Guns and Pie

[mox 298]

Wrong. They only want to have control. They know all these arguments are sound and reasonable and they know that the range of a Skil saw is only so much. They only want control. Make no small bones about it.

Controlling a populace by removing their ability to defend themselves, by controlling the media, their education, their health, is a very effective means of controlling a large population. History has many many examples of how effective this is.

Who is "they"? It can't be the Democrats because they're not even organized enough to pass legislation with a majority in the House and Senate. It can't be the Republicans because they prefer to take control of the populace through legislation such as the PATRIOT act, warrantless wiretapping, and blatant disregard for the law. It can't be the ACLU, because the ACLU supports our 2A rights. Is "they" the Illuminati? The free-masons?

When you exclude the fringe nut jobs, "they" are mothers and fathers and grandparents and teachers and doctors and nurses and anybody else who has been affected by gun violence. They see only one side of the story, and they are mad as hell, and they want it to stop. In their grief and anger, they see taking away your guns as the answer. They don't have some evil control agenda, they just have a giant hole in their heart where somebody they love used to be. And then they find others who have gone through their pain, and they organize. And then they pull in other people who may not have gone through what they did, but in their ignorance sympathize. These are the people who need educating, who need our help in understanding that people kill, not guns. But what do we give them instead? We show up to political rallies with assault rifles. We stand at NRA podiums so the press can get lots of video of us brandishing a rifle like it's a holy symbol. We setup booths at gun shows and events where you can buy t-shirts with racist anti-Obama slurs. And we try to shout down anybody who dares to ask questions as "liberals" and "communists." And we support organizations like the NRA who are not simply comfortable with only having the truth on their side, and so resort to distoring facts and outright lying not just to the public, but to their very own dues paying members. Lies and distortion of facts are also traits of organizations who wish to "control." Make no small bones about it, you are being manipulated also.

Sorry, but we're no better than "they" right now. We have the truth, and we have the facts, but instead we choose to turn off our brains, dig our heels in, circle the wagons, and doggedly embrace the kool-aid that the NRA and other extremists tell us is good for us.

[baron555 934]

"they" are mothers and fathers and grandparents and teachers and doctors and nurses and anybody else who has been affected by gun violence. They see only one side of the story, and they are mad as hell, and they want it to stop. In their grief and anger, they see taking away your guns as the answer. They don't have some evil

No, they are exactly the people you describe.......who are being controlled by that media control, education control, job control, health control by those who wish to assume the control.

Yes, there are specific people whose lives have been touched by violence due to the use of a firearm, but as they are being controlled to think, the real "problem" is those evil guns and not the evil people using them.

As Slim has pointed out, the user of the gun is also a victim. If it weren't for that evil gun, then that evil person would not have touched their lives, right? Sound familiar.

So rather can crack down on the evil people, let's crack down on those evil guns, who just sit there all alone on the shelf or in the safe but inherently cause evil things to happen. Aren't there more people killed in auto accidents than from illegal firearm use? Why not crack down on those evil cars? If cars were banned, then there would be no car accidents. Same logic applies. Do not be misled by the media. It is very easy for sheep to do this.

[mox 298]

So rather can crack down on the evil people, let's crack down on those evil guns, who just sit there all alone on the shelf or in the safe but inherently cause evil things to happen. Aren't there more people killed in auto accidents than from illegal firearm use? Why not crack down on those evil cars? If cars were banned, then there would be no car accidents. Same logic applies. Do not be misled by the media. It is very easy for sheep to do this.

The reason automobiles aren't being cracked down on is because they're not very practical as a weapon. "Hey buddy, gimme all your money or I'll drive over you" just doesn't fly in most situations. They're very difficult to rob a bank with, and even more difficult to conceal-carry. You can't sneak into somebody's house in an automobile, and using an automobile for personal protection is likewise awkward. Plus, whereas guns are pretty much impractical except for a very limited number of things, automobiles serve a variety of uses for pretty much 100% of the people in this country. There are places in this country where you MUST have an automobile, whereas this is much less true with regards to guns. (personal philosophies like "every American should have a gun in their house" aside, millions and millions of Americans spend their entire lives having never even seen a firearm except on the hip of a cop, whereas you'd be hard pressed to find an American whose life hasn't been directly impacted by the automobile.)

Still, the gun/automobile analogy is interesting. What do you have to do to drive an automobile? In most states you have to pass a drivers safety course, hold a permit for at least 6 months (if you're under 18), pass a written test, and then pass a practical exam to obtain a license. Why? Because we as a society recognize that an automobile in the hands of an untrained person is extremely dangerous. And yet we scream bloody tyranny when anybody suggests that maybe some level of training should be required before a person operates a firearm. It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

As for "the media" wanting to take your guns away...the "media" are as disorganized as the Democrats, maybe more so, and banning guns would go against their best interests. If you're a reporter looking for ratings, would you rather cover a car crash or a shootout with police? No, the media may sensationalize guns and gun violence, but they certainly are not out to stop it.

The fact of the matter is that the NRA is bigger and badder than any single gun control group out there. Even the Brady Center's membership and funding is a pittance of what the NRA could bring to bear should they need to. So again I say, why do they need to lie? If the NRA stuck to the truth, gun control efforts would be dead in a year. But every time the NRA puts out a press release or writes a paper, it's filled with lies and disinformation, which the anti-gun people jump onto with ravenous glee. And maybe that's by design. Maybe the NRA believes they need to keep the public in fear of guns to keep member dues and contributions coming in. If you follow the money to see who benefits from gun control efforts, this actually makes a lot of sense. The NRA definitely benefits.

[slim 1,523]

Well a gun is more portable than a radial arm saw, and you have a much better chance of hitting somebody with a bullet than you do throwing a radial arm saw at them, for starters. Better range on a Glock than a Skil too, I'd bet, what with that stupid extension cord and all.

A radial arm saw has a sharp blade on it. A gun, while possibly having sharp edges, isn't going to injure someone to the extent a radial arm saw can. Maybe it could fall off a shelf and land on someone's foot, but other than that... it's not really all that dangerous..... until you add either the careless or irresponsible action of someone or the deliberate action of a criminal. Sooner or later people are going to realize that someone has to take some kind of action (or neglect to take some kind of action) to make guns dangerous. The gun can't do it all by itself. The radial arm saw can.

Ahhhh. Well this is probably the best I can hope for then. At a gut level you know that requiring people to be educated before handling a firearm would be the right thing to do, but your dogged persistence of believing that 2A is somehow handed down from almighty Gawd and therefore untouchable holds you back. You'd rather put your trust in a piece of paper written by infallible human beings than use your own ability to think and reason. But that's also the answer your question, "why do people want to take our guns away?". People on the other side believe just as strongly that guns are evil and must be taken out of our hands. Some of them even believe God wants them to take your guns away. Neither side wants to compromise for "sensible legislation," and so it goes. This is what frustrates me so much about our side. Both sides have good points, but nobody wants to listen.

I will not agree that "requiring" anything related to firearms would be the right thing to do. I would love to see people be trained but that's where the problem lies. "Sensible legislation" cannot be applied by the government to accomplish anything other than creating more bureaucracy. When folks ask for sensible legislation, I often wonder why they can't understand "simple legislation" circa 1789.

Still, the gun/automobile analogy is interesting. What do you have to do to drive an automobile? In most states you have to pass a drivers safety course, hold a permit for at least 6 months (if you're under 18), pass a written test, and then pass a practical exam to obtain a license. Why? Because we as a society recognize that an automobile in the hands of an untrained person is extremely dangerous. And yet we scream bloody tyranny when anybody suggests that maybe some level of training should be required before a person operates a firearm. It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I don't remember seeing automobiles anywhere in the Constitution. Not once. Got a link?

[mox 298]

When folks ask for sensible legislation, I often wonder why they can't understand "simple legislation" circa 1789.

I don't remember seeing automobiles anywhere in the Constitution. Not once. Got a link?

This reminds me of those bumper stickers: "God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It." A dogged adherence to a document written 200 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or 2 minutes ago is basically shutting off your brain and letting somebody else think for you. Which can be a nice thing I guess, less work and all. But unfortunately it means that somebody else is also doing the acting for you. If you want to keep your 2A rights, you're going to have to do better than that, because I guarantee there are a lot of very smart people out there who are figuring out all kinds of creative ways to get around your "it's written in stone" argument to take your guns away.

I've never doubted the letter of the law (amendment). But the great thing about the US Constitution is that it's a living document. The fact that there are even amendments included in our Constitution proves that. So if you want the basis of your argument to be "the Constitution doesn't say anything about cars but the part about guns is written in stone so you may only discuss them in that context," well then I guess I'm sorry to hear that. Our Constitution is a very different Constitution than the day it was ratified. 200 years from now it will be a very different Constitution than it is today. Hell, your right to bear arms may even be strengthened 200 years from now. But it won't be because everybody sat back and said "well some dead white guys 450 years ago wanted it like this, so that's how it's gonna be."

[visaveteran 1]

I've never doubted the letter of the law (amendment). But the great thing about the US Constitution is that it's a living document. The fact that there are even amendments included in our Constitution proves that. So if you want the basis of your argument to be "the Constitution doesn't say anything about cars but the part about guns is written in stone so you may only discuss them in that context," well then I guess I'm sorry to hear that. Our Constitution is a very different Constitution than the day it was ratified. 200 years from now it will be a very different Constitution than it is today. Hell, your right to bear arms may even be strengthened 200 years from now. But it won't be because everybody sat back and said "well some dead white guys 450 years ago wanted it like this, so that's how it's gonna be."

You espouse one theory...the Constitution is a living document. Others espouse the strict constructionist theory. The former could lead to anarchy. The latter, continuity of democratic governance. The Constitution has actually been amended only a few times considering our 232 year history. Is that called a "living document" or logical flexibility?

The tired argument to require "gun training" before gun ownership is no magic pill. People who will do evil won't be stopped by some 2-day classroom on handling a gun. It also will not effect guns that are passed down from father to son which will not be monitored. The most you could hope for with training is less accidents...but unless the training is long and intense, even that is not a certainty. People who naively think imposing pre-ownership requirements will make any significant difference are simply wrong. Others probably hope that by imposing some form of control, more radical control will follow. Kind of like Nancy Pelosi when she talks about "kicking through the door" of health care. Once through the door, much more laws will follow she promises.

As far as the NRA lying...well, every political entity lies. No one is clean. Frankly, IMO, the greater lies come from gun control groups...like the communists who use lies and deception as routine policies.

As to gun rights...the Bill of Rights still stands. End of story. And that's no lie.

[mox 298]

You espouse one theory...the Constitution is a living document. Others espouse the strict constructionist theory. The former could lead to anarchy. The latter, continuity of democratic governance. The Constitution has actually been amended only a few times considering our 232 year history. Is that called a "living document" or logical flexibility?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, which if averaged over the current lifetime of the Constitution comes out to something like an amendment every 8 years. If you exclude the first 10 amendments, which were ratified 2 years after the Constitution, that's still an average of an amendment every 13 years. I'm fine with calling it "logical flexibility" if it helps you wrap your mind around it, but I think we can agree that the Constitution has been amended more than just a "few" times.

People who will do evil won't be stopped by some 2-day classroom on handling a gun. It also will not effect guns that are passed down from father to son which will not be monitored. The most you could hope for with training is less accidents...but unless the training is long and intense, even that is not a certainty.

Do me a favor vv, if you're going to argue with me, then at least read my posts. I specifically said training should be required to reduce the number of accidents. I've said it in every single post where I've advocated training. It's right there in front of your face. Yes, absolutely training isn't going to stop "evil" (I don't believe in the concept of "evil" but whatever), but it's going to lower the accident rate. And this notion that you'd have to have intensive and on-going training is bollocks. Hunter safety courses have reduced hunting accidents across the board, and most of them can be done in a weekend.

Now I certainly think it would be in our best interests to keep up in our training (I'm an experienced pilot and I still take refresher courses every 6 months, and attend at least 2-4 pilot safety seminars a year), but it's not something I think is necessary as a baseline.

People who naively think imposing pre-ownership requirements will make any significant difference are simply wrong. Others probably hope that by imposing some form of control, more radical control will follow. Kind of like Nancy Pelosi when she talks about "kicking through the door" of health care. Once through the door, much more laws will follow she promises.

The argument you're making is called the "slippery slope" fallacy. As it's name indicates, it is indeed a fallacy. Since Wikipedia is now approved in RUB, here's a link for your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope . In a nutshell, all you have to do to win ANY argument (fallaciously anyway) is claim the slippery slope. Like so: "If you make it illegal to teach religion in public schools, then pretty soon it will be illegal to teach religion in private schools, and then it's just a matter of time before we're not allowed to teach religion in churches, which of course will lead to enforced atheism." See how easy that is? Arguing from the slippery slope is weak, because it works any way you want to argue it.

As far as the NRA lying...well, every political entity lies. No one is clean. Frankly, IMO, the greater lies come from gun control groups...like the communists who use lies and deception as routine policies.

Ahhhh. All politicians and activists lie, so that makes it ok as long as they are lying for your beliefs. As long as the NRA doesn't lie as much as gun control groups, it's cool. I see how it works.

As to gun rights...the Bill of Rights still stands. End of story. And that's no lie.

"God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It."

[visaveteran 1]

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, which if averaged over the current lifetime of the Constitution comes out to something like an amendment every 8 years. If you exclude the first 10 amendments, which were ratified 2 years after the Constitution, that's still an average of an amendment every 13 years. I'm fine with calling it "logical flexibility" if it helps you wrap your mind around it, but I think we can agree that the Constitution has been amended more than just a "few" times.

Yeah...and some are REALLY important...like the last one which involves congressional pay change rules. Thank goodness for a living document.

Do me a favor vv, if you're going to argue with me, then at least read my posts. I specifically said training should be required to reduce the number of accidents. I've said it in every single post where I've advocated training. It's right there in front of your face. Yes, absolutely training isn't going to stop "evil" (I don't believe in the concept of "evil" but whatever), but it's going to lower the accident rate. And this notion that you'd have to have intensive and on-going training is bollocks. Hunter safety courses have reduced hunting accidents across the board, and most of them can be done in a weekend.

Now I certainly think it would be in our best interests to keep up in our training (I'm an experienced pilot and I still take refresher courses every 6 months, and attend at least 2-4 pilot safety seminars a year), but it's not something I think is necessary as a baseline.

Every gun comes with a manual to explain safety and successful shooting info. Further, most people go to a range to shoot a new gun. Every range has rules before you can shoot. The NRA ranges require you to take a test before you can shoot. Thus, there already exists a fair amount of "gun training." And if you get a conceal carry license, you usually have to take a class. So...what more do you want?

The argument you're making is called the "slippery slope" fallacy. As it's name indicates, it is indeed a fallacy. Since Wikipedia is now approved in RUB, here's a link for your edification: http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope . In a nutshell, all you have to do to win ANY argument (fallaciously anyway) is claim the slippery slope. Like so: "If you make it illegal to teach religion in public schools, then pretty soon it will be illegal to teach religion in private schools, and then it's just a matter of time before we're not allowed to teach religion in churches, which of course will lead to enforced atheism." See how easy that is? Arguing from the slippery slope is weak, because it works any way you want to argue it.

The slippery slope was the assault gun ban...the left's brief moment of gun control success. The NRA turned it around and it's gone. Without an NRA challenge, we'd be facing more infringement...and a very slippery slope.

Ahhhh. All politicians and activists lie, so that makes it ok as long as they are lying for your beliefs. As long as the NRA doesn't lie as much as gun control groups, it's cool. I see how it works.

Yes, that's how it works. Deal with it. The era of the honest gentleman is long gone. It get's dirty done in the trenches.

[mox 298]

Okey-dokey. VV, I've tried to treat you like a thinking, comprehending adult, but either you have serious reading comprehension issues, or you've got the IQ of a parakeet. And quite frankly I think I might have just insulted the world parakeet population with that remark, for which I am truly sorry. I don't care that you don't agree with me; as you can see in my discussions with Slim, we both can disagree and still hold a normal conversation. We can still disagree and address each other's points head-on, rather than this sort of running in circles with your fingers plugged in your ears thing that you keep doing. It's no fun arguing with somebody who's so wrapped up in their own little psychosis that they can't even be bothered to read and absorb a point long enough to reply intelligently to it. (e.g. "me no likey stoopid 27th amendment so hahahaha I just disprove your "living document" statement--<<<WINZ!!!!) Maybe it's all the lead fumes or lead paint, or maybe you caught the Communist cooties when you betrayed your country and everyone who has ever fought and died for your country by marrying a Commie, but it's obvious that you're intellectually unequipped to carry on even a basic back-and-forth conversation. I hope you get better.

Anyway I guess it's back to just ridiculing you and pressing your buttons. That was more fun anyway.

[mox 298]

Boo-hoo you're such a meanie, you're gonna make me all sad and go crying to a mod to close the thread.

[Martyshk 137]

As to my wife, well, I liberated her...

:rofl:

[visaveteran 1]

:rofl:

Oh, hey Mart. What happened? I mean, you said you blocked my posts. Remember, you said no more "back and forth" with me.

[mox 298]

:rofl:

Oh come on, you HAD to know this was coming, right?

[Martyshk 137]

Oh come on, you HAD to know this was coming, right?

No... I was clueless, but I lol'ed irl actually..

Oh, hey Mart. What happened? I mean, you said you blocked my posts. Remember, you said no more "back and forth" with me.

Yeah, but this new VJ took you off the block list somehow, and I am too lazy to go look through that. You are my after-work entertainment!

[mox 298]

No... I was clueless, but I lol'ed irl actually..

Sadly, we will eventually learn that she is a double agent working for the KGB, and visaveteran will be directly responsible for the covert theft of our most precious national resource, Ronald Reagan's radioactive DNA, which the Soviets will then inject into Cosmonaut Hero of the Soviet Union Laika the Wonder Dog, who will then grow to an amazing 7,000 feet tall and poop on America to death. visaveteran, through your heroic but naive compassion, you have doomed us all to a poopy grave!!!!!!!!