A poll on reason and reality

[230RN]

ArfinGreebly:

Any firearms dealer must be licensed
No. Silly idea. I want hardware stores, general stores, grocery stores, florists, newsstands, and coffee shops to sell guns. And those that don't sell guns should at least sell ammo. And what the heck is up with clothing stores not selling holsters, huh?

Thank you, Arfin. I remember those days, too.

And the streets were safer then, too.

People forget the dynamics of compromise.

Person A is at 1 on some scale of an issue.

Person B is at 10.

Person A demands that society be at 5 on that scale.

Person B objects, but compromises to 2 on the scale.

Person A has won.

There is therefore a new scale, with what was 2 on the old scale now 1.

Peson A demands that society be at 5 on that new scale...

And so it goes. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Simple, huh?

So now, since we've compromised down to the point where these "options" in this poll are even being discussed, I regard the poll itself as an admission that the scale numbers have been reassigned.

I'd rather have it so that someone can buy a gun even after having been convicted of spitting on the sidewalk thirty years ago.

Which is where these compromises are going.

 

[Just Jim]

Tecumseh
Senior Member

You do realize that the founders of this country were illigal immigrants, right? And you do realize that it does not specify US citizens but people. And that these rights are granted by a creator, so it is logical to assume that it means all people have these natural or godgiven rights.

Er ahh who declared them illegal??

jj

 

[Sgt.Dusk]

I voted for the mandatory military service, just because
here in Finland we have a compulsory military service for all
18+ male citizens. Only losers dont go thru that service
and I guess they wouldnt even want to own guns (exept the criminal half).
But this is only my opinion...

 

[hnk45acp]

People forget the dynamics of compromise.
Person A is at 1 on some scale of an issue.
Person B is at 10.
Person A demands that society be at 5 on that scale.
Person B objects, but compromises to 2 on the scale.
Person A has won.
There is therefore a new scale, with what was 2 on the old scale now 1.
Peson A demands that society be at 5 on that new scale...

And so it goes. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.So now, since we've compromised down to the point where these "options" in this poll are even being discussed, I regard the poll itself as an admission that the scale numbers have been reassigned.

You're under the illusion that we're starting at 1 when the reality is we probably are closer to 8 with all these stupid laws and this poll is a hypothetical way of seeing how close we can get back to 1.

what would be the "dui type testing" for a gun

This was inspired by the drinking and CCW threads
Say someone is open carrying or CCW and a cop sees this person is visibly intoxicated or impaired and spots his gun. Would you support a law that would allow LE to test (like a DUI stop) how impaired he is?
or another choice posted:
Would you support a zero tolerance for being impaired and carrying a gun?
Basically, should impaired people be allowed to carry?

 

[ksnecktieman]

I understand now. all we have to do is take my signature line, and add to it "except for some people, and some arms, and some places".

If all of you will be honest, I think many of you will find your acceptable restrictions are very close to "Control him, this does not affect me."

If you do not stand up for the felons rights, and for carry into a church or government building where you never go, and for the guy with weapons that do not interest you. We all lose, divided we can not stand.

If you accept the burden of a ccw permit, you accept that some one, some where, at some time had to accept YOU for the permit. WHO do you want to make that decision when you go back to get it renewed?

I do not think I want RKBAbob deciding for me. He might not like guys with gray hair, or fat guys, or guys that drive a honda. One thing for you to remember Bob. If you allow a line to be drawn it will move, better or worse, but it will not stay the same as when you draw it.

 

[Monkeybear]

Three kind of gun owners-

Gun owners that see everything in black and white; "If you would seek to take a gun out of the hands of any one person then you are my enemy" types. To them "shall not be infringed" is absolute and a group of six year olds should be able to drive a loaded tank because their parents taught them tank safety and even at their young age they have instilled in them a strong sense of personal responsibility and morality.

Gun owners that see shades of gray. They believe in the RTKBA, though the above will claim they do not, but each believes to varying degrees that not everyone is fit to wield simply because it is a tool. Each persons list of "those not fit" varies but most agree on certain points, usually people they deem Officially Scary. They are the "there is a compromise between personal rights and public safety and you are not living in the REAL world" types. Unfortunately no one likes a compromise unless its their compromise.

And

Gun owners that don't see anything. They own a gun for a specific reason: HD, SD, Hunthing, Novelty, Sport Shooting. They don't have much interest one way or another beyond that specific reason they own a gun. They are the "Let me know when its illegal for me to own my gun(s) and I'll see if I can form an opinion about the whole thing" types.


How did I vote, well I will just tell you all how I feel.

The RTKBA on the Constitution shall not be infringed. However it has been my observation that in the end the Constitution dose not decide how we run our lives, nor our Country. People do. For the most part people choose to go by the Constitution. The Constitution's value is beyond measure because our rights, the very rights it protects, are beyond measure.

In the end however we as a People, through our voice and through our vote, decide how we want the Country to be run and what is acceptable and what is "infringement". If enough people in felt that the limits placed on FA weapons were outrageous then I believe that those limits would have been lifted. So here we have an infringement on the RTKBA despite the Constitutions clear wording otherwise. Why? Because people and not documents run the real world and as stated in the Constitution itself, governments can and must be changed to reflect the will of the People.

The Government cannot change the Constitution on its own accord but we as a People can. If enough people wanted to rise up and overthrow the Government and write a new Constitution they would; its called a revolution. This is why discussions, such as this one, on what should be "infringed" upon "that which shall not be infringed" are valid and bear consideration when such a large part of the people obviously are not in agreement. Because we as a People are in control of our Government and can modify our laws and redefine our rights and yes even rewrite our Constitution should we ever decide to do so we can realistically discuss various restrictions on that which "shall not be infringed".

That is how I validate the discussion itself.

I am type number two.

I believe that it is not all or nothing. You can believe in the RTKBA and not oppose limitations. I feel that in the wrong hands a firearm is a public health risk. I will say that people with a history of physical violence against their fellow citizens and those with an inability to grasp the concepts of violence should be barred from owning a tool with such a wide sphere of influence and powerful effect. As to who these people are I feel that it is a slippery slope and careful attention to detail must be paid by the People when negotiating it.

In closing I commend anyone who read this whole thing.

/rant

 

[RKBABob]

ksnecktieman wrote: If you do not stand up for the felons rights...

Why would I stand up for felons' rights? I think felons have too many rights as it is! Don't felons forfeit their rights when they choose to commit a felony?

 

[Walkalong]

Mandatory 2 year military service
It got 13 votes I now know there are lurkers around,

I did not vote, but I like the 2 year military blurb. I think everyone should do their 2 years like it used to be, but it should not be a requirement to own a gun, just a D*** good idea.

 

[230RN]

You're under the illusion that we're starting at 1 when the reality is we probably are closer to 8 with all these stupid laws and this poll is a hypothetical way of seeing how close we can get back to 1.

The poll itself presumes the "1" on the the present scale has never been redefined to "8" before.

Put it this way: I want the low end of the scale to be redefined to minus six in today's conceptions.

The way it was in 1934.

The poll still should have had a "none of the above" as I mentioned in post #4 and it is inherently slanted because of this omission. (You said you ran out of categories, but it still should have had this option. If I had time, I'd do another poll with this choice. At present, it also allows "sandbagging" by antis, as I also mentioned in post #4/)

Still two thumbs down.

 

[ilbob]

Now, just FYI I was driving semi-trucks when I was 15. Both the county sheriff and the state police were aware I was doing so and there was nothing they could do about it as I drove them only on my Dad's property. On private property a child or adult can operate any machine they desire without license as long as they stay within the property lines.

When I was a kid out in Nebraska many years ago, everyone helped with the wheat harvest. Some of the farm kids driving trucks to the silos had to have wood blocks attached to the truck pedals so they could reach them. Can you imagine the horror if some PC liberal saw a 10 YO driving a truck down the road these days?

 

[M1 Shooter]

Originally posted by ArfinGreebly: If elected officials don't want to get shot, they need to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't encourage shooting them.

I like that! Do you mind if I make that my new sig line?

 

[ilbob]

If elected officials don't want to get shot, they need to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't encourage shooting them.

Instead of wasting perfectly good ammo, perhaps it would be better just to not re-elect them.

 

[hnk45acp]

The poll itself presumes the "1" on the the present scale has never been redefined to "8" before.

Put it this way: I want the low end of the scale to be redefined to minus six in today's conceptions.

Not true. I wanted the poll based on reality meaning knowing what we currently have, what would you consider a reasonable replacement for these current laws?
Of course the "none" option is not included because I wanted this based in reality. None would mean it's acceptable to have wmds, 10 year olds could buy guns at the candy store, etc. I know that some here would agree to that but it's just not going to EVER happen.

 

[230RN]

Not true. I wanted the poll based on reality meaning knowing what we currently have, what would you consider a reasonable replacement for these current laws?

A return to the reality of 1934 --i.e., pre-NFA.

 

[Ed Ames]

So... my father's second gun was a handgun he bought for himself at a local gas station when he was around 10. Why is this unacceptable?

People at that time knew that their kids could end up with guns and knives and all sorts of other items so they educated their kids. They bought their kids single-shot rifles and taught them to shoot safely. They bought the kids bolt action or pump rifles as they grew. Even *gasp* semi-autos. Even if the parents didn't like guns. Why? Because guns exist. My grandfather didn't like guns (something about seeing a childhood friend die of a shotgun wound to the stomach) but he bought his son a rifle when quite young and taught him to shoot it safely. Because guns exist. So do knives and hatchets and all sorts of other dangerous items. You can only say "no" so long and if you don't teach your kids to be safe around a stove by the time they are tall enough to reach the controls there's a good chance that kid is going to get hurt.

Today a sensible parent teaches their kids to use knives safely because knives are everywhere and kids can get them without the parent's knowledge. A sensible parent teaches their kids to use guns safely for the same reason. By the time I was 8 I knew of 3 houses with effectively unsecured guns. I knew those houses because I had been in them by invitation. Since you need to teach kids gun safety anyway, what's the benefit of not selling them guns?

What harm did it do my father? Or society as a whole?

WMDs are a straw argument. The people who have tens or hundreds of millions to spend on a single-use device are either going to spend it whether there is a law or not (black markets anyone?) or they aren't going to use the device casually.

The only restriction you have there is reasonable also has nothing to do with guns... it is a property rights issue.

 

[TallPine]

I thought the question was what restrictions that we as individuals believed were acceptable?

I gave you an honest answer ("none of the above - except prisons")

Now you are telling me that since many of those restrictions are already a fact of life, that I must believe they are "acceptable" just because they already exist.

What is that quote about change being dependent upon "the unreasonable man" ...?

 

[hnk45acp]

So... my father's second gun was a handgun he bought for himself at a local gas station when he was around 10. Why is this unacceptable?

People at that time knew that their kids could end up with guns and knives and all sorts of other items so they educated their kids. They bought their kids single-shot rifles and taught them to shoot safely. They bought the kids bolt action or pump rifles as they grew. Even *gasp* semi-autos. Even if the parents didn't like guns. Why? Because guns exist. My grandfather didn't like guns (something about seeing a childhood friend die of a shotgun wound to the stomach) but he bought his son a rifle when quite young and taught him to shoot it safely. Because guns exist. So do knives and hatchets and all sorts of other dangerous items. You can only say "no" so long and if you don't teach your kids to be safe around a stove by the time they are tall enough to reach the controls there's a good chance that kid is going to get hurt.

Today a sensible parent teaches their kids to use knives safely because knives are everywhere and kids can get them without the parent's knowledge. A sensible parent teaches their kids to use guns safely for the same reason. By the time I was 8 I knew of 3 houses with effectively unsecured guns. I knew those houses because I had been in them by invitation. Since you need to teach kids gun safety anyway, what's the benefit of not selling them guns?

What harm did it do my father? Or society as a whole?

WMDs are a straw argument. The people who have tens or hundreds of millions to spend on a single-use device are either going to spend it whether there is a law or not (black markets anyone?) or they aren't going to use the device casually.

The only restriction you have there is reasonable also has nothing to do with guns... it is a property rights issue.

I think that many of us wish that we could exist in those times but until you create a time machine that you, me and 230RN can use I just don't think it will happen.

So in effect your argument is more of a straw argument than the WMD option.

The WMD argument is used to illustrate, at what point do we draw the line for the 2A? Obviously it's an extreme option but where does it end? Maybe at Fuel-Air devices?, Bunker busters?, Cruise missles?, 1000lb bombs?, 500lb bombs?, 200lb bombs?, C4? I believe that this line is a valid point for discussion.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Sig Line?

Originally posted by ArfinGreebly: If elected officials don't want to get shot, they need to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't encourage shooting them.

I like that! Do you mind if I make that my new sig line?

You flatter me.

Yes, by all means. I have my vanity to consider.

 

[hnk45acp]

I thought the question was what restrictions that we as individuals believed were acceptable?
I gave you an honest answer ("none of the above - except prisons")
Now you are telling me that since many of those restrictions are already a fact of life, that I must believe they are "acceptable" just because they already exist

No, you conviently left out the part where I said it was "politically possible"
You may have given me an "honest answer" but it wasn't to the question I asked.
Yes God forbid I tell you that regulations exist and show you some reality that exists outside the internet but I didn't say the current laws were "acceptable" I asked: What WOULD be acceptable AND politically possible?
If you want to live in Fairy Gun Land where it rains unshot brass and rivers flow with Bullseye powder fine and dandy, but I'm attempting to have a discussion based on things that are REAL. If you don't like the question don't answer it. If you think it's flawed, tell me how , but don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Ed Ames]

What is "politically possible" is what you are willing to motivate people to do. They passed prohibition! Think about that... something virtually everyone in society did (drink alcohol) was outlawed... and then a few years later they repealed that level of prohibition.

Your argument is sort of like the people who agree that the drug war is bad but say "we can't back away from it now because everyone would go crazy with unrestricted access to drugs... if we'd never started it things would be OK but now it exists so we've got to keep going."

No. When a type of prohibition harms society... the way alcohol prohibition did, the way drug prohibitions do, the way gun prohibitions do, you REPEAL those prohibitions and you realize that it was a mistake.

As for the WMD argument... the problem is sort of like the problem with kids (plus a lot of movie-going adults) and guns. If someone doesn't know anything about a "powerful" item it becomes attractive magic. If nobody has any contact with explosives they will go obsessive about explosives. Not everyone but more than enough.

Going back to my father... he had access to what today would be considered destructive devices and high explosives. He would go to the farm/hardware store and buy dynomite, blasting powder, fuse cord, and similar. And he'd blow things up. At 14. He blew a lot of stuff up. No big deal. If I had done what he did I'd have been thrown in jail. If a kid today even talked about doing what he did that kid would be risking jail. Is the world better because of those restrictions?

Legal ownership of private nukes isn't a problem. They are very very very very very expensive. Illegal use of private nukes *is* a problem whether or not private nukes are outlawed. Telling someone with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to blow on a single-use device that they can't buy something is useless... they can in fact buy it, the only thing you are saying is they can't buy it legally. So the law does nothing. What's the point of a law that does nothing?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Result Vector

Forgive my indiscriminate use of metaphor here . . .

Reality -- what we have in real life -- is a result vector.

It's not a "status" that is self-maintaining.

It's dynamic.

You want a different reality? All you need is a new set of input vectors.

It really is that simple.

When you get someone who asserts "that's just the way it is," he's a) not paying attention, b) apathetic and resigned, or c) selling something.

It's never just "the way it is."

That's why Oleg put this site here. To encourage stronger input vectors favorable to rights and liberty. It's not here for wallowing in the woe-is-me unfixability of it all.

You want a reality that honors freedom above privilege? All you need is sufficient input along the right vectors.

Vectors? You remember physics. A vector isn't just a direction, and it isn't just a velocity or effort. A vector is effort or velocity in a given direction.

Both things are necessary. Yes, get people pointed in the right direction. Once you've done that, you add motion and/or effort. And you keep doing that, because you're not just up against entropy, there's actual counter-effort.

And what you wind up with is a vector result. And you correct and refine that and apply new input vectors.

And you get a new "reality."

And since reality is dynamic, you have to continually monitor the new inputs and apply adjusting inputs to those to keep the desired vector.

No, you can't go "back in time," but you CAN restore a state of affairs.

My car isn't in the garage right now. It's at work. OMG, it will never return to the garage! I can't turn back time! Well, uhm, I could, y'know DRIVE it home and, like, park it in the garage. It's just vectors.

Over-simplified? Sure. That's how metaphors work.

The point is, you don't get the reality you want by asserting that the status quo is immovable. You don't get the reality you want by asserting that "entropy always wins, so why bother trying?"

You get the reality you want by picking up the darned hammer and saw, grabbing your blueprints, rousting the crew, and building that reality.

Sure, entropy will work against you. Sure, the enemies of freedom will work against you. So what?

We built the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, and the Empire State Building. We beat entropy for however brief a time, and it was worth the effort.

So attend your blueprints, eat a big breakfast, roust the crew, and get building.

And that's how you get the reality you want.

 

[230RN]

I think that many of us wish that we could exist in those times but until you create a time machine that you, me and 230RN can use I just don't think it will happen.

OK. You vote your way on your poll, and I'll vote my way:

Two thumbs down.

 

[hnk45acp]

What is "politically possible" is what you are willing to motivate people to do. They passed prohibition! Think about that... something virtually everyone in society did (drink alcohol) was outlawed... and then a few years later they repealed that level of prohibition.

Your argument is sort of like the people who agree that the drug war is bad but say "we can't back away from it now because everyone would go crazy with unrestricted access to drugs... if we'd never started it things would be OK but now it exists so we've got to keep going."

No. When a type of prohibition harms society... the way alcohol prohibition did, the way drug prohibitions do, the way gun prohibitions do, you REPEAL those prohibitions and you realize that it was a mistake.

As for the WMD argument... the problem is sort of like the problem with kids (plus a lot of movie-going adults) and guns. If someone doesn't know anything about a "powerful" item it becomes attractive magic. If nobody has any contact with explosives they will go obsessive about explosives. Not everyone but more than enough.

Going back to my father... he had access to what today would be considered destructive devices and high explosives. He would go to the farm/hardware store and buy dynomite, blasting powder, fuse cord, and similar. And he'd blow things up. At 14. He blew a lot of stuff up. No big deal. If I had done what he did I'd have been thrown in jail. If a kid today even talked about doing what he did that kid would be risking jail. Is the world better because of those restrictions?

First off this is not a thread about prohibition. Don't make it one. I'm certainly not talking about it. As far as politically possible, you said it yourself, Repeal was possible, I'm trying to discuss what is possible.

Yes your father blew things up and you are right that if someone tried to do that now they'd be arrested, THAT IS REALITY. Today. Now. 2007. Here is when we live .Here is where I'd like to know what is possible.

OK. You vote your way on your poll, and I'll vote my way:

Two thumbs down.

thanks for adding to the discussion

 

[Ed Ames]

It is a thread about prohibition. Prohibition (restriction) of guns in certain circumstances.

What is possible changes depending on how well you can persuade.

Someone in another threat used the phrase "gap analysis" recently ... it can be used here quite nicely. There is a gap between potential and actual. Actual restrictions are many and baseless (or based on flawed reasoning and incorrect information). Potential restrictions are few and based on sound principles (like property ownership rights) and actual problems (like low quality ammo damaging people's guns). The gap needs to be analysed so that actual can be brought closer to potential. It seems like this thread instead tries to redefine "potential" to bring it closer to "actual". That's not a correct approach.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

What is Possible

. . . I'm trying to discuss what is possible.

. . . Today. Now. 2007. Here is when we live .Here is where I'd like to know what is possible.

What is possible is whatever we build.

We make the plans. We apply the effort.

We create the influence.

We apply the vectors.

And, since we don't do that in a vaccuum, there are other vectors in play.

What is possible is limited only by our imaginations and the effort we're willing to put forth.

You get the reality you make.