[Templar]

LOL, this thread gets better and better with time...

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Trying one more time--What exactly do you want me to do differently and how exactly will that change fix anything?

Probably not worth my time to outline the laws I would like (none involve confiscation, but they involve registration and more thorough checks, especially for private sales, of both guns and ammo)

I'm sure that no matter what they are, you'll simply say, hey, I'm responsible, I havent shot up a classroom, I'm not the problem. Imposing restrictions on me wont make things safer.

In an isolated sense, you might even be right there. However, you'd be ignoring the very important fact that practically speaking, enforcement becomes impossible in an environment filled with exceptions (no matter how justified they are individually). If you cant monitor or enforce a law, there's no point in having it, and then it cannot provide benefit for everyone as it targets the dangerous people (ie: not you).

Guess what: in the 80s-90's, seat belt laws kicked in everywhere. There were plenty of folks who could also legitimately say, Ive driven for 40+ years with no accidents, I've not needed a seatbelt before. I'm not part of the problem, if you start making me wear one now, that wont make things any safer. Perhaps they were right, but that argument didnt fly with the cops then, and in my ideal world, the "I have a long history of safe gun ownership" wouldnt fly either.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Probably not worth my time to outline the laws I would like (none involve confiscation, but they involve registration and more thorough checks, especially for private sales, of both guns and ammo)

I'm sure that no matter what they are, you'll simply say, hey, I'm responsible, I havent shot up a classroom, I'm not the problem. Imposing restrictions on me wont make things safer.

In an isolated sense, you might even be right there. However, you'd be ignoring the very important fact that practically speaking, enforcement becomes impossible in an environment filled with exceptions (no matter how justified they are individually). If you cant monitor or enforce a law, there's no point in having it, and then it cannot provide benefit for everyone as it targets the dangerous people (ie: not you).

Guess what: in the 80s-90's, seat belt laws kicked in everywhere. There were plenty of folks who could also legitimately say, Ive driven for 40+ years with no accidents, I've not needed a seatbelt before. I'm not part of the problem, if you start making me wear one now, that wont make things any safer. Perhaps they were right, but that argument didnt fly with the cops then, and in my ideal world, the "I have a long history of safe gun ownership" wouldnt fly either.

Fari enough, you finally got there, sorta. It's plain that you value some generalized public policy aimed at the public good and don't value individual liberty as highly. You also actually seem to believe that government actually can fix this (whatever "this is). You understand that registration (whatever that means, devil in the details) and more/better background checks will do nothing, right? Also you have to know that good solid Americans, in droves, will not submit to registering their weapons--immediately becoming criminals to no good end. And of course, the mentally unstable and criminal populations will not be impacted in any way by your solutions to...what? I understand, I just disagree--you want us all get on your bus and ride to your destination. It comes down to personal freedom and an understanding that government can't get this fixed for me. For you, a belief in the state and a willingness to write off personal freedom (mine) in order to "do something" that makes you feel better.

What's encouraging is the signs that the hysterical anti-gun lobby looks like they can't get this done. Not going to pass anything that cramps my rights and when the president tries to do it administratively, he'll get his head handed to him. Sooooooo....what now?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

It's plain that you value some generalized public policy aimed at the public good and don't value individual liberty as highly.

It comes down to personal freedom and an understanding that government can't get this fixed for me. For you, a belief in the state and a willingness to write off personal freedom (mine) in order to "do something" that makes you feel better.

Anyone who has read a lot of my posts on fiscal policy would not think I believe that if something is worth doing, the gov can do it best. However, there are clearly certain cases where other governments have fixed certain problems for their people, or at least handled it better. I consider the idea that I dont have to arm myself if I dont need to, to be a form of liberty or freedom, not the lack of liberty..

I dont want the gov in my wallet to support someone who chooses to not put his oar in the water and start rowing, so that rules me out as a liberal. However, I also dont want the gov in my business, telling me who I cant or can't marry, or if my wife can have an abortion. That's none of their business either. So because of the last bit, I guess that rules me out as a conservative also. I never did understand how you can be anti-gov, but be ok with them telling you what you can do with your own body.... anyway...

I like the idea of natural selection, and that you are responsible for yourself. Ideally, If I succeed or fail, it should be because of what I did or didnt do, no other external influences. Reward the strong, prevent the weak from cheating to achieve parity, when they should be behind.

If an animal species gets some un-natural assistance, that can upset the balance of things, to the harm of the whole eco-system. Think of a Cheetah in the plains of Africa. All the animals, even his prey, NEED him to survive or die on his own. If a liberal gives the gazelles night-vision goggles so they can see him coming, that's bad, he starves, the gazelle herd over-populates, etc. Everyone suffers.

If a conservative allows the Cheetah to tip the scales the other way (ie: wear a jetpak so he can run faster, the equivalent of him having a gun), then he can use that to kill the fastest gazelles; once again the strong are no longer rewarded, and the weak not punished. Balance is screwed up again.

Just as entitlements allow some to "cheat" the market, guns allow others to also "cheat" the market, and survive or even thrive when their lack of skills should really see them wither. 16-year old gang-banger dropout should not be wearing more expensive watch than me. If he has no useful skills, he should starve, to send a message to other would-be gang-bangers.

If I build a better widget that people want, I should be able to enjoy the proceeds of that, not have them taxed away, or removed at gunpoint. My widget skills should determine how nice a car I can enjoy, not my marksmanship skills when I have to shoot back at someone who was busy honing their gun skills while I was busy perfecting my widgets.

Also, I look around and learn from other countries. I see tax-paying, hardworking people dying while waiting for medical treatment, so other countries got that wrong. But, I also see people being fatally shot at 1/10 the rate they are here, so other countries got that right. Borrow what works, discard what doesnt. That's why I do support gun controls as one of the few things the gov is good for.

[Mr Tonka]

^^ The analogies are killing me Al. haha

You're really comparing 18th century medical practices to setting up sound government checks and balances? With all this "greatest country in the world" talk it would seem you feel they did a pretty darn good job, no? And you're right we do have the benefit of hind sight, but it seems that most are blind to it.

You're comment of elected official is somewhat laughable as well. I've got a card trick i can show you where at the end it appears like you picked the right card, but you didn't i steered you to that card and you were none the wiser. Forget the fact that I DIDN'T elect these officials and realize that these people are hand selected by the political machine based on things such as their likability, demographic, and or how easily they can be controlled. The day the that our representatives and senators passed laws that gave them exclusive benefits the rest of us can't have, we should have yanked all of them out of office and started with fresh people.

Also, don't let technology fool you in to thinking that our society is getting smarter.... The general public is clueless as to what goes on and how it goes on within our government. As long a their facebook works, the internet is up and they can party on friday night; all is good in america.

[andrew777]

Wait, wait, wait let me know if I'm understand this correctly since this is the point it seems the lefties are making...

Some crazy psychopaths get their hands on guns and tragically kill a few good citizens. You now want all us law-abiding folks not to have guns because they might get into the hands of criminals. Is that right?

Well, why then do the police and govt have guns? I mean look at Ruby Ridge or one of the many other instances of the govt killing innocents. Let's take their guns away as well. At least when some maniac civilian goes on a shooting spree we put him in jail and throw away the key, but if some cop shoots a woman carrying a baby in the head he goes back to work the next day.

[OldArmy]

There's no way to get an honest debate on this, I give up.

Most of those using the weasel words, refusing to be specific, relying on emotional arguments do not want something reasonable. They want all guns gone, taken up, to deny gun ownership to all.

They are just afraid to say it and instead are relying on incremental changes, little bites, a restriction here, a regulation there.

It's a cowardly approach but one that can work.

They are afraid and uninformed so I have to change?

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

There's no way to get an honest debate on this, I give up.

Most of those using the weasel words, refusing to be specific, relying on emotional arguments do not want something reasonable. They want all guns gone, taken up, to deny gun ownership to all.

They are just afraid to say it and instead are relying on incremental changes, little bites, a restriction here, a regulation there.

It's a cowardly approach but one that can work.

They are afraid and uninformed so I have to change?

Wow, very well said. May be hard for some people to hear but its the truth.

Unfortunately uneducated people are making the rule right now and they are manipulating peoples fear in fire arms. Like you said, its cowardly but it will evantually get the job done.