Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Damocles]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Ummm - NO, I don't. To be blunt, while it is an incredible tragedy for those directly involved and my prayers go out to those families, it's a pimple on an elephant's ass when looked at from a national perspective. It isn't a symptom of "out of control guns", it's a symptom of a disasterously inadequate mental health system.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. And this tragedy is another opportunity for the Left to exploit a crisis, whipping up their base into a frenzy to advance their control agenda. [ . . . ]

Personally, I'm tired of having my rights stripped from me by statists, sheep, and assorted physical/moral cowards who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the real problems.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

[ . . . ]

Not to worry though, in this instance your appeal falls on deaf ears. In order for compromise to work both sides need to see a win-win. There is no win for conservatives when negotiating with the left; there is only a delaying action and I for one am sick of continually losing. One test for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. Compromising with the left meets that test. As examples, I offer the current budget impasse, and any federal firearms law you wish to examine. I’m tired of suffering the “death of a thousand cuts”. Turn the other cheek has been an abysmal failure; the time has come to return each incivility in kind, proportional to the insult.

The problem is not and never has been firearms. Firearms are tools, and like all tools can be used responsibly or otherwise. Tools only do what the mind using them directs. Failures in the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the zero personal responsibility/soccer trophy for everyone mindset that has shaped American society today are the root causes. Until actions have consequences and people are held accountable, the amoral, self-centered, and destructive behaviors that lead to these tragedies will not stop.

As an example I invite you to look at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/24...tern-ny-blaze/. Especially the part about his “extensive criminal record” – one that made him ineligible to possess firearms. This tragedy could have been prevented by executing the perpetrator for the murder of his grandmother years ago.

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

Personally, I think America has passed the 50% +1 that marks the turning point in every society. The ancient Chinese curse about living in interesting times has come to pass. I feel for the next generation. Indications are they will not enjoy the opportunities and freedoms we did – and it’ll largely be because Conservatives surrendered them without a whimper because they couldn’t stand being called “insensitive” by the left. So no – I’m not better than this. You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

If ever given the chance, I will buy any/every QP I meet a beer. However, you, Sir, I will buy two. Maybe more, cash flow permitting.

Well said on both counts.

[DJ Urbanovsky]

Not just during civil disturbances. More like no right to protection from the police, ever. Unless a "special relationship" exists. That's a mighty diaphanous term. What constitutes a special relationship, exactly? The police came over to my house earlier in the week, lit some candles and incense, and gave me a sponge bath, so now we have a special relationship? Open up, this is the police! We've brought you a pineapple upside down cake!

If more people were familiar with this ruling, maybe they would realize that only they are responsible for their own personal safety, and perhaps start to behave accordingly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

Originally Posted by Pete

A point made in this story is that the police abandoned the area. In any large scale civil disturbance the average citizen has no right to protection from the local police force. You're on your own folks.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

If more people were familiar with this ruling, maybe they would realize that only they are responsible for their own personal safety, and perhaps start to behave accordingly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

Yup, see also the other 2 cites at that entry or here, for the wiki-averse.*


* Pete "mentored" me once some time ago and, thank you sir, I do not need another.

The police came over to my house earlier in the week, lit some candles and incense, and gave me a sponge bath, so now we have a special relationship?

That image is a complete destroyer of office decorum - damn, man!

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

Residents also have to understand that there's a 'fine line to be walked' between how such activities may be viewed after-the-fact - a necessary local 'militia' action or an act of vigilantism?

Richard

My house, my street, my neighbors.

I don't think dragging a looter to the edge of your 'hood and hanging him from the nearest light pole with a sign "Looters will be hanged" would go over too well these days.

But with a fairly large collapse of civic law and order in a greater area I think the "self defense" side will be a little more elastic.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

If more people were familiar with this ruling, maybe they would realize that only they are responsible for their own personal safety, and perhaps start to behave accordingly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

Responsible or not, people also need to realize that which is physically impossible: it is impossible for LEO to be everywhere at all times.

There are limits on what the law and government agencies can do to protect the public. Though I’ve been a cop for 30 years, nearly every day of which has been spent on the streets of Los Angeles, I can recall only a handful of times when I was able to interrupt a violent crime in progress, either by responding quickly to a radio call or by coming across it randomly while on patrol. You’ve heard the expression: when seconds count, the police are minutes away. It’s trite but no less true.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/childish-fan...inglepage=true


Another tangential point to consider is the law of unintended consequences, that is do you end up hardening one target at the expense of others? Meaning, the lunatic might skip the known hardened target(the school with armed LEO) for a softer target(pizza shop down the block during lunch) with the same devastating effect(granted CCW could come into play here, however, many of the states with gun free zones also have next to impossible CCW requirements).

My .02

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by BOfH

Another tangential point to consider is the law of unintended consequences, that is do you end up hardening one target at the expense of others? Meaning, the lunatic might skip the known hardened target(the school with armed LEO) for a softer target(pizza shop down the block during lunch) with the same devastating effect(granted CCW could come into play here, however, many of the states with gun free zones also have next to impossible CCW requirements).

My .02

Check out the crime stats of "gun-free" cities as compared to cities like Phoenix. Yes those that make themselves gun-free are being targeted by the criminals. Chicagos violent crimes are about 4-5 times worse then Phoenix.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by BOfH

....many of the states with gun free zones also have next to impossible CCW requirements).

Not to put too fine a point on it but let's make sure we are talking about gun-free zones in a given state's weapons statutes that have the pre-emptive force of law, versus the option of a private-property owner to put up a sign (e.g., a mall). Examples of the former are usually specifically called out in law, e.g., gov building, school, etc. As in many states, there's no legal force here to the signage on private property until you:

a. Get noticed and are asked to leave (ergo, you're doin' it wrong) AND
b. Refuse, at which time you can be cited for trespassing.
Big boy rules apply. Monsters don't read.

Cruised a handful of the editorial pages of some smaller-town USA papers and finding that there is alot of "party of EX-clusion" going on with regard to the NRA's remarks. Any morsel of merit to any one thing in LaPierre's remarks aside, they are completely tossing it all out because of the initials of the messenger. Guess I'm not surprised. Any notions to address anything about mental health resources in any way will have to be their idea; lotta not-invented-here syndrome goin' around.

Responding to these with facts is a must, otherwise they're being allowed to parrot what they're being fed by those controlling the national message.

One of 'em got their proposed $8B school-security cost from NPR and was aghast. That's the kind of 1-source info they run with and the editor of a single rag small-town paper probably gets read more per person in terms of copies printed.

[Sigaba]

MOO, some of the positions and rhetorical tactics in this thread are going to lead to a profound political backlash against those who oppose more gun control. Those Americans who don't want more gun control need to bring viable solutions to the table. Else, they are going to be folded into the Democratic Party's increasingly compelling narrative that its right of center opponents are unwilling (if not also unable) to participate in the ongoing efforts to address the country's many issues.

By my reading, the president staked out a sensible approach to the issue of violence against children during his speech of 16 December 2012. He said:

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

Three days later, the president elaborated during a press conference held at the White House.

Over these past five days, a discussion has reemerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. And it’s encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change longstanding positions.

That conversation has to continue. But this time, the words need to lead to action.

We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can’t steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence.

While it is clear that the president would prefer more restrictive laws on the ownership of firearms and ammunition, it is equally clear that he is not hoping for a "panacea" through such legislation.

[Peregrino]

Neville Chamberlain would appreciate your stance. I'm unable to find any merit in it. I've clearly stated my position and issued an invitation:

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

And your only response is to tell me that I/we "must be reasonable"? Very presidential of you.

On one thing you're absolutely right. The current fight is futile. So long as the MSM denies moderate voices on the right access to the public forum there is no hope of a reasoned debate about the root causes, certainly not for any lasting compromise of any value. My goal is/has been to plant a seed. I'm reasonably confident the current administration will do all that is required to see that it flourishes.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?

To say "the village" is all armed, and when the call comes out - we all just march out and answer it with no prior organization, training, or leadership seems to fly in the face of what SF teaches... doesn't it?

Be in the militia - you can have any arms you want. Not in - not 'qualified' to be in (mental, physical, emotional issues) - tough shit... "No guns for you!"

What I'm saying is that we can redefine these terms in for a modern society in a way that will allow the bulk of responsible, rational citizens who wish to possess such arms to do so, and keep them from the hands (to the extent possible) from those who are not.

Relying on the "same-old, same-old" is not going to work out well for us, I fear.

I have to disagree with you here my friend, especially when speaking of the physical. I know if I was physically handicapped in some way I definitly would want a firearm to protect myself.

[GratefulCitizen]

How accurate are the arbiters of mental stability?

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cg...xt=fac_artchop
http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.asp...0%3D&tabid=222

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

While I am sure you can take care of yourself how well could you defend yourself if a 6'5" 280 lbs of muscle jacked up on meth attacked you if you were unarmed? I know I would probably get my ass handed to me and I am not a small guy or helpless. A 45 would go a long way twords your survival.

Even a flash mob a little punks can be dangerous.

Many here could single-handedly whip a baker's dozen of them.
But sometimes they travel in even larger packs.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

While I am sure you can take care of yourself how well could you defend yourself if a 6'5" 280 lbs of muscle jacked up on meth attacked you if you were unarmed? I know I would probably get my ass handed to me and I am not a small guy or helpless. A 45 would go a long way twords your survival.

Agreed. My husband wants them in the house so I can protect myself and the kids if Stinky Puppy doesn't get them first if he is gone I can handle alot of men due to my size. But when they get taller than my 6'2 they usually have me by 50 pounds. or more

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Neville Chamberlain would appreciate your stance.

I do not agree that offering comparisons between the current debate over mass violence against children and European diplomacy during the late 1930s is the way to go. Leaving aside the historiography of the origins of the Second World War (including an expanded understanding of the relationship between appeasement and British rearmament as well as Hitler's preferred time table for war with Great Britain), the comparison implicitly paints someone in the debate as a Hitler-like figure and indicates that there really is no grounds for compromise on the subject.

Two (rhetorical) questions for the consideration of interested parties.

1. Is it just by coincidence that three QPs who have worked as educators (Richard, ZonieDiver, and Dozer523) are suggesting that the current debate over the relationship between guns and violence against young people needs to go beyond the parameters of previous debates over gun control?
2. Is it be possible that their experiences as educators allow for insights as to how key stakeholders (i.e. parents, teachers, and academic administrators) might respond to certain arguments?

[Peregrino]

The comment was a condemnation of appeasment and "if you'll just be reasonable and give us everything we're asking for we can avoid all this unnecessary unpleasantness". I'm fairly well versed on the Chamberlain govt's "avoid war at any cost while secretly engaging in an ineffective arms buildup" strategy. Avoidance of conflict, even after it had become apparent to all, including the most head-in-the-sand pacifist, while understandable as an outgrowth of the WWI experience was an unforgiveable failing in a national government with a duty to look to its people's best interests. My duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution so that succeeding generations can enjoy the same rights and privileges I hold dear; my failing is in expecting others to understand that duty in the same light.

Interesting that you ignored the rest of my comments and seek to divert attention by asking rhetorical questions. As a partial answer, I invite you to examine Post #28 in the NYT Posts Names thread.