Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[bobc]

You can quote all of the statistics you want. You can find a magic comma in the 2nd Ammendment that shows that the right to keep and bear arms Shall be infringed.
What you won't be able to do is succeed in disarming America.
You also assume that you won't have to do it, but the same police and military that you despise, will do it for you.

The right to keep and bear arms, is the foundation of American freedom and exceptionalism. You might want to destroy both, but don't assume it will be an unopposed conflict.

[pbrower2a]

The militia clause could preclude people from having firearms if those people are unsuited due to moral turpitude, disloyalty, idiocy, or insanity. Thus "but not criminals", "but not the insane", "but not addicts", and "but not people with intellectual impairment" would be reasonable and minimal qualifications to any right to bear arms.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Boomers hate the right to bear arms because those rights constitute a permanent obstacle to the boomers nanny-state world government "utopia".

[bobc]

(02-10-2018, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The militia clause could preclude people from having firearms if those people are unsuited due to moral turpitude, disloyalty, idiocy, or insanity. Thus "but not criminals", "but not the insane", "but not addicts", and "but not people with intellectual impairment" would be reasonable and minimal qualifications to any right to bear arms.

Such a compromise is not going to happen in this Fourth Turning, because so many on the left are against the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of dissuading government over-reach. That is why they want to eliminate effective military weapons from civilian control, but aren't so focused on the weapons used by gangs for most of the gun crime in the US. It is also behind the focus on disarming veterans "victims of PTSD", the people best able to lead a civilian insurgency. In this kind of atmosphere any "common-sense" proposal is only a step towards civilian disarmament, and will not only be opposed, but will trigger a civil war.

Compromise is another era's business. This era, the choice is leave it alone or fight to the death.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-10-2018, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The militia clause could preclude people from having firearms if those people are unsuited due to moral turpitude, disloyalty, idiocy, or insanity. Thus "but not criminals", "but not the insane", "but not addicts", and "but not people with intellectual impairment" would be reasonable and minimal qualifications to any right to bear arms.

You have to have due process.  Being a felon involves due process.  Being insane could involve a due process, if defined carefully, if doctors with a well defined expertise were involved, and if a judge was involved.  Severe addicts might also be felons in many cases.  If you want to strip a right from an addict who is not a felon, good luck creating a well defined due process.

"People with intellectual impairment" could not be those with a non blue world view or values.  Good luck defining due process for that one.  Among other problems, you could not include anything related to party affiliation.

I can believe in a rewritten second which might include some of the ideas above, but agree with Eric that changes will not be made while values are so split.  More could be done with closing loopholes.  You'd have to work with the Constitution as written and amended, and the Founding Fathers were rather blatant in writing their beliefs into the law.

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2018, 05:28 PM)bobc Wrote:

(02-10-2018, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The militia clause could preclude people from having firearms if those people are unsuited due to moral turpitude, disloyalty, idiocy, or insanity. Thus "but not criminals", "but not the insane", "but not addicts", and "but not people with intellectual impairment" would be reasonable and minimal qualifications to any right to bear arms.

Such a compromise is not going to happen in this Fourth Turning, because so many on the left are against the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of dissuading government over-reach. That is why they want to eliminate effective military weapons from civilian control, but aren't so focused on the weapons used by gangs for most of the gun crime in the US. It is also behind the focus on disarming veterans "victims of PTSD", the people best able to lead a civilian insurgency. In this kind of atmosphere any "common-sense" proposal is only a step towards civilian disarmament, and will not only be opposed, but will trigger a civil war.

Compromise is another era's business. This era, the choice is leave it alone or fight to the death.

I don't know where folks like you bobc get these ideas, or how you figure that you are supporting anything righteous or virtuous or that benefits the people. Some people on the extreme Left, if anything, agree with you that the people should have arms to protect themselves against the government. That's what the Black Panthers and their successors want, for example. Most liberal Americans today, on the other hand, and some conservatives too, want gun regulations because of the extreme, rampant gun violence in our society that takes many innocent lives. You don't seem to comprehend how people might be concerned about this. Why is that?

People on the Left today want the police to be less militarized; to stop Trump and the rest of the people of his dictatorial ilk from supplying police departments with left-over military weapons. And the Left is concerned about weapons proliferation among gangs too. 

Gun control may well trigger a civil war, but it will be unnecessary, and entirely the fault of folks who think and feel as you do. And you will be defeated, and suffer many lives lost. If you want to have a violent revolution, what you need to realize is that armed civilians will NOT be able to pull off a revolution or win a civil war. It will take another organized state just like the one you oppose to accomplish this, and the result of your rebellion will be to just establish another state. That was the case during the previous American civil war rebellion, which was waged by the same kind of folks that you support today. For that matter, the original American Revolution established the USA that we know today. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2018, 06:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-10-2018, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The militia clause could preclude people from having firearms if those people are unsuited due to moral turpitude, disloyalty, idiocy, or insanity. Thus "but not criminals", "but not the insane", "but not addicts", and "but not people with intellectual impairment" would be reasonable and minimal qualifications to any right to bear arms.

You have to have due process.  Being a felon involves due process.  Being insane could involve a due process, if defined carefully, if doctors with a well defined expertise were involved, and if a judge was involved.  Severe addicts might also be felons in many cases.  If you want to strip a right from an addict who is not a felon, good luck creating a well defined due process.

Determination of mental illness can be a legal process. Most people can recognize extreme manifestations of mental illness. There are practical measures of low intelligence, including IQ tests. Yes, people can kick addictions and alcoholism.

Quote:"People with intellectual impairment" could not be those with a non blue world view or values.  Good luck defining due process for that one.  Among other problems, you could not include anything related to party affiliation.

Obvious enough. If the State can deny people the right to bear arms based on political values, then it can authorize all sorts of discrimination in education, the right to start or operate a business or to work in certain occupations, marry, have children, travel, etc.... Yes, I know where that leads.

Quote:I can believe in a rewritten second which might include some of the ideas above, but agree with Eric that changes will not be made while values are so split.  More could be done with closing loopholes.  You'd have to work with the Constitution as written and amended, and the Founding Fathers were rather blatant in writing their beliefs into the law.

Beyond any question, any attempt to get a rational re-writing of the Second Amendment (which would include a non-discrimination clause, as with voting is out of the realm of possibility. I am convinced that except for weapons necessary for use by the military or law enforcement and firearms suitable  for sport hunting, and guns involved in hobbyist collections, we would be far safer without a huge part of the firearms in circulation.

Want a far safer and more reliable deterrent to crime than a gun?



Except for good behavior  -- both yours and that of the dog -- this is a dangerous creature. Burglars, rapists, and muggers beware: it can overpower a man three times its weight and deliver some horrible bites.

A hint: the Nazis quickly banned Jews from owning dogs as well as firearms.

[Bob Butler 54]

Here is another one.  Anyone can cross a state line and the laws of the original state still apply.  Thus, if it is legal to conceal carry somewhere in the US, it would be legal to carry everywhere. CBS covers it at  The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This will essentially allow red staters to conceal carry in any state.  It is another attempt by congress to impose the values of one part of the country on another.  It can be interpreted as an attempt to enable the Second Amendment's original intent.

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2018, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Here is another one.  Anyone can cross a state line and the laws of the original state still apply.  Thus, if it is legal to conceal carry somewhere in the US, it would be legal to carry everywhere. CBS covers it at  The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This will essentially allow red staters to conceal carry in any state.  It is another attempt by congress to impose the values of one part of the country on another.  It can be interpreted as an attempt to enable the Second Amendment's original intent.

It would make it unsafe to live in any US state. Right now, it is unsafe for anyone to travel to most non-coastal states. This bill is a dire threat to the safety of Americans. As I showed, red states and states with lax guns laws tend to have higher murder rates, and much higher rates of gun violence. Of course, the southern states across the nation are the most dangerous. My advice is don't travel there. Someone could take out a gun and shoot you if they don't like you.

I think the bill can be blocked if it requires a filibuster. There are only 6 red-state Democrats, although there are 7 or 8 purple state Democrats who live in carry states.

As much as deceived folks like bobc want a civil war if ANY gun control is passed, this bill would make many blue state Americans think that separation and secession is the best option. Personally, I am beginning to think many of these conservative Republican Americans are so different from the people I know and love that we should not be considered to be part of the same nation; perhaps not even of the same race. They are recognizably, observably different. I'm not sure how fully this applies to these Republican-voting people in red and other states; but the Trump base seems mostly to be sticking with him, and that would certainly include on this issue. We can hope some of them are realizing their error now, to an extent; at least in their support of the Drumpling.

Even as far back as 1972, I could tell when I was registering voters which party they would sign up with, just by looking at them. I registered over 1000 voters that year. The difference is much more stark today.

No-one really needs a gun for any purpose. I know the red state culture thinks otherwise, and this will not change anytime soon. But IMO there are better options for rural defense, better options for managing wildlife, and better hobbies to pursue. No other nation has as many guns as we do, and no other nation makes it a part of their lifestyle and culture, except perhaps some undeveloped, violent, barbaric nations in Latin American and Africa. 

It is an American disease, and it's that simple. And if there has been a reduction in crime, it is not due to more open or concealed carry laws. It is due to a reduction in gun ownership, and a change in youth generations. And the NRA is interested only in making money from the gun industry.

60 Minutes covered this issue well last night.
Here are excerpts and interview with the reporter.
https://youtu.be/uxjscb6Gpbc

Here's an excerpt:
https://youtu.be/4-rrm14nMr0


And notice how different the pro/red and con/blue folks are.

[David Horn]

(02-12-2018, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Here is another one.  Anyone can cross a state line and the laws of the original state still apply.  Thus, if it is legal to conceal carry somewhere in the US, it would be legal to carry everywhere. CBS covers it at  The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This will essentially allow red staters to conceal carry in any state.  It is another attempt by congress to impose the values of one part of the country on another.  It can be interpreted as an attempt to enable the Second Amendment's original intent.

I suspect that this will lead inevitably to the death of the 2nd.  There is already a small outcry to kill it, and some of the strongest advocates are conservatives.  It's an antiquated amendment in any case, so it's bound to die at some point.  Forcing concealed carry nationwide will only hurry that along.

[pbrower2a]

Think of the merits of a dog over a gun as a defender:

1. Accurate use of a firearm by a non-criminal in self-defense is no certainty. Self-defense situations in which a potentially-lethal response is necessary are surprises. The would-be defender is often too far from the gun to get to it in time, may not be fully awake, and may be in the dark. Dogs have better hearing and night vision than we do, and they can smell an intruder before the intruder can pose a menace.

2. Good people have some qualms about shooting at a threat. The intended victim of a rapist has no desire to miss a rapist and injure or kill someone not culpable with a gunshot. Good dogs will defend loved ones with attacks characteristic of a bear or big cat. Except for good behavior, a dog is one of the deadliest land predators in existence.

3. Crooks cannot turn a dog against its loved ones. The crook who grabs a would-be defender's gun becomes all the more dangerous against the gun's owner. Dogs can 'read' human behavior much as they can read behavior of any other potential prey -- and they 'read' us well.

4. Any dog attacking an intruder can inflict multiple bites, especially after overpowering a man (which is effectively a typical fall). Although single dog bites are practically never lethal, any dog bite brings excruciating pain, and dog bites in a defensive situation can be a barrage. Dog scratches are nearly as harmful, and come with the bites. Even single bites or scratches by a dog can require hospitalization, and multiple dog bites A burglar, rapist, or mugger is a coward who intent on making someone else a victim and has every desire to not become a victim.

Good behavior is all that keeps a dog from being the most dangerous predator on land that can face us. A dog has one advantage as a potential man-eater that bears and Big Cats lack: dogs know us as no other animal does.

5. A dog can advertise its presence with barking which warns people to take care. The only other animals that barks like dogs are seals, so for most people there is no ambiguity. (Seals also deliver bad bites). Of course the trained attack dog is even more dangerous because it stalks its intended victim in the manner of a leopard before attacking like a leopard. Dogs are extremely versatile in their behavior, and behavior of bears and big cats is within their range.

6. Firearms, especially hand guns, are among the most commonly-used devices for committing suicide. Dogs are never suicide tools, and they can get depressive people through some very bad situations. I have been there; I know.

[Bob Butler 54]

A dog vs a human with a gun is no contest. Also, one has far more control of the gun than the dog.

I know you have some sort of dog fetish, bit sheesh...

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-12-2018, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Here is another one.  Anyone can cross a state line and the laws of the original state still apply.  Thus, if it is legal to conceal carry somewhere in the US, it would be legal to carry everywhere. CBS covers it at  The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This will essentially allow red staters to conceal carry in any state.  It is another attempt by congress to impose the values of one part of the country on another.  It can be interpreted as an attempt to enable the Second Amendment's original intent.

I suspect that this will lead inevitably to the death of the 2nd.  There is already a small outcry to kill it, and some of the strongest advocates are conservatives.  It's an antiquated amendment in any case, so it's bound to die at some point.  Forcing concealed carry nationwide will only hurry that along.

I too suspect the Second is dated, but I don't see the blue states in a supermajority soon.  A Constitutional Convention?  Maybe.  They are usually held at the 4T 1T cusp.  I don't see that particular forced culture change, though a crisis is time for it.  

We'll see.

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2018, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Here is another one.  Anyone can cross a state line and the laws of the original state still apply.  Thus, if it is legal to conceal carry somewhere in the US, it would be legal to carry everywhere. CBS covers it at  The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This will essentially allow red staters to conceal carry in any state.  It is another attempt by congress to impose the values of one part of the country on another.  It can be interpreted as an attempt to enable the Second Amendment's original intent.

I suspect that this will lead inevitably to the death of the 2nd.  There is already a small outcry to kill it, and some of the strongest advocates are conservatives.  It's an antiquated amendment in any case, so it's bound to die at some point.  Forcing concealed carry nationwide will only hurry that along.

It's a possibility, and if not, it would hurry along the impetus to split the nation.

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2018, 03:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: A dog vs a human with a gun is no contest.  Also, one has far more control of the gun than the dog.

I know you have some sort of dog fetish, bit sheesh...

A human with a gun vs. a human with a gun is also a poor contest and a stupid, reckless gamble. But most people who have guns for protection likely assume it will be superior to a knife or a hammer or choking hands, etc. I suspect a dog would be superior to those weapons.

I wonder how many red state and red county 'muricans actually think that they live in a Western TV show, or that such shows represent a world that ever existed. And the heroes of those shows rarely get shot dead. It's always the bad guys or some guest star fellow posse member, etc.

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2018, 03:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Here is another one.  Anyone can cross a state line and the laws of the original state still apply.  Thus, if it is legal to conceal carry somewhere in the US, it would be legal to carry everywhere. CBS covers it at  The showdown over the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This will essentially allow red staters to conceal carry in any state.  It is another attempt by congress to impose the values of one part of the country on another.  It can be interpreted as an attempt to enable the Second Amendment's original intent.

I suspect that this will lead inevitably to the death of the 2nd.  There is already a small outcry to kill it, and some of the strongest advocates are conservatives.  It's an antiquated amendment in any case, so it's bound to die at some point.  Forcing concealed carry nationwide will only hurry that along.

I too suspect the Second is dated, but I don't see the blue states in a supermajority soon.  A Constitutional Convention?  Maybe.  They are usually held at the 4T 1T cusp.  I don't see that particular forced culture change, though a crisis is time for it.  

We'll see.

What I have predicted, is that the gun control measures that almost passed under Obama, will pass under a Democratic presidency in the 2020s, and that the bobc's of the world will likely revolt over this, and be defeated. But that would only lead to those rebels losing their weapons and probably their freedom or even their lives, and that gun control would survive, at least for a while; but the 2nd would not be affected by any of this.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-12-2018, 06:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What I have predicted, is that the gun control measures that almost passed under Obama, will pass under a Democratic presidency in the 2020s, and that the bobc's of the world will likely revolt over this, and be defeated. But that would only lead to those rebels losing their weapons and probably their freedom or even their lives, and that gun control would survive, at least for a while; but the 2nd would not be affected by any of this.

I do not anticipate the red block going violent over closing loopholes or anything Obama proposed.  Bobc and you are extreme partisans of opposite ilk, apt to anticipate the worst.

The Second is best read without the justification phrase.  "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  It is widely read that way in the red part of the country, academia, and is the Law of the Land.  You could pull the rights of felons and the insane without trouble, and close loopholes, but you had best get comfortable with the intent of the founding fathers, no matter how different your values are from theirs.

Curiously, the Wild West was low violent crime before gun control and thus gun crime took off.  You won't get the genie back in the bottle.  However, what is silly and futile is an attempt at prohibition.  I am no fan of the Congress trying to force the people away from something they want.  Both the red and blue have made that mistake freely lately, trying to make the two cultures one by law.  The result has been the see saw, handing power over to the other guys.  I would like to think that this crises will see them stop, somehow.  I'll admit I have seen nothing to make me assume either side will give up trying to change the other.  Both sides are ever so sure that they are right.

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2018, 07:54 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 06:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What I have predicted, is that the gun control measures that almost passed under Obama, will pass under a Democratic presidency in the 2020s, and that the bobc's of the world will likely revolt over this, and be defeated. But that would only lead to those rebels losing their weapons and probably their freedom or even their lives, and that gun control would survive, at least for a while; but the 2nd would not be affected by any of this.

I do not anticipate the red block going violent over closing loopholes or anything Obama proposed.  Bobc and you are extreme partisans of opposite ilk, apt to anticipate the worst.

The Second is best read without the justification phrase.  "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  It is widely read that way in the red part of the country, academia, and is the Law of the Land.  You could pull the rights of felons and the insane without trouble, and close loopholes, but you had best get comfortable with the intent of the founding fathers, no matter how different your values are from theirs.

Curiously, the Wild West was low violent crime before gun control and thus gun crime took off.  You won't get the genie back in the bottle.  However, what is silly and futile is an attempt at prohibition.  I am no fan of the Congress trying to force the people away from something they want.  Both the red and blue have made that mistake freely lately, trying to make the two cultures one by law.  The result has been the see saw, handing power over to the other guys.  I would like to think that this crises will see them stop, somehow.  I'll admit I have seen nothing to make me assume either side will give up trying to change the other.  Both sides are ever so sure that they are right.

One side is right, and it will need to win. 4Ts are not times when a crisis makes people stop fighting or competing for power. Regressive against progressive is what it has always been, and must be again. Gun control didn't create gun violence; you can't really turn fact and reality upside down to that extent. I know you do sometimes, but not to that extent please. 

Show me one 4T in the anglo-american cycle (or maybe in any saeculum anywhere) in which there wasn't war. I have predicted since the 1970s the possibility of civil war in this era; no need to revise my prediction now, since that's where we're headed. My prediction of a quick war against a stupid rebellion is optimistic indeed, considering the record of 4Ts.

Red culture must give way. They ought to give up their gun obsession, their failure to regard the justification phrase, the many out-of-date aspects of the founders' values, and all that; and all their other destructive nonsense too. Regressive values and ways such as these do eventually give way; the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. Royalty went away, slavery went away, Nazism went away. America needs to lead again instead of lag way behind. It will happen some day, but only so much can happen in one 4T.

Red culture and red ways are the bane of this country. I don't anticipate the worst. The worst is if the red side should win. I am not anticipating that yet. If the blue side wins, moderation and reason will prevail. Good sense and willingness to compromise is all on the blue side, and not at all on the red side. You know that just from our positions on this issue alone. You know which side is willing to compromise on even this most-deadly-dangerous, immoral and grim of issues, and which side isn't. You saw what bobc said. The red side is dreadfully sick, and that's putting it kindly.

[Bob Butler 54]

We are maybe entering the Information Age / a post scarcity culture. I would not assume that patterns that worked in the Industrial Age will work now. I am not seeing the spiral of violence that usually proceeds a revolution, civil war or crisis war. Both Bobc and you may be making a mistake in assuming an immediate violent confrontation. The cycle has worked less well anyway outside of the Anglo American civilization. Either of you using crisis theory to assume triumph of your values may well be disappointed.

Usually, the crisis leads to the culture shift. In the 1960s era, the awakening led to a culture shift. I am sort of expecting that the see saw between the cultures will end in an era that smells more like an awakening than a crisis. It isn't supposed to be, but I am not seeing the expected spiral of violence domestically, yet some problems (division of wealth, global warming, productivity increase) are building up. We are stuck calling those using violence lone nuts rather than see them organizing into large culture altering groups.

[David Horn]

(02-13-2018, 01:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: We are maybe entering the Information Age / a post scarcity culture.  I would not assume that patterns that worked in the Industrial Age will work now.  I am not seeing the spiral of violence that usually proceeds a revolution, civil war or crisis war.  Both Bobc and you may be making a mistake in assuming an immediate violent confrontation.  The cycle has worked less well anyway outside of the Anglo American civilization.  Either of you using crisis theory to assume triumph of your values may well be disappointed.

I'm sure Eric has a different POV, but, for me, I see us moving past the Information Age into something undefined. We seem to be entering a period (the Post-modern Age?) that assumes that information and connectivity are ubiquitous, but one that is creating disconnection between actual humans IRL. I'm poorly configured to fit in well, but Millies and, I assume, Homies will see this as normal. What that means for society is an open question. Add to this, the PTB will soon be able to know almost everything about everyone. Are we still free agents in that environment?

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Usually, the crisis leads to the culture shift.   In the 1960s era, the awakening led to a culture shift.  I am sort of expecting that the see saw between the cultures will end in an era that smells more like an awakening than a crisis.  It isn't supposed to be, but I am not seeing the expected spiral of violence domestically, yet some problems (division of wealth, global warming, productivity increase) are building up.  We are stuck calling those using violence lone nuts rather than see them organizing into large culture altering groups.

The culture shift is well under way, but it seems fragmented and unfocused. I have a hard time seeing a 1T emerging if society is tribal rather than more or less unified. I agree with your list of mounting issues, but don't see any indication that they are accepted as such by more than a fraction of the population. That points more toward anarchy than communitarianism, so this may be a failed 4T in the sense of creating a new paradigm.