The US paradox

Page 3 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Dec 2012, 9:47 pm

Raptor wrote:

PM wrote:

Raptor wrote:

VIDEODROME wrote:

Heh... I bought just a .22 Remington rifle and was run through a background check.

Still, the situation can be looked at and we can see where things fall through the cracks.

Honestly, I think the best solution is to emulate the Swiss gun culture more.

It's really not that great over there. They really do have strict gun laws even though each citizen soldier stores his Stg-90 at home.
The United States has somewhat of a violent culture. It's not alone in this and also not as bad as some like to claim.
The fix isn't attempted control over inanimate objects and it's not sitting around in a circle holding hands and singing Cumbayá, either.
Walk softly and carry a big pistol is the best protection.

Big pistols are heavy.

As for the OP: Do I need to do a break down of ATF form 4473, the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the FOPA of 1986?

Quote:

Big pistols are heavy.

Figure of speech taken from the "walk softly and carry a big stick" expression.
My carry piece is usually a little Kahr CW9

Quote:

As for the OP: Do I need to do a break down of ATF form 4473, the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the FOPA of 1986?

The OP isn't interested in any of that. They never are in threads like this.

Quote:

Good, because fitting a full size 1911 in one's pants is all but impossible.

I've done it with a 1911 and Beretta 92FS (not both a the same time) and it was a little too uncomfortable. Like wearing an air wrench in my pants with the Beretta.
Glock 23 isn't too bad and I've carried it in a kydex IWB holster.

Quote:

I have heard many calls for UK style gun turn-ins from a few people in Western Europe. They fail to realize that the outcome of anything remotely similar would be a Civil War.

My response to them is "MOVE THERE!"
The ones that don't even live here can stay right where they are.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

PM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

16 Dec 2012, 9:52 pm

Raptor wrote:

Quote:

I have heard many calls for UK style gun turn-ins from a few people in Western Europe. They fail to realize that the outcome of anything remotely similar would be a Civil War.

My response to them is "MOVE THERE!"
The ones that don't even live here can stay right where they are.

Oops, I failed to mention that people in the UK and Western Europe are calling for that here in the US. That would cause nothing short of a civil war.

_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,579
Location: Seattle-ish

16 Dec 2012, 10:24 pm

PM wrote:

Good, because fitting a full size 1911 in one's pants is all but impossible.

Eh, I used to carry one of those Para-Ordnance double stack 1911s Mexican style with a certain pair of jeans, it actually wore better than you might think if you got the barrel to line up with your hip so that it kinda locked the gun in place. I wasn't the best mode of carry for retention or for the guns finish, but it was surprisingly comfortable and concealed under a loose t-shirt. Now I use a yaqui slide to carry my tuned single stack, and switch to a shoulder holster if I want to carry my Witness 10mm auto. I have to wear a light jacket to cover either of those, but in Seattle that's usually not much of a problem.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

17 Dec 2012, 8:45 am

Dox47 wrote:

No, actually, we just like to handle our own business around here. Even with all your CCTVs and weapon control and civil liberties infringements, if someone jumps out at you with a tire iron, the police are too far away to do anything about it. That's a FACT, not my opinion. The gun at my hip is exponentially faster than any law enforcement response, and I'd carry it whether I lived in an idyllic utopia or a crime ridden hell hole. Why? Because it's not inconvenient and I prefer to take as much responsibility for myself as is possible.

It is a fact that the bullet from the bad guy's gun will kill you exponentially faster than any cold weapon, whether you carry a gun or not.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

17 Dec 2012, 12:46 pm

01001011 wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

It is a fact that the bullet from the bad guy's gun will kill you exponentially faster than any cold weapon, whether you carry a gun or not.

And a bullet from his gun will kill a bad guy exponentially faster than any "cold weapon". Since you can't control what the bad guy has, why try to disarm Dox47? If you want to stop bad guys with guns, arm the good guys.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,840
Location: London

17 Dec 2012, 6:37 pm

@Dox47- thanks for your answers to my questions.

Raptor wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

What do you think the problem is then, Raptor, and how would you solve it?

Mental health issues, breakdown of the family unit, dysfunctional families, overcrowding in schools, irresponsibility, f**** up economy, moral erosion, stupidity, etc, etc, etc....
Fix what can be of the above in a meaningful and effective way but but it will never be fixed to the point where all is well.
And since the fix won't be near totally effective and there are ones that will fall through the cracks anyway it's still wise to walk softly and carry a gun.

We have all those issues in Britain. 23% of children in the UK live in single parent families, 26% of American children. 40% of school buildings in the UK are not fit for purpose compared to 23% in the USA; primary classes are slightly bigger in the UK though lower secondary (middle school?) classes are slightly bigger in the USA. Both our economies are in trouble, but the USA's GDP per capita is still much higher (you have an extra $8000 per person to play with, though of course like us a lot of that will be taken up by the super rich). I suppose the main difference is in mental health, where we have the NHS so people may be more willing to seek help, but there are still major problems with mental health issues here.

Gun crime in the UK isn't as bad, nor is overall violence. Despite our higher rates of knife crime (which I imagine to some extent "replace" gun crime), we have lower homicide rates in general.

I appreciate that you can't just apply gun control laws like those here and expect the issue to be magically better overnight, but attitudes towards "second amendment rights" and guns in general need to change. Australia had a similar shift after Port Arthur, which seems to have eliminated mass shootings (from one every two years to none in 15 years) even if overall gun homicides can't be shown to have decreased other than in line with pre-established trends.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Dec 2012, 7:47 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

@Dox47- thanks for your answers to my questions.

Raptor wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

What do you think the problem is then, Raptor, and how would you solve it?

I'll just take one little bite here before I move on.

Quote:

but attitudes towards "second amendment rights" and guns in general need to change

The second amendment is what it is; part of OUR constitution and the constitution, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link.
Don't hold your breath waiting for our "attitudes" to change to your liking.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,840
Location: London

18 Dec 2012, 5:15 pm

Why is something "being in the constitution" a good reason for it to be a law? That strikes me as being dangerously close to a circular argument.

After all, the second amendment (and the rest of them, for that matter) wasn't in the original constitution.

PM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

18 Dec 2012, 5:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

The US Constitution is the law and the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights that were added out of compromise.

_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

18 Dec 2012, 5:48 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Why is something "being in the constitution" a good reason for it to be a law? That strikes me as being dangerously close to a circular argument.

The constitution enumerates "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights. The justification of the second amendment is that it gives individuals the ability to protect these unalienable rights, both from individual aggressors as well as tyranny.

The original intent, as described by the founders themselves and confirmed repeatedly by the supreme court, is that this is an individual right.

Quote:

After all, the second amendment (and the rest of them, for that matter) wasn't in the original constitution.

This is technically correct, but the original constitution's ratification was dependent on the bill of rights.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,840
Location: London

18 Dec 2012, 5:52 pm

I know the constitution is the law. But why is something being the law a good reason for it to be legal?

By that logic, if Jefferson and company had made hats illegal, then that would be a good law, and no darned tooting libarul Communist Muzlim atheist Marxist college educated softy who has never even shot a bear and drives a German electric car is going to bring back hats!

PM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

18 Dec 2012, 5:58 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

I fail to see the logic in your first statement, and no, i'm not a right-wing extremist evangelical Christian neo-conservative.

_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,840
Location: London

18 Dec 2012, 6:29 pm

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Why is something "being in the constitution" a good reason for it to be a law? That strikes me as being dangerously close to a circular argument.

"Gun ownership allows us to protect our rights" is a coherent argument (even if I question whether gun ownership is necessary for liberty or good an upholding rights- I certainly don't think American citizen gun owners would have any chance against the US military, or any other notable military). It doesn't really answer the perceived sanctity of the constitution.

The focus, a lot of the time, is on whether something is unconstitutional, not whether it is right. In the UK, people don't generally question whether new laws are legal, they question whether they are moral.

PM wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

I fail to see the logic in your first statement, and no, i'm not a right-wing extremist evangelical Christian neo-conservative.

If the constitution (or any law) is good because it is the constitution, then the constitution could make anything good. I suggest a total ban on hats; a more extreme example would be incest, or infanticide.

Alternatively, things get their goodness from something other than the constitution, and the constitution just says that good things are good. In that case, why do you need to look to the constitution for goodness?

Essentially, I'm applying the Euthypro dilemma to the US constitution (or any legal system generally) rather than to a deity.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Dec 2012, 7:06 pm

The US Constitution does not create or grant rights. It is based on natural rights which are inalienable and exist with or without the constitution. Our constitution was made to guard our inalienable rights not grant them.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Dec 2012, 7:44 pm

Jacoby wrote:

That is correct and the 9 th amendment underscores that very point.

ruveyn

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

18 Dec 2012, 8:25 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

The constitution is the baseline for our legal system. The idea is that we all agree to it. Morality is a very subjective benchmark, especially in society today when religion has been abandoned on such a large scale.

I have two comments on your side opinion. First, don't underestimate the capabilities of a civilian population defending its home. Second, I'd rather have some chance than no chance.

Page 3 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

The US paradox Post Reply New Topic

The US paradox