DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:So, considering it is to a lesser degree already what is your perception of 'nuanced' in the context of your point?

I don't have a solid answer, because the 2nd amendment is so broad. I believe when the 2nd amendment was written, they wanted citizens to not only to be able to defend themselves, but have the ability to battle foreign powers as well as our own government if tyrannical. Would they have chosen different words if they had known the disparity of weapon power that would grow? Would they have perhaps put less emphasis on this, and greater emphasis on other government restrictions?

Will Robinson wrote:It's easy to say it 'should be different' but in what way? You imply an improvement in a vague way. Can you bring your sentiment to a real world solution?

Everyone draws their own line for what they think acceptable killing power for the average citizen is. Personally, as a general rule, I think citizens should be able to purchase whatever weapons domestic law enforcement officers can purchase. If you want to restrict certain types of firearms, the LEO's get restricted as well. If you want to militarize the police, well, maybe you don't want to militarize the police. It's probably not feasible with weapons already out there, but it's about where I'd start the balancing act going forward.

Will Robinson wrote:And, using your justification for the change, how will you reconcile other rights that are also dwarfed by progress or otherwise rendered moot by someone else's logic following your lead?

Our rights are not written in stone handed to us by the infallible. They are not all or nothing. If someone has a valid reason we should not have a specific right or that it should be changed, and a majority agree, it can be revised. They are hard to change, and rightly so. Our founding documents only have the power we give them.

Will Robinson wrote:The 2nd isn't anything more than what it says it is. It is very simple.

The simplicity is part of the problem. It is inadequate to deal with the complex problems associated with modern weaponry.

Will Robinson wrote:So please describe the cultural aspects you have a problem with, include how the 2nd is the source of those problems, and then explain how you would fix the problems without taking away the people's right to own weapons since that is something you support.

Our culture is exceptionally violent. While violence in the United States continues to fall along with world trends, we lag far behind our peers (Europe, Australia, Japan, etc..). That fact alone should be a little disturbing considering places like Bosnia have a lower rate of violence -- and they were involved in a genocidal war just a couple decades ago.

You would have to be blind to not see the gun lust in the US. You would have to be an idiot to not see how guns facilitate fatal violence much easier than other methods such as stabbing, smashing, and poisoning. And, you have to acknowledge the fact that an enormous number of gun deaths are suicides, for witch there is a hard link between gun availability and prevention (yes, most suicides are preventable). If our society doesn't care enough to help people with mental illness the least we can do is reduce gun access to only the most stable and responsible of our population. If you think that Iran is not responsible enough for a nuke, you should also acknowledge that the average person is the US is not responsible enough for gun ownership. You definitely don't believe everyone in the US should own a nuke even though the 2nd amendment gives me that right. The only difference between you and I is where you draw the arbitrary line between who can own what.

The solution I've proposed before is to increase the requirements for gun ownership and create incentives to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

vision wrote:Our culture is exceptionally violent. While violence in the United States continues to fall along with world trends, we lag far behind our peers (Europe, Australia, Japan, etc..). That fact alone should be a little disturbing considering places like Bosnia have a lower rate of violence -- and they were involved in a genocidal war just a couple decades ago.

You would have to be blind to not see the gun lust in the US. You would have to be an idiot to not see how guns facilitate fatal violence much easier than other methods such as stabbing, smashing, and poisoning. And, you have to acknowledge the fact that an enormous number of gun deaths are suicides, for witch there is a hard link between gun availability and prevention (yes, most suicides are preventable). If our society doesn't care enough to help people with mental illness the least we can do is reduce gun access to only the most stable and responsible of our population. If you think that Iran is not responsible enough for a nuke, you should also acknowledge that the average person is the US is not responsible enough for gun ownership. You definitely don't believe everyone in the US should own a nuke even though the 2nd amendment gives me that right. The only difference between you and I is where you draw the arbitrary line between who can own what.

The solution I've proposed before is to increase the requirements for gun ownership and create incentives to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

This is interesting, and I feel inclined to agree with you as far as safety measures (e.g. better security implementation, requiring guns to be locked up in certain situations such as households with minors or at-risk dependents, etc.) go. Yes, guns are sadly a popular go-to for suicidal persons. That's probably at least in part because of the way they are portrayed by media, as efficient killing tools. And while I think it is more important that people with mental illness get the attention and treatment that they deserve, it also wouldn't hurt to try to make their situations a little safer as well.

This of course will do nothing for situational suicide risks, as that sort of thing could happen to anyone, and the only way to prevent a gun being used in that case would be to ban them altogether. I think that is neither necessary nor prudent. What would be a good idea? More comprehensive background checks. Stricter regulation on family households regarding safe storage and handling. Those two things alone would probably work wonders. However, I think it's important to remember that guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Take away the gun and they will find something else to use. This applies to suicidal people as well - if they can't readily access a gun, they will likely seek an alternate means. Bottom line is, it won't deter them entirely from killing themselves, but it will help.

I think it's a little impractical and naive to assume that simply taking guns out of the equation will make most suicides just 'go away'. People don't just decide to kill themselves because there happens to be a gun readily available. It's much more than that. The gun is not the source of the issue, it is merely a facilitator, and as such, taking it away only delays the inevitable. In some cases, yes, the lack of access to a firearm would 'prevent' suicide in the sense that it would give others that are paying close enough attention to the signs of suicidal tendency the extra time they need to intervene on the suicidal person's part. This is not a guarantee, however, as it still relies on others who care enough to step in and do something, which I think is probably a bigger issue than making guns less available.

Raise suicide awareness. Inform people. Tell them what to look for and how they can help. These things would do much, much more for the suicide rate than simply reducing the number of guns out there.

People need to know that others care.

Now, to make this slightly more relevant:

Arizona law says that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license.

State Constitutional Provision: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
Article 2, Section 26.

Arizona has 14.1 deaths due to injury by firearms per 100,000. Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge. Deaths from injury by firearms exclude deaths due to explosives and other causes indirectly related to firearms.

If one only accounts for assault and intentional self-harm, that's 5.62 in 100,000. If you only count assault, it's 2.81. Curiously enough, the homicide rate for the entirety of the US was about the same at 2.83 in 100,000 in 2012, while the national suicide rate is more than double Arizona's at 6.30 in 100,000.

I'll be intellectually honest here and say that, as I don't know the exact figures for each attributable cause of death due to firearm injury counted in Arizona, I'm estimating by counting each cause as a round 20% of the total. Still, it's worth thinking about.

MD-1118 wrote:What would be a good idea? More comprehensive background checks. Stricter regulation on family households regarding safe storage and handling. Those two things alone would probably work wonders.

This actually goes perfectly in hand with the research. The highest numbers of suicide by firearm are youths using the family gun. Firearms are the number one choice for those at risk because it is hands-down the most effective, accounting for greater than 55% of all suicides. Research indicates removing them from the equation dramatically lowers risk. There is a myth that people who used a gun for suicide would have just died another way, but this goes against nearly every self-report from survivors.

MD-1118 wrote:I'll be intellectually honest here and say that, as I don't know the exact figures for each attributable cause of death due to firearm injury counted in Arizona, I'm estimating by counting each cause as a round 20% of the total. Still, it's worth thinking about.

The link I provided in the previous post can direct you to comprehensive research that takes regional, gender, and ownership factors into consideration. Arizona isn't really a benchmark for anything.

Interesting.
So what we are seeing is no one would change the types of weapons we have the freedom now to own.
Vander wonders if the 2nd should have been less focused on enabling parity between citizens and any army/police yet thinks parity was intended and he agrees with it. He has no changes he would make.

Vision also would let us be armed with what we have but would require safer storage and wants a 'licensing' criteria. Without details I cant know what I would think of that, it is too vague.

But mixed in with all of that is the implied blame that the right to have these weapons (that they won't outlaw) is the root of a deadly problem.

I think you guys need to realize the Bill of Rights was not an instruction manual on how to achieve certain goals...with the 2nd being how to own/implement security measures...
It was simply there to ensure no law could keep the citizens from being disarmed by the government. That was the goal and although examples were given for why they were not instructions on how.

All the problems, both those specifically identified and those swirling in a murky cloud of sentiment, are to be dealt with any way you choose without causing the citizens to be disarmed.

Will Robinson wrote:It was simply there to ensure no law could keep the citizens from being disarmed by the government. That was the goal and although examples were given for why they were not instructions on how.

no, that isn't the reason, completely.......they only wished to ensure that the public not be disarmed, because they didn't wish to have a standing army as was used against the citizenry in their experience.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It was simply there to ensure no law could keep the citizens from being disarmed by the government. That was the goal and although examples were given for why they were not instructions on how.

no, that isn't the reason, completely.......they only wished to ensure that the public not be disarmed, because they didn't wish to have a standing army as was used against the citizenry in their experience.

Slick I don't know if you think by repeating that enough people will believe it, or maybe you think you are perceived as a more trusted source of information so you can counter what you oppose simply by stating an alternate view...but regardless, what you say is not true.

Anyone who wants to read a little history can discover the conflict between the two factions...pro-standing army versus anti-standing army...within the creators of the founding of our government.

And if they do, and they read about how James Madison, who wrote most of it with input from the others, convinced his peers that the capability for the Federal government to command a standing army was needed and the 2nd amendment was a solution to the problem of allowing such a standing army to exist. Thus the two scenarios were not mutually exclusive but coexistent by design with a stated purpose.

So you imply the fact that we have a standing army renders the 2nd to be a moot provision but you are completely at odds with reality. At odds with history. At odds with countless pages of letters discussing the argument the actual creators of the document had in arriving at the solution. Instead you want us to believe you know their intent was other than what they expressed.

You can use those tactics on the wilfully ignorant base of your party but you insult the intelligence of those who know better. It makes you appear to be a pompous arrogant windbag trying to bully others into following his line.

Will Robinson wrote:It was simply there to ensure no law could keep the citizens from being disarmed by the government.

If I take your machine gun but not your handgun, are you being disarmed?

If I take away your meat, and leave you the veggies…are you being starved?

The problem with that question is this…once you take away the machine gun, what prevents you from taking the hand gun?

Maybe someday the government decides all you need to be “armed” is a pocket knife.

Maybe someday they take that.

That does not answer the question.

Ok the answer is…yes.

Is outlawing your ability to purchase the machine gun disarming you?

Spidey wrote:If I take away your meat, and leave you the veggies…are you being starved?

The problem with that question is this…once you take away the machine gun, what prevents you from taking the hand gun?

Maybe someday the government decides all you need to be “armed” is a pocket knife.

Maybe someday they take that.

maybe, what if, the standard fallbacks in the call for constant fear-mongering.

Vander wrote:Is outlawing your ability to purchase the machine gun disarming you?

Technically no.

But the semantic debate can go on forever.

Vander wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It was simply there to ensure no law could keep the citizens from being disarmed by the government.

If I take your machine gun but not your handgun, are you being disarmed?

If I subscribe to the interpretation of the intent of the 2nd that you claimed then yes.

You cited parity as a necessary criteria. So if the Feds have MP-5's and M-4's then I should have them too according to what you outlined as your understanding of the intent.

Note that currently I have a couple AR-15 variants that are semi-auto and could have fully auto if I want to pay the tax stamp and register it. So am I disarmed now? It is debatable...it seems my right is being 'infringed' already yet I'm not completely kept from acquiring full auto....grenade launching.....etc. etc.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:If I take away your meat, and leave you the veggies…are you being starved?

The problem with that question is this…once you take away the machine gun, what prevents you from taking the hand gun?

Maybe someday the government decides all you need to be “armed” is a pocket knife.

Maybe someday they take that.

maybe, what if, the standard fallbacks in the call for constant fear-mongering.

I don’t do fear mongering, but I have studied history.

Will Robinson wrote:If I subscribe to the interpretation...

Do you?

Vander wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If I subscribe to the interpretation...

Do you?

I do.
I think it is working as designed. They didn't need to know how arms might evolve if they simply wanted us to have personal defense/fighting weapons.

I believe, for example, that a rich man like Bill Gates could have jet fighters and bombers and aircraft carriers. And I believe the Fed would have a right to insist he keep them out of zones they can prove need to be free of such a potential threat. Even if that means the whole continental United States.

I think individual citizens can be told to keep their personal weapons out of polling places and court houses.

And I believe making me pay a tax to have a full auto weapon and abide by restrictions on transporting it from state to state are an infringement on that right.

I believe states and municipalities can require citizens to prove some basic competency to use weapons within their borders and make negligent storage of weapons a crime.

Of course we have seen the most outrageous attempts to craft regulation in such a way that ownership would be practically impossible. And there in lies the problem, the debate has become a political football.

Vander wrote:Is outlawing your ability to purchase the machine gun disarming you?

Earlier you suggested that the 2nd equated to parity with the military and you compared it to the military 0f the 1700's and how we have gone beyond what the firearms were back then. The problem is today the military has gone far beyond what we can own and carry. The lefts assertions because a semi-auto looks scary means that we can be armed with weapons on par with the military...which is just not true. So lets see what the military has that is man portable that we don't.:

Fully auto weapons. Nope, not unless you have a class C license.

Hand grenades. Nope, won't find us being able to buy those little jewels

Claymores. Nope

BGM-17 TOW. Nope

MAAWS Recoil-less rifle. Nope

So just a few examples of why we have no parity at all with a soldier or marine infantryman. Stop pretending that we do.

Will Robinson wrote:I believe the Fed would have a right to insist he keep them out of zones they can prove need to be free of such a potential threat. Even if that means the whole continental United States.

Will Robinson wrote:I believe making me pay a tax to have a full auto weapon and abide by restrictions on transporting it from state to state are an infringement on that right.

How do you reconcile? I mean, what if we said sure, you can own automatic weapons, you just can't possess them in the United States.

Will Robinson wrote:They didn't need to know how arms might evolve if they simply wanted us to have personal defense/fighting weapons.

This is the crux of it, I think. You interpret the result of not knowing as not needing to know. I interpret the result of not knowing as suspect due to missing information.

woodchip wrote:So just a few examples of why we have no parity at all with a soldier or marine infantryman. Stop pretending that we do.

Heh. Thanks for reading my posts. (that's sarcasm)

I don't pretend that civilians have parity with the military, in fact, the lack of parity is central to my argument. The 2nd amendment was written when there was greater parity, when a national armed force was equipped with single shot rifles, maybe some cannons. But now national armed forces have nukes. They have bombers that can fly to the other side of the world and destroy entire cities. Citizens simply can't achieve parity with that! The destructive power of these weapons is too great for a single person to be allowed to wield, no matter if they can afford the purchase.

So I'm suggesting a more narrow definition of the 2nd amendment. One that takes these realities that simply couldn't have been dreamed of 200+ years ago into consideration. My thought is tying civilian availability directly to domestic law enforcement availability. You get to have parity with the feds when they come banging on your door to force you into gay marriage.

I don’t agree with your position, but at least someone on your side sees that every conflict between civilians and government isn’t going to be a rag tag band of cowboys vs. F-16s.

The difference between heavy artillery and personal weapons is where the line is drawn.
a musket then an M4 today- the same. It is the individual's right not to be validated or determined insufficient by what they might or might not equal if they band together.

The 2nd isn't a guarantee a group of citizens will have parity with any group mustered by the government.

If a group of individuals want to bring their rifles to defend against a corrupt Sherrif and his deputies or a foreign invader they can. If a foreign power wants to calculate the cost of invasion they must count on millions of armed insurgents.

If the bulk of the US Army could somehow be persuaded to obediently attack the civilian population it won't be America anymore and it will be a foreign power that decides the outcome not that some of us also had some mortars and surface to air missiles as our tight to keep and bear arms.

Will Robinson wrote:The difference between heavy artillery and personal weapons is where the line is drawn.
a musket then an M4 today- the same. It is the individual's right not to be validated or determined insufficient by what they might or might not equal if they band together.

the US armed forces have freaking laser weapons they've been testing for the past couple of years. Are you suggesting that a bunch of citizens with M4s are standing up to that level of response? I'm confused where you are going here.

.

If a group of individuals want to bring their rifles to defend against a corrupt Sherrif and his deputies or a foreign invader they can. If a foreign power wants to calculate the cost of invasion they must count on millions of armed insurgents.

the latter is a valid point, assuming that somehow that power could neutralize the US defense capability and then decide to run door to door for reasons unknown. The first example is, under current law, completely illegal and would be dealt with accordingly if a group of citizens tried.

If the bulk of the US Army could somehow be persuaded to obediently attack the civilian population it won't be America anymore and it will be a foreign power that decides the outcome not that some of us also had some mortars and surface to air missiles as our tight to keep and bear arms.

actually, that was the exact scenario the colonists saw happen in 1770 or a bit earlier. Their nation's army, with the assistance of foreign conscripts did just such a thing. You see, there will always be loyalists, so you won't ever have a scenario as you lay out. It would be the Army attacking SOME SEGMENT of the populace.

callmeslick wrote:
the US armed forces have freaking laser weapons they've been testing for the past couple of years. Are you suggesting that a bunch of citizens with M4s are standing up to that level of response? I'm confused where you are going here.

Seems the NVA had no problem defeating us and they didn't have near what we did.

Taliban are doing a credible job making things difficult for us.

What makes you think armed citizens from here can't do the same? And don't bet your pink panties that the citizens won't be able to get bigger weapons from various sources. And the laser weapons are primarily used as a anti armor/anti plane/anti ship weapon.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
the US armed forces have freaking laser weapons they've been testing for the past couple of years. Are you suggesting that a bunch of citizens with M4s are standing up to that level of response? I'm confused where you are going here.

Seems the NVA had no problem defeating us and they didn't have near what we did.

and your leaders chose not to use it in fullest force, PLUS(and this is huge), unlike the scenario you are trying to conflate, in the Vietnam case only one side really knew the terrain and the subtleties of the nation. In some sort of Army vs some of the people scenario, that playing field is level.

Taliban are doing a credible job making things difficult for us.

you're having a different opinion than me, right?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The difference between heavy artillery and personal weapons is where the line is drawn.
a musket then an M4 today- the same. It is the individual's right not to be validated or determined insufficient by what they might or might not equal if they band together.

the US armed forces have freaking laser weapons they've been testing for the past couple of years. Are you suggesting that a bunch of citizens with M4s are standing up to that level of response? I'm confused where you are going here.

You are correct. You are confused because you restated my point opposite of what I said.
I said the right to bear arms is for the individual to have an infantry soldiers weapon. For example an M4. If those spooky laser weapons ever become standard issue for ground troops then I want us to have them too.
Why did you need to suggest my scenario puts us against these laser weapons that are just experimental and nothing close to something a single soldier is carrying today? Was it because reality doesn't support your position that the soldiers already carry something made of magic?

didn't mean to suggest either way, Will, on that one. I just lost track of the point you were trying to make, as the words made it sound contradictory to what you'd written later that post. No more, no less. Thanks for the clarification. Now, simmer down.

callmeslick wrote:


and your leaders chose not to use it in fullest force, PLUS(and this is huge), unlike the scenario you are trying to conflate, in the Vietnam case only one side really knew the terrain and the subtleties of the nation. In some sort of Army vs some of the people scenario, that playing field is level.

Short of nukes, pray tell me what we did not use? Opinion at the start was, it would not take us 6 months to defeat them. How long did the war last and in the end the North won. As to a level playing field, do you seriously think in a full blown civil uprising that military units would not side with the civilians? Or better yet they would stay on their bases and do nothing as it was in reality a political flensing.

Taliban are doing a credible job making things difficult for us.

callmeslick wrote: you're having a different opinion than me, right?

You must have a different opinion than me if you think we have Afghanistan pacified. Or do you think Obama has decided to keep 10k soldiers there after the pullout date just to have parades and look pretty.

you must have a different opinion than me if you think 10,000 folks scattered over a nation that size is akin to conducting any sort of all out war.

changing the parameters again when you can't make a cogent reply.

What exactly is the Taliban doing that's difficult for us? Specifics please.

vision wrote:What exactly is the Taliban doing that's difficult for us? Specifics please.

Living. In their country. Those assholes.

The taliban these days are like the bitter bad guy living on a volcanic island going 'The same thing we do every night... try to take over the world'

thank goodness I wasn't the only one wondering what Woody was alluding to.......

vision wrote:What exactly is the Taliban doing that's difficult for us? Specifics please.

Keeping us in Afghanistan.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:What exactly is the Taliban doing that's difficult for us? Specifics please.

Keeping us in Afghanistan.

would that it were that simple. Toss in regional politics, economics and our own defense interests in that part of the world, maybe. The Taliban by themselves? Once again, the mere suggestion is different than my opinion.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:What exactly is the Taliban doing that's difficult for us? Specifics please.

Keeping us in Afghanistan.

would that it were that simple. Toss in regional politics, economics and our own defense interests in that part of the world, maybe. The Taliban by themselves? Once again, the mere suggestion is different than my opinion.

Interesting. The Taliban is why we went to war in Afghanistan. If the Taliban laid down their arms and signed a peace accord tomorrow we would be out of there in two months time or less. Because they are not signing a peace deal we will now be keeping 10k troops there indefinitely. Too bad you are awesome.

woodchip wrote:Interesting. The Taliban is why we went to war in Afghanistan. If the Taliban laid down their arms and signed a peace accord tomorrow we would be out of there in two months time or less. Because they are not signing a peace deal we will now be keeping 10k troops there indefinitely. Too bad you are awesome.

Why thank you. You oversimplify about 2000 years of tribal affiliations into a neat little group. But I still like sparring with you.