• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Northern Light's post on "Gun Control"

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,169
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We are past the point of development as a nation where high powered weaponry could ever stop the State from turning tyrannical. This isn't the 18th century with muskets and cannons. Our government has weapons, some of them classified, that are beyond our defense; and our government's greatest asset is that it has become an expert at psychologically manipulating its own people into doing its bidding. Even if 10% of the military remained loyal to the government in a civil conflict, the public would still be doomed.

To the extent that we have high powered weaponry and the State has already turned tyrannical, this is true. This is not because of the disparity in weapons technology, however, but the lack of resistance among the American people. We are, as you say, brainwashed not only to accept tyranny but to clamor for it.

That is no excuse for compiling further tyranny on top of tyranny, however.

It's easy to talk political philosophy on a computer but if your family member was mowed down by someone who bought their assault rifle at the corner store, you'd question this too.

This is a cheap emotional appeal. A lot of the people most affected by this shooting-- apart from the dead, of course-- have indeed changed their perspective because of this threat to their lives and their freedom. They've replied by inventing the Rainbow Gadsden flag and buying more guns. #ShootBack

There has to be a middle ground. We can still have a 2nd Amendment while doing whatever we can to try and prevent our most degenerate citizens from killing people en mass. As I said earlier, the violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem, but there's treating the branch and then there's treating the root. The root, in my opinion, is beyond help. Our country is in a downward spiral that we won't recover from, one that will require some kind of reconfiguration of our society that we are not capable of voluntarily doing right now. All we can do for now is address the branch, which is to prevent known degenerates from acquiring weapons. It will never be foolproof, but we have to try.

I disagree that the roots of our violence culture are unreachable. There are numerous effective and liberal policies we could pursue that would drastically improve our crime rates, that the gun control debate is detracting from. And there is, indeed, a middle ground even on gun rights; there are numerous gun control measures we could adopt that would not violate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms that are politically unfeasible because of the state of distrust that exists between gun control advocates and gun owners. Perhaps if the former would stop advocating for total gun bans, and stop telling gun owners that nobody's trying to ban our guns while they are trying to ban our guns, that rift of distrust could be healed.

A replacement "2nd Amendment" that explicitly protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, outside the home, for self-defense-- so that the gun control crowd can no longer legally argue that such a right exists, or that the American people do not desire such a right-- would be a sufficient concession for me to accept gun licenses and gun registration that are compatible with that right. Most Americans, including most gun owners, agree on the need for universal background checks; however, I believe that the gun rights lobby is morally justified in demanding concessions before they go along with it, because of the abuse of our rights by the gun control lobby.
 
To the extent that we have high powered weaponry and the State has already turned tyrannical, this is true. This is not because of the disparity in weapons technology, however, but the lack of resistance among the American people. We are, as you say, brainwashed not only to accept tyranny but to clamor for it.

That is no excuse for compiling further tyranny on top of tyranny, however.



This is a cheap emotional appeal. A lot of the people most affected by this shooting-- apart from the dead, of course-- have indeed changed their perspective because of this threat to their lives and their freedom. They've replied by inventing the Rainbow Gadsden flag and buying more guns. #ShootBack



I disagree that the roots of our violence culture are unreachable. There are numerous effective and liberal policies we could pursue that would drastically improve our crime rates, that the gun control debate is detracting from. And there is, indeed, a middle ground even on gun rights; there are numerous gun control measures we could adopt that would not violate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms that are politically unfeasible because of the state of distrust that exists between gun control advocates and gun owners. Perhaps if the former would stop advocating for total gun bans, and stop telling gun owners that nobody's trying to ban our guns while they are trying to ban our guns, that rift of distrust could be healed.

A replacement "2nd Amendment" that explicitly protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, outside the home, for self-defense-- so that the gun control crowd can no longer legally argue that such a right exists, or that the American people do not desire such a right-- would be a sufficient concession for me to accept gun licenses and gun registration that are compatible with that right. Most Americans, including most gun owners, agree on the need for universal background checks; however, I believe that the gun rights lobby is morally justified in demanding concessions before they go along with it, because of the abuse of our rights by the gun control lobby.

I don't really think an AR-15 is going to do much to an Abrams tank or A-10.

I'm also not convinced arming people in a crowded nightclub with chaotic conditions and alcohal having already flown freely would have changed things.
 
I don't really think an AR-15 is going to do much to an Abrams tank or A-10.

You can't control a population with a tank. Insurgency is not about destroying the military in your homes, it's about making your homes too expensive to rule.

I'm also not convinced arming people in a crowded nightclub with chaotic conditions and alcohal having already flown freely would have changed things.

I think changing the law from prohibiting guns in bars to prohibiting persons from drinking while carrying will be beneficial. It only takes one person to stop a maniac from killing dozens.
 
You can't control a population with a tank. Insurgency is not about destroying the military in your homes, it's about making your homes too expensive to rule.



I think changing the law from prohibiting guns in bars to prohibiting persons from drinking while carrying will be beneficial. It only takes one person to stop a maniac from killing dozens.

The thing is, though, this is America. I don't think the government, in a hypothetical situation, would ever decide that, say, Ohio or Washington State was too expensive to rule.

A law banning drinking while carrying would be a good thing. Firearms and alcohal don't mix.
 
What is not often discussed is why we let known to be extremely dangerous convicted folks roam freely among us while locking up folks for non-violent offenses. Making a list (database?) of folks that are considered far too dangerous to ever buy (own or keep) guns, turning them loose, and then attempting to keep them from gaining access to (300 million?) guns now in private hands is extremely unlikely to work no matter how many "common sense" gun laws get passed.
 
That is no excuse for compiling further tyranny on top of tyranny, however.

Requiring background checks for high powered assault rifles isn't tyranny, not when there are weekly massacres by crazy people. Even with such background checks, we would still have more gun freedom than anywhere in the world.

This is a cheap emotional appeal. A lot of the people most affected by this shooting-- apart from the dead, of course-- have indeed changed their perspective because of this threat to their lives and their freedom. They've replied by inventing the Rainbow Gadsden flag and buying more guns. #ShootBack

Which is also an emotional appeal no?

Neither side can re-write the past. There's no evidence that arming everyone in a night club makes it safer. Some of the worst massacres in our country's history were in places with CCW. The root problem is a culture of violence.

And also... what kind of security checks were in place at the club? How was a man with an assault rifle able to get in?


I disagree that the roots of our violence culture are unreachable. There are numerous effective and liberal policies we could pursue that would drastically improve our crime rates, that the gun control debate is detracting from.

That will never happen, and not because of the gun control debate. The government has slashed mental health funding for years. "Help" is now giving people pills and other chemical straight jackets. In the latest incident in Orlando, the media won't even talk about the homophobic roots of the shooting, they'd rather blame ISIS, which is only loosely connected.

The media and the military-industrial complex are all complicit in fueling the same agenda of tyranny and oppression. That's why it's too late. When I visit the U.S. now, every day people I talk to are so brainwashed.

We are never going to get the policies you're talking about. I agree that they are the solution, but they'll never happen. Too many corporate interests, too much power politics. The last thing the government wants is people who are self-actualized and able to critically think about their own lives.

And there is, indeed, a middle ground even on gun rights; there are numerous gun control measures we could adopt...

Such as?

It's my understanding that no gun control measures are accepted, period. You mention one little thing and the NRA lobbies against it. The GOP filibusters it.

Perhaps if the former would stop advocating for total gun bans, and stop telling gun owners that nobody's trying to ban our guns while they are trying to ban our guns, that rift of distrust could be healed.

Perhaps if the latter didn't block every single suggestion on principle, the rift could be healed. See what I did there?

Both sides could talk about this respectfully 70-80 years ago. Not now. Opponents aren't colleagues anymore, they're enemies.

A replacement "2nd Amendment" that explicitly protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, outside the home, for self-defense [...] would be a sufficient concession for me to accept gun licenses and gun registration that are compatible with that right.

So is your main problem the wording of the 2nd Amendment, in that case? Because to me, the 2nd looks rather vague. I mean, we could take away all arms in the U.S. except for allowing everyone to have pistols, and the 2nd would still be fulfilled.

I personally would not trust ANYONE in government to re-write the Constitution right now.

Most Americans, including most gun owners, agree on the need for universal background checks; however, I believe that the gun rights lobby is morally justified in demanding concessions before they go along with it, because of the abuse of our rights by the gun control lobby.

I agree with this... it's pretty much why I believe that the U.S. is now beyond the pale. There's so much power politics, so much big money, and so many special interests groups, that as soon as any policy shifts an inch, there's a side ready to pounce and take a mile. Look at what happened to our failed attempt at public health care. Our entire polity is now about wealth, power and control, and not about what is sensible for freedom and pursuit of happiness for everyone. IMO it's this which needs to be addressed in order to bridge the divide, but polarization has taken place as a tool of tyranny and so it'll never happen.

We aren't divided to civil war proportions but it has some elements of that. As long as the people see each other as enemies the government has carte blanche.
 
Requiring background checks for high powered assault rifles isn't tyranny, not when there are weekly massacres by crazy people.

I agree that background checks are not tyranny. However, the presence of mass shootings does not justify measures that would be considered "tyranny" in peacetime. Human rights are inalienable; they are not subject to environmental conditions or the whims of the public.

Even with such background checks, we would still have more gun freedom than anywhere in the world.

There are three countries with gun laws as liberal as ours: Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan. They are not as liberal as our most liberal states, such as the Constitutional Carry states, but they are more liberal than states such as California and New Jersey. The former two countries, despite their liberal gun laws, are not only safer than the United States, they are safer than the average country in the European Union.

I'm not opposed to background checks. I'm just not going to give one more inch to gun control groups, even reasonable inches, until they start trying to give something back. I am sick of the gun control definition of "compromise" which means that they will allow us to retain some of our basic rights until the next time a tragedy occurs.

Some of the worst massacres in our country's history were in places with CCW.

Can you name any? Because all of the massacres I am aware of, other than State-sponsored violence, either occurred before the widespread acceptance of shall-issue CCW permits or occurred in areas that were legally excepted from CCW.

The root problem is a culture of violence.

Certainly, but what are you going to do about it? Restrictions on gun rights aren't going to magically change our culture. What are gun control advocates even proposing we do about our culture of violence, except for giving up our right to self-defense?

So is your main problem the wording of the 2nd Amendment, in that case?

Yes. I think the meaning and intent of the Amendment are plain from its wording and the other writings of its authors, but the wording is ambiguous enough that anti-liberty groups have argued-- mostly successfully, until recently-- that the amendment is nearly meaningless. Despite the Supreme Court finally reversing course on this trend, you still have people arguing that the 2nd Amendment only protects a "collective right" for the States to maintain their own militias, or that the "well regulated militia" clause allows the Federal government to impose nearly any restriction on gun ownership that it sees fit. I much prefer the protection for gun rights offered by the Wyoming Constitution: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied." It states both that the purpose of the right and the fact that it belongs, explicitly, to the citizens.

I personally would not trust ANYONE in government to re-write the Constitution right now.

I agree with you. The American people hate liberty. Until we can trust the government, and the people, to uphold human and civil liberties as they are already expressed in the Constitution, we cannot possibly hope to trust them with the ability to re-write it. I despair of ever regaining that trust, because from my perspective both the government and the American people are irreparably broken; America as it exists today must be destroyed before a nation that upholds its founding principles can be rebuilt. I am dedicating a considerable amount of my own time and resources to trying to fix this country through democratic processes, but I cannot help but see these efforts as nearly futile.
 
I find the idea of having to get government approval to buy a product absurd and indeed tyranny. I see no valid reason someone should have to pass any kind of test to get anything they find desirable for themselves to have.
 
I find the idea of having to get government approval to buy a product absurd and indeed tyranny. I see no valid reason someone should have to pass any kind of test to get anything they find desirable for themselves to have.

Every hoop they want me to jump through to own/buy a gun, I want them to be subjected to when voting.
 
I find the idea of having to get government approval to buy a product absurd and indeed tyranny. I see no valid reason someone should have to pass any kind of test to get anything they find desirable for themselves to have.

I think there are legitimate and compelling public safety reasons to prohibit and restrict the purchase and ownership of products which serve no lawful purpose. I believe that arms rights only specifically apply to those weapons which have lawful application to self-defense, and that the right to use drugs does not apply to drugs that are primarily applied to other people for criminal purposes.
 
I think there are legitimate and compelling public safety reasons to prohibit and restrict the purchase and ownership of products which serve no lawful purpose. I believe that arms rights only specifically apply to those weapons which have lawful application to self-defense, and that the right to use drugs does not apply to drugs that are primarily applied to other people for criminal purposes.

I think anything the government has the people should have access to as well. Anytime the government bans the people from having something the government has I believe the people should find it as an unacceptable and dangerous move by their government.

I also find the idea of government putting tests up for the people to pass to buy and sell goods as unacceptable hogwash that acts to stop innocent people from acquiring what they desire.
 
I think anything the government has the people should have access to as well.

I think this is overly simplistic. A private citizen cannot use a 1,000 pound bomb for any lawful purpose, and a 1,000 pound bomb represents a very real danger to other people. What possible social benefit-- or non-criminal private benefit-- does it serve to allow private citizens to purchase 1,000 pound bombs?
 
I think this is overly simplistic. A private citizen cannot use a 1,000 pound bomb for any lawful purpose, and a 1,000 pound bomb represents a very real danger to other people. What possible social benefit-- or non-criminal private benefit-- does it serve to allow private citizens to purchase 1,000 pound bombs?

The reality is, there is no law probably prohibiting you from purchasing a 1000 pound bomb. Acquiring a destructive devices permit would permit you to own such a device. The real issue there, is the practical reality that only defense contractors make such weapons and they won't sell to you, plus the expense of acquiring a platform capable of delivering it, and recruiting the people with the qualifications to use it. But it always cracks me up when people say "well does the second amendment mean you should be allowed (fill in the blank weapon system here) because the reality is most of those systems are technically legal to own
 
...

I agree with you. The American people hate liberty. Until we can trust the government, and the people, to uphold human and civil liberties as they are already expressed in the Constitution, we cannot possibly hope to trust them with the ability to re-write it. I despair of ever regaining that trust, because from my perspective both the government and the American people are irreparably broken; America as it exists today must be destroyed before a nation that upholds its founding principles can be rebuilt. I am dedicating a considerable amount of my own time and resources to trying to fix this country through democratic processes, but I cannot help but see these efforts as nearly futile.



You have put your finger on it. It is not simply a matter of gun laws, or enforcement, or even that the government is corrupt and ineffective... we are, as a culture and a nation, broken and highly dysfunctional.


It is improbable that any effort can fix us.


It is depressingly likely that we will have to suffer some kind of catastophe, collapse, or conflict of a severe and all-encompassing nature, burning away the dross and tempering the metal that survives, before we will be able to forge a functional society again. We're about as likely to split into dozens or scores of squabbling mini-nations operating on widely differing principles and ideologies.


We're probably fracked. I try not to think about that too much, as it is depressing and there's damn little I can do about it.
 
To the extent that we have high powered weaponry and the State has already turned tyrannical, this is true. This is not because of the disparity in weapons technology, however, but the lack of resistance among the American people. We are, as you say, brainwashed not only to accept tyranny but to clamor for it.

I agree that we are past the point of being able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. But would also point out, we are past the need to do so. Media saturation, and citizen soldiers with 100 percent connectivity ensures our troops aren't kept in the dark about their government's actions. Plus laws which in theory protect them from unlawful orders and repercussions from whistle blowing. The government would have to blackout communications in large areas around their bases, which that of itself would be noticed. As far as brainwashing, most of that is done on the commercial level to make you buy stuff and think of certain things as traditional. And its done by reinforcing the idea of your own personal freedom. The Gov't isn't about to change up the message that's been working for almost a century. Support our Troops, They aren't fighting for the Gov't they're fighting for you. Let's the gov't do whatever it wants, and keeps you from condemning them to much for doing it. And really, it's a positive brainwashing that actually benefits us way more than it hurts us. In fact our obsession with the military, is a big reason no one is dumb enough to ever attack us. N. Korea included. We've changed since the Korean War. The millennial generation was raised to treat war like a game, add that to our tech advances, and recent experience in guerrilla warfare. We'd have the country under our control in no time, settled in, and fighting whatever crazy insurgents are left over. Conquering is not the hard part, it's getting that last little bit without committing a war crime that's the hard part. And the fact that the public cares about war crimes a great deal, tells me we are not that brainwashed. Otherwise Iraq would be a sheet of glass atm.

The 9th Amendment already recognizes the type of gun ownership you are suggesting. Although, those who benefit from a strict interpretation of the 2nd deny that vehemently. A separate amendment would be redundant with how the 9th works. But few people are aware of its existence. If people could agree on this issue the NRA would become irrelevant, so they gotta keep everyone's hackles raised. And while I respect your opinion on Gun Control, and see why you feel the need to make common sense concessions. I disagree with the methods most common sense advocates call for.

For starters background checks. A convicted felon who wants to own a gun, is going to own a gun. There are 300 million plus citizens in the country, and enough guns to give everybody one of their own. Throw in the fact that its not hard to make your own gun with cheap equipment legal for anyone to buy, and the rise of 3d printed guns made of undetectable materials. Although it may seem counter intuitive. It might be wise to allow convicted felons to purchase legal registered fire arms, make it easier to catch the stupid ones. And allow the ones who've payed their dues to exercise a right that I feel shouldn't be taken away from them. As a gun owner, I can tell you all you need to do to bypass a background check is buy a cb radio. Background checks and bans are pointless as a crime deterrent. And only promote the black market.

I would instead propose a generous tax break to gun vendors that have an employee become certified as a mental health worker, a short class and easy test. This employee would watch customers for erratic behavior and signs of mental illness. They would refuse service on the right to refuse service to anyone, until the customer returns with a note from a psychiatrist or psychologist. And call the police on the more agitated ones. Which most gun vendors aren't in the practice of selling guns to agitated customers anyway. And will call the police on the guy who leaves muttering threats under their breath. So this adds in a bit of expertise in what to look for, on top of things most gun vendors do already. And provides an avenue for unstable individuals who may not know they needed help to get that help. A hot head looking for a new hunting rifle in a bad mood, may get hot they have to see a shrink, but may like what the shrink says and would still get their rifle. And it could catch a crazy or two before they do something crazy...
 
Last edited:
So I just made a donation and this is my first Loft post :)

I don't really think an AR-15 is going to do much to an Abrams tank or A-10.
Not without the barrel-mounted grenade launcher, no, then again AR15s were not designed to address tanks and aircraft in the first place. The Army taught me to use AT-4 missiles and RPGs for tanks and aircraft, and those aren't items currently on the market to then become relevant objects of discussion here.

8 Times AR1s were used for self-defense

I think this is overly simplistic. A private citizen cannot use a 1,000-pound bomb for any lawful purpose, and a 1,000-pound bomb represents a very real danger to other people. What possible social benefit-- or non-criminal private benefit-- does it serve to allow private citizens to purchase 1,000-pound bombs?
No one's talking about using bombs for personal self-defense. Let's be clear on that.

Explosives have valid comercial uses: Packaged Explosives for Construction Industry | Dyno Nobel

When we say "privatly owned" that doesn't necessarily mean "kept at home in my garage next to the kid's bycycles". It only means someone other than the government owns it and uses it. Privately owned explosives are used for firefighting, tree/rock removal, building demolition, mining, etc. I've heard of ski resorts that have privatly owned artilery for removing avalanches. Like fireworks manufacturers, there would, of course, need to be an assortment of regulations regarding safe storage and proper use. While I admit it would take a fairly unique problem for a 1,000lb bomb to be the right tool, should that unique problem present itself then it should be within a civilian's ability to legally buy and use that 1,000lb bomb.

I don't own an aircraft that could deliver a bomb, but maybe there's someone out there who does. Maybe there's a private person out there who owns a company that has aircraft large enough to transport a bomb, and maybe that person's neighborhood is being threateneed by a severe wild fire, as was the case in California a few years ago, and South Dakota about 20 years ago. Maybe that private person could contact the fire department and offer to donate their time and fuel to deliver something like a 1,000lb bomb for cutting a Fire Line.

Maybe that's not the best way to fight that particuler fire, or maybe it would help. That would depend on the fire chiefe in charge. All I'm saying is it should be a legal option.

...I would instead propose a generous tax break to gun vendors that have an employee become certified as a mental health worker, a short class, and easy test. This employee would watch customers for erratic behavior and signs of mental illness. They would refuse service to the right to refuse service to anyone until the customer returns with a note from a psychiatrist or psychologist. And call the police on the more agitated ones. Which most gun vendors aren't in the practice of selling guns to agitated customers anyway. And will call the police on the guy who leaves muttering threats under their breath. So this adds a bit of expertise in what to look for, on top of things most gun vendors do already. And provides an avenue for unstable individuals who may not know they needed help to get that help. A hot head looking for a new hunting rifle in a bad mood, may get hot they have to see a shrink, but may like what the shrink says and would still get their rifle. And it could catch a crazy or two before they do something crazy...

A well-intended suggestion. However, most guns used in crime are bought legally, meaning your well-trained mental health hawk would sincerely find nothing wrong with the criminal buyer because there would, in fact, be nothing wrong with the criminal buyer. Gang member straw purchasers have clean records and don't flag on your background check. Gang member straw purchesers take all the required classes, have good references (in cases like NY where such is required), and clean mental health histories.

Additionally, corrupt FFLs, who are perhaps the aforementioned gang members with clean histories, who falsify information on a sale, and 'lose' items from their inventory.

And then there's theft from cars broken into while parked in front of posted businesses.

Background checks and permits fix none of that, and the conspiracy nut in me thinks anti-gun knows their 'solutions' don't solve anything because they want to keep putting blood on the TV to get public support for even more gun control.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom