Reasonable gun control: what does that mean?

A. M.
By A. M. on Tue, Jan 15, 2013 - 12:35pm
Restrictions or bans on high capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons
0% (0 votes)
Restrictions or bans on one or the other, but not both
8% (1 vote)
Enforcement of existing laws
92% (11 votes)
Repealing of existing laws
0% (0 votes)
Restrict available, or track sale of ammunition
0% (0 votes)
Mandatory training for purchase of certain types of Firearm
0% (0 votes)
Mandatory training for purchase of any Firearm
0% (0 votes)
Allow each state to individually decide how to approach the issue.
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 12

150 Comments

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Thoughts on our thinking...

There has been a dutiful and purposeful silence here on the political aspects of guns in society, and what constitutes 'reasonable' gun control. Perhaps because it's commonly understood that there is no 'willing' this argument; it's polarizing and even recent events have done very little to influence the overall populaces' view of guns and gun control. 

I'd like to do several things here:
1. I want to define some terms we are hearing, so we all clearly understand what's being discussed.
2. I want to, with as much detachment as possible, discuss why we need a class of weapons commonly mislabled "assault weapons", and why they are not obsolete.
3. I want open, civil and logical discourse to an incredibly emotional argument. 
4. I'd like for the members here to vote accordingly, so we can examine the results fairly and determine what "reasonability" really means.

First, let's define some terms so we're all on the same page:
High Capacity: High capacity is a misnomer that draws information from the Clinton era "Sunset" assault weapons ban instituted in 1994 which restricted magazine capacity to 10 rounds for pistols and rifles. This is a misnomer in that "standard" capacity for pistols is between 6 and 20 rounds, and nearly all semiautomatic rifles are standard capacity of 20 or 30 rounds, depending on caliber. 

True "high capacity" magazines are also known as "drums", and typically hold between 60 and 100 rounds.

Assault _______: Using the phrase "assault" before a firearm type infers that the weapon is offensive in nature. This is both redundant and meaningless, as "assault" as a tactical act in which aggressive action is taken. While superficially this seems perfectly logical, it's important to note the inflammatory language here, as literally anything could be used to commit an assault. If we lacked assault rifles, we would revert, nearly instantly, to assault swords or spears. Lacking those, assault clubs and rocks would suffice. 

The critical element to take away is the willingness for one human to assault another inappropriately.

High Powered: This phrase gets thrown around often and means literally nothing. It is editorial filler, with no real representation in the "real" world. High powered is both subjective and misleading, and ties directly into objective 3 listed above - if we are going to have this discussion, we have to have a common understanding, and we do not. Even among seasoned shooters, there's a vast gradient of knowledge, so it's nearly impossible to expect that a citizen watching or listening to the news would hear "high powered" and rationalize that the weapons in question are significantly lower powered than most hunting rifles.

Second, let's discuss the question that so many people are asking:
"Why would you need a rifle with 30 round magazines?"

Short answer: You don't.
You likewise don't need your home, either. Or your toaster, coffee, a car, saxaphone lessons or property rights. You could easily live in a brush hut, eating grilled snake and muddy water while banging on tanned hides and sharing the plains with both friend and foe.

Long Answer, part 1: The founding fathers of the United States were not avid hunters. They were men who had just fought a war of revolution against an authoritarian state who forced taxation without adaquate representation upon colonists and then demanded that the colonial militia surrender it's firearms. When they refused, on April 19th, 1775, it became apparent that the restriction of arms is a prelude to oppression; the unarmed demand nothing of the armed. 

Further, it should be recognized immediately and assumed henceforth that the police of the United States have no "Duty to Protect" a private citizen, and that the burden of your personal security lies squarely upon your shoulders alone.

Because we cannot say, with any certainty, that no threats to our liberty exist either internally or externally, and because the police, who have no obligation to protect us, are entitled to defend themselves during the course of their duties with the AR-15 carbine, it should also be immediately and henceforth assumed that this is a defensive tool - not an 'assault weapon', and capacity simply enhances your ability to assault or defend longer.

The argument presented assumes, implicately, that this will always end up in an assault. This is the result of bias in the media, as no stories will be shown that illustrate the viability of these tools by mainstream media outlets.

Why? The media will not run stories that illustrate citizens defending themselves.
Why? The police are the ones charged with protecting the population...
But if that's so, why did Castle Rock side against Gonzales - a woman who's husband murdered their 3 small children after she begged the police to enforce protection orders?
Because It's not politically correct?
Why? Why should innocent people be murdered and then have their ability to defend themselves restricted?

Next, I hear this often:
"How can a rifle make a difference in the day and age of tanks, drones and nuclear bombs?"

This statement shows a fundemental lack of understanding of warfare in general, and more specifically, tactical thinking. While I don't want to get into this too deep, suffice to say that even a poorly trained, underfunded force equipped with rifles from the 70's can create a significant strategic barrier to an incredibly powerful military. 

Part Three - I've laid out my rationale for why I do not favor restrictions on firearms:
1. Risk of violence from irrational, unreasonable people.
2. Risk of oppresion from violent regimes or war
3. Lack of "Duty to Protect" precedent on behalf of our nations police
4. I prefer to be able to be commensurately (if not exceedingly) prepared to defend against crime as perpetrator are to use assault. A part of this is having access to tools that give me an advantage, ergo, fighting rifles.
5. As a statistic measure, you're more likely to be beat to death with a blunt object than shot with any kind of rifle or shotgun - in 2011 there were 496 deaths involving blunt trauma as the cause, and 323 homocides invovling rifles and shotguns - and that is not specifically 'fighting' guns (high capacity semi-automatics). 

So yes - a fighting rifle is meant to kill. It's meant to kill human beings. 
People will have only one of two reactions to this statement:
1. You will recoil in disgust, or;
2. You will silently acknowledge it as, unfortunately, a part of living as a part of a species that preys on itself. 

If you recoiled in disgust, I'd welcome you to peek in the rabbit hole.
Look in, and see. This world is filled with horrible things, and sometimes, the only solution is a judicious, defensive posture that sometimes involves hurting humans who intend to hurt you. That is a rational decision, a logical decision and the expressed purpose of our Second Amendment rights.

The problem is mental instability; it's the neurosis that comes with a society so detached and apathetic that life's purpose is distilled to a vicious cycle of wage slavery and gratification of aquisition. Until we can shift our approach to take charge of the mental illness, we can expect things like this to happen.

I remember the mid-90's and the radicalism that sprang up after the Assault Weapons ban; Waco, Ruby Ridge and, worst of all, The Edward Murray building in Oaklahoma City. This is truly a heinous propsition, and as much as I hate to apply logical and emotional reactions to the same situation, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, including a pre-school full of children, and wounded 500 others using JP8, Fertilizer, and a Panel Van. 

This is an example of how violent men think; having spent some time around insurgency, removing the firearm will only open doors to less 'direct' methods of attack. 

So, Four, here is my propsition, think it through and make your own decision:
Let's stop all this nonsense about banning guns. The are here, and they will be for a very long time. Because "assault" is a state of mind, banning fighting rifles will do little or nothing to stop violence which is our real enemy. Let's stop addressing the vector and bemoaning the symptoms, and start attacking the cause.
Let's let the NRA get back to its mission of training people in the safe and competent handling of firearms.
Let's remove the taboo, and just accept it's part of our culture.
Let's work with our rights, instead of against them; we can't stop abuses of the Second Amendment any more than we can the First Amendment.

Finally - do this for me:
Thank the millions of gun owners who don't hurt anyone, and have no interest in abusing the power they have at their fingertips. Most people forget that there are literally millions of AR-15's in circulation (estimates range between 1.4-6 million) and we can still count on our natural digits the number of times these weapons have been used in mass shootings. We forget just how responsible we really are.

I hope to see insightful comments from all perspectives.
Cheers,

Aaron

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2763
A bill currently being rushed through the NYS legislature

A bill passed by the NY State  Senate last night 43-18 is being considered by the Assembly now.  I spoke to my Assemblyman's office a while ago to find out some of the particulars.  The bill seems to be focused largely on banning so-called assault rifles and limiting magazines to 7 rounds, but the bill is massive and definitions are muddied.  According to the aide I spoke to the bill will probably be passed today by the Assembly and signed by the governor by the end of the day.  The info I have, although sketchy, appears to be a pretty pervasive clamp down and invasion of individuals' privacy and rights.  I am not happy.

Doug

Tim_P's picture
Tim_P
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 23 2009
Posts: 298
Why does a normal person need a 15 round magazine?

I have been getting that question a lot lately.  Lots of folks that think they fully support the 2nd Amendment will ask that along with the statement that a regular person should be able to defend themself with less than 10 rounds.

My response is to ask why a policeman needs a magazine that holds 15 or more rounds.  The police are usually the initiator of an interaction with someone and when they do so, they are generally well supported with backup on it's way if needed.  They are tethered to the station via radio and can bring in additional support very quickly.  Yet, they also understand that if you are unlucky enough to find yourself in a gun fight, the few moments it will take until help arrives are critical.  They have also learned that to run out of ammunition in the midst of a gun fight is a very bad thing.  

Why does a civilian need 15 or more rounds of ammo?  Because we face the same scum that the police do.  We are in a different situation though, as we do not get to pick the ground of the battle.  We do not routinely wear body armor and are not tethered to a central station via radio and we do not have backup inbound immediately when our personal SHTF situation presents itself.  We have to handle the situation with whatever we have with us and if we are lucky, we will be the one calling 911 when it's all over with.

We are the prey of the criminals that the police seek out.  The idea that we should be limited to 7 to 10 rounds of ammunition for the sake of political expediency is wrong and immoral.  Magazine limitations will have no effect on crime other than to tip the balance a bit more in favor of the criminal element.  Civilians who choose to carry for their protection as well as that of others are more in need of the higher capacity magazines than are the police.

I think that argument has been effective in all cases to date.  At least, nobody has continued the debate after that, but who knows what they go away thinking.  Aaron is right, firearms are part of our culture and we need to find a way to embrace what they bring to the table.  We need to focus on firearm use for the good, not only the bad.  We need to start teaching firearm safety in schools as well.  The 4 rules of firearm safety should be a part of the health curriculum in every school and grade.  Think what effect that would have on the number of gun accidents as those that have been taught the 4 rules from kindergarten grow up.  

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Doug wrote: A bill passed by

Doug wrote:

A bill passed by the NY State  Senate last night 43-18 is being considered by the Assembly now.  I spoke to my Assemblyman's office a while ago to find out some of the particulars.  The bill seems to be focused largely on banning so-called assault rifles and limiting magazines to 7 rounds, but the bill is massive and definitions are muddied.  According to the aide I spoke to the bill will probably be passed today by the Assembly and signed by the governor by the end of the day.  The info I have, although sketchy, appears to be a pretty pervasive clamp down and invasion of individuals' privacy and rights.  I am not happy.

Doug

Doug,

IIRC, back in the 1980s, there was an "assault weapon ban" passed in NJ.  An assault weapon was defined as any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds.  Only a few hundred were turned in, however.  The rest of the gun owners (hundreds of thousands) simply refused to comply.  The law was eventually rescinded because the government was made to look foolish.  Not that NJ is a bastion of gun freedom.  It obviously isn't.  That's one of the reasons I moved from there.

AkGrannyWGrit's picture
AkGrannyWGrit
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 166
2 Comments

Something I never hear mentioned is that if someone is good with a gun the size of the magazine seems pretty irrelevant. It only takes a second or two to change out a mag so all the focus on restricting large capacity magazines seems stupid to me. Second the timing of this big debate is suspicious. The health of this country is entering into the hospice phase and once Mr. & Mrs. John Q Public figure out whats going on they will get angry. The Government will have a much easier task of controlling the population if we are not only disarmed but used to being herded. Every time I fly I think of herding behavior and occasionally I think I hear a moooo or a baaa but am sure it's my imagination.

There are so many people in Alaska that won't be willing to hand over their guns. It just won't happen, not without boodshed. Just my opinion.

AK Granny

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Couple things...

TimP,
You're spot on. I strongly agree that when pressed into defending ourselves, we are under much worse conditions than a military or police unit. Fighting equipment isn't the "answer", but it makes the answer much more tenable... the answer in my opinion being tactical savvy and skill.

AKGranny,

You're absolutely right about skill negating equipment, but that time does add up... 
A reasonably fast reload with a pistol or rifle is about 2-2.5 seconds.
If your adversary is reloading every 30 rounds, and you're reloading every 7, you will reload 4 times for every one reload they perform. This is a disparity of between 8-12 seconds... under the most ideal conditions. Add layers of clothing covering your reloads, the stress of conflict, perhaps a modified or disadvantageous firing position and possibly injuries (most incidents are initiated by an attack in which the victim must respond after being injured), and your times will be significantly slower. This makes it crucial that the citizen defending him or herself be equipped with sufficient reserves of ammunition that they not have to reload after 7 rounds.

Further on this point, a lot can happen in 8-10 seconds.
A person can move about 100', or 30 yards, enter or disembark a vehicle, start and begin motion, or accomplish various other tasks that put you at a deficeit. If this is an armed gang, you're giving 8-10 seconds to each member. If it's a police or military organization, put your hands up and come out slowly - because the only other option is dying. A trained force with such a disparity will not let the advantage go.

While it's no secret that I don't think our military or police are violently oppressive, it's conceivable that it *could* happen, and therefore is a risk. I believe a more likely situation is that people who are violent and motivated will just find ways around police. The "Active Shooter" situation is absolutely an instance of 4th Generation Warfare, in which the enemy is attacking places that they know for a fact are vulnerable and they are not likely to face resistence. What good do first responders do in an emergency that lasts 10 minutes when it takes them 8 minutes to arrive and stage?

More importantly, in any emergency (and it's no secret that I'm big on emergency prep and management) time is of the essence. 

So to use an analogy, if you've got a patient who's stopped breathing, you've got 8 minutes to get them circulating oxygen again, or they're done for. If someone passes legislation that you can only give CPR after 5 minutes, and even then, you can only perform 7 compressions to one breath, as opposed to thirty, what are your patient's chances?

Taking tools from "good" people is never a way to accomplish a goal. Truly, this is a sad approach.

Lastly, I'd be happy to hear (and hope that others will likewise be respectful and tolerant) dissenting arguments. Please, if you feel this is important, let's discuss all avenues of it. I don't want to 'preach to the choir'. I want the intelligent discussion that we hear so much about, but that never materializes.

Cheers,

Aaron

AkGrannyWGrit's picture
AkGrannyWGrit
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 166
Re: Couple Things

Thank you Aaron. The point I was trying to make, somewhat ineffectively, was that if a rouge person wanted to go to a public place and shoot it up then magazine capacity might not be a game changer. A person who is very accomplished can change out mags in the blink of an eye. Limiting magazines isn't for the publics safety it would be to control the many law abiding gun owners. It appears to me that the shootings that have taken place were not by accomplished gun owners but by sick individuals intent on doing harm. Harm can be accomplished by dogs, fire, bombs, poisen, fear, vehicles. Just sayin size of the mags is splitting hairs in my opinion.

AK Granny

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
Very nice Aaron

Your post and Tim's absolutely cut through all the dysfunctional anti-gun propaganda I have thus far seen.

shawns333's picture
shawns333
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2011
Posts: 41
Aaron Moyer wrote: I remember

Aaron Moyer wrote:

I remember the mid-90's and the radicalism that sprang up after the Assault Weapons ban; Waco, Ruby Ridge and, worst of all, The Edward Murray building in Oaklahoma City. This is truly a heinous propsition, and as much as I hate to apply logical and emotional reactions to the same situation, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, including a pre-school full of children, and wounded 500 others using JP8, Fertilizer, and a Panel Van. 

This is an example of how violent men think; having spent some time around insurgency, removing the firearm will only open doors to less 'direct' methods of attack. 

First off, fantastic post and cramming so much many good counter-points to a lot of the dis-/misinformation that is out there.  I agree with much of what you said and it was laid out well.

One thing that I need to respond to and I don't want to get into "politics" is that you just lost me in that I either don't understand the paragraph above's intention or you would be well served to reexamine your understanding on some of these events, especially Ruby Ridge and Waco.  If you are suggesting that "extremism" sprung up from some Clinton-era firearms legislation and that these people involved were the aggressors and the real cause of the ultimate death/destruction, myself and a heck of a lot of people see things very differently than you do.

Again, if I read that paragraph right and you really believe this, we're not going to change each other's opinions.  But, it was just striking to see that vein of thought, given the rest of the excellent points you documented.

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2010
Posts: 348
Civil Disobedience

Out of frustration, I am no longer interested in arguing about the topic with screamers.  I will explain my point of view to someone who is genuinely uneducated on the matter, and in fact I do teach Concealed Handgun classes.  Otherwise, I am not inclined to participate in any "bans" at this time or in the future. Since civil disobedience was a noble undertaking for the civil rights movment and for OWS, then I guess it might be OK for me too.  Anyone want to do a sit in with me?

Rector

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2010
Posts: 348
Limits on Magazine Capacity

This young man's gun only has a magazine capacity of 7. . . 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Extremism

Shawn,

Re-reading what I wrote, I can see how that'd be a bit confusing - I didn't mean to infer that those things were "because" of the ban, but that anti-government frenzy that followed the extremism and the gun-control efforts were the beginning of a huge cultural divide, and that assymetric attacks were used after the ban to fight against perceived government infringements.

What I was driving at is that I firmly believe we'd see a revival in radicalism if a new ban were to pass. Sort of the inverse of what the 90's did: lots of radicalism and a desperate government bid to stem the offensive capability of the citizenry. Now, we're seeing a drastic government bid to stop the citizens from owning firearms, but the citizens, by in large, aren't committing enough crimes to justify it.

Thanks for calling this to my attention, and again, sorry for it being stated in such a clumsy manner. It was an attempt at tying some subjects that individually could take a day to write into one concise and digestable blip.

Cheers,

Aaron

shawns333's picture
shawns333
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2011
Posts: 41
fix the poll structure

Agree, Rector.

You're not going to change their mind and neither are they.  Those (the small minority) that actually care and want to understand the topic and to have an informed/intelligent point of view are those we glady sit down with and have a great conversation.  I think many of us have been there and done that.  Better yet, teach them about firearms, get them trained and do "hands-on" and distance them from the dis-/misinformation that is propogated.

Finally, I refuse to "vote" on this poll, because it's set up very poorly.  The most "innocuous" answer I can give is just to "Enforce current laws"?  No, thank you.  You must be kidding.  We have horrible and unlawful laws on the books right now.  They're legal, but they're not lawful.  They're counter to the US Constitution (and Natural Law) and are null & void.  We should not even pretend that they are, as a whole, useful and deserving of any respect.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Rector wrote:Out of

Rector wrote:

Out of frustration, I am no longer interested in arguing about the topic with screamers.  I will explain my point of view to someone who is genuinely uneducated on the matter, and in fact I do teach Concealed Handgun classes.  Otherwise, I am not inclined to participate in any "bans" at this time or in the future. Since civil disobedience was a noble undertaking for the civil rights movment and for OWS, then I guess it might be OK for me too.  Anyone want to do a sit in with me?

Rector

Rector,
The answer is "yes". A few million people agree.

No matter what law passes, it has to be enforceable. If it's not, there will be no measurable results. This is exactly what I see with this situation. I offer this as a sign of "what's to come":
Texas Proposal: Jail any fed who tries to enforce new gun laws

""At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.

  The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'"

I'd expect several intermountain states to propose similar laws, and I'd really hate to see this country divided over such a divicive issue, floating in a mix of toxic vitriol and misinformation.

Shawn,
"Finally, I refuse to "vote" on this poll, because it's set up very poorly.  The most "innocuous" answer I can give is just to "Enforce current laws"?  No, thank you.  You must be kidding.  We have horrible and unlawful laws on the books right now.  They're legal, but they're not lawful.  They're counter to the US Constitution (and Natural Law) and are null & void.  We should not even pretend that they are, as a whole, useful and deserving of any respect."

Updated! To those who've already voted, if a current option more accurate represents you view, I apologize. I can "add" an option of you suggest it.

Cheers,

Aaron

shawns333's picture
shawns333
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2011
Posts: 41
Thanks for clarifying,

Thanks for clarifying, Aaron.  I agree with you that when polarization happens to an exterme level, I don't think it's good for anyone.  Some people shy away from polarization as if it's some new phenomenon and that we all should always be very close in thought and everything hunky-dory.  I think that's unrealistic and also historically inaccurate.

That said, you make a good point about letting things get to extreme/radical, where you have this pressure built up that can pop in bad ways.  Though, honestly, I believe our society has had so much crime, fraud and theft that we do have extreme polarity already in many ways.  I think fractured/splintered is more appropriate, sadly.

Then again, there is always hope/optimism in that I think people mainly are decent and have good common sense, when common sense is allowed to prevail.  Here's to positive thoughts wink

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1125
How about an option of "no confidence"?

I find it hard to take a position on that poll; 5 years ago I'd probably say enforcement of existing laws (excepting the extreme cases in NYC, Wash DC, and Chicago) is best.  But ever since then what little confidence in the rule of law I had has been lost and I see that the government has turned into something that I can no longer support in any fashion, so at this point I would feel hypocritical in endorsing the federal government to do ANYTHING.  They no longer represent the people, and just about everything they touch turns to s#*!, even the few good ideas and good bills.  So I'm kinda partial now to just saying "no confidence" and thereby leave it all to the states.  It's far from an ideal solution since I'm sure that some states would take gun control to a level some of their residents would find disturbing, but at least it keeps the decision making at a more local level.  And you always have the right to move to a state more aligned to one's ideals and priorities, without needing to leave the country. 

Of course it's hard to use that argument with most of the public, since many still think of their government and their country being one and the same, and the idea that you can support one and not the other is usually considered foreign (or frightening).   

jimstone52@gmail.com's picture
jimstone52@gmail.com
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 1
AR-15

Aaron,

I've been quitely brainwashed by all the press on the logic of banning these.  I've been hunting and target shooting for over 40 years and should not have caved so easily.  Your article revived me from my swoon and I'm now paying attention again.  As a Christian, I want everyone to embrace love and forgiveness, but as a Christian I should remember as well as anyone that we live in a fallen world.  Thanks for taking the time to lay out such a wide-ranging and thoughtful point of view.

Jim

shawns333's picture
shawns333
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2011
Posts: 41
Excellent point & rationale,

Excellent point & rationale, Nickbert.  This is why I've become a Libertarian in the past 5 years and will never go back to the 2-headed-1-party monster that is nothing but compromise and selling out.  I don't intend to get political, but my point is that you stick to principles and that is what sets you and keeps you free.

The reason you do so even though a lot of time emotion may tug at you as well as "common sense" to just give a little here or there.  It's not about being hard-nosed when you refuse or that you are a principled idealist.  It's because you have learned to understand the world, human nature and how things work.  Giving a "little" here and there takes you path the inevitable slippery slope that has been proven over and over again throughout history in a variety of topics (a little central bank here, a little regulation/tax there, a little special interest here, a little executive privelige there).

There are saints in the world, but the world is also full of mediocre people and even some that are downright disturbed/evil/weak/whatever descriptor you like and represents your views.  Supporting and voting for your principles will always be the right answer, eventhough sometimes it will be quite tough.

I appreciate the wanting to cave, but through resolve that comes from believing in principles and why they are critical, we can maintain those things that are precious or even sacred.

Discourse is always great, but it also depends on the audience.  I get frustrated at the pro-gun folks that don't seem to want to understand and repeat tired phrases like "guns don't kill people", "hammers kill far more people a year than rifles", etc. etc.  These are useful things to say, don't get me wrong.  But, it depends on the audience.

The people that are bringing forth such stupid legislation don't care and/or already know the facts & figures.  They are doing this due to:

  1. Personal agenda (slanted view, ideology)
  2. Past history/personal negative experience
  3. To get ahead in the world / further their careers

All of the above factors mean that the politicians (or anyone else that fits in the above mold) are useless to argue with and to present facts & figures.  Only those (the minority) that are truly interested in the topic, ignorant and willing to change their opinions are wortwhile to have a facts & figures conversation with.  The others have already made up their minds or have their agenda and aren't going to budge.

Ultimately, Nickbert said it very well.  Leave it to the states and that will always be the right answer.  It's not a perfect world, it never will be and perhaps it was never meant to be.  But, via our amazing original principles of government (as small as possible, as weak as possible and as much the hell out of the way as possible), we can get the right outcomes we need/want.

Last and not least, the real issue here is that society is sick and especially the people that kill are sick.  We need to take a hard look at them, the root cause of why they do what they do, massive pharma influence in our society today, why are those that want to exercise their Natural right to defend themselves can't and have those national discussions.  Not some nonsense about the tools used (clubs, knives, guns, fires, poison, etc.).

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 454
Thom Hartmann: Second Amendment to Protect Slavery

My mom and I have been discussing the wisdom and safety of civilian gun ownership this last week.  Last night she sent me this piece by Thom Hartmann, a guy that I respect a great deal.  

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery?fb_action_ids=10151234568557087&fb_action_types=og.likes&action_object_map=%7B%2210151234568557087%22%3A390307407725537%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151234568557087%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D#.UPYy0spXvec.email

It provides what was to me a fascinating and very different view of the origins of the second amendment.  I am not a historian and have no independent knowledge to evaluate the accuracy of his account, but it seems plausible and to me.  I had always assumed that the purpose of the second amendment was to permit armed citizens to protect themselves from potential tyranny from the federal government.  There might be more to it than that.

Summary:  Hartmann explains, that the southern states operated armed slave patrols (militias) that would brutally hunt down escaped slaves, inspect slave quarters for weapons and generally terrorize and intimidate slaves who had any inclinations about uprising.  It would have been impossible to maintain the enslavement of the black population successfully without these continuous enforcement patrols.  The patrols were heavily armed and the slaves, thoroughly disarmed.  Thus, slave patrols were essential to maintain the wealth of the plantation owners.  All the able-bodied white people in Georgia were required to participate in the slave patrols (except for a few exempt professions).  The southern states were worried that the northern states could use the new constitution to deprive them of the ability to run their slave patrols.  The second amendment was drafted with the intent of guaranteeing their ability to continue these practices, thus protecting the wealth of TPTB.

For me, this was fascinating.  And I was with Thom right down to the concluding paragraph where my conclusion to this bit of history was radically different than his.  He used this history to support eliminating types of weapons "used to kill schoolchildren."  For me, this story highlighted the terrible abuse that is possible when factions in a conflict are unequally armed.  MY conclusion was more like:  "Damn.  I NEVER  want to be disarmed and dominated like the slaves were.  I need ANOTHER military-style rifle to protect my children." Both concerned with "protecting children."  Opposite positions on this topic.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2763
Observations

Yesterday I visited a couple local gunshops whose owners I've dealt with and known for a few years to guage the reactions to the NY gun law that was passed by both houses and signed by the governor in one day.  The bill is large with many different provisions that can be confusing, depending on what area of law each section addresses.

Each of the shops is located in slightly different demographic areas, but the range of political thought goes from Republican to rock rib Republican.  Democrats and/or liberals are considered evil incarnate.

Phones are ringing off the hook in both shops with people trying to order assault type weapons and ammo, or finding out the status of existing orders.  One of the shops has stopped taking any orders, but has a large number of orders already placed.  By the proprietor's estimation about 90% of those orders are from police officers, so will probably be filled at some point.  But, due to confusion in the language, even that isn't certain.  However, the suppliers are tapped out and afraid to deal with New York dealers because of the law.  A late news report in the afternoon stated that the law would not go into effect for 60 days, an apparent fact neither of the dealers was aware of at the time I visited the shops.  If that's true, it should give the dealers a little more certainty, but it has yet to be finally settled.

Both shops were crowded with people when I was there.  Due to the large police clientele of one of the shops, people were guarded in their conversations.  They generally discussed the availability of guns and ammo within the context of the law.  Mostly, nothing is available.  Because magazines larger than 10 rounds are already illegal in NY, that shop has not sold larger mags for a long time, even the pre '94 mags that are currently grandfathered.  The general attitude was trying to figure out what the new law says and how to interpret it.  It was general confusion with underlying frustration.

The other shop was populated largely by guys about my age, many of them Vietnam vets, and they are angry.  They aren't survivalists, just blue collar guys in a poor rural region.  Hunting is a way of life, most of them have CC permits and owning guns is the norm.  Because gun laws, particularly handgun laws, are largely locally administered, there has been little problem with gun availability in the past.  And, with the exceptions of a few eruptions of a political nature and mentally unbalanced shooters, there is almost no gun related crime, although there have been a few episodes of B&E of homes with large gun collections.

These are just my observations of local reactions to the new NYS gun law.  The governor apparently  wanted to be the firstest with the mostest in the wake of Sandy Hook.  He has presidential aspirations.  It will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next few months.

BTW, here is a video I stumbled across that clearly demonstrates the diffferences between real assault rifles, banned since 1986, and look alike semi-autos that are the subject of current banning efforts.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 1556
thank you Sandpuppy

I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion on guns - and I share your reaction to the article you reference.  I live in NY and my head is reeling from the implications of our new law, the details of which are still coming out.  It is easy to see how the media, and the powers that be who want us disarmed, whipped up the antigun fervor to fever pitch here post Sandy Hook.  I don't hate anyone for taking the bait ...  this is the country we live in unfortunately.. filled with sheeple who have lost any critical thinking skills they once had to the plug-n-play ideologies they are spoon fed by the matrix, ideologies which conveniently keep us divided and conquered (and soon more disarmed) by the monied puppet masters behind the two party system.  

One quick anecdote:  I had lunch Monday with a friend at a small Indian buffett... there was a woman a few tables over from me with her back to me.. .her T-shift read, in big block letters, "Ban Assault Weapons".  I submit that she has no idea what is coming in this country, nor how closely our own path parallels those of other nations in history that have fallen to tyranny.      

I am continually amazed, as a person who now sees behind the curtain, how the media works to drive home lies.  Here is a really good example (H/T a Zerohedge comment poster) from CNBC yesterday, the context being Germany's newly stated desire to have its Gold repatriated;

source:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100382718

Dominic Schnider, global head of commodity research at UBS Wealth Management told CNBC, "Holding gold in key financial centers (New Tork, London or Paris) makes sense and can give access to foreign currencies like the U.S. dollar. On the other hand, we have seen how easy money printing is. Thus, we don't need gold anymore as collateral."

He added: "Nevertheless, holding some gold at home is not a bad idea in an age of ballooning central bank balance sheets. As a reference, Hong Kong also shipped its gold back home from London some years ago."

Analysts, however, did not expect any immediate reaction in gold or currency markets to any gold repatriation from the Bundesbank.

The message is clear;  Nothing to see here.. move along. 

GM_Man's picture
GM_Man
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2012
Posts: 68
...Entering the Hospice Phase response

Good morning AKG,  I can't agree more with your phrase that 'the country is entering into the hospice phase....'

Looking back just a few years we have the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme under the nose of the SEC, the Zeeks Rewards Ponzi scheme from North Carolina, the Management Solutions Ponzi scheme targetting members of the LDS church, the John Corzyne and MF Global fiasco where assets held 'in trust' by MF Global were confiscated by the solicitator who is working on behalf of the affected acounts, and recent Supreme Court decisions such as SpeechNow.org v Federal Election Commission and the ObamaCare decision.  I mean do I really need to pay a fine because I am unemployed due to the lack of financial regulation on uncontrolled financial risk management and can no longer afford health insurance???

I simply tell friends and family who have asked about why I own firearms it is a lack of trust and a history of poor judgement on behalf of our leadership.  I have seen the video's that came out of Katrina.  I have seen a pattern where our government is NOT doing their job that we hire them for.

Providing semi-automatic assault rifles WITH high-capacity magazines to the Mexican Drug Cartels apparently is completely legal for our Attorney General, Eric Holder, but I cannot own one to defend myself from drug addicts who travel into the rural areas of our state to burgle and ramshack our homes?

We've all heard Too-Big to Fail, where billions or OUR TAX DOLLARS went to major corporations that were being completely mismanaged by over-paid executives.  We have an entire section of our law that is set up just to deal with personal and corporate bankruptcy proceedings.  Why was it not used?  The justification is that these institutions were too big to fail.  So?  Why don't you make them smaller?  It has been done before with Ma Bell.  Why?

Have you heard about the settlement with HSBC?  Have you heard about 'Too-Big to Prosecute?'  The following link will take you to Matt Taibbi's discussion on this issue: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213.   There was a series of criminal acts that was directed from the very top of the huge international bank HSBC.  Nobody was prosecuted!  Again!

John Adams has been quoted as saying 'A government of Laws and not of men.'  You can even find that same phrase in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bill of Rights, Article 30, circa 1780.  That was the goal, that was the ideal, and that is the ultimate betrayal that has created a lack of trust in our government.  Our leaders aren't.

IMHO, Jonathan Allen

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
15 round magazine

Personally, when I carry, I have 15 rounds in the clip and carry 2 more clips for a total of 45 rounds. I've not personally had the experience, but have heard stories recounted  about the heat of battle - when a person is asked about how many rounds did he/she fire in the conflict, the answer is usually less than 50% of the rounds actually expended. 7 rounds are gone before you know what happened, and the problem you are facing may be just beginning.

Give me enough ammo to stay standing a little longer.

Jim

bob980's picture
bob980
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 27 2010
Posts: 25
Well said!

Keep in mind too that the government wants to always to have superior capability to even the "good" people in case they were to rise up and try to do something "bad" to the government. 

In addition to firearm safety training, there needs to be training in when the use of deadly force is legally authorized.  That varies from state to state.  My state (Georgia) requires a licence to carry any handgun (open or concealed) but does not require ANY training at all.  That seems short-sighted to me.  I have a license and several hand guns and long guns and have never received any training except in the military and from my dad.  That was probably good enough back in the day but or society/population seems to have evolved into a bunch of morons for the most part. 

Tim_P: Keep thinking!  You're on the right track...

shawns333's picture
shawns333
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2011
Posts: 41
My last post so I don't sound

My last post so I don't sound like a broken record.

On common sense and slippery slopes... it makes sense that people need* to be trained to carry/handle/own a deadly weapon.  Be it an automobile or a gun.  Or, so it seems.

I had an asterisk on "need" because, who determines that and how will it be mandated.  Once you have someone else provide conditions on your rights, do you really think it's a right anymore?

Just like today, driving on the roads is not a right, but a privelige.  I know you've heard and seen that.  So, you as a sovereign citizen cannot freely travel in your country, unless you meet all of the control & regulations that have been placed upon you (license, insurance, no debt/tax liens, etc.).

I'm not suggesting that we do away with everything and go back 200 years.  But, it's worth once in a while checking in with ourselves and contemplating if this is really what it means to have freedom and liberty or have we gone too far in wrapping up ourselves in a bubble world that everything is child-proof / idiot-proof and nothing can ever go wrong.

Obviously, you see from my tone that I believe we've gone way too far.  We need to be thinking very carefully and with great caution about trying to achieve Utopian (e.g. fantasy, doesn't exist) views in our real world.  So, taking away freedom and liberties in the hope of legislating intelligence and child-proofing the world needs serious debate and rational thinking.  Because, worst case scenario, you have those that like to control and are just using emotional arguments and scare tactics to manipulate people to get achieve a certain agenda (and it has little-to-nothing to do with Utopian dreams and child-proofing anything) .

Beware of starting down slippery slopes and to whom you give power over you.  Thousdands of years of human political history shows it doesn't end well.

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Bravo Shawns

Thanks Shawns for clearly discussing the deeper issues.

Travlin 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Intent and purpose

Shawn,
The reason that alternatives to this are being proposed in this thread is so that people who do not hold the same opinion as you can comfortably present their thoughts on the subject. 
I don't think you're "going too far", but the reality of the situation is that you lie on one extreme and you have opposition on the other.

The logical conclusion is that a middle ground will be met. With that being the case, the "point of origin" for any conversation is the middle, not the fringes.

If there is to be any convincing, the middle is the place to start, as it is the point where the people are the least polarized. If you come out swinging and demanding - that's not going to show anyone that the people who support less gun restrictions are also rational, reasonable and cogent. Same goes for the opposition to your stance - stating that all guns should be banned and NRA members should be road-hauled is not exactly a compelling perspective. 

So, please keep this in mind as this dialog (hopefully) progresses.

After Obama's presentation this morning, I think it's extremely evident that his approach is neither reasonable, rational or likely to produce anything other than a prohibition era black market, deep, irreprable rifts and a renewed interest in states' rights, and possibly significant backlashes. 

Having seen a civil war in progress, I really, really can't state just how desperately I hope we can avoid that outcome. Honestly, I don't think there is a side in this argument that will see reason, but that can't stop us from trying.

Cheers,
Aaron

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Nice posts guys

Doug – Thanks for the local reports.  Things are much the same here.  That video is terrific.

Here is a similar video by a cop.  At 5:54 he changes a stock on camera to demonstrate that appearance does not define function.

Jim H wrote:

It is easy to see how the media, and the powers that be who want us disarmed, whipped up the antigun fervor to fever pitch here post Sandy Hook.  I don't hate anyone for taking the bait ...  this is the country we live in unfortunately.. filled with sheeple who have lost any critical thinking skills they once had to the plug-n-play ideologies they are spoon fed by the matrix, ideologies which conveniently keep us divided and conquered (and soon more disarmed) by the monied puppet masters behind the two party system.

Jim – You are getting downright eloquent.  I’m impressed.

Travlin

Lnorris's picture
Lnorris
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 103
Jim I feel your pain

New Jersey is considering 18 new gun laws.  Three of the proposed 18 address mental health as only a politician would.  One of their proposed laws would make it mandatory that a person seeking a gun permit would have to be examined by a licensed psychiatrist and deemed to be mentally stable enough to own a gun.

What doctor wants to predict the future?  Can you imagine the liability if the applicant gets granted the permit and sometime later gets into an argument, whatever, and uses the firearm to commit a crime?  

Who's going to pay the doctor for their time?

Can you imagine the backlog depending on how many doctors they enlist to do this?

For anyone who is interested there is a podcast that comes out every Friday.  You can find it on itunes.  It's called Gun For Hire Radio.  Anthony Colandro hosts the show and he covers relevant topics pertaining to firearms, the legislative process and legal issues that are coming up each week.  It focuseson NJ but considering where all this seems to be going the more people who listen, the more people we have who are engaged in the process.  Anthony runs Gun for Hire a firearm training facility in Belleville, NJ.  I took my first NRA pistol course with him as the instructor and will be going back for many more opportunities to train.  You can check out his website for his credentials.

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 755
And we have this

From no less than a former criminal prosecutor from Washington, DC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

" I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime."

"The urge to drastically restrict firearms after mass murders like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month and in Aurora, Colo., in July, is understandable. In effect, many people would like to apply the District's legal philosophy on firearms to the entire nation. Based on what happened in Washington, I think that would be a mistake. Any sense of safety and security would be a false one."

shawns333's picture
shawns333
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2011
Posts: 41
I said it's my last post and

I said it's my last post and I meant it.  However, I do feel a response is warranted given that:

- unfortunately, you have misunderstood and are misconstruing the point of my last post

- I put some thought experiments out for people to think about things, I did not force any views, nor did I squelch others from doing so

- I respectfully disagree with your characterization of "logical conslucions", "middle ground" and so forth.  Those things are all entirely subjective and you're over-simplifying how life works by painting left/right/middle.  And, again, where you think I lay.

- I'll leave with this.  It can be strongly argued as a matter of the historical record that it was exactly the "middle of the road" compromising approach about this nation's beginnings on multiple hot-button issues between the Northern and Southern states that were squelched for 80 years that precisely (and predictably) blew up into the US Civil War.  The most destructive war of them all, where more Americans were killed (by far) then all other wars combined.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
sigh...

Thanks for clarifying. Glad to have had your input and perhaps later you'll reread and understand that there is a point to this other than just throwing out unanimous support. Im not saying you're wrong. But your approach might be better suited to your own thread that would be less flawed. Thanks again for your sentiments.
Cheers,
Aaron

thebrewer's picture
thebrewer
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2012
Posts: 86
Texas is not alone

Aaron Moyer wrote:

No matter what law passes, it has to be enforceable. If it's not, there will be no measurable results. This is exactly what I see with this situation. I offer this as a sign of "what's to come":
Texas Proposal: Jail any fed who tries to enforce new gun laws

I believe Wyoming has done the same thing..2 years in Jail to any Fed who tries to confiscate guns and I just read something about Kentucky or Georgia with similar measures being considered. I applaud this but unfortunatly can never expect to see such boldness up in New England where I live...for now..

North Carolina or bust!

thebrewer's picture
thebrewer
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2012
Posts: 86
A little more food for thought

I read this earlier today; I think it fits with this string of conversation.

This is a column from Walter Williams at TownHall.com.

He wrote:

When I attended primary and secondary school -- during the 1940s and '50s -- one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped.

Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives -- along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts -- have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

Organic Raw Veggies's picture
Organic Raw Veggies
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 24 2012
Posts: 49
Govt tyranny

Hey when are you gun owners gonna take back our country. Facism is already alive and well. I think it is too late. 9/11, endless wars, 2008 taxpayers money given to corporations (fascism), big banks and FBI conspire against the occupy movement (fascism). Gun owners should have joined occupy. At least someone tried to start a movement. Ndaa, patriot act, dsh, etc, etc, etc. Obama and Bush were/are pawns.

Stay on your sofas blogging about how bad gun control is, that is, when you are not going to the gun store to buy your 55, 56 and 57 gun. Countries gone folks, guns aren't bringing it back. Now you are alone on your sofa waiting for an evil-doer to come to your door. Stay trapped in your own mind. Let me know if you get off your sofa.

Some people live their whole lives with no guns and never are victims of crime and never need security alarms and cameras. Imagine all the people who have no gun and never will need one (that is freedom). A friends son lives in NV and carries concealed, to go to the grocery store with his family. Why not go in full swat riot gear? So afraid of people. What a burden gun owners create on themselves? I think gun owners should only leave the house in full riot gear. Go in groups of 2 or more on your saturday morning trip to dunkindoughnuts. I am not going to live my life in fear thinking everyone is an evil-doer. If you want my TV set, take it. If you want the $20 in my wallet, I'll give it to you. Gun people can be more addicted/obsessed to craziness then heroin addicts, alcoholics or HSN nuts.

When does the NRA schedule it's march to take the country back? I think you guys are too late but I'm waiting. The NRA needs it's serfs too, to keep arguing while the Elite finish their plan. I don't need a gun to stop paying taxes. I don't need a gun to spend my money locally and not at global multiple-nationals. I don't need a gun to love my neighbor.

Peace!

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 1556
Oganic Gluten-free vaccine avoiding non-GMO Vegan Raw

I am a very strong supporter of your right to not own a gun.

I for one have never loved my neighbor with one of my guns either.. but I did love one with one of my chainsaws!..  the recent widow who lives behind me was very happy to see me post Sandy in order to blast through the four large trees that had fallen across her driveway.  

I for one have no special fear of people at this time.  When the inflation comes, the store shelves are empty due to price controls, and the social fabric of society begins to tear... my outlook might change.  Your depiction of the mindset of a gunowner is quite extreme - it describes none of the gun owners I know, but every subculture has its nutjobs, right? 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Organic Vegan Raw

Thank you for your post! 
I'm actually very happy to have you, as you've framed another "extreme" in this discussion. I hope that as the dialog continues, you perhaps take a less adversarial tone, and as a part of the process, I'd like to discuss just that.

You've done a great job in framing an entire group of people as a homogenous entity, with uniform standards, knowledge bases, proclivities and reasons for owning the object in question: firearms.

If you don't mind, think about exactly what you wrote, but just apply some other inanimate object... a wristwatch, or sunglasses. 

About whether or not gun people are there to "take back the government", if they did, what would you say? Would you applaud, thank the NRA and "gun people", or would you dismiss them casually as loonies who you always suspected might be terrorist, until they "won" or "lost", at which time you'd side with...? Who?
Would you recognize that their restraint is admirable in retrospect?

Two more things:
1st: why would you assume that someone is carrying out of fear? Would you detest watch wearers of being paranoid that they might be late? Time is arguably the second most precious gift we can give, behind life. Would it be paranoid to safeguard it?

2nd: Why would you assume all crimes are material or property oriented? Are there not a significant enough number of crimes in which something much more personal than someone's possessions are taken? Would you prefer to hand that over as well? Begging to not be killed while your dignity is stripped from you as you're beaten or raped? How about if you witness something like this... what will you do? Stand by while someone forfeits their dignity? Even if it's just possessions, is this "loving your neighbor"?

I have "loved my neighbor" with a firearm. I've done everything I can to prevent two people from being violently assaulted or perhaps even killed using firearms. It's never been an issue of power, and it's a very horrid responsibility. It's not enjoyable, it's not fun, it's not a situation you want to find yourself in. But it happens, and when it does, you can make a choice.
I've fought with my fists and with firearms, and never for myself. 

I'm not scared of house fires. I have a fireplace. I have a fire extinguisher, and I keep a fire extinguisher near the fireplace.

I'm not scared of people. I have friends. I have a firearm. I keep my firearm on when I'm with my friends. 
Not because I fear them, but because I love them, and would protect them. 

Thoughts?

Aaron

westcoastjan's picture
westcoastjan
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 4 2012
Posts: 466
re the column from Walter Williams at TownHall.com.

This is an interesting read and I agree philosophically with some of the things that this gentleman says. That we have lost our moral compass is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I also tend to agree that a return to more traditional ways, such as a one income family (and I don't much care which sex is the bread winner), simply because this would go towards solving many of the 3E issues.

However, I cannot completely buy into the customs, traditions and moral values argument for a few reasons. The biggest is the question of whose morals, and whose customs and traditions? In this vast, eclectic global village there is great disparity in these values, largely stemming from underlying religious faiths. So out of the hodge podge of choices, which values should we subscribe to?

For example, there are societies that have as a tradition honour killings, when it is felt that a family member, usually a woman, has brought the family name into disrepute. In yet another culture, sex selection and infanticide is routinely practiced due to a one child policy. In yet another, diversity is celebrated in all its glory, giving those who (some think) fall outside of the bounds of "tradition" equal footing to live their lives as they see fit.

There is no one set of morals or traditions that can be an umbrella for all of us. But that is not a reason for despair. On the contrary, I think it is cause for celebration. If we are all cut from the same cloth, if we all think and act the same, how will we evolve? If we cannot respect and revel in cultural and genetic diversity, how can we call ourselves an enlightened species?

What I personally see is a serious decline in the lack of respect shown to others and their property, a lack of respect for authority, and a lack of overall integrity, something that is just so crucial to a civilized society. There are no half measures - either you have integrity, or you don't. It is the most important pillar of civility.

What we see going on in this world right now shows a serious deficit of integrity across the board. Money and power does that to people. It corrupts. It debases values. It destroys morals and traditions.

I do believe in karma, and what goes around comes around. The bigger they are, the harder they are gonna fall...my biggest fear is that I (we) will be collateral damage.

The gun argument is un-winable (is that a word? sp?). Go back and re-read my essay that was posted just after Sandy Hook. Zero in on the point I make about letting go of personal agendas to find real answers to violence arising from gun use. Take a step back from your beliefs and resolve to get to the root of the problem.

My own answer is a combination of everything we talk about here. Live simply. Forget consumerism. Raise your kids well, without needless consumerist influences; know your neighbors, and their kids; make them your extended family. Embrace nature. Marvel at this great planet we call home. And as Treebeard says, love is the answer; as Organicveganraw says, all this stuff with guns and the associated paranoia must cause a lot of stress. Who needs it? I would much rather be able to walk to the store chatting people up along the way as opposed to fearing what they might do to me.

No brainer whatsoever. Peace.

Jan

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1125
Perfect example of counterproductive input

Hey, why are you trying to start completely unnecessary fights with insults and mischaracterizations that actually help the elites (the ones you so evidently despise) in keeping the people distracted and bickering with one another?  For one who laments about the elite and fascists taking over, you're doing well in making yourself into a tool for their purposes...

Organic vegan raw wrote:
Hey when are you gun owners gonna take back our country. Facism is already alive and well. I think it is too late. 9/11, endless wars, 2008 taxpayers money given to corporations (fascism), big banks and FBI conspire against the occupy movement (fascism). Gun owners should have joined occupy. At least someone tried to start a movement. Ndaa, patriot act, dsh, etc, etc, etc. Obama and Bush were/are pawns. Stay on your sofas blogging about how bad gun control is, that is, when you are not going to the gun store to buy your 55, 56 and 57 gun. Countries gone folks, guns aren't bringing it back. Now you are alone on your sofa waiting for an evil-doer to come to your door. Stay trapped in your own mind. Let me know if you get off your sofa. Some people live their whole lives with no guns and never are victims of crime and never need security alarms and cameras. Imagine all the people who have no gun and never will need one (that is freedom). A friends son lives in NV and carries concealed, to go to the grocery store with his family. Why not go in full swat riot gear? So afraid of people. What a burden gun owners create on themselves? I think gun owners should only leave the house in full riot gear. Go in groups of 2 or more on your saturday morning trip to dunkindoughnuts. I am not going to live my life in fear thinking everyone is an evil-doer. If you want my TV set, take it. If you want the $20 in my wallet, I'll give it to you. Gun people can be more addicted/obsessed to craziness then heroin addicts, alcoholics or HSN nuts. When does the NRA schedule it's march to take the country back? I think you guys are too late but I'm waiting. The NRA needs it's serfs too, to keep arguing while the Elite finish their plan. I don't need a gun to stop paying taxes. I don't need a gun to spend my money locally and not at global multiple-nationals. I don't need a gun to love my neighbor. Peace!
rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Abuse of the majority

westcoastjan wrote:

What I personally see is a serious decline in the lack of respect shown to others and their property, a lack of respect for authority, and a lack of overall integrity, something that is just so crucial to a civilized society. There are no half measures - either you have integrity, or you don't. It is the most important pillar of civility.

What we see going on in this world right now shows a serious deficit of integrity across the board. Money and power does that to people. It corrupts. It debases values. It destroys morals and traditions.

I often feel this way as well until I think about the various interactions I have throughout the day - then I realize that most of the people I deal with don't exhibit those issues.  Either I'm incredibly blessed, or we are fed a lot of propaganda that leads us to the conclusion the world is dangerous and evil and we have to live in fear of our neighbors.  It's the same rational being used for the gun control debate.  100 million or so armed citizens and a few wackos a year are used to trample the rights of the rest of us.

What I do see is massive interference of risk/reward paradigm by government.  Without that interference many of the problems we have today would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.   When you allow individuals to use government to force their will onto others, it breeds resentment, distrust and divides a society.  That is your money and power corrupting people.  But it's not necessarily the money or the power, it's the fact that it's stolen from citizens instead of being earned.

The lack of respect you see for others and property I believe occurs when you are given something instead of working for it.  After all, free things have no value.   This does not just apply to those receiving entitlements from government but to all of us (particularly in the US) that have been "given" lots of stuff (at least the last couple of generations) due to our having the reserve currency and the largest military on the planet.  When we no longer have that advantage, and things get harder, the next generation I believe will have a lot more respect for property and other people.

VeganD's picture
VeganD
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 632
The law was passed, here is

The law was passed, here is the text, near impossible to read unless you are an attorney:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S02230&term=2013&Summar...

One particular area of contention in this bill relates to healthcare provider of reporting of potentially dangerous (suicidal and or homicidal) individuals. The law mandates that nurses, social workers,physicians and psychologists are required, by law, to report to law enforcement (through a county level agency) ANY patient who is determined to be a potential danger to self or others. No specific criteria as to how they want healthcare workers to determine this nor what level of threat constitutes "imminent". 

This is just dumb IMHO. The result of this mandate is that healthcare providers will be put in the position of policing the populace (this includes primary care docs). As a result potentially violent patients will be afraid to come for help and providers will be afraid to work with them.  The NYS Psychiatric Association appealed to alter the content of the bill to avoid these pitfalls but to no avail.

Aaron, regarding you question regarding the need to protect our loved ones, I look at it from the perspective of those being protected. Throughout my life I have been fortunate to have men (and women) like you look out for me and defend me when I was intentionally or inadvertently dealing with violent individuals who posed a threat. My promise to them, at this stage of my life, is to never do anything to put them in harms' way by learning how to protect myself and avoiding unnecessarily dangerous situations at all times.  Thank goodness for the sheepdogs and shepherds.  They have saved my butt more than once. Now I want to be able to protect myself so they don't need to do it for me.

GM_Man's picture
GM_Man
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2012
Posts: 68
Hey when are you gun owners

Hey when are you gun owners gonna take back our country. Facism is already alive and well. I think it is too late. 9/11, endless wars, 2008 taxpayers money given to corporations (fascism), big banks and FBI conspire against the occupy movement (fascism). Gun owners should have joined occupy. At least someone tried to start a movement. Ndaa, patriot act, dsh, etc, etc, etc. Obama and Bush were/are pawns. 

Good morning vegan raw,  Your viewpoint, while a bit raw, is shared by more than a few folks that I know.  Some of the nicest folks I know think that owning a firearm, going hunting, shooting and competing with my children is a bit over the top.  I love them all very much.  

It is because of that love that I carry two things in my car: a small pistol and a good size medical kit.  Both are able to be used in emergencies.  I've been first on the scene of a head-on crash, and I've seen too many close calls.  Never needed that pistol yet.

Personally, I don't think that we have to take back our country.  Having spent over 10 years overseas in Southeast Asia and Europe, I do not believe that there is a better country to live in that the USA.  We have an excellent governance model in the Constitution.  I know many get upset about this issue or that, this party or that party, the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, or the Legislative Branch.  I know I do, but I do get quite frustrated at times.  I always feel better after having a rant against the machine.

I'm glad you posted!  Sincerely GMM

Tim_P's picture
Tim_P
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 23 2009
Posts: 298
jpitre wrote: Personally,

jpitre wrote:

Personally, when I carry, I have 15 rounds in the clip and carry 2 more clips for a total of 45 rounds. I've not personally had the experience, but have heard stories recounted  about the heat of battle - when a person is asked about how many rounds did he/she fire in the conflict, the answer is usually less than 50% of the rounds actually expended. 7 rounds are gone before you know what happened, and the problem you are facing may be just beginning.

Give me enough ammo to stay standing a little longer.

Jim

+1

I've recently changed my daily carry setup from carrying a 1911 or CZ 75 to a Glock 20sf with a pair of spare mags.  I still love the 1911s and CZs, but I feel a whole lot better with 46 rounds of 10mm on me to help me manage what comes my way.  I hope and pray that I die of old age, never having had to remove the gun from the holster in anger, but if I do have to fight, I want the outcome to be based on my skill, and not on the capacity of the magazine I carried.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Moving away from, and back towards the Issue...

Vegan D,

Thank you for the feedback. What do you think is reasonable, given your life experience?

TimP,

Interestingly, I've done the opposite. I've started carrying fewer rounds, mainly because I want to be comfortable with less ammunition if/when more restrictive laws are passed. The way I see it, if they restrict capacity, they're offering greater concealability. I've always been comfortable with a "tiered" approach to conflict management:

Weapon fixation causes a significant amount of problems in a fight, so if you can't use verbal judo, or simply escape, weapons access becomes a measure of gaining the following:
1. Positional dominance
2. Postural dominance
3. Control of your adversaries limbs
 
If you don't have two (and preferably 3) of these - Don't draw.
If you're inside the Tueller zone - don't draw.
If your opponent draws - MOVE. It's more important to not get shot than it is to slug it out in a display of martial prowess (in which everyone loses).
 
What I'm really driving at is that tactics are more important than any other aspect, and it's poor tactics to draw on an enemy who can potentially turn a gunfight into a fight over a gun, or who can simply be talked down.
 
Here is a dichotomous key showing how I handle altercations:
1. Verbal diffusal (Stop? Yes - 4. No? 2)
2. Physical posturing and positioning with verbal commands (Stop? Yes - 4. No? 3)
3. Assaultive adversary? (Yes? 5 No? 4)
4. Tactical GTFO (Get the *bleep* out)
5. Default to a position that keeps you conscious and mobile, and/or make a strike for a vital area (stop? Yes - 4. No? 6.)
6. Adversary armed? (No? 5. Yes? 7)
7. Take position that effectively restrains adversary before drawing (Failure? 5. Success? 8)
8. Loud verbal warning - does adversary possess the ability to maim or kill you? (No,4. Yes, 9)
9. Deliver gunshots or stabs until threat ceases. Adversary dead? (Yes, 10. No, 10)
10. Inform police you were attacked and defended yourself. Then, promptly exercise your right to remain silent.
 
As you can see, 4 - tactically getting out of the situation - is a reoccurring theme.
If you can escape, do it. If the adversary gives you no choice, make sure you are not able to escape, and are under clear and reasonable threat of loss of life or limb. Capacity doesn't really play in to this so much as phyiscal ability.
 
Now, the un-mentioned and implicit component of this is that it's incumbent upon you to know how to fight. 
This is why I advocate physical health, and a broad range of training. It's great to pistol skills - don't get me wrong - but you're going to be called upon to fight before you're called upon to do much in the way of pistol fighting.
 
Even then, the pistol craft that you'll need is probably going to be very specific and will require that you're able to integrate hand to hand skills with handgun skills. It's great to be able to shoot at distance with a pistol (People are naturally inclined to running away (creating distance) while shooting as a method of disengaging, so being able to not get killed under these circumstances is great. 

Capacity, likewise is important, but it's less important than the other factors involved in managing the contact.

All,

It's come to my attention that the poll isn't allowing folks to vote, I've alerted the moderator after trying to edit to open it once again. Please, even if you do not wish to comment, take time to vote. 
Thanks!

Aaron

Oliveoilguy's picture
Oliveoilguy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 29 2012
Posts: 401
Why every law abiding citizen needs a weapon

The most compelling point in the arguement for big firepower is that the citizens (militia) need to have weapons equal to or greater than the weapons of the state. This is the only way to prevent governments from going rogue.  The weaponry for home self defense could probably be smaller.

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 275
The government is unresponsive. They will not listen.

Anyone who hasn't, should consider reading Collapse by Jared Diamond.  If history is a valid example, some of the stages civilizations go through during population decline are unpleasant.

If the possibility exists that, at some point, I will be attacked or shot at, it seems prudent that I be prepared to defend myself, up to and including firing back.

I don't for a second believe that, in the short run, any form of revolution against a country with overwhelming military force is viable.  It's unfortunate that a lawless government, like ours has turned into, cannot be easily removed, but that is the situation we face today.

This all may prove moot.  From what I can see, the US Government is in the process of insuring that every citizen is bankrupt and unarmed before the government collapses of severe and sustained mismanagement.

You may infer from the above that I don't support gun control on law abiding citizens, imposed by a government that no longer abides by the rule of law.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 2502
Rambo

Tape a second magazine upside down on to the live mag. Then when one mag is empty reverse the magazines. It saves time. Belt feed is better.

I still think that a Mills Bomb (M36) is a fine weapon. And Willie Pappa gets the enemy to sing in harmony. But I am not allowed to say that on this site for some reason. Probably squeemishness.

And another party trick is to place the round two finger widths below the belly button. It bursts the bladder and they take half an hour to sing their way to oblivion.

Land mines are an excellent choice of weapon. 

Do you still want to play Rambo?

Sick.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Arthur

No one here is advocating living like that.
Your experience has jaded you. Fine. From everything you've said, you chose that life. You call it sick? Fine. You're entitled to your opinion.
I've seen children burned with white phosphorous. Seen them shot in the heads, throats, arms and legs. Seen insurgents blown across roads, and its the prevention of this evil that compels.

Seems to me that being able to protect yourself is nearly unanimously supported.
The question here is to what degree, and how much should governments be given with regard to restrictions.

No one is playing Rambo. Substantiate your assertion of sickness or clarify the target of the assertion.
I respect that you've experienced some awful things, but plenty of us have, and can recognize the difference between sick and prudent, between confront evil and becoming it.
Cheers,
Aaron

natew's picture
natew
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2008
Posts: 9
sand_puppy wrote: My mom and

sand_puppy wrote:

My mom and I have been discussing the wisdom and safety of civilian gun ownership this last week.  Last night she sent me this piece by Thom Hartmann, a guy that I respect a great deal.  

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery?fb_action_ids=10151234568557087&fb_action_types=og.likes&action_object_map=%7B%2210151234568557087%22%3A390307407725537%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151234568557087%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D#.UPYy0spXvec.email

It provides what was to me a fascinating and very different view of the origins of the second amendment.  I am not a historian and have no independent knowledge to evaluate the accuracy of his account, but it seems plausible and to me.  I had always assumed that the purpose of the second amendment was to permit armed citizens to protect themselves from potential tyranny from the federal government.  There might be more to it than that.

Summary:  Hartmann explains, that the southern states operated armed slave patrols (militias) that would brutally hunt down escaped slaves, inspect slave quarters for weapons and generally terrorize and intimidate slaves who had any inclinations about uprising.  It would have been impossible to maintain the enslavement of the black population successfully without these continuous enforcement patrols.  The patrols were heavily armed and the slaves, thoroughly disarmed.  Thus, slave patrols were essential to maintain the wealth of the plantation owners.  All the able-bodied white people in Georgia were required to participate in the slave patrols (except for a few exempt professions).  The southern states were worried that the northern states could use the new constitution to deprive them of the ability to run their slave patrols.  The second amendment was drafted with the intent of guaranteeing their ability to continue these practices, thus protecting the wealth of TPTB.

For me, this was fascinating.  And I was with Thom right down to the concluding paragraph where my conclusion to this bit of history was radically different than his.  He used this history to support eliminating types of weapons "used to kill schoolchildren."  For me, this story highlighted the terrible abuse that is possible when factions in a conflict are unequally armed.  MY conclusion was more like:  "Damn.  I NEVER  want to be disarmed and dominated like the slaves were.  I need ANOTHER military-style rifle to protect my children." Both concerned with "protecting children."  Opposite positions on this topic.

His first assertation is completely and utterly false.  The second ammendment had absolutely nothing to do with arming slave hunters and had ONLY to do with preventing tyranny.  Read the federalist papers or any of hundreds of other works, letters, opinions of the foundng fathers.

On the second part he is somewhat like a broken clock or a blind squirrel.  The history of gun control in this country is based on racism; to keep any black (or non-white) person from owning arms or certain types of arms.  Google the racist roots of cun control for more information.  http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2345
Critical Thinking and Silent Support

Arthur's post got me thinking: There are 7 'thumbs up' regarding what he said, and I hope that those who agree will chime in with their own thoughts, though I imagine that's unlikely for the reasons that follow.

The view that Arthur presented did a good job of doing several things, and every one of them was equal parts emotionally appealing, subversive and unrelated to the topic.

1. Attaching guerilla or insurgent warfare to civil defense

The mention of maiming via explosives is a great way to draw cheers from folks who already believe that, as we discussed before, fighting rifles are synonomous with offense. Gravitating to this is a cheap, and effective way to garner support for a, quite frankly, intellectually facile claim. 

A guerilla war or insurgency is a little different than a man walking down the street with his wife and child, armed with a pistol and 31 rounds. I applaud the effort to make it seem that the paranoia that drives a soldier in war is what a citizen feels when they decide to protect themselves, but there is no way to be certain that is the case, and evidence would suggest it's at least incorrect part of the time, which leads inevitably to the conclusion that your assertion is false, de facto. 

That a person who uses a rifle to defend their land is going to start relying instead on claymores and frag grenades is the type of 'run-away' thinking that does little good, and has almost no grounding in reality. Apart from failed states who have utterly plunged into chaos (and I understand this is very likely to be the case for Arthur, I'm guessing Rhodesian with expatriation to S. Africa and probably action in Angola) this is not a 'way of life' for those using their tools defensively.

Again, electing to take part in that due to a personal vendetta, or deus ex machina that you can't control is another matter, and I do respect your perspective on that.

2. Attaching a negative architype to the armed citizen

This one gets me, because it's such a commonly perpetuated stereotype that is so easy to hate. Little secret? Shooters are annoyed with these clowns too, and there aren't very many of them. Most can be effectively cured of their Walter Mittyism with a bit of training and mentorship. So, to insinuate that anyone who believes that they reserve a right to defend themselves is actually going to go on an offensive against an entire town is statistically pretty shakey. Yes, it happens, and yes, that's what you hear about on the news. But it's not really all that common, as we've established.

Interestingly enough, Rambo was a paranoid, delusional veteran, who suffered bouts of schizophrenia. The analog that Arthur makes about a citizen defending himself is extrordinarily ironic, considering the nature of some past posts. You've hinted strongly at war fatigue, and the disassociated tone and perpetual referral to playing by the "devil's rules" paint a picture that suggests that at a minimum, we can deduce that not all veterans experience war in the same way, or feel the impacts as intensely, as other vets here with similar experience disagree.

I'd refrain from saying that people suffering from PTSD or people who prefer to prepare, rather than be victimized are "sick", considering you very likely fit your own diagnosis.

3. Insinuated that because of his experience, he holds some 'unique' or unobtainable knowledge on the topic.

Guess what? Military and police are not any better at defending themselves en masse than private citizens are. They rarely qualify, in most instances, and rarely train in tasks that you probably imagine they train in. In war, the tough guys crack, and guys you'd never expect step up. People get killed or maimed randomly and there's just no telling how things will fare. 

But that doesn't make us special. There are vets who go their entire careers without firing a shot, and citizens who are placed in extraordinary circumstances and are forced into action. Again, you might hear about something exceptionally cruel, but the truth is, in those moments, most of us do not have time to think about being cruel. It's a response

I hope people give this some critical thought, rather than applauding an emotional appeal, rife with unsubstantiative intellectual pitfalls.

Cheers,

Aaron

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments