The Gov. to try to take our guns.

[JohnP]

Hi again. I resisted the bait on this as long as I could hold out...

Hi Stephen,
Here goes:

In that broad sense of "conditioning", I agree completely.

Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't more than a stylistic influence - there might very well be - but the fact is that such a claim is presumed far more easily than proven. The trenchcoats certainly show a copycat style, but that doesn't demonstrate that the violence itself was caused by Matrix-like influences, though I'd absolutely agree that that such media certainly can "tip" already unstable individuals.

I agree.

John, you conveyed your point perfectly and it's an entirely reasonable one, but the problem is that it's simply not backed up by hard proof. The pornography example is an excellent one, since it presents a similar dilemma which has received a far greater degree of research attention in the past. You're absolutely correct that sexual predators almost always have pornographic addictions, but that doesn't demonstrate a causal relationship, nor does it help refute the suggestion that the virtual arena might help alleviate their obsession, particularly since rape crimes have dropped something like twenty-five percent since the rise of the internet. Your position is entirely reasonable, and it's far from disproven, but it's far too soon to condemn such virtual activities as negative (or positive) based on current evidence. And, in the absence of evidence, I just tend to lean against the cultural conservatives, if only because they tend to spark unfounded moral panics with enough regularity that I've lost confidence on there actually being a wolf out there.

I can see your point, even if I don't quite agree...however this last part (bold added) is what I think gets most folks going at each other over these issues, as I guarantee both sides fear the exact same thing from the other. The left panics that the right is going to do away with their right to privacy or free speech, (actually, I think most of us could care less as long as you don't use your rights to harm me or anyone unjustly) and the right worries that the left is going to take their guns and religion away. The truth is somewhere in between, but in the mean time, the government quietly takes the rights away from BOTH sides...

John, you have quite imaginative descriptions! I might quibble over a detail or two, but I think we very much agree as far as the above goes. I don't disagree with your characterization of how that situation would play out, I only feel that "peace through deterrence" is what ends up being advocated, instead of addressing the real issue of why the community contains dangerous people. The problem is simply shifted around as symptoms are treated as the problems themselves and temporary personal relief is valued while the long-term good of the community is set aside.

I agree, I think. However I would point out that all deterrents are merely stop gaps until more permanent, better working procedures take place. The cold war MAD policies between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. for instance, are a good example of this. Neither side wished nuclear annihilation, so the deterrent factor prevented, perhaps, open war, until later years when more diplomatic means started succeeding. Not that I trust Mr. Putin at all, but the threat is at least a bit more veiled now. Same with society. When there are no more people being attacked in their homes, and all governments are benevolent to their citizens all the time, that would be ideal. Until then, I think an armed citizenry keeps people more polite and governments [at least a little more] honest.

Ah, but the second amendment makes quite clear that the right is granted for the express effect of ensuring a state militia, so I don't see why it couldn't be interpreted exactly as such, leaving restrictions on arms ownership perfectly legal so long as they did not infringe on that key area. Note that I'm not saying that there's no way it could be interpreted otherwise, only that my alternative seems quite reasonable given the language used. Also, while there certainly would be some debate as to how to interpret what a modern "militia" would consist of, I think there would be an excellent case to me made that it would indeed include a great deal more "arms" than just "firearms".

For the first part of this statement, I disagree. During the revolution, all able-bodied men were considered the "militia" and often were local townsmen who came out with their rifles. In those days they were called minutemen, perhaps the BBC would call them "insurgents" and CNN would call them "right-wing radicals"; regardless, that was the militia. Congress, then in Philadelphia, also "paid"-I use the term loosely-a standing army, the "Continental Army" under then Gen. George Washington, who was himself a former officer in the British Army during the French and Indian wars. My feeling is that when the amendment was written, some of the bloodstains from the revolution were fairly fresh. Had the people not already been armed, no militia would have been possible to call up, no one would have been able to answer the towns' bells; let alone the first shots being fired when the colonial British government tried taking said arms away. As it was, without French and to an extent, Polish help, the revolution would likely have failed miserably. For the last part, however, I agree. I feel it protects a good deal more than just firearms.

John, would you mind clarifying what exactly you believe "bear" to mean when referring to weaponry? My original point was that the term could be interpreted in such a manner, which you agreed with, so I don't think we're in disagreement on that point. Just for my own edification, however, I'd appreciate a further definition of how you believe "bear' should be interpreted and how it would practically impact how weapons could be lawfully utilized.

There are quite a few definitions listed for the word "bear" but the one that seems applicable to me is "To have and use". I think there are also common modern day sayings that give inclination to this as well. To say one is "loaded for bear" means ready for a fight. I would argue that this came from old references to warfare...as do references to bringing guns/artillery/etc to bear on a person or target means to use them on said objective. I digress.

I think I'd be much more supportive of people owning firearms if they weren't so darn happy with the arrangement. I have no problem with the person who lives in a dangerous 'hood keeping a shotgun by the bed or the libertarian who stocks a bunker in case of government oppression (heck, in twenty years I might build one myself), but there seems to be an attitude that people actually like the power of their guns with something that strikes me as almost a phallic fascination. The terribleness of actually having to possess a tool designed purely for killing seems lost in the pleasure of being the one to carry the power to do so.

I don't believe most gun owners are overjoyed at the prospect of killing anyone any more than anyone else. There is a confidence increase perhaps, but that's about it. Arguably, the best draw to firearms once someone finally owns and practices with one, is that they are inexplicably fun, the grim possible use of it on a person is usually a last resort anyway, just like most people who carry Mace or pepper spray do not ever use it, and if they do, chances are it's a situation they'd rather not be in, in the first place.

Other than the existence of firearms in a utopian society (I like to think that in a utopia we'd no longer value proficiency in the use of an archaic killing machine), I don't disagree at all. My apologies on the delay in responding, but it's a terrible time of the year, so I may not be back for another week yet!

No biggie. It has been a pretty busy week for me as well, and I actually try to avoid this and similar topics for awhile, if only because I am so easily drawn into them, causing other members to envision horrible images of expired equine abuse....
(BTW didn't know a horse would lay down like that!)
John P.

 

[qhsdoitall]

No biggie. It has been a pretty busy week for me as well, and I actually try to avoid this and similar topics for awhile, if only because I am so easily drawn into them, causing other members to envision horrible images of expired equine abuse....
(BTW didn't know a horse would lay down like that!)
John P.

Hmmm...I wonder who this is referencing? It can't be me. I'm done talking about gun control and dead horses.

 

[JohnP]

Hi Rich,
Honestly, I had no idea people trained their horses to do that.
John P.

 

[qhsdoitall]

Hi Rich,
Honestly, I had no idea people trained their horses to do that.
John P.

Hey John,

Horses need to lay down to sleep for at least 20 minutes a day to get a proper rest. They will also take quick naps lying down during the day if they feel safe enough. You know a horse trusts you (some are clueless) if they stay lying down when you approach them. The relationship between horse and rider is entirely about trust since horses are prey animals with heightened fear/flight instincts. Jumping on a horse's back is what a cougar or other predator would do. Asking a horse to lie down on command and stay quiet while you sit or even stand on them is the ultimate in trust. The horse is totally vulnerable. Bonnie goes even further and was trained as early as a month old to do this. She is at the point now that if she gets caught up in a fence from rolling around in the sand too much, she will wait quietly until I get to her, pull her legs through the fence, wrap ropes around her legs and then flip her 950lbs of dead weight over so that she can get up quietly. She does not move a muscle while I do this. However, if a dog or something else decided to attack her while she was vulnerable she would rip the fence out and hurt herself trying to escape. She would then attempt to kill the dog by kicking into next Tuesday or grabbing it with her teeth and snapping it's neck. So, you can see why I go to all the trouble of training all my horses to do this to some degree. They need trust me and I need to trust them so that neither of us gets hurt bad or even killed.

 

[JohnP]

That's actually really really cool. Not something I'd thought about, but it makes a lot of sense, (and perhaps, explains the "meanness" of our cousin's pony when we were young and attempted leaping upon its back.... )
John P.

 

[Xert]

I can see your point, even if I don't quite agree...however this last part (bold added) is what I think gets most folks going at each other over these issues, as I guarantee both sides fear the exact same thing from the other. The left panics that the right is going to do away with their right to privacy or free speech, (actually, I think most of us could care less as long as you don't use your rights to harm me or anyone unjustly) and the right worries that the left is going to take their guns and religion away. The truth is somewhere in between, but in the mean time, the government quietly takes the rights away from BOTH sides...

Hm, the government taking rights from both sides is probably true more so in the US - in Canada the left is about the government's failure to extend rights, while the conservatives are worried about them being taken away. But my comment that "I just tend to lean against the cultural conservatives, if only because they tend to spark unfounded moral panics with enough regularity that I've lost confidence on there actually being a wolf out there" wasn't so much to do with government at all, but just culture in general. The idea of being a conserve-ative inherently contains a basic desire to keep things a certain way, so I suppose that should be no surprise, but their claims that the sky is falling never seem to pan out. If Columbine had happened twenty years ago it would have been blamed on heavy metal instead of video games. It's actually pretty amazing how cliche they become after a while - you can literally see the exact same patterns emerge to the point where you can simply change the issue and date and no one could tell the difference.

I agree, I think. However I would point out that all deterrents are merely stop gaps until more permanent, better working procedures take place. The cold war MAD policies between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. for instance, are a good example of this. Neither side wished nuclear annihilation, so the deterrent factor prevented, perhaps, open war, until later years when more diplomatic means started succeeding. Not that I trust Mr. Putin at all, but the threat is at least a bit more veiled now. Same with society. When there are no more people being attacked in their homes, and all governments are benevolent to their citizens all the time, that would be ideal. Until then, I think an armed citizenry keeps people more polite and governments [at least a little more] honest.

Well, the Cold War was ended primarily by Reagan outspending the Russians, but certainly nukes worked as a deterrent, so my objection certainly isn't based on the practical benefits of arms ownership. I just don't think that an ideal society can be achieved through a social cold war that evaporates into benevolence, so some other model must be sought.

For the first part of this statement, I disagree. During the revolution, all able-bodied men were considered the "militia" and often were local townsmen who came out with their rifles. In those days they were called minutemen, perhaps the BBC would call them "insurgents" and CNN would call them "right-wing radicals"; regardless, that was the militia. Congress, then in Philadelphia, also "paid"-I use the term loosely-a standing army, the "Continental Army" under then Gen. George Washington, who was himself a former officer in the British Army during the French and Indian wars. My feeling is that when the amendment was written, some of the bloodstains from the revolution were fairly fresh. Had the people not already been armed, no militia would have been possible to call up, no one would have been able to answer the towns' bells; let alone the first shots being fired when the colonial British government tried taking said arms away. As it was, without French and to an extent, Polish help, the revolution would likely have failed miserably. For the last part, however, I agree. I feel it protects a good deal more than just firearms.

Hm, I agree entirely, John, so I'm not quite sure how you were disagreeing with my previous point.

There are quite a few definitions listed for the word "bear" but the one that seems applicable to me is "To have and use". I think there are also common modern day sayings that give inclination to this as well. To say one is "loaded for bear" means ready for a fight. I would argue that this came from old references to warfare...as do references to bringing guns/artillery/etc to bear on a person or target means to use them on said objective. I digress.

But that would seem to imply that one has the constitutional right to legally "bring one's guns to bear" on the state itself, no?

I don't believe most gun owners are overjoyed at the prospect of killing anyone any more than anyone else. There is a confidence increase perhaps, but that's about it. Arguably, the best draw to firearms once someone finally owns and practices with one, is that they are inexplicably fun, the grim possible use of it on a person is usually a last resort anyway, just like most people who carry Mace or pepper spray do not ever use it, and if they do, chances are it's a situation they'd rather not be in, in the first place.

Ah John, but you're qualifying things much more than I did. I do not object to an increase in confidence at all, nor do I think that they're overjoyed at the prospect of killing. The "fun" factor is huge. If I told you about some abstract tool designed purely to inflict violent death on someone from as far away as possible by means of a chemical compound so destructive that its inventor was heartbroken that he had invented something so terrible...Well John one might very well still make a case for its usefulness, but I doubt that anyone could mount much of a defense of such an object for pleasure. But when the head of the NRA grasps a rifle in his two hands and pumps it above his head as he shouts and grins to a cheering crowd, it's just nothing near the soberness that weapons should carry. The fact that any tool should be invented for the purpose of killing should be something constantly lamented, not enjoyed. To give you an example, however, I just watched an episode of Penn & Teller where they interviewed a woman shopkeeper who was nothing short of beaming as she held out each of her guns for display. The twinkle, the gleem - she wasn't just at the gun range to make sure she could protect herself, she was there because she loved the rush, and you could see that exact same anticipation in her eyes as she talked about how she'd defend herself if someone mugged her. It was almost as if she wished someone would try, just so she'd be able to justify blowing them away with her gun. Now clearly there are many, many other gun owners who don't take it that far, but how many members of the NRA actually actively mourn the existence of their dedicated weapons of destruction in the first place? Not very many, I wager.

No biggie. It has been a pretty busy week for me as well, and I actually try to avoid this and similar topics for awhile, if only because I am so easily drawn into them, causing other members to envision horrible images of expired equine abuse....
(BTW didn't know a horse would lay down like that!)
John P.

Yes, that's quite the horse trick indeed! Thanks for sharing, Rich.

And John, I propose that you, knowing how much I enjoy our little chats, continue to engage in them only to humour me - for which I am of course greatly thankful!

 

[JohnP]

Hm, the government taking rights from both sides is probably true more so in the US - in Canada the left is about the government's failure to extend rights, while the conservatives are worried about them being taken away. But my comment that "I just tend to lean against the cultural conservatives, if only because they tend to spark unfounded moral panics with enough regularity that I've lost confidence on there actually being a wolf out there" wasn't so much to do with government at all, but just culture in general.

Pretty sure I agree here.

The idea of being a conserve-ative inherently contains a basic desire to keep things a certain way, so I suppose that should be no surprise, but their claims that the sky is falling never seem to pan out. If Columbine had happened twenty years ago it would have been blamed on heavy metal instead of video games. It's actually pretty amazing how cliche they become after a while - you can literally see the exact same patterns emerge to the point where you can simply change the issue and date and no one could tell the difference.

I think both sides of any long standing debate, and both sides of any idea, will have this same "sky is falling" mentality about the other. I would argue there is a difference in the Columbine case, if only because the perpetrators not only were obviously inspired to kill by the movie (which would be the same argument made about heavy metal in the 80's), they completely immitated it, which to me, is a little more damning. Otherwise, you are right. Both sides scream the sky is falling; however, for some reason, it usually ends with the sky actually falling on gun-rights advocates, here, which gets old, as do restrictions on any group not balanced out. Which explains the joy and excitement over recent rulings in Washington DC, etc. as they are small victories in a sea of defeats.

Well, the Cold War was ended primarily by Reagan outspending the Russians, but certainly nukes worked as a deterrent, so my objection certainly isn't based on the practical benefits of arms ownership. I just don't think that an ideal society can be achieved through a social cold war that evaporates into benevolence, so some other model must be sought.

Ahh, but I was merely using this as an example as to why a deterrent is a necessary evil prior to real solutions. Pres. Reagan outspending the Russians (he also bluffed them pretty well as I gather) was how the war was ended. I have no doubt in my mind that had there been no deterrent prior to this (e.g. had the U.S. not had nuclear weapons aimed at the Soviets and vice verse) that Soviet tanks would have long since rolled through Germany, and Pres. Reagan would never have gotten his chance...

Hm, I agree entirely, John, so I'm not quite sure how you were disagreeing with my previous point.

I was merely disagreeing with your statement that the amendment was purely to allow the creation of a state militia, although perhaps I misunderstood, as in the U.S. there are 50 (13 back then) states, and I took your meaning as supporting the state militias in that sense (those DID become the national guard). If you meant "state" in the national sense, in that all able male citizens [today, female as well, as all rights applying to men in the past have since included women] are part of the militia and responsible for protection of the country-then I agree with you completely.

But that would seem to imply that one has the constitutional right to legally "bring one's guns to bear" on the state itself, no?

That's EXACTLY what it means, should such become necessary. Between that, and the right of states to secede (trampled on, for good or bad in the 1860's by the Lincoln administration) there are some rights in there that are pretty ground shaking, I think, for the times.

Ah John, but you're qualifying things much more than I did. I do not object to an increase in confidence at all, nor do I think that they're overjoyed at the prospect of killing. The "fun" factor is huge. If I told you about some abstract tool designed purely to inflict violent death on someone from as far away as possible by means of a chemical compound so destructive that its inventor was heartbroken that he had invented something so terrible...Well John one might very well still make a case for its usefulness, but I doubt that anyone could mount much of a defense of such an object for pleasure. But when the head of the NRA grasps a rifle in his two hands and pumps it above his head as he shouts and grins to a cheering crowd, it's just nothing near the soberness that weapons should carry. The fact that any tool should be invented for the purpose of killing should be something constantly lamented, not enjoyed. To give you an example, however, I just watched an episode of Penn & Teller where they interviewed a woman shopkeeper who was nothing short of beaming as she held out each of her guns for display. The twinkle, the gleem - she wasn't just at the gun range to make sure she could protect herself, she was there because she loved the rush, and you could see that exact same anticipation in her eyes as she talked about how she'd defend herself if someone mugged her. It was almost as if she wished someone would try, just so she'd be able to justify blowing them away with her gun. Now clearly there are many, many other gun owners who don't take it that far, but how many members of the NRA actually actively mourn the existence of their dedicated weapons of destruction in the first place? Not very many, I wager.

For the first part, when people celebrate a freedom or anything else they've fought to protect, there are going to be negative photo-ops, regardless of if it is Wayne LaPierre or whoever holding up an old rifle (which could send the wrong message to fence sitters) or any number of other issues on both sides. Just ask Howard "yeehaaAAAWWWHH" Dean.
You mention the glazed eyed lady at the range...I think she had to be a first time shooter, all bark. Firearms are quite fun, and especially for a new shooter, it can be a rush. People new to martial arts often exhibit similar behavior upon realizing that, finally, they are not completely helpless. It is a rush for anyone brandishing new power or abilities. Realism sets in however. Just as the new yellow-belt Shaolin practitioner may show off his "moves" to friends, and a new first-time gun owner returning from a first range day speaks of "no one is going to mess with me now!" I would argue that neither ACTUALLY wants to be forced into a situation where such would need to be used. There is still, however, pride. The anticipation of use, if you will comes more from a deep fear-now that one has this new tool or skill...would it REALLY protect/have the intended effect? Hence people just learning to fight wonder if move "A" really would stop an attacker cold in his tracks, or if it would merely annoy, in real life...I'm rambling. I know what you mean, and gloating about a grim ability is in poor taste-but I do know where it comes from and it is both harmless and fleeting in most cases. I would worry more if there was a specific person mentioned, especially if that person were not a genuine threat. "I'm gonna teach my ex now!" would send up far many alarms to me than the lady saying anyone messing with her was going to "get it". Clear as mud, I'm sure. Lastly, If a person owns a firearm, there is nothing to mourn about, any more than buying car insurance or the existence of police stations and fire departments-they are there, and if need be, can help avoid a grave situation. If there is an IMMEDIATE (pressing) need, e.g. one's life has been threatened, then it is indeed something to mourn-not because of the firearm, but because of the horrible situation requiring it.

Yes, that's quite the horse trick indeed! Thanks for sharing, Rich.

And John, I propose that you, knowing how much I enjoy our little chats, continue to engage in them only to humour me - for which I am of course greatly thankful!

Unfortunately I enjoy haranguing about this stuff about as much as anything on the site, I'll be here. I just wish such topics didn't grate on so many who are less interested in them. Horses notwithstanding. (When I'm rich, maybe I'll have a horse or two...and training to keep them up; gotta get out of CA first though...)
John P.

 

[SaveFerris]

Sorry to revive an old thread... But I got an automated message from my congressomwan (Nancy Boyda), stating she will be in town and meeting with people who have questions/comments to share.

I was wondering if I should go down and talk with her about it tomorrow. Is the congresswoman the right person to speak with about the subject?

I'm not the most passionate about the subject, I'd never go too far out of my way to make a point.. But since she'll be in town and I'm only about 15min from where the meeting will take place I didn't think it hurt to get down there and voice my opinion on the subject.

Thoughts?

 

[JohnP]

I don't see why it would hurt. After all, technically the congresswoman DOES work for you...
I personally think such issues would be a lot less heated if the people paraded out by the media weren't extreme whackos (both for and against), neither of which applies (hopefully) to you.
Ask her, see what she says. If she's like most politicians, she'll either be very guarded or not give quite a straight answer, especially if she is campaigning.
It seems on these forums we can manage a civilized discussion on these topics every several months, and I think both sides learn from them. Too bad the folks we see on the news haven't learned this tactic for the most part...either there is a shrill, truth-be-d.... girl from some college who has likely never even seen a firearm in real life, discussing how many times they just "go off" and kill babies...or on the other end of the spectrum a tobacco chewing, disheveled-might-be-a-child-molester-might-not, unkempt man who obviously just woke up and left his shack in the woods, proclaiming in intense detail what he would do with his trusty firearm to anyone attempting to break into his home. While I support the right of both to their opinions, and the right of the latter (even though there is likely NOTHING in that shack anyone is likely to want in the first place) to defend his home,
I feel neither is an ideal representative for viewpoints on either side.
Ahh well. Civilized discussions with level headed people seldom make good television....
John P.

 

[qhsdoitall]

Ahh well. Civilized discussions with level headed people seldom make good television....
John P.

Here Here. Common sense doesn't sell.

 

[mook]

Just a British view of the right to Bear arms

 

[ILLfarmboy]

Just a British view of the right to Bear arms

Rather odd seeing as how we got the Idea from you.

 

[BMWRider]

Rather odd seeing as how we got the Idea from you.

Brad, just walk away, walk away. I am not going to leap onto this one. We often forget our best ideas.

 

[ILLfarmboy]

Brad, just walk away, walk away...

You are right. It's sometimes hard though.

 

[Daves]

I live in Vermont and it is now hunting season. I know that any hunter that walks into the woods with a genuine bona fied assault rifle will be laughed out of the woods. Any GOOD hunter doesn't need an assault rifle with a banana clip to kill a deer. In fact it usually shows a lack of skill/knowledge of hunting. Our ancesters didn't have Kalishnikovs and they got by with a musket. Many of these so called "hunters" come up from the city armed to the teeth with a huge Bowie knife etc. They are the ones most often to mistake a cow for a deer.

My hat is off to those who use a muzzle loader or a just plain 30/30.

Best,

DaveS

 

[castlecraver]

Uugh.... Bumping this thread... not such a great idea.

 

[Elmo]

It appears the supreme court may be hearing several cases regarding "the right to bear arms" Chief justice Roberts said during his confirmation hearing that the issue "is not settled"

 

[GMZ]

Not this time, the 26th of Nov will be the next chance.

 

[masonjarjar]

for times when you just can't kill a deer enough.

 

[Einar]

Purely anectdotal but for myself I seem to have noticed that the people that are most "anti-gun" are the people that know the least about guns and the surrounding issues.
I tease my wife by putting my hands over my ears and repeating over and over brainlessly "guns are bad, guns are bad" as nauseum.
She and many other people that I have discussed this with refuse to even consider going to a range or reading any literature that is "pro-gun".
Silly really.
Knowledge is power. The more I know about something like this the better I can make my own decision.
Interesting axiom I read somewhere >>>
If guns cause crime, then cameras cause pornography.

Einar-American Citizen by birth