Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by MR2

Kapos.

Absolutely. I can't think of anything more descriptive. Sadly, few know why that term incites such revulsion among freedom loving peoples.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by MR2

Kapos.

I seem to remember that, in one of her books, Hannah Arendt mentioned the Jewish shopkeepers in Germany who were quick to sell yellow Stars of David when the law was enacted. There seems to be an "appeasement gene" in some people. Or a suicide gene.

Pat

[bjm300]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/30/justic...t-gun-buyback/

looks like some people don't even need a bill to pass...

[Razor]

I don't know...one of the Jewish guys in my office says practically everyone of legal age going to his temple (including him) is packing, as is the Rabbi. I guess the Hammer gene is strong in some folks.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by bjm300

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/30/justic...t-gun-buyback/

looks like some people don't even need a bill to pass...

At those prices, maybe I should start up a personal buy-back program. $400 for an evil assault rifle? $200 for pistols? $75 for a good hunting rifle? Heck yeah, that's a good investment!

[Paslode]

I found an interesting tidbit this eveniing....Doc Thompson vaguely rings a bell as a radio host that my fill in for Glen Beck from time to time.

Anyway, he had this email posted on his website that purportedly show the Republicans are willing to work with the Dems on Feinstein's proposed AWB.

http://docthompsonshow.wordpress.com...eady-given-in/

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Razor

At those prices, maybe I should start up a personal buy-back program. $400 for an evil assault rifle? $200 for pistols? $75 for a good hunting rifle? Heck yeah, that's a good investment!

LOL. Friend from the buffer area around Chicago visited last summer and wanted to know if the gd's 4H group had any need for 2-3 beat up (and that's being kind) junker inop air-rifles he'd brought along. Told him:

a. our little group already had plenty of competition-ready rifles and,
b. he should save them and turn 'em in at the next "trustees" buy-back in his neck of the woods. Ended up with $600 or so worth of Cabela's cards or something.

He knows what's valuable and the grand-father's workmanlike Radom is safe & sound. He believes every Jew should have a "get on the train" gun.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by MR2

Kapos.

Indeed. Unfortunately, that phenomenon isn't new either. The part of the Hanukkah story that unfortunately falls by the wayside is the fact that the Greeks initially weren't really interested in forcibly converting the Jews, all they wanted was their taxes and tributes to be paid on time. They figured that some Jews would assimilate over time. It was the Hellenists, which were Jews who embraced the Greek philosophy and culture, that convinced the king(Antiochus) at the time that by following Torah's commandments, the Jews were in effect rebelling against him. The other part that is often glossed over, is the armed rebellion which ultimately ensued.

As far as Jewish law is concerned, the right to self-defense is inherent. The idea is that one who chases(rodef lit. pursuer) after his fellow with the intent to wantonly and unlawfully taking his life has effectually relinquished his own right to life. Miamonides writes[1] that there are three commandments in this regard, 1. To save a person who is being pursued, by either maiming(if one is capable of stopping the pursuer through non-fatal injury then he must choose this route as opposed to killing him) or killing(last resort) his pursuer 2. Not to have mercy on the pursuer 3. Not to stand by idly while a colleague's life is in danger, i.e. ignoring the threat

I'll end with this: "If someone comes to kill you, get up early to kill him first." - Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, 72a


[1] Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nezikim (lit. Book of Damages - this book deals with civil law with regards to physical and monetary damages), Section 5, Chapter 1, Laws 7 - 15

[Sigaba]

I think that the response to calls for more gun control should:

1. reflect an understanding that some Americans will continue to seek single solutions (gun control) for complex problems (violence in America),
2. accept the fact that those who are disposed to wanting single solutions are not going to be swayed by carefully complied evidence and articulate counterpoints,
3. accept that it is an issue that reflects longer ongoing clashes among competing versions of the way things should be in America.

I think that the response to calls for more gun control should not:

1. Engage in the broader debate outlined in C. MOO, this debate will remain a feature of American civilization for the foreseeable future. The current political environment needs significant rehabilitation before this debate can generate more solutions than chaos.
2. Center around historical analogies that paint gun control advocates as members of controversial groups.
3. Turn the conversation into a contest of identity politics.
4. Use lines of argument that focus on single points of failure. Pointing out intellectual inconsistencies in a line of argument is one thing, using that inconsistency to label people as hypocrites or degenerates risks alienating both opponents and allies in this debate.

By avoiding the above listed approaches, opponents of gun control can:

1. avoid making a highly controversial discussion toxic,
2. not otherwise alienate those who are on the fence and/or more amenable to reasoned discourse,
3. avoid painting the opposition into a corner.

These three points reflect my own view that the blue print for political discourse in America remains Federalist no. 10. As important as any single issue may be, as much as that issue may epitomize a broader debate, I think Americans should be mindful of the consequences when the tone of debate over an issue makes compromising on other issues impossible.

Moreover, I believe that supporters of gun control want the debate to fall into the pattern outlined in points 1 through 4. They are seeking:

• to paint themselves as the "rational" party in the conversation,
• to appeal to the "reason" of Americans who are making up their own minds, and
• to demonize as "unreasonable" and "irrational" those who oppose gun control.

Specifically, I would prefer a response that does the following:

• Largely bypasses the unsustainable argument that more gun control will, on its own, end violence in America. While I understand that many find the argument itself intellectually offensive and emotionally repulsive, I believe that there's much to be gained by being very selective in responding to such "logic." People are going to believe what they want to believe. The best that can be done is to provide them with accurate information and to foster a dynamic in which some will use that information when they form their POVs.
• Broadens the public perception of the "average" American gun owner. At present, proponents of gun control are casting the debate against the polarized backdrop of American politics. I think if more Americans understood the diversity of gun ownership, they'd be more willing to challenge the demonizing images they're being offered.
• Flatly refuses to engage in what is essentially a piecemeal debate over the Bill of Rights. To me, as great a threat to our rights as citizens that gun control poses, the a la carte approach to the BoR that many Americans take is even more perilous.
• Recasts the debate into a conversation of the underlying issues that might be addressed through changes unrelated to gun control. For example:
  • Address the immediate surroundings of those who work with children through periodic background checks. These checks will include an assessment of their mental health and that of their immediate family members as well.
  • Have a national conversation about mental health that seeks a balance among individual rights, confidentiality, and public safety. Empower Americans to recognize identifiable warning signs in their own behavior and, potentially, others.
  • Take Hollywood at its word.
    • If entertainers/producers/studios want to reduce violence in America, challenge them to address the content of their work.
    • Shows/movies can have story lines and plot points in which characters realistically portray responsible gun ownership.
    • Networks and celebrities can make non-partisan PSAs.

Personally, I strongly oppose the notion of arming teachers. If adults are going to have guns on a school campus, I would prefer that they do so as administrators/staff members who are tasked with security, as volunteers, or as off-duty LEOs, and are not teachers nor coaches, nor parents/relatives of those they are protecting.

My concerns are three-fold. First, I believe that the knowledge that teachers have guns will fundamentally alter the learning environment, especially where very young students are concerned. Second, I think that it would only be a matter of time before we see accusations of an armed teacher doing/saying something that is inappropriate. MOO, the allegation itself is more likely to open a Pandora's Box all its own that will outweigh the deterrent value of the possibility that a teacher is armed. Third, I believe that gun ownership is a private matter. It is no one's business what firearms a gun owner legally possesses. I do not see how parents who do not want teachers to be armed will not call for full public disclosure of who is carrying a weapon on campus and who isn't. And, from there, we will see the growing acceptance of a practice that is, IMO, unacceptable.

[Peregrino]

Sigaba - I will ruminate on your post. You make reasoned arguments for a compromise approach. Unfortunately none of your points address the fact that gun control is as polarizing as abortion - for what I see as many of the same core value dicotomies. The arguments posted in the various threads defending a citizen's right to self-defense using the only effective "equalizers" - GUNS, are overwhelming in their condemnation of the left's "facts", their demonization of conservatives and inanimate objects, and their statist agenda. All of which is totally irrelevant in the current political climate. To illustrate, I'm including an opinion piece that lays out the agenda we're competing against. Welcome to 1858 - all over again.

>"All the time fellow gun owners say things to me like, “Seriously, Steve, how would they possibly gather up all the hundreds of millions of guns that are out there?”
Well my naïve friend, let me tell you how it works."<

http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/gun-co...en-easy-steps/

Gun Confiscation in Ten Easy Steps by STEVE SHELDON

All the time fellow gun owners say things to me like, “Seriously, Steve, how would they possibly gather up all the hundreds of millions of guns that are out there?”
Well my naïve friend, let me tell you how it works.

Step 1: Create an anti-gun culture and make guns and gun owners the bad guys at every turn: On the evening news, every time a crime is reported, make sure there is a picture of a mean looking gun next to the chalk outline of a body. Portray hunters and sportsmen as backwoods unsophisticated hillbillies and rednecks. Feminize the society, especially the males. Create a culture where the police* are revered as heroes whose intentions can never be questioned. Demonize war and warriors. Label gun organizations “crazed lunatics” and “unreasonable extremists.” Make shooting restrictive by forcing participants to private ranges, then close the ranges by legal means citing reasons of safety, nuisance, environmental, or whatever possible. Create terms like “assault weapon”, “high-powered sniper rifle”, “guns off the streets”, “weapons of war” when engaging in the gun debate making ordinary guns out to have extraordinary functions. Build on this disinformation by using movies, gaming, and entertainment that creates the falsehood that guns are capable of doing impossible things like firing hundreds of times without reloading or overheating or blowing up a car’s gas tank with the strike of a bullet.

Step 2: Build “security” systems that make the sheeple feel safe, giving them a false sense of security and overdependence on police and government authority while at the same time disarming them. Establish gun free zones. Install security cameras everywhere. Place roving security cars with strobes in mall parking lots. Create neighborhood watch programs under the careful supervision of law enforcement insisting that no one be armed and that all incidents are to be reported to the police. Install and maintain elaborate computer entry systems in buildings. Establish pat downs at sporting events, etc. Put “no gun” signs in all public places.

Step 3: Play soothing music prior to the execution: Tell the sheeple that the taking away of their protection is for their own good. Confuse them with emotional arguments. Convince them that you’re doing it for the children. Couch it as a safety issue. Use turncoats to make illogical but emotionally appealing arguments. Tell them you’re not coming for all the guns, just some of the more evil looking ones even though they function in exactly in the same manner.

Step 4: Wait until some horrible tragedy or series of events that make the sheeple susceptible to emotional arguments and knee-jerk reactions:

Step 5: Create a system that makes registration and confiscation simple and gun ownership very difficult and expensive: Close private sales between individuals. Create a national registration or database that can easily be turned to for confiscation. Create bureaucracies that are unaccountable to the people and can serve the purpose of registration, confiscation, and collection. Create processes so cumbersome that no one would possibly want to purchase and register a firearm.

Step 6: Begin the process of making certain kinds of guns illegal: Take incremental steps by isolating one group of firearm and pitting its owners against the “more reasonable” owner. Then continue to redefine “reasonable” insisting that if this class of firearm or that class of firearm were “off the streets” then society could be a better place and our children protected.

Step 7: Create “buyback” and “amnesty” programs that have the effect of identifying and confiscating guns that have slipped under the registration radar.
Step 8: Use some kind of national emergency to begin final implementation once the population has been sufficiently disarmed. This can be done through economic chaos or used as an excuse to quell civil uprising as a result of a variety of circumstances.

Step 9: Throughout the process, implement draconian fines and prison sentences for those who refuse to capitulate. Encourage neighbor to turn on neighbor and gun owner to turn on gun owner. Reward turncoats with positions of power or financial gain.

THIS STEP IS KEY: To those that think, “They’re not going to take my guns away,” you are a fool. Most people will capitulate when they are faced with huge fines and prison sentences. Look no further than the holocaust less than sixty years ago. These were not guns that were rounded up and destroyed, but human beings! Does any reasonable person think that this could not possibly happen again?
And for those of you who think democracy is the answer, Hitler was put in power through the democratic process and then gained absolute power though various political moves eventually taking full control of the government.

Step 10: Welcome to disarmament!

My gun owning friends, do not fall for these steps. Resist them at every turn. Today it’s thirty round magazines, “military looking” guns, online ammunition sales and registration, tomorrow, it’s full confiscation.

One final thought: If safety, security, and protection of our children are really the issues, then why first go after something that is rarely used in violent crime? Why not start with something that kills far more innocents every year like abortion, prescription drugs, or automobiles?

Don’t be lulled into false thinking. It’s not about safety or protecting children; there are better ways to protect against random acts of mass murderers than to disarm law abiding citizens. To quote one of my favorite bumper stickers, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about the control.”

*This is not an indictment against police, as I have family members and very close friends who are members of the law enforcement community who believe as I do and are very necessary members of an ordered society.

[cat in the hat]

For his sake, I hope he has ETS'd already or he is in for some serious repercussions from an officer who only wants to cover his own ass.


http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marin...isarmed-video/

[Hand]

Sigaba's post sent my brain off on a weird tangent. It has been briefly discussed <here> how the lgbt movement worked its way from obscurity in the closet to public acceptance and adoration over the course of 20 years.

Maybe a similar approach would work for the honest gun - toting folk of America.

Or maybe the gun toting folk of America are a different breed of people, they have no desire to use subversion and "awareness campaigns" to further their cause because they don't want recognition. They just want to be left the F alone. And maybe, just maybe, that's why we are so obstinate and vocal when it comes to this issue. We are just fine with the gun abstinence crowd's stance, if you don't like guns, don't own one. If you think the police can provide you the protection you need, great!
I don't have a problem with your choice to not own guns, but leave my choice the fuck alone.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Hand

I don't have a problem with your choice to not own guns, but leave my choice the fuck alone.

And that is what the issue comes down to. Sad.

Anti-gun people don't own guns and don't want you to either.
Gun owners obviously own guns and don't care of someone else doesn't.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

And that is what the issue comes down to. Sad.

Anti-gun people don't own guns and don't want you to either.
Gun owners obviously own guns and don't care of someone else doesn't.

I disagree and see it more like this:

• Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
• Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.

Richard

[koz]

Originally Posted by Richard

I disagree and see it more like this:

• Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
• Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.

Richard

Lets add that anti-gun people want to be protected by guns or have guns themselves (Reid, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, David Gregory, Schumer, Rahm) but don't want the common folk to have them.