NRA -are they Serious?!?

[Eagle732]

Beaver, I expected no less from you. Distort what I quoted (dynamite?) and disparage anyone who does not agree with you (duped).

When you have to stoop to that level you've obviously lost the argument.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[Beavah]

Not a distortion, Eagle732. A parody. Or perhaps a reductio ad absurdum.

 

The point is that exactly the same argument for "freedom" can be applied to dynamite, or any number of things, eh? High explosives are arms, and da 2nd Amendment makes no qualifications on limiting arms whatsoever.

 

So yeh have to explain, in light of not wanting to limit freedom and da fundamental right to bear arms, why dynamite, automatic weapons, mortars, light artillery and da like should be controlled and regulated, but not other arms. Why is that?

 

I believe yeh are being duped, eh? Duped by some very skilled PR folks in a special interest lobby whose fictional text you are buying into without doin' your homework. I might be wrong. If so, demonstrate it. Explain da difference above. Employ a careful reading of the documents of da Founding Fathers and a knowledge of history to make your own case. Spend half of your time talkin' about the responsibility that goes with rights, the obligations that come with liberty, the way we teach in Scouting.

 

I'm a gun owner and hunter. I never needed a 30-round magazine to go hunting. I'd be embarrassed to fire a second shot at my prey. My personal freedoms aren't goin' to be affected by requiring me to do a background check before I sell a gun to make sure I'm not selling to a criminal or unstable person. I always kept my firearms and ammunition secured from my kids. Don't you? Why would that affect my freedom? It's just bein' responsible. Research on firearms is a good thing, eh? It may tell us that in fact firearm ownership reduces crime. Why prohibit such research?

 

And I, like you, never want to see another child killed.

 

So can't we engage with our fellow citizens and work toward reasonable solutions that both protect freedom and ensure safety and responsibility?

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

I don't know Beavah, keep talking this way and I am going to continue to be convinced you are in favor of sensible responsible "gun control", or what I have recently heard termed "gun safety" as they think that term may keep the natives from being spooked..

 

The official recommendations come out Tuesday, but it seems everyone is pretty sure what is in them.. From what I see, I also don't see anything that should cause such an uproar from the NRA supporters.. But, of course the NRA will protest loudly and make wild claims because it is helping drive up the purchasing of guns, ammo, and NRA membership.. It is all just commercialism for profit..

[CalicoPenn]

Since he who should never be named in order to present an argument has been named, let me give a little history lesson here. Germany had onerous gun restrictions imposed on it by the Treay of Versailles at the end of WWI. The Weimer Republic managed to loosen those restictions up just a bit by allowing foks to have a gun for hunting. Hitler and his party took power in a democratic election, then proceeded to loosen gun rules. The right keeps claiming that Hitler banned and confiscated guns from German civilians - what they fail to say is that the only German civilians who were banned from having guns and had their guns confiscated were the Jews. If you weren't Jewish? You enjoyed loose gun laws, and in fact were encouraged to buy and carry guns so that you could quickly come to the defense of the fatherland.

 

"In the 1990s, Germany (which had (and has) extremely restrictive gun control) had a per capita mass murder rate in schools that was higher than ours during that time." Are you serious? Is this where you want to go? You want to use the "per capita" argument to justify your position? Because if that's the case, the logical conclusion would be that US childrens lives are less important than another countries children's lives, since the per capita rate would be so much smaller. After all, if 22 kids are killed in the US, which has a population of about 350 Million, and 22 kids are killed in Canada, which has a population of about 35 Million, Canada will have a higher "per capita" rate than the US, and that would mean it can't afford to lose 22 kids as easily as the US. I don't know about anyone else, but the "per capita" rate isn't important here - 22 kids were killed - that what's important.

 

In fact, lets go back to what is important here - go find and take a look at the portraits of the 22 people, mostly kids that still believed in Santa Claus (!!!!), killed in Sandy Hook just days before Christmas and tell us that they're less important than your right to blow away aluminum cans with 30 rounds from an AR-15.

[Beavah]

In the 1990s, Germany (which had (and has) extremely restrictive gun control) had a per capita mass murder rate in schools that was higher than ours during that time.

 

Yah, thanks for grabbin' that, CalicoPenn. Close as I can tell it's another lying BS statement, and I don't mean "Boy Scouts".

 

Folks, our first obligation is to be Trustworthy about data in public discussions, eh?

 

As close as I can tell, I can't find any English-language news reports about mass shootings in da German schools in the 1990s, including in reports that purport to list all the worldwide school mass shootings. Germany did have some Columbine-copycat school shootings in the last decade, in Erfurt and Stuttgart.

 

So this is either a complete fiction, or da report is based on some really unrelated statistics in the former East Germany, which of course was being re-integrated with the west during the 1990s. That's hardly a fair comparison.

 

Of course, there seems to be no sense of honor in da firearms lobby these days. Reportin' fiction or cherrypicked "facts" in such a way would shame an honorable man or group.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

I had heard something about the Alex Jones interview but I just watched a re-run, it was my first viewing. It wasn't exactly evidence that would contradict your claim.

 

That said, we ARE all scouters and I continue to think that most or all of us strive to be trustworthy. The part that seems to be suffering is the desire or even the ability to question one's own beliefs, given conflicting evidence. This is a human reaction but it doesn't necessarily contribute to progress.

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

Why do you wish to treat citizens as criminals? Whether a person locks their guns and ammunition is entirely their business otherwise you are invading my privacy. Why should I be held responsible when a criminal enters my home and steals a firearm? That is not only wrong but a stupid argument. As far as children or others that I have in my home, I should be held responsible just as I would for a can of gas or a ladder. How I store my guns is not the business of the government.

Surely you can do better than trying to argue that dynamite or cannon style weapons are linked to the Second Amendment. There were cannon and explosives in the Revolutionary War. The Amendment does not mention such weapons but rather arms that one bears. It is clear that they meant rifles and handguns. They would likely have classed shotguns as well as being protected. They did not foresee the people being so willing to sell their rights for a false sense of security. They also would expect that the changes that you and others on the left are making to require a constitutional amendment. They certainly would be alarmed that the congress would even consider allowing the president to enact such restrictions unilaterally.

[Beavah]

Why do you wish to treat citizens as criminals? Whether a person locks their guns and ammunition is entirely their business otherwise you are invading my privacy. Why should I be held responsible when a criminal enters my home and steals a firearm? That is not only wrong but a stupid argument. As far as children or others that I have in my home, I should be held responsible just as I would for a can of gas or a ladder. How I store my guns is not the business of the government.

 

Why is it necessary to go all hyperbolic all da time, instead of havin' a pragmatic discussion?

 

Locking up guns and ammunition as a gun owner is just being responsible. Nobody has any interest in "invading your privacy" (nor would they have probable cause to do so) so that's just silly. If you're usin' weapons used by law enforcement or da military it seems like havin' the same expectations for responsible storage is appropriate. That's not treatin' yeh like a criminal, that's expecting you to be a responsible citizen.

 

Now, if it turns out that yeh leave your loaded guns in your unlocked and open garage and some kids come by and play with them and cause an accident, or your upset neighbor comes and takes one to go shoot his boss, or your depressed son goes and shoots up his school, then your fellow citizens have a right to be pretty upset with you. That can take da form of criminal penalties, or it can take da form that TwoCubDad proposes of strict civil liability. I prefer da latter, eh? Then yeh can choose whether the risk to your livelihood is worth it, or attempt to buy private insurance which will allow you to leave your guns lying about unsecured when you're not home.

 

Da point is to be able to penalize da small set of gun owners who are not responsible with their firearms.

 

Surely you can do better than trying to argue that dynamite or cannon style weapons are linked to the Second Amendment. There were cannon and explosives in the Revolutionary War. The Amendment does not mention such weapons but rather arms that one bears. It is clear that they meant rifles and handguns.

 

Yah, this is just nonsense, eh? Da only "explosive" at the time was gunpowder, and yeh needed that to load your musket. Da British raid on Lexington & Concord was after da powder as much or more than it was after the rifles.

 

Da civil militia of the colonies most definitely had field artillery in individual possession. Alexander Hamilton began his military career with an artillery unit of da New York militia. Private commercial shipping also carried cannon. To "bear arms" is not the same thing as to carry an arm. It is a term of art which means military service, eh? That's why da plural is used. It refers to all the equipage of war.

 

Even if yeh were to abide by da absurd literalism of carrying an arm rather than bearing arms, that would include anything that could be carried on foot or by horse, eh? In da modern world, it would include mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and light antitank weapons and the like, and if we took "horse" to mean "vehicle" it would include quite a lot more.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, I would love to have a pragmatic discussion, but its tough when the person with whom you are discussing is prone to presenting "... A parody. Or perhaps a reductio ad absurdum..."

 

 

 

 

[moosetracker]

Why is the host of a party held responsible if they hold a party and allow a drunk guest to drive home, and he kills someone?

 

Why is the home owner held responsible if he doesn't safeguard their pool, and the neighborhood kid, gets in and drowns..

 

Why could you be in trouble if an under aged drinking party takes place in your home by your son, while you are not home?

 

Why can you be sued if a delivery guy comes to your house and slips and falls on the ice?

 

It is called personal responsibility. In order to own something or do something you take the responsibility for the privilege. It does not keep you from owning said item. It just forces you to be responsible for said item..

 

If you took the legal precautions and the actions happen anyway, then you will not be legally responsible.. Like if you safe guard your pool as required and a kid still finds a way to get in.. then you would not be liable.. Same with the guns.. If you you safeguard your guns, and someone breaks the safeguards, your would be fine..

 

In other words take the extra 5 minutes and spend the extra $50 bucks.. Be responsible. Quit the whining.

 

[AZMike]

Beavah: "As close as I can tell, I can't find any English-language news reports about mass shootings in da German schools in the 1990s, including in reports that purport to list all the worldwide school mass shootings. Germany did have some Columbine-copycat school shootings in the last decade, in Erfurt and Stuttgart."

 

Not sure about the 1990s being the worst for Germany, but you had the Dorum shooting in 1992 (1 dead), the last decade had Erfurt (17 killed, 1 wounded), Coburg (1 dead, 2 wounded), Rtz (student disarmed, no casualties), Emsdetten (0 dead, 37 wounded), Winnenden (16 killed, 9 wounded). The number of school shooting threats in Germany seems to have increased (until recently there was no central tracking as each state kept its own stats) - 2,600 officially registered threats between 2006 and 2010.

 

A more useful (but horrifying) comparison would be the rate of school killings for the last 2 decades in China, which has gun control laws that make Germany look like Arizona.

 

Meihekou in 1995 had 2 dead, 16 wounded. Henan in 1995 had 2 dead, 15 wounded. Hejiang County in 1998 had 23 wounded. Huaiji county in 2002 had 5 dead, 2 injured. Beihai in 2003 had 8 wounded. Suzhou in 2004 had 28 wounded. Ying County in 2004 had 25 wounded. Chenzhou in 2994 had 4 dead, 12 injured. Mingcheng Town in 2004 had 12 injured. Guangde County in 2005 had 18 wounded. Shiguan in 2006 had 12 killed, 5 wounded. Luoying in 2006 had 2 dead, 2 wounded. Chiling in 2007 had 1 dead, 3 wounded. Hengyang in 2007 had 1 dead, 5 wounded. Mazhan in 2009 had 2 dead, 4 wounded. Nanping in 2010 had 8 dead, 5 injured. Xichang in 2010 had 2 dead, 5 wounded. Leizhou in 2010 had 17 wounded. Taixing in 2010 had 32 wounded. Weifang in 2010 had 1 dead, 6 injured. Hanzhong in 2010 had 10 dead, 11 wounded. Zibo in 2010 had 3 dead, 7 wounded. Shanghai in 2011 had 8 wounded. Chenpeng in 2012 had 24 wounded.

 

Those are just the kindergarten and primary school incidents, not including secondary, high school, or colleges, all of which have extensive casualty rates.

 

The attackers were all adults (as in Connecticut). Almost all involved edged weapons and improvised explosive or incendiary devices, as well as some blunt force trauma, defenestration, and homemade firearms. An almost total ban on private ownership of firearms hasn't been effective in China.

 

(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[Eagle732]

Hmm, and all that violence while being under strict communist rule where there are no civil rights and no due process.

 

Yea I like China. Since 1949 they've killed tens of millions of their citizens. Mao tried to reform land use (read kick the peasant farmers off the land and killing at least a million). Of course that worked out so well it led to a great famine after the government took over the entire food supply leaving another 5 million to die. Not to mention millions who were killed for even thinking about speaking against the regime.

 

Too bad all the guns were confiscated right after WW2 and the people couldn't defend themselves.

 

History is full of tyrannical government that are willing to kill millions of its citizens to maintain control. Of course our government would never do anything like China did, or Russia, or Cambodia, or Germany. I could go on but you get the idea (at least some of you do).

 

And you're worried about 30 round clips and scary black rifles?(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[Beavah]

Too bad all the guns were confiscated right after WW2 and the people couldn't defend themselves.

 

Yah, well given all da shootings, apparently not all of the guns were confiscated, eh?

 

I think we have to be a bit cautious about comparisons with China, don't you? Yeh aren't really tryin' to be proud that we're better than a bunch of corrupt communist oligarchs are yeh? I'd figure that was a given.

 

Germany, by contrast, is another first-world democracy. Now, they've had quite a rough couple of decades, eh? Hard to absorb all of impoverished East Germany at a gulp. Created a lot of economic challenges an inequities. So it's still not that comparable, but it's much closer. AZMike, thanks for da extra research which (once again) establishes that da claim being made about Germany in the 1990s was false.

 

We should be able to be honest about these things.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle732]

"We should be able to be honest about these things."

Well Beaver how are my facts and opinions not being honest? Are you insinuating that I'm a lier?

 

 

 

[Brewmeister]

Fools, tools, and useful idiots ignorant of history abound. Give away your right to defend yourself if you wish. I'll keep mine. Molon labe.