Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness. Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

I wasn't going in to that area, at all.

What I mean is that the debates will gridlock and nothing much more than that.

The previously posted video makes a pretty good point of it. The other thing that could happen is that if the whole nation became a gun-free-zone then Chicago's situation will spread like cancer. Australia is the example here.

Anyone care to recall what happened to Kev White when his home was invaded? Would that he had an effective means of defense, some sort of force multiplier, perhaps things might have gone different?

Far worse than a citizen uprising would be making a wide portion (60% I don't know how many Muricans own guns?) become criminals overnight for possessing a previously legal item.

The pen is mighty.

Asterios, you ninja'd me lol!

Yes I have heard of those awful restrictions, seen some videos on them. The bad part is that some of those are from the Senate and some of those are from the House, they've got you flanked with similarly worded propositions so that if one goes down the other comes in as a political blindside hit.

Maybe they'll get it sorted out, doubtful though as a lot of that is feel good legislation which we know is all that matters in California.

I don't believe it's possible to actually reign in America's gun problem with how many firearms are out there. At least, not within our lifetime. What people have to remember is that mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech aren't the majority of gun-related homicide in the country. Most of it is drug or gang-related iirc.

I would say America's high firearm homicide rate has a lot to do with the disenfranchisement of minorities and the questionably effective War on Drugs more than a loony who got his hands on a scary assault rifle.

@xraytango

How, and what, is Australia the example of?

xraytango wrote:

Yes I have heard of those awful restrictions, seen some videos on them. The bad part is that some of those are from the Senate and some of those are from the House, they've got you flanked with similarly worded propositions so that if one goes down the other comes in as a political blindside hit.

Maybe they'll get it sorted out, doubtful though as a lot of that is feel good legislation which we know is all that matters in California.

yeah i'm pretty sure some of these will get signed in and others will go to a vote of the public and well California is all snuggles and love while criminals are killing people left and right and they feel these laws will stop them, welcome to California the land of the dreamers.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
@xraytango

How, and what, is Australia the example of?

Certain parties in this eternal argument often use us as an example of gun control gone wrong. They won't listen to your explanations so it is easier to just ignore it, as much as it may grate.

Australians will never understand the freedom to have a mass shooting nearly every day.

well the thing with Australia is when the new gun laws came into effect there was a spike of gun crimes but eventually gun crimes reduced back to pre-gun law levels and while they have gone down a little it has not validated what they said would happen which would be a drastic drop in gun crimes which has yet to come about, that couple with their gun buy back program proved to be an utter failure with only 20% of possible guns being bought back.

my Family there do not think the laws will stand much longer.

Asterios wrote:
well the thing with Australia is when the new gun laws came into effect there was a spike of gun crimes but eventually gun crimes reduced back to pre-gun law levels and while they have gone down a little it has not validated what they said would happen which would be a drastic drop in gun crimes which has yet to come about, that couple with their gun buy back program proved to be an utter failure with only 20% of possible guns being bought back.

my Family there do not think the laws will stand much longer.

Right, we hear all about those mass shootings in Australia all the time. What with all the guns they do not have over there.