07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 7374757677 ...
tools
  1. LegalAmerican's Avatar
    Everyone does that with everything. People tend to hate things they don't understand. Religion, politics, technology, etc..

    Guns is just such a hot topic because we see America being turned into a socialist country.
    Aquila, geekymcfly and Etios like this.
    04-18-2013 09:45 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Have to agree that this argument is full of ignorance and silliness - but it's on both sides. On the previous threads about this issue it was repeatedly pointed out that, "assault weapon" was a meaningless term meant to scare ignorant people into thinking, "assault rifle", yet they still persisted in the use of the term. It was previously pointed out that the 2nd Amendment is (or at least wasn't until 2010) not actually the amendment that protects civilian personal weapon ownership from legislation by the Federal government, yet people want to focus on the wording of the 2nd amendment.

    Almost every single post on the internet, article or commentary on news media, on either side of this argument, at least that I've seen, has been in the fear based bickering format with very little real information or solution oriented dialogue. We can't even agree on what the problems are, let alone start talking about how to go about fixing them. The one presentation regarding firearm legislation that I saw, it took the gentleman 4 hours to present and was not overly subtle in calling out the fact that both the Constitutional knowledge base and motivations of our legislators are laughable, on both sides of this issue. It's so laughable, that most American's don't even know we're talking about the wrong issues.

    The bottom line is: There is no money to be made from 1. educating people 2. reducing violence 3. reducing fear 4. lowering production of weapons 5. encouraging political participation. There is also a direct cost and direct power loss associated with each of those 5 ideas. The incentive lands on the side of, "Keep the People as ignorant, terrified and distracted as possible while encouraging mindless consumption of sound bytes, products with the right logo's and time wasting activities".
    04-18-2013 11:25 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Myth: "They" are coming to take our guns.
    Fact: That's stupid.

    Myth: Banning "assault weapons" will reduce gun violence, school and other mass shootings, etc.
    Fact: Absolutely daft. Of the more than approximately 10,000 gun deaths per year in recent years, less than 500 or so will be from any type of rifle. You're panicking about a weapon used in far less than .5% of gun deaths. Also, "assault weapon" refers mostly to cosmetic differences, in most cases making the weapon exactly 0% more dangerous than the non-"assault" version of the same weapon. If public safety and reducing gun violence were the real motivators, we'd be discussing banning handguns, which are far more easily concealed and far more commonly used in crimes.

    Myth: Any legislation of gun purchasing/ownership is "infringement" and is therefore unconstitutional.
    Fact: That's also stupid. Gun ownership, possession, etc. has been regulated since day 1 in a variety of ways, although originally guns were allowed inside Federal buildings, which caused lots of interesting issues in debates. Additionally, the OK Corral gunfight, which made famous Tombstone, AZ was a major battle that started over gun control in 1881, concerning open carry regulations within city limits. Clearly this isn't an argument that is going away soon.

    Myth: The NRA was founded to protect the rights of gun owners from tyrannical power plays by the Federal government.
    Fact: The NRA initially stood for teaching safety and responsible ownership and was very much in favor of gun control until a major shift in management in the late 1960's. As late as the 1990's Wayne LaPierre himself was a supporter of background checks, a stance currently supported by over 90% of the public according to polls.

    There are literally hundreds of these myths floating around and no amount of myth-busting will probably ever convince a single person to open their mind and think about the larger issue that this fear based microcosm of an issue represents. This isn't about gun violence, especially by legal gun owners... this is about manipulation. The government is not afraid of civilian off-the-rack weapons and they've got no interest in banning any of them. The real goal here is to polarize misinformed people into arguing about this, rather than fundamental issues that actually threaten our nation.

    To put it in context, less than .5% of people that die per year are killed by a firearm and less than .5% of those are killed by any type of rifle and approximately 10% of those are killed in mass shootings. Sandy Hook, one of the most heated topics in recent months, had less than 30 victims. We average 27 gun deaths per day in this country and between 99.8% and 99.9% of them are killed in situations that are not mass shootings. Clearly the real issue is our perspective.
    04-19-2013 12:01 AM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    Saying things like "did you know there are online gun shops that you can buy a gun from with no background check and have it shipped to your door?" um no, that's super illegal
    Exactly. This is legal if you're a FFA dealer, otherwise you have to ship to a dealer. Thinking it's like E-Bay is insane.


    Calling a 30 round magazine on an AR-15 a "high capacity" magazine. Um, 30 rounds on an AR is NORMAL/standard capacity. A high capacity magazine is a magazine with a higher capacity than what originally comes with it
    30 is a number they're afraid of. What's the rationality in picking any single number over another for an "allowable" capacity? What's the difference between 7 and 8 or 10 and 11 or 13 or 14? Arbitrary makes for bad law and good fear tactics.


    Or those that support handgun bans when a shotgun will do so much more damage
    If I were going to be shot at by an average joe schmoe, I'd prefer they have a handgun. Far less accurate at just about any range and an unloaded shotgun is still a formidable bludgeoning weapon that can be used to prevent or mitigate closing techniques in a disarm attempt.


    I honestly don't think someone in Congress should be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing about.
    They shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything that's not in their jurisdiction. Additionally, we need to stop electing ignorant puppets who work for corporate interests, and not the public's interests.


    Why is it that it's so rare to find people that know about guns that are anti gun?
    I know a lot about guns and I agree with many American's that think people are generally too stupid, immature or otherwise irresponsible to safely handle ownership of weapons. That being said, I know of no legal basis for Federal banning of these weapons and until such a justification is passed into law, any support of their grandstanding is ridiculous. I'm also not aware of any fair way to preclude ownership without discrimination aside from those already on the table, background checks, etc. If there were a fair way to regulate gun ownership that did not penalize responsible, legal gun owners and prevented possession by persons unauthorized and lowered, either by prevention or stricter prosecution, the volume of weapons used in crimes, I'd fully support those measures. On the spectrum between "ban them all" and "free for all" there are a lot of points and a lot of issues that require a lot of rational thought and maybe even some logic and science... all of which require us to get past fear based talking points.
    04-19-2013 12:27 AM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    Did the "shut down" of Boston, where local and state police, along with Federal agents, required citizens to remain in their homes, while they conducted warrant-less door to door searches of entire neighborhoods feel a little bit like martial law to anyone? I listed to several interviews where citizens said that it made them feel safer and more secure, with very little push back from anyone. I understand there was a need for a search and to apprehend this suspect... but there was almost no resistance to the illegal orders, perhaps for good reason, it might not have been appropriate at the time, etc... but is the country going to talk about this?
    jdbii and geekymcfly like this.
    04-20-2013 01:11 AM
  6. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Did the "shut down" of Boston, where local and state police, along with Federal agents, required citizens to remain in their homes, while they conducted warrant-less door to door searches of entire neighborhoods feel a little bit like martial law to anyone? I listed to several interviews where citizens said that it made them feel safer and more secure, with very little push back from anyone. I understand there was a need for a search and to apprehend this suspect... but there was almost no resistance to the illegal orders, perhaps for good reason, it might not have been appropriate at the time, etc... but is the country going to talk about this?
    It was for the safety of the people. We should just be glad there was no law enforcement hating crazies with guns who refused to allow police to do a check of their home which could have created yet another fire fight. This is like objecting to the FBI deciding against reading him his Miranda rights before questioning, because the need to question him was too great to wait. It is for the safety of the people. There could be more people working with the brothers or live explosives hidden throughout the city of Boston . They had proved themselves capable of cold blooded murder and slaughtering of citizens and we're known to be armed and dangerous. He had to be found before he killed anyone else. Had the police not gone door to door, shut down the city, or reacted in the radical way they did he would have for sure escaped and the citizens of Boston would be in an outcry that the one living responsible of this horrible incident had gotten free.

    Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA
    Aquila and ChromeJob like this.
    04-20-2013 03:53 AM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    It was for the safety of the people. We should just be glad there was no law enforcement hating crazies with guns who refused to allow police to do a check of their home which could have created yet another fire fight. This is like objecting to the FBI deciding against reading him his Miranda rights before questioning, because the need to question him was too great to wait. It is for the safety of the people. There could be more people working with the brothers or live explosives hidden throughout the city of Boston . They had proved themselves capable of cold blooded murder and slaughtering of citizens and we're known to be armed and dangerous. He had to be found before he killed anyone else. Had the police not gone door to door, shut down the city, or reacted in the radical way they did he would have for sure escaped and the citizens of Boston would be in an outcry that the one living responsible of this horrible incident had gotten free.

    Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA
    I absolutely agree that the rational behind it was valid and that under the circumstances the people accommodated incredibly well. I guess the line of thinking I'm stuck on is the contradiction between what we did and what the law says we should do. This is the exact reason we need to have a more modern discussion about what precisely we're willing to give up in the way of liberty for precisely what security. What we saw yesterday absolutely resembled martial law, albeit a very mild version of it and quickly rescinded. The contradiction needs to be resolved because yesterday a citizen could allow the police in, and they'd be perhaps right and wrong, or they could refuse to allow the police in, and they'd be wrong and right, on the issues of public safety versus the Constitutional limits, in both cases respectively. Depending on which side of the issue you're arguing and your perspective on the interpretation of motivations (always dangerous) and your assessment of the ability and likelihood of the contradiction to be abused in the future, it'd be very easy to argue logically the merits of both sides.
    04-20-2013 04:28 AM
  8. A-android-B's Avatar
    It was for the safety of the people. We should just be glad there was no law enforcement hating crazies with guns who refused to allow police to do a check of their home which could have created yet another fire fight. This is like objecting to the FBI deciding against reading him his Miranda rights before questioning, because the need to question him was too great to wait. It is for the safety of the people. There could be more people working with the brothers or live explosives hidden throughout the city of Boston . They had proved themselves capable of cold blooded murder and slaughtering of citizens and we're known to be armed and dangerous. He had to be found before he killed anyone else. Had the police not gone door to door, shut down the city, or reacted in the radical way they did he would have for sure escaped and the citizens of Boston would be in an outcry that the one living responsible of this horrible incident had gotten free.

    Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA
    You should probably read a history book. Concentration camps in Germany were "for the safety of the people "

    Sent from my LG-VM670 using Android Central Forums
    jdbii and geekymcfly like this.
    04-20-2013 05:04 AM
  9. A-android-B's Avatar
    Only idiots will let slack to the constitution in the name of safety. 1 the government cannot keep you safe no matter what they say. Only you and God can do that. 2 when the gov "sells" you safety in exchange for less rights and more taxes you never get your rights and tax money back. And when you put the gov in charge of safety you've created a conflict of interest because the less safe America is the more they will try and justify charging more tax and taking away more rights. It's obvious this country is doomed when most of the lawmakers don't read most of the thousands of pages the make into law.

    ***these are just words***
    geekymcfly likes this.
    04-20-2013 05:14 AM
  10. Fairclough's Avatar
    They should ban guns altogether! now let the hate begin.
    Men love to prove their strength, a gun doesn't show this but cowardly you are standing behind it! The reason most people including myself are against gun is due to the small demographic which are psychotic enough to shoot another individual. The case can be argued its not the gun which kills but the man, its true we don't see car manufacturing companies get lobbied every time a drunk drive kills... its the person. Restricting access allows a lowered risk. In my own country, Australia, in some states u/25 year olds cannot drive high powered cars for this fact. In every state you have to extensive applications to be allowed a gun and if you don't access the fire range or have a lock up the gun or anything like this it is confiscated... simple as that.No questions asked. Very few people (5%) have access to firearms - besides farmers... The law is so extreme that a Air Soft gun is a Category A firearm - which means its dealt with the same a shot gun. It takes a licensed paintball gun facility 3 months of customs checks to allow their gun through once its on Australian soil.In tern we never has these mass killings, the loss of lives because simply no one has access to these guns. An angry boy with a fist or a knife is a lot easier to stop then one with a semi automatic rifle... if you ban them altogether the playing field it even, rather then allowing everyone to have guns to make it even. I believe the US should go beyond this and do a gun recall like they did in Australia and start crushing guns. Their laws should be that strict so people like this man in this Video cannot produce them at home! Yes violence always occurs and if someone wants to kill they will, but removing the tool makes it a lot more difficult and lowers the numbers harmed.

    In short its harder to kill with a fist then with a trigger, remove the trigger altogether.
    return_0 likes this.
    04-20-2013 05:18 AM
  11. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    You should probably read a history book. Concentration camps in Germany were "for the safety of the people "

    Sent from my LG-VM670 using Android Central Forums
    Concentration camps were a guise set up to commit mass genocide. Holocaust |=| warrantless search by probable cause. Nice try, though.

    Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA
    ChromeJob likes this.
    04-20-2013 09:32 AM
  12. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Fairclough:

    Meaning absolutely no disrespect, but as someone who used to date a gal from Australia, I happen to know there are significant cultural differences between you folks and us which means many of your views are based on culturally-based assumptions which may not necessarily be valid in our culture here. It doesn't mean I don't think your views have validity or that I don't believe you have the right to those views; it's just you have to understand we're not the same as you.

    The Hustleman, NothingIsTrue, et al:

    I don't believe, either, that there is some grand conspiracy at work here; surely no powerful conspiracy starting in the late 1800s would have gone on this long without some success. But, as you all have said or suggested, ignorant people will latch onto anything which seems to justify their irrational fears.

    Also, you cannot write a law (in the "would it be constitutional" sense) which in any way bans guns, or bans us from owning guns. You have to change the constitution to do that, and if such a movement were ever seriously attempted, I doubt there would be enough legislators to go along with it, or frankly if there were, then Washington D.C. would turn into a bloodbath because there are enough Americans who would never stand for it and had the means to do something about it.

    The thing nobody really likes to talk about, and I will totally grant that it's because it is this "elephant in the room" is that our right to bear arms does have one particular purpose, apart from serving as a militia or self-defense, etc.: we the people are considered the "ultimate sanction" against a government that becomes tyrannical, and so yes that does in fact mean the Founding Fathers envisioned the possibility (though I'm certain they did not glory in it and dreaded it would ever happen) of an overthrow as a final, extra-political means. It isn't something I would ever wish to be a part of, and I pray something like that never happens, because life is precious to me and I view the taking of it to be something NEVER to be taken lightly.
    Bratigan and BrockS. like this.
    04-20-2013 10:00 AM
  13. msndrstood's Avatar
    Only God can keep us safe?! Really now.

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    Aquila and Jennifer Stough like this.
    04-20-2013 10:44 AM
  14. A-android-B's Avatar
    Concentration camps were a guise set up to commit mass genocide. Holocaust |=| warrantless search by probable cause. Nice try, though.

    Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA
    Are you trying to rewrite history and say that warrantless searches did not occur during the holocaust lol? Anne Frank ring any bells? It didnt start out as open genocide. If you let the government practice warrentless searches now, they will use it as a precedent to use them later.
    geekymcfly likes this.
    04-20-2013 03:01 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    Fairclough:

    Meaning absolutely no disrespect, but as someone who used to date a gal from Australia, I happen to know there are significant cultural differences between you folks and us which means many of your views are based on culturally-based assumptions which may not necessarily be valid in our culture here. It doesn't mean I don't think your views have validity or that I don't believe you have the right to those views; it's just you have to understand we're not the same as you.

    The Hustleman, NothingIsTrue, et al:

    I don't believe, either, that there is some grand conspiracy at work here; surely no powerful conspiracy starting in the late 1800s would have gone on this long without some success. But, as you all have said or suggested, ignorant people will latch onto anything which seems to justify their irrational fears.

    Also, you cannot write a law (in the "would it be constitutional" sense) which in any way bans guns, or bans us from owning guns. You have to change the constitution to do that, and if such a movement were ever seriously attempted, I doubt there would be enough legislators to go along with it, or frankly if there were, then Washington D.C. would turn into a bloodbath because there are enough Americans who would never stand for it and had the means to do something about it.

    The thing nobody really likes to talk about, and I will totally grant that it's because it is this "elephant in the room" is that our right to bear arms does have one particular purpose, apart from serving as a militia or self-defense, etc.: we the people are considered the "ultimate sanction" against a government that becomes tyrannical, and so yes that does in fact mean the Founding Fathers envisioned the possibility (though I'm certain they did not glory in it and dreaded it would ever happen) of an overthrow as a final, extra-political means. It isn't something I would ever wish to be a part of, and I pray something like that never happens, because life is precious to me and I view the taking of it to be something NEVER to be taken lightly.
    Jefferson also believed that the Constitution would be seriously amended every 20 years or so with a page 1 rewrite on a less frequent basis, in order to keep the government subservient to the people. We've for some reason ignored this concept and started revering it as scripture.... except for when we want to amend it, then of course it's a living document.
    Thomas Paine, one of the thought leaders behind the liberty movement, explained in great detail how no generation has the right to pass laws or their way of government unto subsequent generations, and therefore each generation had a right to form the government of their choosing (this is covered in dept in The Rights of Man (both parts)). This would go along with Jefferson's idea and suggest that we're somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 years behind schedule in our first attempt to modernize our Constitution. The Constitution is not something the Government creates, it's what we create to tell the Government how to behave. Clearly they're ignoring the intent and letter of the Constitution, and using it as a weapon against us; primarily by trying to say that Rights are granted to citizens by the Constitution.
    bigdaddytee likes this.
    04-20-2013 03:13 PM
  16. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I'm not particularly well-read where it comes to Thomas Paine, so I didn't know he wrote that. I was aware that Jefferson was in favor of the occasional revolution to keep the government in line, but didn't realize he said that about modding the Constitution.

    I'm not a big fan of every generation coming along and tossing out everything that came before, not just because it would destroy continuity, but because I would be worried that succeeding generations would not be wise enough and desirous enough to write something at least as good as the one they were replacing.
    04-20-2013 04:24 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm not particularly well-read where it comes to Thomas Paine, so I didn't know he wrote that. I was aware that Jefferson was in favor of the occasional revolution to keep the government in line, but didn't realize he said that about modding the Constitution.

    I'm not a big fan of every generation coming along and tossing out everything that came before, not just because it would destroy continuity, but because I would be worried that succeeding generations would not be wise enough and desirous enough to write something at least as good as the one they were replacing.
    Thomas Paine is very interesting reading, particularly Common Sense, The Rights of Man (2 parts) and The Age of Reason (2 parts). Those cover around 25 years worth of writing, and I don't agree with everything he said, but a lot of it was spot on and highly relevant to today.
    04-20-2013 05:00 PM
  18. rexxman's Avatar
    Are you trying to rewrite history and say that warrantless searches did not occur during the holocaust lol? Anne Frank ring any bells? It didnt start out as open genocide. If you let the government practice warrentless searches now, they will use it as a precedent to use them later.
    You are quick to use the label "idiots".

    What "rights" were given up by those Boston neighborhoods that are still being held hostage by the government?

    Your comparisons of the Boston "search" to what was perpetrated in Nazi Germany are ridiculous and insulting to our law enforcement people who put themselves at risk to protect our safety.

    Blue 32gb Galaxy S3
    ChromeJob and Jennifer Stough like this.
    04-20-2013 05:37 PM
  19. Patrick Schroedl's Avatar
    You are quick to use the label "idiots".

    What "rights" were given up by those Boston neighborhoods that are still being held hostage by the government?

    Your comparisons of the Boston "search" to what was perpetrated in Nazi Germany are ridiculous and insulting to our law enforcement people who put themselves at risk to protect our safety.
    I would agree that direct comparisons aren't appropriate, however the point A-android-B makes about governments using past actions as precedent for current ones is a valid point to make. It's not that the government will start bending laws because of this incident, rather than the government might see this as acceptable precedent for taking similar actions in situations where less concrete evidence of a crime has been presented.
    jdbii and geekymcfly like this.
    04-20-2013 08:37 PM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    I would agree that direct comparisons aren't appropriate, however the point A-android-B makes about governments using past actions as precedent for current ones is a valid point to make. It's not that the government will start bending laws because of this incident, rather than the government might see this as acceptable precedent for taking similar actions in situations where less concrete evidence of a crime has been presented.
    Agree, the decay of human rights is analogous to erosion, and if we don't notice, don't care or don't build barriers and change our behaviors to counteract erosion, pretty soon the banks that hold back the flood are just gone.
    jdbii and geekymcfly like this.
    04-20-2013 08:55 PM
  21. rexxman's Avatar
    I would agree that direct comparisons aren't appropriate, however the point A-android-B makes about governments using past actions as precedent for current ones is a valid point to make. It's not that the government will start bending laws because of this incident, rather than the government might see this as acceptable precedent for taking similar actions in situations where less concrete evidence of a crime has been presented.
    I don't think the point that was expressed is valid, nor in your further explanation about precedent.

    I do not buy the position that what occurred in Boston starts us down a slippery slope.

    Precedent? President Lincoln, at a point during the Civil War, suspended Habeus Corpus. Do we still enjoy that right? Of course.

    Yes, there are things today we should be concerned about concerning our rights and liberties. Patriot Act for example.

    But Boston 2013? We agree NO.



    Blue 32gb Galaxy S3
    04-20-2013 09:05 PM
  22. Patrick Schroedl's Avatar
    I don't think the point that was expressed is valid, nor in your further explanation about precedent.

    I do not buy the position that what occurred in Boston starts us down a slippery slope.

    Precedent? President Lincoln, at a point during the Civil War, suspended Habeus Corpus. Do we still enjoy that right? Of course.

    Yes, there are things today we should be concerned about concerning our rights and liberties. Patriot Act for example.

    But Boston 2013? We agree NO.
    I would agree that what happened in Boston this past week won't result in any such repercussions.
    Aquila likes this.
    04-20-2013 09:24 PM
  23. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    There is a difference, and some time it truly is a fine line, between not trusting one's government, and going along with conspiracies. And it is a fine line because bad things are done and have been done and will be done again and again and again. Vigilance is the price for peace and democracy, and maybe one of the issues I have with "conspiracies" is that they are overly-simplistic, and don't really deal with the root of the problem, which is that we're not all the same, and we're not all raised the same, and so variances in morality, ethics, and decency can and do occur.
    04-20-2013 11:54 PM
  24. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Thomas Paine is very interesting reading, particularly Common Sense, The Rights of Man (2 parts) and The Age of Reason (2 parts). Those cover around 25 years worth of writing, and I don't agree with everything he said, but a lot of it was spot on and highly relevant to today.
    When I have time, I shall do precisely that. I'm also a huge fan of Social Contract Theory.
    Aquila likes this.
    04-21-2013 12:07 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar


    There is nothing legal about this. Probable cause and/or a warrant that specifically defines what you are looking for, and where and why. If they "have" to search 25 houses, that's 25 warrants, each one of which invalidates the other 24. If they knocked and said, "can we come in" and the property owners agreed, no issues. But if they agreed, why are the owners being shuffled out at gunpoint? I do understand how people can feel it's justifiable... but if that's the case, we need to be extremely, explicitly clear about where the line is and what happens if we're in danger of that line being crossed. The line just moved.
    cqpearson and geekymcfly like this.
    04-21-2013 03:23 AM
4,617 ... 7374757677 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD