If You Can See Both Sides Of Gun Control Debate

[CaptinSarcastic]

that's just silly. the issue is why cannot law abiding civilians (the supreme sovereign) own the same weapons our civilian public servants use for self defense

No, that is how you WISH to define the issue. Why draw the line there? It is arbitrary.

Why not have the same weapons as our military. Should tyranny overtake America and the military turn it guns on us, how could we defend ourselves?

Should we include police in whatever line is drawn?

And our civil sevants do not exclusively use their weapons for self-defense, the only lawful reason an actual civilian may fire on another, the police are the people we have hired to have offensive capability and priviledges. Only the police can legally break into someone's house with guns drawn and kill the occupants should they resist. This is enormous power, and we have tried to take steps to limit the use of this power, warrants, probable cause, etc, but we give them this power none the less.

Is it the goal to be able to match the police in a firefight, or just a random arbitrary line?

 

[TurtleDude]

No, that is how you WISH to define the issue. Why draw the line there? It is arbitrary.

Why not have the same weapons as our military. Should tyranny overtake America and the military turn it guns on us, how could we defend ourselves?

Should we include police in whatever line is drawn?

And our civil sevants do not exclusively use their weapons for self-defense, the only lawful reason an actual civilian may fire on another, the police are the people we have hired to have offensive capability and priviledges. Only the police can legally break into someone's house with guns drawn and kill the occupants should they resist. This is enormous power, and we have tried to take steps to limit the use of this power, warrants, probable cause, etc, but we give them this power none the less.

Is it the goal to be able to match the police in a firefight, or just a random arbitrary line?

major fail, having handled several cases involving claims of wrongful shootings of civilians by civilian cops I can emphatically state a police officer can use lethal force ONLY under the same circumstances as OTHER civilians.

Police claimed they needed 17 shot handguns and select fire carbines to face criminals. That argument is equally applicable to other civilians

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

if you justify something merely because the government does it, that would make you a statist

the fact is the federal government does lots of stuff that has no basis in any reasonable interpretations of the constitution

Based on that defintion, I don't think there are any statists at all, except perhaps for people who work for the government, and even then, they may do what the government asks but still disagree.

Everyone thinks the government is wrong about something, usually many things. Calling people statists because you differ on what the government does wrong is silly.

Do you agree with anything the government does? Does that make you a statist?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

major fail, having handled several cases involving claims of wrongful shootings of civilians by civilian cops I can emphatically state a police officer can use lethal force ONLY under the same circumstances as OTHER civilians.

Police claimed they needed 17 shot handguns and select fire carbines to face criminals. That argument is equally applicable to other civilians

Can you forcibly break into a neighbor's house with your gun drawn and kill your neighbor if they raise a firearm to you or fire a shot at you?

YOU, as a citizen, cannot get a warrant, so YOU as a citizen cannot legally do this, police can.

That is decidely NOT a circumstance that other civilians can legally engage in.

Because police have this responsibility of being an offensive force, it is perfectly understandable that they would have the necessity of greater firepower.

In that sense, they are similar to the military.

It is an arbitrary line regardless of what you consider to be equal applicability.

 

[sangha]

That is not what they taught me. It was: When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when neither is on your side, mop the floor with the opposing lawyer. Damn Devry Institute of Lawyerin & Stuff must have gotten it wrong when they were teachin' me.....

What I learned was "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when neither is on your side, bury them with BS and hope the jury gets confused'

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

1) I think stuff that is motivated by either emotion or a desire to screw over gun owners is evil and the only gun laws that would lessen school shootings are getting rid of gun free zones at schools

we people who understand these issues realize that "Doing something" is worthless unless it actually helps

I am a gun owner, so have no desire to screw over gun owners.

As to what will help, that is the debate. I think for the most part, the changes being considered are reasonable and rational and could have some impact on curbing some forms of gun violence. That you disagree is fine, but I really think it is important to remember that we are talking moving the lines slightly, and it's not gun grabbers versus freedom except on the fringes (absolute 2nd Amendment rights versus total ban of all firearms)

 

[haymarket]

the left rejects common sense because so much of their agenda is either based on an appeal to emotion (Save the children) or is based on something OTHER than what they claim (punishing the NRA instead of inhibiting criminals)

What I personally reject and have no respect for is an attempt to pretend to engage in debate when one ignores the very underpinning that it all hinges on --- being able to support ones claims with verifiable evidence.

The rather lame "its just common sense" is so empty of actual meaning and such a empty substitute for verifiable evidence that it becomes laughable when invoked in debate as a reply to facts and the historical record.

 

[Fisher]

What I learned was "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when neither is on your side, bury them with BS and hope the jury gets confused'

I know a guy whose strategy is when you have nothing going for your case, get the judge really pissed off at you in front of everybody--it'll make your client think you really fought for him so he won't file a claim against you and is good for business because it looks like you are standing up for some unknown principle even when you are not.

 

[sangha]

I know a guy whose strategy is when you have nothing going for your case, get the judge really pissed off at you in front of everybody--it'll make your client think you really fought for him so he won't file a claim against you and is good for business because it looks like you are standing up for some unknown principle even when you are not.

I never heard that one before. :lol:

 

[ChrisL]

I'm wondering if ONLY people who can see both sides of the current gun control debate can answer in this thread?

There are many threads devoted to arguing one side of the other.

Can one thread sort of be for less-rabid responses from people who are "on the fence"?


Here's a rather reasonable "rant" from Jon Stewart:
Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

This falls into the wheel-house of my thoughts.

Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with restricting magazine size.
I don't fear the government is going to try to outlaw ALL guns.
I don't have issues with background checks, waiting periods, and limits to how much one person can purchase in some given time frame.
I don't have issues with registration. I don't have issues with classes in gun safety.

So when you honestly believe we have the right to bear arms, but also believe there needs to be some restrictions and rules, and you are also capable of CALMLY discussing possible solutions to some of the attacks we've witnessed in the last few years, I'd love to hear what some of your thoughts are.

If you're simply going to jump into people's faces and scream at them for having an honest opinion I'd rather you not post in this thread.

Thanks.

I'm simply not on the fence because I think every single one of our rights should be protected. The federal government has awandered far from what it was originally intended to be.

Seems to me that the fed wants to abrogate and take over states rights as well as individual rights. It's just not right and it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I want the feds to have a MINIMAL amount of control over the people.

You must admit that the federal government has become an absolute monstrosity and is something that it was NEVER intended to be by the founders.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

evil spreads when people turn their backs to its existence

Or, as Einstein put it…

“…the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

that's just silly. the issue is why cannot law abiding civilians (the supreme sovereign) own the same weapons our civilian public servants use for self defense

And that, of course, rests on distinguishing who is the servant, and who is the master. Surely a servant should never be able to claim a power for himself, while denying his master that same power.

 

[sangha]

I'm simply not on the fence because I think every single one of our rights should be protected. The federal government has awandered far from what it was originally intended to be.

Seems to me that the fed wants to abrogate and take over states rights as well as individual rights. It's just not right and it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I want the feds to have a MINIMAL amount of control over the people.

You must admit that the federal government has become an absolute monstrosity and is something that it was NEVER intended to be by the founders.

I can't speak for dragonfly, but I don't have to admit that. The truth is that some of the founders were in favor of a strong centralized federal govt. Contrary to the rightwing myth of small govt, it wasn't a unanimous desire.

 

[TurtleDude]

Can you forcibly break into a neighbor's house with your gun drawn and kill your neighbor if they raise a firearm to you or fire a shot at you?

YOU, as a citizen, cannot get a warrant, so YOU as a citizen cannot legally do this, police can.

That is decidely NOT a circumstance that other civilians can legally engage in.

Because police have this responsibility of being an offensive force, it is perfectly understandable that they would have the necessity of greater firepower.

In that sense, they are similar to the military.

It is an arbitrary line regardless of what you consider to be equal applicability.

you are wrong though, a cop can only fire when he reasonably believes that there is an imminent threat of severely bodily harm

 

[Bob Blaylock]

you are wrong though, a cop can only fire when he reasonably believes that there is an imminent threat of severely bodily harm

…which is exactly the same circumstance under which any civilian may fire.

 

[TurtleDude]

…which is exactly the same circumstance under which any civilian may fire.

exactly

where the hoplophobes really fail is claiming that a Cop's job makes the weapons MORE USEFUL for cops and totally illegitimate for other civilians. That is stupid

the real argument is that cops deserve to be trusted with unusually dangerous weapons because they are more likely to encounter heavily armed criminals than other civilians-that is false-

or that cops are more trustworthy than other civilians-again a false assertion

 

[sangha]

A cop can shoot at a fleeing felon

 

[TurtleDude]

A cop can shoot at a fleeing felon

not in many states and he has to be certain its based on an honest belief that the felon would cause harm

shooting someone in the back is going to cause a grand jury inquest, suspension and the department might well lose a civil suit unless the cop witnessed the perpetrator kill or severely injure someone.




and though this was true once it is diminishing and does not justify a cop having weapons other civilians do not have access to

btw if you came home to Sangha Farm and saw your wife and dog lying dead with some scumbag with a bloody knife by the stabbed bodies and you ordered him to stop and he started running away I can guarantee you you are not going to get charged if you shot the guy in the back under those circumstances

 

[ChrisL]

I can't speak for dragonfly, but I don't have to admit that. The truth is that some of the founders were in favor of a strong centralized federal govt. Contrary to the rightwing myth of small govt, it wasn't a unanimous desire.

The federal government's duties are limited according to the Constitution, agreed upon and signed by all. :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

The federal government's duties are limited according to the Constitution, agreed upon and signed by all. :shrug:

its a contract that FDR and his minions unilaterally modified without consideration or the consent of the other parties to the contract

 

[sangha]

The federal government's duties are limited according to the Constitution, agreed upon and signed by all. :shrug:

True, but that's different than what you said in the post I originally responded to.

 

[ChrisL]

True, but that's different than what you said in the post I originally responded to.

How so? It was agreed in the Constitution that the federal government should have very limited powers, but they seem to have expanded on the original idea.

 

[sangha]

How so? It was agreed in the Constitution that the federal government should have very limited powers, but they seem to have expanded on the original idea.

What you said was:

You must admit that the federal government has become an absolute monstrosity and is something that it was NEVER intended to be by the founders.

I don't see anything in their writings, or the constitution, that suggests they would have agreed that our govt is a monstrosity or that it's workings are "unintended".

"Unimagined" might be more accurate, but not unintended.

 

[ChrisL]

What you said was:


I don't see anything in their writings, or the constitution, that suggests they would have agreed that our govt is a monstrosity or that it's workings are "unintended".

"Unimagined" might be more accurate, but not unintended.

I'm quite sure it was probably unintended as well. There are limits for a reason. None of the founders wanted a government to have control over the people. The idea was the government works for the people.

 

[sangha]

I'm quite sure it was probably unintended as well. There are limits for a reason. None of the founders wanted a government to have control over the people. The idea was the government works for the people.

Well one thing the Founders agreed on was that the govt did need the power to control the power, to some extent. They were not fans of mob rule, and they tossed the Articles of Confederation, in favor of the Constitution, because the former did not delegate enough power to the federal govt.

And as far as working for the people, that's what our govt does. There's no doubt that there are venally ambitious people in our govt, but the founders not only expected that, but they also designed the system so that, in order to gain the power they seek, those people would have to act in the peoples' interests.