The NRA is Virtually Holding the President and Congress Hostage
In the wake of the worst gun-related massacre in US history at Virginia Tech, instead of addressing an obvious and comprehensive background check requirement for all gun sales, the only national legislation that Congress considered is to include some mental health records in the NICS (National Instant Check System) database. Unfortunately this is used only by Federally Licensed gun dealers and won't impact private gun sales which make up approximately 50% of guns sold in the US every year. The sad reality is that the equivalent of a Virginia Tech and Columbine High School massacre happen every day in the US resulting in more than 80-90 gun deaths and 200-300 injuries a day.
The fact that in the US you need an ID to cash a check and it's legal to incarcerate suspected terrorists for years without being charged but those same individuals as well as convicted felons can legally buy an unlimited number of firearms without even an ID or background check is unconscionable and must be changed. The only substantive obstacle to such a reasonable national law is the National Rifle Association that is virtually holding the President and Congress hostage. The NRA's money, political influence and fear tactics have intimated state and national elected officials and the result has contributed greatly to the 30,000 largely preventable gun deaths every year in the US.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It's not a threat, it's a thought experiment.
Do you object to doing it? Why?
Because people can then know where to come in order to f--- with you?
NOW do you understand?
The "illegal gun" lie has been very successful in eradicating reason in the debate. There can't be "illegal guns ," only prohibited persons. I don't understand this criticism of the NRA and the slogan "An illegal gun gets you five years in federal prison" they co-authored with the Brady Coalition.
It's so effective at preventing crime , there have only been three or four murders within actual sight of the billboards here.
It's effective in other ways, too. A man I met yesterday open-carrying his .40-caliber pistol said a store clerk once called the police on him because to her any gun not on a policeman was an "illegal gun." No one died ... this time.
For people who claim to oppose violence, y'all sure work hard to make sure it happens.
"The NRA is Virtually Holding the President and Congress Hostage?" Really,that’s funny. I suppose that the millions of Americans who are paid members of the NRA, GOA, and other 2nd Amendment grass roots organizations, and the untold millions more who “associate” themselves with those organizations in election day exit polls are hostage takers too. I think it’s called being an interactive republic. Rejoice and don’t be bitter, unless of course your motives are ... evil ...
State Law Enforcement 1988-2004, Operation Iraqi Freedom 2006-2007, Teacher 2010-Present, NRA Member -Life
As you can see, I do not agree with your premise that NICS checks should be required for all gun sales... but rather than using emotion and misleading information (as you at the Stop Handgun Violence organization have done) I will simply use facts and current situations to demonstrate how these laws are ineffective at best and infringe on our liberties at worst.
I live in California, which unwittingly has served to discredit your argument. In the state of California EVERY gun related transaction must pass through a Licensed Firearms Dealer and therefore must go through a NICS background check. Assuming your logic is correct and that felons and terrorists are running around purchasing massive amounts of guns and committing all sorts of atrocities with those guns because of the lack of a background check, then California should have an extremely low rate of criminal gun ownership and/or violent gun crime rate. Unfortunately for me (since I live here), this is simply not the case. Here are the most recent numbers:
US Homicides by guns:
#1 California 2,392.
That's almost double the number of homicides in the next closest state.
If I could actually find the data, I imagine it would show that most of the guns used in those homicides were obtained through illegal means... even though we already have the unavoidable law that requires a background check on EVERY SINGLE gun sale in the state of California.
This is just another example of the indisputable fact that only the LAW ABIDING citizens follow the law. Even if there was a law in place to force these "i.d. checks" on gun purchases, the criminals and "terrorists" would simply purchase their guns through illegal means.
Another thing they fail to mention in their assertion of the "facts", Stop Handgun Violence fails to mention that their 80-90 deaths and 200-300 injuries per day includes ALL of the gang violence throughout the country, where gang members are killing other gang members. It also includes all of the suicides in that daily number as well as their annual 30,000 gun deaths per year, which amount to about 17,000 to 18,000 per year of those 30,000 (That's 46.6 to 49.3 of those deaths per day). We all know that guns do cause suicide, and while they do make it easier, it is not hard to find a three story building or a mountain to drive off or to hang yourself. Japan has no legal guns and they have a higher per capita suicide rate. I know that the remaining 12,000 to 13,000 gun deaths per year is a tragic number, and I would hope that no one would die from guns, but we need to consider a couple of other factors. How many of those gun deaths or injuries per year are "Justifiable Homicide?" How many people were shot because they were trying to harm or murder someone else? Last year there were 645 justifiable homicides (FBI numbers), and that does not include all of the times when guns were shown and stopped an attack from occurring.
The other factor we need to consider is the other allowed risks we take in our life, like cars... Here are some numbers on cars: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that in the year 2007 41,059 people died in car accidents and 2,491,000 people were injured in car accidents. Compare the numbers and do the math. Why are we not pursuing a car ban? Or perhaps car control?
There are over 20,000 laws regulating the ownership and use of firearms in the United States, one more will only restrict rights, it will not protect anyone... except criminals.
Mobile, I don't see how it is possible that the criminals in California have gotten those guns with 271 federal and 541 state statutes (in California) in place to protect you? I mean, that over 800 statutes. There couldn't possibly have been a single armed robbery, murder , or other gun related crime there.
Oh wait, California doesn't completely ban the carrying of all handguns. But Illinois does. So surely there hasn't been a gun related crime in Illinois. They couldn't possibly be second in the nation for gun crime violence, could they? No, of course not.
You can't show any studies that correlate gun control and lower crime rates. You know why? Because they don't exist. The FBI's own numbers show that counties that remove handgun bans see a drop in crime, not a rise. That's because 40% of criminals say that they will not target someone they believe may be armed. And in Illinois and other areas where carrying a handgun is banned, criminals have no reason to have such a belief.
In the words of Carlos Mencia: "Der der der!"
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this debate, but I would like to clear up a few things. Statistics can be useful, illuminating tools; but very often are misrepresented.
"US Homicides by guns:
#1 California 2,392.
That's almost double the number of homicides in the next closest state."
That seems very obvious, right? It's not as telling as it seems. For starters, California has the largest population of any other state, which would imply larger numbers of a lot of things. California probably has the largest amount of oxygen consumed also, but that does not mean that Californians breathe more. This also fails to consider social and other relevant conditions. California has a more large urban areas than most other states (possibly all), and would therefore likely have more gang-related activity. Let's not forget about the large border with Mexico, which unfortunately leads to quite a bit of drug traffic, which would also increase gun violence.
I'm not saying the Licensed Firearms Dealer works because of all this, just that your evidence is extremely deceptive.
Last, I just wanted to mention that we do have significant "car control." Traffic laws, safety regulations on cars. Car manufacturers would tell you that the auto industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in this nation. Should we require identification to operate a car?!?!? Guess what, that's the equivalent of what we are talking about here, not banning cars.
I actually agree with you on the use of statistics, however the anti-liberty forces heavily rely on them to support their claims which is why these numbers get bandied about so readily.
As far as I'm concerned, even if the statistics irrefutably proved that things like background checks on private sales reduced crime or homicide (they don't, but for the purposes of argument..), I would still oppose them.
Why? Because freedom inherently comes with some risks. Freedom means that people have the freedom to do bad, stupid, irresponsible things as well as good, smart, responsible things. The only way to eliminate the possibility of the bad (even in theory) is to eliminate freedom.
Sorry...not on my watch.
But, again for the sake of argument, if you could convince me that licensing a right would be consistent with liberty, how would background checks on private sales be enforced? Do you know how many guns I have? If I decide to sell one to Biff down the street, how would you ever know about it?
The obvious next step, after disallowing private sales fails to affect the crime rate, is registration. That's the only way to ensure that gun owners are following the law.
I will oppose registration to the death. Every tyrannical government in history has begun with disarming the public and disarming the public has, historically, inevitably begun with registration.
Again, I do not have a hard stance on this matter, so I'm just trying to assess what you are saying.
First, using terms like freedom and liberty does a lot to stir people up, but I want to know exactly what you mean when you say things like that. I don't have the freedom to steal things, so is my freedom limited?
To your last point, every bank robbery has inevitably begun by someone walking in the door, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't let people walk in banks. Know what I mean?
The restrictions upon the "freedom to steal things" come in the form of consequences for the actions after the fact, not pre-emptive measures to try to prevent the possibility of your stealing things. You are not prevented from owning clothing with pockets because you may use the pockets to shoplift something.
You are not prevented from having a trunk on your car because you may use that trunk to stop by someone's house and spirit away their garden gnomes.
It is already illegal to use a firearm in such a way as to injure someone else without justification (self defense)...or even to use one in such a way that COULD injure someone else even if no actual harm occurred.
Laws that restrict the free transfer of personally owned property between private individuals assume that everyone is a criminal and has nefarious intent. This is counter to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
The supreme court has consistently ruled with regard to the first amendment that "prior restraints"...laws that obstruct exercising a right in the effort to prevent the abuse of the right...are unconstitutional.
In other words, it is unconstitutional to prevent you from speaking just because someone fears you may libel them. If you abuse your right to speak and commit libel...then, and only then, can consequences be levied.
Your mouth cannot be taped shut before entering a crowded theater to prevent you from yelling "fire"...and, if it were, should there actually BE a fire, you would be prevented from spreading the alarm. Contrary to urban legend, it is not illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater...but doing so negligently...abusing the right to do so...results in consequences.
For the same reason, prior restraints against exercising ANY right should not be tolerated. Sure, some people will abuse the right....but those people would do so whether those prior restraints are in place or not. All the prior restraint does is ensure that people who wouldn't abuse the right in the first place...the law abiding...are unable to shout "fire" when the need arises.
Re your last sentence: prior restraints against the government are perfectly acceptable...the government doesn't HAVE rights. In fact, the entire bill of rights is nothing more than a bunch of prior restraints against the government. "Congress shall make no law..." "Shall not be infringed..." "No soldier shall..." etc. You're comparing apples to oranges.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
Read some more of Jefferson's ideas about how the government takes over the people.
Gun control is only part of take-over plan of the government so when they really take full control of every move we make, every breath we take we have nothing to fight back with. How do you think Hitler took over Germany? Maybe more of us should read how he "scared" everyone into giving up their freedom for safety; which was a lie because the only one they should have feared was their government. Just like today. And no, I don't believe in gun control. Austrailia spent billions to disarm their citizens and the crime rate tripled.
These things are docomented. Do some research; it's really scarey. We are so close to being the controlled "Germans" that could only get food, housing, clothing by being obedient citizens. Look around you now. The government is larger than it ever has been in the history of our governments. There is a lot of secrecy surrounding and enveloping us as a free society. Our Constitution is no longer valid.
Guns will be necessary to get out of this and I hope there are a lot of arsenals out there; we are in a fight for our lives at this very moment.
There is a monument in the desert that states that the world population should never excede 5,000,000 so that excluded at least 80% of us.
Thomas Jefferson had it all right all those years ago and Kennedy tried to warn us and was murdered.
Lots of presidents have tried to warn us of the "Secret Society" and many that have tried to voice this and they have been "quieted". Threatened or put to death was how they were stopped from shedding the light of what is being planned for us.
God Bless America and Read the Constitution! Even though right now it is "just a piece of paper" as George Bush put it. Maybe it will anger you enough that you act along with millions that are acting now by forming alliances.
So, to summarize your position, we need to keep our guns because the "secret society " will come in at any point and we need to fight them off. Right?
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/video-outrage-utah-police-kill-marijuana-smoker-in-own-home
Imagine that you are the man standing in his own hallway in his pajamas with the golf club, and that someone has called in a tip that you have a gun without the "proper papers."
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, www.jpfo.org . 120 million people killed by their own governments in the 20th Century, that we know of. Disarmed first. There's a chart, country by country.
Hey quantummechanik,
It's evident that you don't believe that our government is doing a lot of things to sedate us, brainwash us and scare us into allowing them to take away our rights that are guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
The second ammendment not only guarnatees our right to own and carry guns but also states that it may be necessary to use these guns if our government tries to take away our rights and make us into a government controlled population. (Not the exact words). But we will also need guns to protect ourselves from thieves when there is no longer enough food , water, etc. If we are put under Martial Law, the electric, gas, and water will be shut down.
We are already seeing more robberies due to the job losses due to the break down of our financial system and it will get worse the more people that lose their jobs and the ability to feed or house their families. Personally, I would like a gun to protect my home and family
and believe we all have an obligation to know how to properly use firearms . There may also be a need for a gun to hunt for food.
If you believe that this won't happen in the USA, remember that no country that has been taken over by a dictator thought that they would one day need a gun to protect themselves and put up some resistence. Look what's happening in Iran now. That will be us in the near future.
You may want to do a google of Naomi Kline who wrote a book and speaks to large groups of people to show them the steps to becoming a facist state and how close we are now at becoming one.
It's been on the news lately about the Iranians revolting and also said that it depends on whether or not the police are willing to shoot the population whether a revolt can succeed or not.
In answer to your question, Yes, we do need our guns and for more than just one reason!
It's a give-and-take of rights and sovereignty, and a state. There are differing views on how that give-and-take should work, but having differing views don't constitute an attempt to brainwashing. Which rights has the government been taking away? How have they been doing this, exactly? Do you have any examples of situations where we had a right, and it was removed by the government, over a recent ~30 year timeline?
In what situation do you view martial law as occuring in the US? How would that look to you? I'm reading an opinion piece by Orson Scott Card, the sci-fi author, that calls for an armed revolt against the government if gay marriage comes into effect. Put it another way, what event, politically, would cause you to shoot someone?
How do you interpret: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to mean that in the event that someone tries to take away a right, you're obligated to shoot them?
What you're describing is a nightmare scenario--an apocalyptic breakdown of society . Should be base our laws, and our behavior, balanced against a risk of the worst-case scenario?
Here's what I'm afraid of. I'm a practicing Jew. I wear a yarmulke in public, and speak yiddish over the phone. There is a demonstratable and common connection between right-wing fringe groups and anti-semitism--In fact, many of the things you're describing: The Rise of Globalism, the Conspiracy of the Controlling Government--That stuff gets blamed on us. The second scary thing is that those guys are all incredibly armed. Why should I be more afraid of greater government control than lone nuts?
What is it about guns ? I have to show my ID when I take out a library book. Why shouldn't I have to show my ID when I buy a gun? What's the big deal. I think it would be a good idea if you had to show your gun permit to buy bullets.
Do you feel we should show ID to go to the church of our choice as well? Should we be made to show ID to speak freely? What other civil rights should ID be shown to exercise ?
Besides, the CRIMINALS that ILLEGALLY use guns to commit crimes wouldn’t obey such a thing as you suggest. All the gun laws ONLY affect the law -abiding. (Rape, robbery and murder is already illegal isn’t it?)
I think we should go back to pre-’68 gun laws.
If a person is walking the street as a “freeman”, they should be able to carry a gun.
If they are a menace to society , either for criminal behavior or mental illness THEY SHOULDN’T BE WALKING OUR STREETS FREE, they should be LOCKED UP!
Yes. We show our IDs all the time. To vote , for one.
Lock up the mentally ill. Get them off the streets and into jails. Good man. Good Singaporean.
And then I will answer your questions.
You should be more afriad of government control because that is what is pushing liberty loving individuals, not "lone nuts" as you call them, into an act of revolution. If you want to avoid the revolt then you should support small, Constitutional goevernment.
Now your definition of a civil society is a bit off. It is not a give and take of rights. Our rights are inalienable and therefore not up for debate, not to be offered as some kind of bargaining chip in exchange for something else, oh say like security.
Lessee now the first thng that comes to mind is our right to privacy. It has been widely reported that this invasion of our privacy began during the Clinton era and continued through Bush and now Obama. Unconstitutional wiretapping and electronic communication monitoring.
Lessee now Habeas Corpus. Suspended.
Now to answer your question about the 2nd amend. (which you should really apportion to all issues of liberty)
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Declaration of Independence
Define inalienable. Where do these rights come from? Why do we already have limitations on these rights, if they're not something that can be changed or adjusted or limited?
"If you want to avoid the revolt, you should support..." Really? I want to have the best government that helps the most amount of people. I can't work for that or someone will come and attack me?That's like saying "If you want to avoid being harassed, you should vote for Ahmedinjad". I really hope you don't say that in real life.
You're applying the declaration of independence to something that addresses the rights of man. This isn't the most valid philosophical document--It's a bit like applying Harry Potter to the question of evil. Harry Potter may indeed have some interesting ideological points to it, but simply quoting it as an authority isn't really that correct.
But working from your beliefs, if the right to life is inalienable--Something that is in no way violate or negotiable or in question--then killing a person, violating his right to life, is the worst thing one could do and there would be no circumstances where killing a person is moral, ethical, or permissible under that system.
But I hope you already knew that.
Comparing the DofI to Harry Potter is absurd and only weakens your argument.
"-then killing a person, violating his right to life, is the worst thing one could do and there would be no circumstances where killing a person is moral, ethical, or permissible under that system."
Come on, really? You don't think that America was justified for stepping in and killing Nazis? You would rather we left the remaining Jews in the gas chamber? For a Jew you have a really short memory.
some recommended reading http://www.jpfo.org /
In that last bit, I wasn't talking about prior restraint, I was bringing up a point about correlation not equaling causation. Just because tyrants have disarmed citizens doesn't mean disarming citizens is the same as tyranny. Even further, registration doesn't necessarily equal tyranny either.
As far as the legal notion of prior restraint, perhaps you feel that all rights have that argument going for them, but that's not what the law says. Prior restraint is a term that refers specifically to the first amendment (in the eyes of the law). While I take your point, there is no legal backing for it.
"Laws that restrict the free transfer of personally owned property between private individuals assume that everyone is a criminal and has nefarious intent." That's not true. At all. Even to be close it would have to read "everyone COULD BE a criminal and COULD HAVE nefarious intent."
I really don't object to your stance in a substantial way, just your justifications.
And therein lies the problem.
You seem to be looking for a cut and dried, black and white "reason" to be "permitted" to transfer personal property between private individuals without first asking for permission from the government.
In my humble opinion, I don't NEED a reason. I don't have to justify myself...I'm a free citizen.
The justification needs to come from the government that wants to place the restriction, not from the citizens who are to be restricted.
So far, the only reasons I've seen are based upon emotions, not fact. The fact is that these measures simply do not do what they are supposed to do: reduce crime and/or reduce the transfer of firearms to criminals. In fact, a recent study (I'm not going to bother to look it up and link to it right now because it's late, I'm tired, and it's patently OK for you to disbelieve me if you choose...we're not going to change the world in a discussion thread) found a slight correlation between increases in the crime rate in California where background checks are required for private sales.
That obviously doesn't prove that "universal" background checks cause crime...but it certainly doesn't support the contention that they reduce crime either.
The bottom line is that liberty never should be justified. Infringements upon liberty must be justified. In this case, the infringement simply cannot be justified. Criminals do not get their guns that way (or at least very rarely). It's easier just to steal them or buy them off the street.
But here's a compromise solution that I've offered in many places but no one seems to want to hear it.
The vast majority of gun owners are conscientious and don't want guns to fall into the hands of criminals any more than anyone else. We would run background checks if we were allowed to. Under current law, not only are we not required to run background checks...we are not PERMITTED to.
The NICS system should be opened up for private use at no cost to the user. This would obviously be voluntary, but people who aren't conscientious enough to run checks voluntarily, probably wouldn't bother with them if they were the law either.
That way, if I'm selling to a person who is known to me and known not to be a "prohibited person" I have no need to run a check, but if a complete stranger wants to buy a gun from me, I have the option of checking them out. No ATF forms should be filed and no records kept, except some sort of confirmation number from NICS verifying that a check was run.
If this service were provided free of charge, law abiding, conscientious gun owners...the very ones who would obey the law if it were made mandatory, would do the checks voluntarily.
The checks should not be paid for by the seller or buyer because there is no value added for them. The value is to the public at large in helping insure guns aren't sold to prohibited persons...therefore, since the value added is to the public at large, the public at large should be responsible for paying for it.
This proposal wouldn't prevent crime any more than making background checks mandatory would, but it would assuage the fears of the general public to some degree and would have the added benefit of not restricting freedom.
Unfortunately, that last one is a problem for the gun control advocates...you see, it's not about guns...it's about control. My proposal wouldn't give them any and so, it is not acceptable to them.
Here's another proposal I've made many times but haven't had any takers from the other side:
Gun controllers always claim that we on the gun-rights side won't compromise. I've never seen a compromise offered. I have yet to see a proposal by the gun controllers that would give us something in exchange for something they would get. All of their proposals only involve us giving up more of our freedom.
That's not compromise. Compromise is a give and take proposal.
So...here's my offer:
I'll agree to background checks for all sales, even among private individuals.
But, since we are now going to be absolutely sure that guns won't fall into the wrong hands, there is no reason to have any restrictions on the types of guns we can own. We've all been vetted and background checked, so there's no reason to fear us.
So...in exchange for agreeing to universal background checks, I want all restrictions on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, etc lifted, including the 1986 manufacturing and importing bans. Oh...and the vapid "sporting purpose" language in the ATF regulations removed as well.
That's a compromise: I give something, I get something in return. Any takers?
Didn't think so. Compromising isn't so palatable to them when THEY are expected to give something up too.
The fact that I am really not terribly interested in this debate gives me the wonderful benefit of not being offended about the wonderfully partisan comments that get made. I must say, you are more composed than most people on this site, and you seem to be more interested in reasonable discussion than having a competition to see who can look stupid first, so well done.
Anyway, I don't think I have indicated that I feel that rights are granted to us by our government or that we need to ask permission to do things; I'm not sure what that's about.
All I was saying the claims you have made on this thread have at times been weak (i.e. "The only way to eliminate the possibility of the bad [even in theory] is to eliminate freedom."), and the justifications for those claims at times have been less than satisfactory. I don't want you to give me a reason that you are right; I doubt I could be convinced either way very easily. Admittedly I am being rather nitpicky, but you are throwing around poorly defined terms, and operating within a societal framework that doesn't necessarily reflect our actual society.
See, we have laws that restrict things, even the transfer of property between individuals. To reject any limitations or prerequisites in this instance on the basis that private citizens should be able to do what they want is childish.
As far as compromise, like any debate these days, nobody wants to compromise. The one you proposed is basically the equivalent of paying $3 for a kick in the shin instead of the teeth. Either way, I really don't care about this debate in any significant way. No one has made a strong argument on either side, and I'm just left feeling like the logic police.
What is this debate about if not "asking permission to do things?"
If, in the process of transferring ownership of private property between two individuals, we must get the approval of the government first, then we are being forced to ask permission.
What else would you call it?
The second example you used to illustrate my weak arguments was taken out of context. The point is that violence cannot be eliminated...especially not through regulating a tool...no matter how badly we wish it were so. Theoretically, crime could be completely eliminated by putting everyone in prison...but in reality crime is still rampant even among those in maximum security.
My idea of what "should be" most definitely does not reflect our actual society. Our government has completely exceeded its powers, our laws are out of control and we are only "free" under a very limited understanding of the term.
But, your point seems to be, because we've slipped the bonds of reason in many other areas, it is justified to do so with respect to the right to keep and bear arms as well?
Speaking of weak arguments...
The idea that private citizens should be able to do what they want is childish?
I think I should be offended at that, but it's simply too silly to be taken seriously.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
-- Thomas Jefferson
But I guess Thomas Jefferson was just being childish.
Believe it or not, not everything the founding fathers said was insightful. For Jefferson here, he was talking about the philosophical idea of Lockian libertarianism, not our actual government. We do and have had laws for a very long time that do not adhere to this principle.
I will admit that I was not clear on what was childish. The idea that we will accept restrictions on certain things but not others without any real distinguishing factors is childish. The government can restrict the way you use the stock market, and you really don't care, but when they try to come at guns, it's "hey, I should be allowed to do whatever I want!" If you are into being an anarchist, that's cool, but letting everyone do whatever they want probably won't work out.
Your war on government is really not going well. You want this debate to be about you versus the evil government infiltrators, but it is not that simple. I would be receptive to the argument that it is dangerous in this case to allow the government too much power in certain arenas, but, like most, you have skipped over that into vague ideas of freedom that doesn't exist and enemies that are theoretical. In this country, people are not allowed to do whatever they want, and in some ways that is a good thing. I appreciate your ideas of what you think should be, but you cannot use those notions selectively.
The funny thing here is, I think we mostly agree. I don't know about you, but I just like arguing. That's probably why I engage in this site at all.
Now you're just getting petty.
Perhaps you were just "unclear" about what you were referring to as "childish"...but what was the purpose of using that characterization at all if not to be demeaning?
You assume that I "accept restrictions on certain things" but only get up in arms (so to speak) about the gun issue.
You assume incorrectly. And your assumption of such is condescending and self-righteous.
Now I'm an "anarchist" and engaged in a "war on government?"
When you can return to discussing the issue at hand and lay off the assumptions and deprecating tone, perhaps we can have a constructive dialog.
Until then, I will assume that you've descended to this level because you simply have no other valid points to make.
So, I admit my choice of words was not the friendliest. I did have a real point, which is that believing that people can do whatever they like without restriction is a naive and immature idea. I don't think it is a bad system or that a person who would want things to be that way is faulty, as long as they realize that this is an ideal, not a reality (which you have shown me you do realize).
I find it hard to believe that you do not accept any government imposed restrictions, so yes I assume that. Even if they are common sense things, like restrictions on the availability of nuclear weapons, or certain EPA restrictions that require companies not to poison people's drinking water.
I never said you were an anarchist, and even if I had, I do not mean that in any condescending way. I have some great friends who are anarchists, and anarchism (while I don't generally endorse it) is not an inherently inferior philosophy.
So, my question to you is this: Can you legitimately claim not to accept any government restrictions on anything?
My claim: If you do not accept any governmental restriction, you essentially are endorsing anarchism. If you do accept some restriction, I have a follow up: What is the essential difference between the kind of restriction you are willing to accept and those previously mentioned with reference to the discussion at hand?
Sorry if I offended you earlier.
I already answered that question in an earlier comment on this thread:
"You seem to be looking for a cut and dried, black and white "reason" to be "permitted" to transfer personal property between private individuals without first asking for permission from the government.
In my humble opinion, I don't NEED a reason. I don't have to justify myself...I'm a free citizen.
The justification needs to come from the government that wants to place the restriction, not from the citizens who are to be restricted.
So far, the only reasons I've seen are based upon emotions, not fact. The fact is that these measures simply do not do what they are supposed to do..."
(I don't know if the formatting tags are going to work so if I just cluttered up the post, I apologize)
If you want to argue that I'm wrong...that this proposed restriction IS justified. Or that the government doesn't need to justify proposed restrictions...feel free to lay out your case. But what you seem to be doing is implying that if I accept ANY restriction as legitimate, I must accept ALL restrictions as legitimate. That my opposition to this restriction proves me to be an anarchist.
"If you are into being an anarchist, that's cool, but letting everyone do whatever they want probably won't work out."
That seems like a pretty cut and dried accusation to me.
I'm happy to discuss substantive points, but I won't waste my time trying to defend the straw men that you construct.
I'm not looking for you to give me a reason why you should be permitted to do anything. I agree that the burden is on those who would restrict, not the restricted. I asked a question that you did not address: Do you or do you not accept some government restrictions?
I am not in any way implying that to accept some is to accept all, that would be a foolish argument. In a previous post, you quoted: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
-- Thomas Jefferson
My point here is that we don't live in that world, and if you willingly recognize some forms of government restriction, the argument that a free person can do whatever they please is no real justification. You recognize (hopefully, even though you never actually responded to the question) that a person shouldn't be allowed to do absolutely anything (besides 'commit aggression on the equal rights of another' which is a tricky turn of phrase anyway).
Either way, you make an excellent point that a big issue with the gun restrictions is whether they are worthwhile measures. Whether or not they work is certainly important, because if they don't, then we probably shouldn't bother with them. At this point I don't really remember all the points and don't feel like going back, because as I've said, this issue is of minor consequence to me.
Also, that quote about being an anarchist is pretty clearly not an accusation. The word 'if' introduces a hypothetical. I wasn't saying you are or are not into anarchism, but if you were, I was just warning you about the dangers of it. Also, that is really not a worthwhile piece to care about, because who said anarchists are bad people?
Anyway, I'm happy to check out of this completely tangential debate about logic so you can all get back to arguing whether or not some minor restriction is functional on a philosophical level.