csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.
Thoughts?
I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.
Thoughts?
The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so.
I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.
Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.
I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.
To that anti-firearm crowd....
The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.
Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.
Cannot ban guns. But I do not want the next psycho to have it as convenient neither. Hence we should single them out with fMRI solutions and deny license to a gun. Make it more probable that psycho's would be arrested while purchasing illegal guns would be both practical solution as well as theoretical (i.e., the government would have nothing to do with allowing easy access to psycho's).
Except the stats and the facts clearly prove that mental issues do not increase a persons likelihood to commit gun crimes.
We went through this. It is not the mental disorders it is the character and personality disorders.
Or perhaps I was not clear. When I type "psycho" I mean "psycho-path" not "psycho-tic" which then would mean what you are referring about.
Whenever a thread on any forum, anywhere on the internet starts out with those words, you know it's going to be nothing but lies and propaganda from that point on.Let's be honest
Whenever a thread on any forum, anywhere on the internet starts out with those words, you know it's going to be nothing but lies and propaganda from that point on.
Let's be honest about what a firearm is.
I would define a firearm, in the context that it is most often used, as the most efficient way for an individual to project force. We hear firearms compared to cars, hammers and knives, but at the end of the day, all of those devices have legitimate other primary uses and when it comes to projecting force are much less efficient. Cars, while powerful and capable of causing tremendous damage are pretty hard to use to attack or defend ("Quick honey, someone is trying to break in and climb through the window,get the car!"). Hammers and knives, while fantastic weapons in their own right, usually require that the user place themselves in the vicinity of their victim, thereby being open to retaliation with the same or different weapon.
When you think about society we are surrounded by other people, some of which share our interests, other who do not.
When trying to convince people to do what you want, you have two ways to do it, through influence or force.
Removal of the firearm from society, (if it were possible), removes only the efficiency with which a person can project force, not the desire to do so. Since (I assert) it is impossible to remove firearms in our culture, even to a significant degree, their removal only denies those that would abide by a law to surrender their firearms their most efficient means of defending yourself from another who is using force in an attempt to persuade you.
The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so. We should keep in mind that laws are often a first step in shaping culture which, in most cases has a much larger effect on society.
I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.
Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.
I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.
To that anti-firearm crowd....
The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.
Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.
I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.Thoughts?
Here's where I disagree with your approach, you skipped right by the most important thing you said. "...the desire to do so." This is the key area where society needs to train its youths. Teaching children right from wrong, and making sure they are law-abiding gun owners versus criminals. I really thought that's where your post was headed, but instead you remained fixed on the weapon.....disappointing. The weapon is not where the problem lies, it's in the mind of each person. This holds not only true for the use of weapons, but anything else for that matter.
Here's where I disagree with your approach, you skipped right by the most important thing you said. "...the desire to do so." This is the key area where society needs to train its youths.
Teaching children right from wrong, and making sure they are law-abiding gun owners versus criminals.
I really thought that's where your post was headed, but instead you remained fixed on the weapon.....disappointing. The weapon is not where the problem lies, it's in the mind of each person. This holds not only true for the use of weapons, but anything else for that matter.
Given the fact that governments are the number one cause of death (Hundreds of millions last century alone) tyranny and oppression it is not extreme to insist that the people be equally armed to protect their freedom. Freedom is more important than the small numbers of loss of life that we incur for it's assurance. Equally it is not extreme to insist that people have the right to defend themselves from those that simply will not follow any law that you wish to impose no matter how "Practical" you believe they are.
Cannot ban guns. But I do not want the next psycho to have it as convenient neither. Hence we should single them out with fMRI solutions and deny license to a gun. Make it more probable that psycho's would be arrested while purchasing illegal guns would be both practical solution as well as theoretical (i.e., the government would have nothing to do with allowing easy access to psycho's).
Governments don't kill people any more than guns do. In both cases it's the people that are doing the killing.
We already have a **** load of conditions to own a firearm.We do not need anymore.If anything the criminal element is statistically insignificant.
There are around 70-80 million gun owners as of 2010 and at least 310 million firearms as of 2009 in their hands and only 10-12 thousand homicides a year a good portion involve scumbag on scumbag shooting(so their deaths are a favor to society). and 600 fatal firearm accidents. I would have to say that 99.0% of gun owners are accountable for their firearms.
I seen this line before- I has guns too,me like to shoot, me have gun at home for self defense, now let me see that second amendment you got there and wipe my ass and sweaty testicles with it while me pretend to be a moderate or in the middle gun owner. You are not the first to pull this nonsense.
Seeing how we have the right to keep and bear arms in this country without any infringements we should not concede to ****.If anything we made enough concessions.
A compromise implies that both sides are giving up something in exchange for something. What is the anti-2nd amendment side going to give up in exchange for me conceding to universal background checks?
That's the beautiful thing about the Constitution, it was created, not as a set of unchanging laws that can never be violated, but as a document that can be changed.
Ok, but what I am wondering is how you believe that you can determine one from the other with an MRI?
From what I have seen so far the MRI does not indicate a distinction, do you have evidence to the contrary?
I don't believe in ANY case that we should be removing people's rights based on what they may or may not do.
I think it is more obvious that you are simply scapegoating low hanging fruit
Yes by the amendment process, not by subjective re-interpretation.
I know at least 4 million Jews that might disagree with you.
It happens every once in awhile, but we agree....
I think we're splitting hairs here. People make up a government. It is people acting as a group with the force to back up their ideas that in this case we are calling "Government". But no one in the history of civilization has been killed by "government", just policies put in place by the group that had power and the people that carried it out.
Same thing you just don't want to call it government. Why is that?
That is the equivalent of saying the boy scouts have never gone camping just a group of people that went camping following policies put in place by the group.
The question in my mind is, does the government represent the will of the people within the boundaries of the Constitution designed to restrain it (the Government).
There is no question, the answer is no.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?