Debate about Gun Control

[Mikebert]

(06-23-2016, 01:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-22-2016, 07:00 PM)Mikebert Wrote: 2008 is not recent?  I was refering to this portion of Heller.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For example, based on that statement above I would say the 2nd Amendment does not necessarily given one the right to own a nuke (Justin 77 argued that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear any military weapon, even a nuke).  Not all law-abiding people will continue on to the future to be law-abiding.  People can (and do) go beserk.  When they do so with a revolver they may kill a dozens, with a nuke it could be tens of thousands.  All I was saying is there must be some line between owning a handgun (Heller) or shotgun (Miller) that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and a personal nuke, which I should hope is not.

The hoped for line is whether the weapon is crew served or not.  In revolutionary times, individuals owned and carried muskets, but the cannon were owned by the community.  This is considered a decent pretext for drawing a line.  If a weapon is crew served, there is no protection.

Legally and in many cases practically it's a decent line.  Alas, it doesn't cover suitcase nukes.  Also, as computers and precision guidance makes more and more dangerous weapons single soldier light weight single operator ready to use, what might be a fine litmus test today could become an ugly precedent not too many decades down the road.

Miller's litmus test is thus important.  Is the weapon carried by common infantrymen?  If so, it is protected by the 2nd.  In the 1930s, sawed off shotguns and assault rifles (specifically the Thompson submachine gun) were not used by the military.  They were gangster weapons, not military weapons.  Thus they were banned.  Alas, by World War II the Thompson was commonly used by the military.  In Vietnam, soldiers clearing out tunnel complexes were using sawed off shotguns.  By the Miller litmus test, that flipped these weapons from subject to ban to protected.

That's what  you have to watch about Miller.  The litmus test is not that the weapon is too deadly.  It is that the weapon has no military use, has nothing to do with the maintenance of a well regulated militia.  Thus, under the Collective Rights / Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd, the government could restrict possession of the weapon.  While modern gun prohibition advocates misquote Miller as saying it establishes that specific weapons can be banned, they don't quote to criteria established that determines which weapons can be banned.  

Gun rights advocates also quote Miller, but with an entirely different spin.  From their point of view, Miller establishes that common infantry weapons are specifically protected.  Today, that means assault rifles.  This is clearly not what the gun prohibitions favor.  If the question weren't values locked to death I might favor rewriting the 2nd such that a true right to own and carry weapons for self defense clearly and plainly exists, but limitations on things like rate of fire and magazine size are allowed.  Alas, reasonable compromise doesn't seem to be on the table.

You really can't trust the main stream media's spin on the case.  Reading the actual Miller decision is recommended.

I understand this.  I was getting at is the possibly that the Miller ruling could be modified or replaced by some future court, should a case involving use of something like a Stinger missile come to them.  The 2nd Amendment clearly refers to the militia, which was NOT as many believe something put together by the rebels to fight the Revolutionary War. It was effectively the colonial army since British regulars were not usually stationed in the colonies during peacetime.  Defense against Indians was provided by the colonies themselves through the colonial militia, which was necessarily a reserve-type organization because of cost.  These consisted of citizen soldiers (like our reserves), but the leaders often had some professional training.  It is true that as the frontier expanded westward  the bulk of the American population no longer faced a real threat from Indians and so funding for the militia was often lacking, a big bone of contention between colonist near the borders versus those in the interior, who controlled the purse strings.  Nevertheless, the militias were the "American army" during colonial times.

Once we got a standing army (something the founders wished to avoid) the militia became superfluous.  The straightforward meaning of the 2nd Amendment no longer was relevant.  One can interpret it to mean an individual right to self defense,  but it does not explicitly say that.  One can interpret it to refer to non-crew-served weapons, but it does not say that either.  The interpretation that it applies to army weapons follows naturally from the fact that the militia had traditionally been the Army when the amendment was conceived). 

Since this is no longer the case the interpretation given by Miller makes no more sense that the earlier ones from the 19th century. It means what the Court says it means.  And that caveat they added to Heller says they haven't decided this issue for more powerful weapons and will rule on it if they have to (but aren't going to now).  Or if you got your wish, the issue would be handled politically by replacing the 2nd Amendment with one that makes sense in a world where there is a standing army.  But that is probably not going to happen in my lifetime and so the Court will have to decide should someone choose to challenge the automatic weapon regulations or perhaps try with a more powerful weapon.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-23-2016, 08:34 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Once a standing army was developed (something not originally anticipated) the militia became superfluous.  The straightforward meaning of the 2nd Amendment no loner was relevant.  One can interpret it to mean self defense,  but it doe snot explicitly say that.  One can interpret it to refer to all sorts of weapons that did not exist at the time it was composed.  The interpretation that it applies to army weapons follows naturally from the fact that the militia IS the army (or it was and traditionally had been when the Amendment was conceived).

Since this is no longer the case the interpretation given by Miller makes no more sense that the earlier ones from the 19th century. It means what the Court says it means.  And that caveat they added to Heller says they haven't decided this issue for more powerful weapons.

I could go on at length, but a few points.

The standing army was anticipated and well established before the American Revolution.  During the English Civil War, militia units often made a difference, but it was Cornwall's New Model Army, paid professionals, that were the decisive arm.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of this.  I'd add that the units that surrounded Boston after Lexington and Concord were militia, were unpaid but reasonably trained and experienced ordinary citizens.  They came from a culture used to indian wars.  However, the forces who wintered with Washington at Valley Forge and triumphed at Yorktown were part of a standing army.  They were paid and received far more extensive training than militia.  Look also to the Constitution.  The sections addressing the Army, Navy and Militia are quite distinct.  The founding fathers knew full well what they were doing. An argument based on their ignorance is bogus.

To at least the same degree that standing armies didn't exist in peace time, police forces didn't exist period.  The militia, the adult male population, was responsible for enforcing the laws, keeping the peace and defense of family, community and themselves.  The notion that the adults in period couldn't and didn't protect themselves and that the 2nd doesn't protect the right and duty to do so is rightly held in contempt by those familiar with the period.

Finally, the Supreme Court is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  They are not supposed to decide that it means what they think it ought to mean based on current fads and the direction of the current political winds.  To change the Constitution one is supposed to make amendments or hold a constitutional convention.  That's the supposed to be.  In practice, the Supreme Court has always been political and has often put politics above law.  The modern court's habit of 5-4 decisions along the lines of the parties that appointed the justices is, alas, more typical than unusual.

This doesn't make it right, nor does an attitude of contempt of the law by those most responsible for upholding the law make for a healthy democracy.

[Mikebert]

(06-23-2016, 09:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-23-2016, 08:34 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Once a standing army was developed (something not originally anticipated) the militia became superfluous.  The straightforward meaning of the 2nd Amendment no loner was relevant.  One can interpret it to mean self defense,  but it doe snot explicitly say that.  One can interpret it to refer to all sorts of weapons that did not exist at the time it was composed.  The interpretation that it applies to army weapons follows naturally from the fact that the militia IS the army (or it was and traditionally had been when the Amendment was conceived).

Since this is no longer the case the interpretation given by Miller makes no more sense that the earlier ones from the 19th century. It means what the Court says it means.  And that caveat they added to Heller says they haven't decided this issue for more powerful weapons.

I could go on at length, but a few points.

The standing army was anticipated and well established before the American Revolution.  During the English Civil War, militia units often made a difference, but it was Cornwall's New Model Army, paid professionals, that were the decisive arm.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of this.  I'd add that the units that surrounded Boston after Lexington and Concord were militia, were unpaid but reasonably trained and experienced ordinary citizens.  They came from a culture used to indian wars.  However, the forces who wintered with Washington at Valley Forge and triumphed at Yorktown were part of a standing army.  They were paid and received far more extensive training than militia.  Look also to the Constitution.  The sections addressing the Army, Navy and Militia are quite distinct.  The founding fathers knew full well what they were doing. An argument based on their ignorance is bogus.

To at least the same degree that standing armies didn't exist in peace time, police forces didn't exist period.  The militia, the adult male population, was responsible for enforcing the laws, keeping the peace and defense of family, community and themselves.  The notion that the adults in period couldn't and didn't protect themselves and that the 2nd doesn't protect the right and duty to do so is rightly held in contempt by those familiar with the period.

Finally, the Supreme Court is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  They are not supposed to decide that it means what they think it ought to mean based on current fads and the direction of the current political winds.  To change the Constitution one is supposed to make amendments or hold a constitutional convention.  That's the supposed to be.  In practice, the Supreme Court has always been political and has often put politics above law.  The modern court's habit of 5-4 decisions along the lines of the parties that appointed the justices is, alas, more typical than unusual.

This doesn't make it right, nor does an attitude of contempt of the law by those most responsible for upholding the law make for a healthy democracy.

Of course it was.  Some founders though a standing army was what we would have.  Others wanted to rely on the militia for defense.  Only some thought a Bill of Rights was necessary.  Typically those in favor of a Bill were less enthusiastic about standing armies and wanted to rely on the militia.

If the militia still existed it would to have to apply all modern weapons of war, aircraft too, and not just small arms.  The distinction between crew served and individual weapons is completely arbitrary. It is just some way to limit the scope of the weapons covered so as to not make the Constitution a suicide pact.  Other approaches could be tried.  But scope is an issue that will have to be addressed at some point.  Consider would the Orlando shooter have achieved all that much more carnage had he been equipped with an M-16?  Heat transfer limits how many rounds can be fired from a fully auto weapon.  The semi allows for a rapid rate of fire and more accuracy.  So for what reason can you draw the limit at fully auto weapons, where it is now? 

Based on these two precedents I don't see how you can.  I also cannot see how one cannot assert the right to bear Stinger missiles.  Suppose a religious cult decided to acquire stinger missiles, artillery, and deploy mines on their land to discourage trespassers and argues that the 2nd Amendment gives them this right, how will the authorities do that.  And what if they try to acquire a nuke? There is nothing explicitly in the amendment that limits it.  Yet you can be sure the Court will come up with a limit.  But they will just be asserting it, unless Congress finally decides to do the right thing and amend the constitution.

My point is there is a limit, even if there is no constitutional authority for it.  They are higher laws than the constitution.

[Eric the Green]

Congress has been at a halt and accomplished nothing since January 2011. It's ridiculous to think anything is more useful there than what the Democrats are doing. Might as well shut the place down.

[playwrite]

(06-23-2016, 09:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-23-2016, 08:34 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Once a standing army was developed (something not originally anticipated) the militia became superfluous.  The straightforward meaning of the 2nd Amendment no loner was relevant.  One can interpret it to mean self defense,  but it doe snot explicitly say that.  One can interpret it to refer to all sorts of weapons that did not exist at the time it was composed.  The interpretation that it applies to army weapons follows naturally from the fact that the militia IS the army (or it was and traditionally had been when the Amendment was conceived).

Since this is no longer the case the interpretation given by Miller makes no more sense that the earlier ones from the 19th century. It means what the Court says it means.  And that caveat they added to Heller says they haven't decided this issue for more powerful weapons.

I could go on at length, but a few points.

The standing army was anticipated and well established before the American Revolution.  During the English Civil War, militia units often made a difference, but it was Cornwall's New Model Army, paid professionals, that were the decisive arm.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of this.  I'd add that the units that surrounded Boston after Lexington and Concord were militia, were unpaid but reasonably trained and experienced ordinary citizens.  They came from a culture used to indian wars.  However, the forces who wintered with Washington at Valley Forge and triumphed at Yorktown were part of a standing army.  They were paid and received far more extensive training than militia.  Look also to the Constitution.  The sections addressing the Army, Navy and Militia are quite distinct.  The founding fathers knew full well what they were doing. An argument based on their ignorance is bogus.

To at least the same degree that standing armies didn't exist in peace time, police forces didn't exist period.  The militia, the adult male population, was responsible for enforcing the laws, keeping the peace and defense of family, community and themselves.  The notion that the adults in period couldn't and didn't protect themselves and that the 2nd doesn't protect the right and duty to do so is rightly held in contempt by those familiar with the period.

Finally, the Supreme Court is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  They are not supposed to decide that it means what they think it ought to mean based on current fads and the direction of the current political winds.  To change the Constitution one is supposed to make amendments or hold a constitutional convention.  That's the supposed to be.  In practice, the Supreme Court has always been political and has often put politics above law.  The modern court's habit of 5-4 decisions along the lines of the parties that appointed the justices is, alas, more typical than unusual.

This doesn't make it right, nor does an attitude of contempt of the law by those most responsible for upholding the law make for a healthy democracy.

Bingo!

The 2nd Amendment was a way to get buy-in to the Bill of Rights from the slave-owners of the South.  All that bandering about Rights might get some of slaves thinkin - "you know?"  What better way to keep the hundred or so ratio in-line than allowing the White people to have some firepower?

The Slave-State Origins of Modern Gun Rights

Slavery's been out-of-date for a while, maybe it's about time to update gun laws?

[playwrite]

(06-23-2016, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Congress has been at a halt and accomplished nothing since January 2011. It's ridiculous to think anything is more useful there than what the Democrats are doing. Might as well shut the place down.

Susan Collins is hammering out a compromise that McConnell had indicated he would allow a test (table) vote on to see if it would muster the 60 needed.

Senate GOP to meet on Collins gun plan Read more:

IF this happens on the Senate side, it will embolden the House sit-in to stay the course or bring it back after the July 4 recess.  If they force a vote, it will probable fail in the House but it could hit hard GOP Congressional critters in purple districts this November, and that would have several beneficial payoffs for Progressives.

It may take months, years, or decades, but it is only a matter of time at this point.

[playwrite]

(06-23-2016, 10:42 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-23-2016, 09:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-23-2016, 08:34 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Once a standing army was developed (something not originally anticipated) the militia became superfluous.  The straightforward meaning of the 2nd Amendment no loner was relevant.  One can interpret it to mean self defense,  but it doe snot explicitly say that.  One can interpret it to refer to all sorts of weapons that did not exist at the time it was composed.  The interpretation that it applies to army weapons follows naturally from the fact that the militia IS the army (or it was and traditionally had been when the Amendment was conceived).

Since this is no longer the case the interpretation given by Miller makes no more sense that the earlier ones from the 19th century. It means what the Court says it means.  And that caveat they added to Heller says they haven't decided this issue for more powerful weapons.

I could go on at length, but a few points.

The standing army was anticipated and well established before the American Revolution.  During the English Civil War, militia units often made a difference, but it was Cornwall's New Model Army, paid professionals, that were the decisive arm.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of this.  I'd add that the units that surrounded Boston after Lexington and Concord were militia, were unpaid but reasonably trained and experienced ordinary citizens.  They came from a culture used to indian wars.  However, the forces who wintered with Washington at Valley Forge and triumphed at Yorktown were part of a standing army.  They were paid and received far more extensive training than militia.  Look also to the Constitution.  The sections addressing the Army, Navy and Militia are quite distinct.  The founding fathers knew full well what they were doing. An argument based on their ignorance is bogus.

To at least the same degree that standing armies didn't exist in peace time, police forces didn't exist period.  The militia, the adult male population, was responsible for enforcing the laws, keeping the peace and defense of family, community and themselves.  The notion that the adults in period couldn't and didn't protect themselves and that the 2nd doesn't protect the right and duty to do so is rightly held in contempt by those familiar with the period.

Finally, the Supreme Court is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  They are not supposed to decide that it means what they think it ought to mean based on current fads and the direction of the current political winds.  To change the Constitution one is supposed to make amendments or hold a constitutional convention.  That's the supposed to be.  In practice, the Supreme Court has always been political and has often put politics above law.  The modern court's habit of 5-4 decisions along the lines of the parties that appointed the justices is, alas, more typical than unusual.

This doesn't make it right, nor does an attitude of contempt of the law by those most responsible for upholding the law make for a healthy democracy.

Of course it was.  Some founders though a standing army was what we would have.  Others wanted to rely on the militia for defense.  Only some thought a Bill of Rights was necessary.  Typically those in favor of a Bill were less enthusiastic about standing armies and wanted to rely on the militia.

If the militia still existed it would to have to apply all modern weapons of war, aircraft too, and not just small arms.  The distinction between crew served and individual weapons is completely arbitrary. It is just some way to limit the scope of the weapons covered so as to not make the Constitution a suicide pact.  Other approaches could be tried.  But scope is an issue that will have to be addressed at some point.  Consider would the Orlando shooter have achieved all that much more carnage had he been equipped with an M-16?  Heat transfer limits how many rounds can be fired from a fully auto weapon.  The semi allows for a rapid rate of fire and more accuracy.  So for what reason can you draw the limit at fully auto weapons, where it is now? 

Based on these two precedents I don't see how you can.  I also cannot see how one cannot assert the right to bear Stinger missiles.  Suppose a religious cult decided to acquire stinger missiles, artillery, and deploy mines on their land to discourage trespassers and argues that the 2nd Amendment gives them this right, how will the authorities do that.  And what if they try to acquire a nuke? There is nothing explicitly in the amendment that limits it.  Yet you can be sure the Court will come up with a limit.  But they will just be asserting it, unless Congress finally decides to do the right thing and amend the constitution.

My point is there is a limit, even if there is no constitutional authority for it.  They are higher laws than the constitution.

Bingo!


Most of all the killing and wounding, other than the shooter himself, took place in the first 7 minutes with the shooter reloading his 30-round mag once.  He then took his time, with another reload, to walk around and 'tap' the wounded he could find.  

Video of Orlando attack shows shooter firing at those already wounded

Once detail forensics is done, I'm positive, that it will show several cases of bullets entering and exiting one victim and wounding and even killing a second victim; also other trajectories will find victims killed or wounded hiding behind walls that bullets went through like paper - muzzle velocity of the MCX is 3200 ft/sec; one of the most high-powered Glock pistol has a maximum muzzle speed of around 1200 ft/sec.

If the shooter had entered in with only a 10-round capacity limited Glock pistol, he would have had to reload 5x instead of 1x; be concerned about overheating/jamming; be far less accurate; not penetrate as many people/walls to impact other people.  I believe his engagement with the similarly-armed off-duty policeman doing security would have ended his life, or at least his offensive, before the mayhem would be counted in double digits.  

The only people who tell you otherwise are either ammosexuals pushing their relentless horsepucky that these AR are not military grade firing platforms or ammosexual enablers that haven't been around guns and certainly haven't been in kill-or-be-kill situations.

[Anthony '58]

I'm surprised that there has not been a movement to constitutionally amend the Second Amendment to delete the reference to "A well regulated militia" etc., leaving only "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Adding all or most of the Democrats who have a "non-aggression pact" with the NRA to every Republican in the House, it should pass that body with the required two-thirds majority; and then, adding six blue states with large white urban/suburban populations - the Charles Bronson/Bernie Goetz voters - plus paradoxically pro-gun Vermont to the 31 states that George W. Bush won over John Kerry in 2004, and the revision becomes law.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-25-2016, 02:56 PM)Anthony Wrote: I'm surprised that there has not been a movement to constitutionally amend the Second Amendment to delete the reference to "A well regulated militia" etc., leaving only "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Adding all or most of the Democrats who have a "non-aggression pact" with the NRA to every Republican in the House, it should pass that body with the required two-thirds majority; and then, adding six blue states with large white urban/suburban populations - the Charles Bronson/Bernie Goetz voters - plus paradoxically pro-gun Vermont to the 31 states that George W. Bush won over John Kerry in 2004, and the revision becomes law.

That's a one way street.  The right to self defense crowd loses all pretense of the Jim Crow interpretation, which some of them still cling to.

A two way version would make the right to own and carry for self defense very firm, but explicitly grant governments power to limit a few basics like rate of fire and magazine size.

The current mood is not one of reasonable compromise, though.  It would be nice to grant both sides most of what they want, but too much of what they want is mutually exclusive.  Just proposing a reasonable compromise would alienate voters, one flavor of voters in rural areas, and another flavor in urban.  It's too hot a potato for a politician with long term plans to consider.

[Galen]

I think the following article sums up exactly how the government feels about the little people:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26...protection

Not surprising since we are simply the livestock for the tax feeders in government.

[playwrite]

(06-26-2016, 10:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-25-2016, 02:56 PM)Anthony Wrote: I'm surprised that there has not been a movement to constitutionally amend the Second Amendment to delete the reference to "A well regulated militia" etc., leaving only "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Adding all or most of the Democrats who have a "non-aggression pact" with the NRA to every Republican in the House, it should pass that body with the required two-thirds majority; and then, adding six blue states with large white urban/suburban populations - the Charles Bronson/Bernie Goetz voters - plus paradoxically pro-gun Vermont to the 31 states that George W. Bush won over John Kerry in 2004, and the revision becomes law.

That's a one way street.  The right to self defense crowd loses all pretense of the Jim Crow interpretation, which some of them still cling to.

A two way version would make the right to own and carry for self defense very firm, but explicitly grant governments power to limit a few basics like rate of fire and magazine size.

The current mood is not one of reasonable compromise, though.  It would be nice to grant both sides most of what they want, but too much of what they want is mutually exclusive.  Just proposing a reasonable compromise would alienate voters, one flavor of voters in rural areas, and another flavor in urban.  It's too hot a potato for a politician with long term plans to consider.

Unfortunately,  you're correct.

I think there needs to be a significant outright win on limitations  followed by years going by where the basic right is never serioseriously challenge for everyone to calm down.

[playwrite]

(06-26-2016, 09:38 PM)Galen Wrote: I think the following article sums up exactly how the government feels about the little people:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26...protection

Not surprising since we are simply the livestock for the tax feeders in government.

Oh horse. pucky.  If you think your treated as cattle by your gov, have the gonads to move.

Good luck trying to find that Libertarian nirvana - it's never existed and never will - one would think you all would eventually  buy a clue.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-27-2016, 05:01 PM)playwrite Wrote: Unfortunately,  you're correct.

I think there needs to be a significant outright win on limitations  followed by years going by where the basic right is never serioseriously challenge for everyone to calm down.

Alas, others might want to see the constant serious challenges to stop first.  Every time a spree shooter goes into an area where guns are prohibited and spree shoots, the blue politicians  inevitably cry out for more limitations on weapons.  The two factions just see cause - effect totally reversed, and the evidence is so ambiguous that both perspectives can be and are embraced.  

Thus, both sides think there 'needs' to be a victory by their side first.

Don't care who gets the victory first, the side with momentum is as apt to try to steamroll rather than step back and be reasonable.  If the goal is reasonable, you'd want to go for both sides being reasonable at the same time.  

Preemptive reasonableness?

Not holding my breath.

[Eric the Green]

The gun opponents are reasonable; the gun advocates are not. That's where we stand now.

[Galen]

(06-27-2016, 05:07 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-26-2016, 09:38 PM)Galen Wrote: I think the following article sums up exactly how the government feels about the little people:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26...protection

Not surprising since we are simply the livestock for the tax feeders in government.

Oh horse. pucky.  If you think your treated as cattle by your gov, have the gonads to move.

That is standard procedure in the modern nation state so there really aren't too many places to go.  I guess some animals really are more equal than others which shows how badly you are in need of a clue.

The real question you should be asking is: Will the trend toward centralization that marked the nineteenth and twentieth centuries continue?  History suggests than when the predominant institution is fiscally and morally bankrupt then it is on the decline.  There is more than enough evidence of that for the nation state in the west.

[Anthony '58]

Debunking the myth of anti-gun-controllers as "libertarian":

Any policy/stand/agenda that favors victims or would-be victims of crime over criminals is inherently communitarian - which is why I am virulently anti-gun-control.

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2016, 09:08 AM)Anthony Wrote: Debunking the myth of anti-gun-controllers as "libertarian":

Any policy/stand/agenda that favors victims or would-be victims of crime over criminals is inherently communitarian - which is why I am virulently anti-gun-control.

Those goals have no relationship to each other at all. Quite the reverse.

[Anthony '58]

Gun control helps criminals by assuring that their victims won't be able to defend themselves from things like the "surprise visit" from the movie A Clockwork Orange.

Had the elderly writer and his wife been armed, there would have been no Singin' in the Rain - and no movie!

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2016, 10:18 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: Gun control helps criminals by assuring that their victims won't be able to defend themselves from things like the "surprise visit" from the movie A Clockwork Orange.

Had the elderly writer and his wife been armed, there would have been no Singin' in the Rain - and no movie!

More guns and less control means more guns available for the crooks to steal, and for the crooks to have an easier time buying them. Guns are not a viable means of self-defense. There are many other and better ways.

[Anthony '58]

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.