Professional Soldiers ® - State, local and jurisdictional-level actions related to gun-control (Post-Newtown)

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - State, local and jurisdictional-level actions related to gun-control (Post-Newtown) (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40453)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlagDayNCO (Post 484306)

From what I have seen here working in NJ, I have to ask if those "Federal dollars to the States" is genuine.

Does it matter? Did the current president "inherit" problems that were caused by his predecessor? Did he really address those policy issues he led his supporters to think he would (immigration reform, 'Gitmo, paramilitary operations, trials for terror suspects, LBGT equality, jobs, reform of the banking sector, affordable healthcare, governmental transparency, the environment)?

My point is that there are three sides to this debate: the policy side, the political side, and the personal side.

The president has demonstrated time and again that he's not that adept when it comes to building consensus to make good policy, but he's all right when it comes to the political infighting and making others (read: conservatives) look bad for his benefit.

I think the gun thing is similar to the situation a liquor store in the Little Rock area experienced. It had a good location, both for business and for robberies. It experienced several robberies until the owner had his employees start carrying pistols (not concealed). All of a sudden the robberies just stopped. Maybe if some teachers are armed it might make some of these losers think twice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 484434)

From a political standpoint, they don't need to.

In general, conservatives base a great deal of their intellectual credibility in interpretations of America's past that have been either discredited thoroughly or updated so that they're paradoxically more comprehensive and also less definitive. (That is, the more you study American history, the less you know about American history.)

So, when conservatives speak/write of the "lessons of history," those lessons are likely to be out of date (by 30 to 50 years). From there, a person can just say "These guys don't know what they're talking about" and score a huge political point--even though that person may not know what he/she is talking about either. (This corresponding level of historical ignorance is often offset by the argument that the past should not determine how .GOV responds to present day issues, and/or that those very issues are legacies of past, which must be overthrown.)

A point that I've been making (or attempting to make) over the last year or two is that, until the American political right can (a) find the time to get "up to speed" on the changes to the historiographical landscape and/or (b) become more familiar with the historiographical framework of their own understanding of America's past, we need to be very careful about how we talk about the past so that we do not fall into that trap. (Or, worse, we provoke a senior academic historian (or two) from writing a book that destroys, point by point, the conservative view of America's past.)

One last point. Your comment about a "desired result" is a way to put the president, and others, into positions where they can walk the talk in which they say they agree that the Second Amendment establishes the inalienable right of gun ownership for law abiding citizens. That is, the president talks of a reduction in gun violence against children and showing a willingness to try solutions, then why not ask "Okay, what about regular mental health background checks on all school employees in the country, especially at public schools?" Why not suggest, "Okay, let's put veterans returning from OEF/OIF to work as armed security staff?" And then say, if those two options don't meet the criteria you set, we will try additional measures. (It is purely by coincidence that these two options don't help the Democratic Party politically. And none of the measures will unduly impact the ability of lawful citizens to buy, to own, or to sell fire arms.)

First, thank you for taking the time.

Last first, I think it's been shown that options that might actually get to the (publicly) desirable result have been presented by one interest or another, yet carry no weight with those already target-fixated on their own political agenda. It may not be immediately tactically sound but, individually, I carry the sense that my starting point is what's right & what works. I do believe that if, individually, millions of people can take that refusal to wrestle in the mud politically because of what works and examine the offense given to someone's political agenda later (if ever) then we will be ahead. I do not believe these tyrant wannabe's wish to engage in anything approaching that which encroaches on their power goals. I hope they do not need to be engaged by other means but, if it comes to that, so be it.

I don't currently think there are yet those millions. But I don't believe that just because painfully obvious history lessons occur 30-50 years apart is reason to discard their outcome as something to avoid. What is a sufficient sample, what value of 'n'? That's been painfully recalled & listed as well. Legacies of mass graves, for instance, don't have a shelf-life. Gun control is about control; I know it & you know it. And while it's a 'quest' ("the more you study American history, the less you know about American history") I don't believe there is currently time to await a mass infusion of understanding of the (let me type this one carefully) historiographical framework of America's past.*

Cheers.
:)

* (Winters are long uper here Kamerad and I have that list of books you mentioned from those end-notes. As soon as I finish Clandestine Radio Operators and another coming into the SOG library, then it'll be one of Nash's. Just one of the rural townspeople here, so I hope he can tell a story. Unless you have a better recommendation. Just let it be not dry.

Proposed Mo. bill: Make parents tell school if they own guns
KSDK.com
1/22/13

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/358...out-gun-supply

From article...

"This proposal is one of only a handful in Missouri's house and senate. NewsChannel 5's political analyst Dave Robertson told me he's surprised that there aren't more bills being proposed about gun control, but the chances of any bills about the issue being passed is slim to none because of the political atmosphere between the lawmakers and the governor."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger52 (Post 484506)

Legacies of mass graves, for instance, don't have a shelf-life.

Many professional historians as well as those who've inherited the legacies of mass slaughter would disagree. Although the following link discusses events not taking place in America, they do demonstrate what I mean. <<LINK1>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger52 (Post 484506)

And while it's a 'quest' ("the more you study American history, the less you know about American history") I don't believe there is currently time to await a mass infusion of understanding of the (let me type this one carefully) historiographical framework of America's past.

I think the American political right could be a lot more effective if it were to adjust its temporal mindset, if not also its temperament. This country has faced much bigger crises. Various cohorts have faced longer odds with fewer resources. The core reasons why one these groups has been successful are patience, determination, a full spectrum approach to the issues of the day, and a constantly shifting balance between idealism and pragmatism.

As for power and control, when has America not been about power and control?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 484516)

As for power and control, when has America not been about power and control?

No arguing with that.

The problem is the people don't have the power and control as was the intent of the framers. After the Civil War the federal government expanded well beyond its scope and purpose. The progressive movement, which started before the war, was on full throttle and contributed to the expansion of the federal government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiletto11 (Post 484554)

Correct.

In the interim, generations of kids have been brainwashed by revised history.

The same revisionists are currently in the process of demonizing Colombus, the Alamo, the white race, etc.

Yankee libdemons are behind it. You know, the same people who want to ban guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiletto11 (Post 484554)

Which framers do you have in mind? If there had been a consensus on "intent," then what accounts for the schism between Federalists and Jeffersonians--two groups that included many framers?

State of Virginia Welcoming Sign

A quick read as various state legislators consider adopting gun control proposals -- or not.

Thomas Sowell: Do gun control laws control guns?
Posted January 23, 2013 at midnight

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jan...-control-guns/

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say 10 bullets, but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don't know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don't have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.

Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to "make a statement" — but all at the cost of other people's lives.

Email Thomas Sowell at sowellreplies@yahoo.com.

© 2013 Record Searchlight.

Sowell is a smart man. Thank you TonyZ.

Some consolidated info on: Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Tennesee, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming.

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com...-control-laws/

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyz (Post 484511)

Nice. I see discrimination against the children of gun owners in the future. Is that a cause the NAACP will take up?