Armed guards protect Senate Democrats as they demand new gun-control laws

[Pointedstick]

Lest anyone think that Democratic politicians are not utterly willing to destroy the right to arms completely:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-au ... g-for-u-s/

Clinton was asked at a New Hampshire town hall whether she thought an Australian-style policy could be implemented in the U.S.

“Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?” A New Hampshire man asked Clinton.

“I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at,” Clinton said.

[MachineGhost]

That seems non-comittal to me.  Clinton's a moderate.

[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia]A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.

As of 2015 about 815,000 people had a gun licence in Australia and there were around 3.5 to 5.5 million Registered Firearms in Australia. Most people own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, security work, and target shooting.[/quote]

I still think Japan is a better example.  Are there any non-homogenous societies where guns are outright illegal?

[Pointedstick]

That seems non-comittal to me.  Clinton's a moderate.

They confiscated millions of guns. Gun confiscation is a non-committal, moderate position?

[MachineGhost]

They confiscated millions of guns. Gun confiscation is a non-committal, moderate position?

I meant a non-committal to doing it.  She acknowledged she didn't have the details, but then we come to this:

The American National Rifle Association claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws. The federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the NRA to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.[59]

Tsk, tsk.

Australia also calls it a buyback, so was it really money for guns or a confiscation?

[Pointedstick]

They confiscated millions of guns. Gun confiscation is a non-committal, moderate position?

I meant a non-committal to doing it.  She acknowledged she didn't have the details, but then we come to this:

Let's try again.

Activist: "Mrs Clinton, how do you feel about sending all the African-Americans in this country to a walled-off Gulag? Rhodesia did it, to great effect! Is this an idea whose time has come?"

Clinton: "I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."

Would you call that a moderate, non-committal answer?

Australia also calls it a buyback, so was it really money for guns or a confiscation?

If the government says, "turn in your guns for some money or else we'll throw you in jail," what word would you use to describe that?

[Pointedstick]

This stuff is so easy to find that it's just sad. Here's what the leader of a national gun control organization said after the Dem debate:

http://thehill.com/regulation/256924-gu ... ers-chafee

Chafee suggested he would bring the NRA to the bargaining table over gun violence, but [Brady Campaign head] Gross called it an unrealistic pipe dream.

"This is not a negotiation with the NRA,” Gross said. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists."

Are you starting to get the picture?

[Libertarian666]

I don't think it's fair to look at Japan's gun laws and gun violence, without also considering a place like Mexico.  Mexico has very strict gun laws.  That's why violence is so rare in Mexico. 

http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html

Guns are Illegal in Mexico
Don’t bring firearms or ammunition across the border into Mexico.
Don’t carry a knife, even a small pocketknife, on your person in Mexico.

Yes, that must be the safest place in the world!

[Libertarian666]

This stuff is so easy to find that it's just sad. Here's what the leader of a national gun control organization said after the Demo debate:

http://thehill.com/regulation/256924-gu ... ers-chafee

Chafee suggested he would bring the NRA to the bargaining table over gun violence, but [Brady Campaign head] Gross called it an unrealistic pipe dream.

"This is not a negotiation with the NRA,” Gross said. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists."

Are you starting to get the picture?

"Terrorists??"  What a clown.

While I'm not a big proponent of clowns, that is an insult to clowns everywhere.

[MachineGhost]

Clinton: "I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."

Would you call that a moderate, non-committal answer?

Yes, I've underlined the non-committals.  She's basically pandering to the idiot (and he is an idiot because Australia didn't "recently" "confiscate" guns, it was decades ago!).

If the government says, "turn in your guns for some money or else we'll throw you in jail," what word would you use to describe that?

I see that Australia's was compulsory, so Newspeak!

[MachineGhost]

I don't think it's fair to look at Japan's gun laws and gun violence, without also considering a place like Mexico.  Mexico has very strict gun laws.  That's why violence is so rare in Mexico. 

Interesting, but Mexico isn't a First World Country.  They're not even in the same league as Japan, the USA or other West nations.

[Pointedstick]

Oh, and for those under the illusion that the NRA is somehow funded by or a mouthpiece for the gun companies, CNN of all news organizations (not exactly known for their right-wing tilt) takes that down:

http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-inve ... ng-donors/

A CNNMoney analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that much of this money comes from everyday Americans. And these contributions, which the NRA uses to keep pro-gun lawmakers in office, are on the rise.

Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates.
[...]
Since 2005, the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk.
[...]
Contributions came from nearly 30,000 donors, with around 90% of donations made by people who gave less than $200 in a single year. According to the NRA, the average donation is around $35.

The NRA's ability to raise so much money from small donations is highly unusual for a special interest group, demonstrating its wide reaching support, said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics.

[moda0306]

Hmmm.  Perhaps there's more about the NRA than I was giving credit to.

But as to "bad faith arguments," Nobody's got a monopoly on those.  I see them just as much on the conservative side as the liberal side, if not more. There's no reason to act like gun control is a unique issue. If anything is "unique," it would be the topic of our military/perma-war/surveillance complex, not gun control.

[Pointedstick]

Hmmm.  Perhaps there's more about the NRA than I was giving credit to.

If you own and shoot guns, the NRA protects your interests. YOU are the NRA. If you haven't already become a member, do it. They're not perfect, but nobody is. Suck it up and join.

But as to "bad faith arguments," Nobody's got a monopoly on those.  I see them just as much on the conservative side as the liberal side, if not more. There's no reason to act like gun control is a unique issue. If anything is "unique," it would be the topic of our military/perma-war/surveillance complex, not gun control.

What are some of the bad faith arguments you've seen from pro-gun people?

[MachineGhost]

I really feel calling for the complete confiscation of guns as "gun control" is not helpful at all.  That's "gun elimination".  I support "common sense" "gun control" but not "gun elimination".

I haven't seen a lot of (or any) evidence that "gun elimination" works except maybe in homogenous societies and then its probably more due to social and cultural factors than anything else.

The case can be made now on utilitarian grounds now for the 2nd Amendment.  That's my major shift in thinking from the metaphysical "government tyranny" which is obviously no longer true on an objective basis.  If I hear anyone making that case, I'll write them off as another deluded ideologue, probably those anti-government redneck types belonging to militias.  Who are they kidding, seriously?

[MachineGhost]

[quote=http://www.cbsnews.com/media/things-ame ... st-2015/2/]The top fear Americans reported in the 2015 survey is the corruption of government officials. In fact, 58 percent of respondents reported being "afraid" or "very afraid" of a corrupt government.

The researchers also asked participants if they had engaged in particular actions because of their fears. They found that nearly a fourth of Americans reported having voted for a particular candidate because of their fears and more than 10 percent have purchased a gun due to fear.

"Fear of the government had the strongest relationship with buying a gun because of fear," L. Edward Day, lead researcher on this portion of the survey, said in a statement.[/quote]

[Libertarian666]

The top fear Americans reported in the 2015 survey is the corruption of government officials. In fact, 58 percent of respondents reported being "afraid" or "very afraid" of a corrupt government.

The researchers also asked participants if they had engaged in particular actions because of their fears. They found that nearly a fourth of Americans reported having voted for a particular candidate because of their fears and more than 10 percent have purchased a gun due to fear.

"Fear of the government had the strongest relationship with buying a gun because of fear," L. Edward Day, lead researcher on this portion of the survey, said in a statement.

So 58% of the population is paranoid?
Or maybe the other 42% is asleep on their feet...

[Pointedstick]

from the metaphysical "government tyranny" which is obviously no longer true on an objective basis. If I hear anyone making that case, I'll write them off as another deluded ideologue, probably those anti-government redneck types belonging to militias. Who are they kidding, seriously?

i am thinking you mean that gun owners cant or couldn't take on a well trained and vastly better armed military like the US armed forces?
if so that is only true under very ideal conditions for the military
- 1 they are fighting on home turf so hope they aren't asked to bomb places that their friends and family live
- 2 that they (the solders) aren't ardent second amendment supporters themselves not willing to take that right from others
-3 they are not Conservative constitution luvin good old boys that would turn on the guy ordering them to bomb/fight US citizens whether the order was right or wrong. and would likely bring there military equipment technology and know how to the opposite side
-4 the order to fight is not actually constitutional and legitimate, lots of military guys wont want to be the "bad guy" there are quite a few (if not a majority) who would actually stop and think before following the "turn on Americans order".

-5 ....history... the little guy taking on the big guy has happened before... and could again, they don't have to win with hunting rifles and handguns, they must only confound disrupt and remain fighting long enough to get some ally somewhere who starts selling them bigger hardware or sends troops to support the fight..
add all that together with some of the extreme difficulty involved in fighting against guerrilla forces that blend in and have some support of the population..

it is not easy for armed Americans to take on the army by any stretch of the imagination, but not as far fetched as Michal Moore may make it sound in his movies

No, you're right, MG. Armed individuals can't hope to resist governments. That's why the U.S. won the war in Vietnam and exterminated Islamic terrorism, why the French still control Vietnam and Algeria, why the Arabs defeated the Jews in 1948, why Romania and Ethiopia are still controlled by Communists…

[MachineGhost]

it is not easy for armed Americans to take on the army by any stretch of the imagination, but not as far fetched as Michal Moore may make it sound in his movies

It's not so much that they "can't" take on government forces, its the violent bloody meat grinder end result by an uncaring state that should stop them.  Unless they have a death wish, that is.  I wouldn't doubt some militias still have that fantasy going. 

The bottom line is any armed conflict with the government is not going to be a winning strategy for either side, no matter how much you emote the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.  The ruling elite (with their armed bodyguards) simply don't care if push came to shove.  Doesn't Ruby Ridge and Waco seem like very small "terrorist" potatoes in comparison to a massive civil insurrection and martial law?  I would not want to be anywhere in that position when the government reacts to deal with the "terrorists".  OBAMA! could also just send a drone and wipe you out.  "Its a threat to the motherland and must be eliminated!" blah blah blah.

[MachineGhost]

No, you're right, MG. Armed individuals can't hope to resist governments. That's why the U.S. won the war in Vietnam and exterminated Islamic terrorism, why the French still control Vietnam and Algeria, why the Arabs defeated the Jews in 1948, why Romania and Ethiopia are still controlled by Communists…

That's the wrong way to look at it.  The proper way is: at what cost?  I don't have any romantic notions to go down in a blaze of glory, especially if it's over something as redundantly silly as the original intent of the 2nd Amendment!

I can't resist this... are you implying that Israel would have wiped out all the Palistinians once and for all if they didn't have such restrictive gun control?

[Libertarian666]

the second amendment isn't about defending romantic notions about defending oneself from government, (even if a lot of 2nd amendment supporters succumb to such romantic notions...) the reality would be an ugly, bloody, civil war like, country shredding, mess.. where both sides are likely to be right in some respects and wrong in some respects and sorting the good from the bad is likely to be tough, the second amendment isn't about defending the 2nd amendment alone, its also about protecting people from loosing their other freedoms or being overrun by tyranny as well...  yes the military will have drones but that only helps so much, imagine faluja or Baghdad in a city near you, (and the civilian side would probably get militarized and have their own drones soon enough)

And exactly how does it do that if the citizens can't use their arms to prevent tyranny? 

[MachineGhost]

the second amendment isn't about defending romantic notions about defending oneself from government, (even if a lot of 2nd amendment supporters succumb to such romantic notions...) the reality would be an ugly, bloody, civil war like, country shredding, mess.. where both sides are likely to be right in some respects and wrong in some respects and sorting the good from the bad is likely to be tough, the second amendment isn't about defending the 2nd amendment alone, its also about protecting people from loosing their other freedoms or being overrun by tyranny as well... yes the military will have drones but that only helps so much, imagine faluja or Baghdad in a city near you, (and the civilian side would probably get militarized and have their own drones soon enough)

And exactly how does it do that if the citizens can't use their arms to prevent tyranny?

who said they couldn't? unless i have gibberished up my post somehow i believe i have taken the stance that they could prevent tyrany but that if they failed as a deterrent and it came time to use them to fight it would (like all wars) be a difficult and bloody affair that would tear things apart in a big way for an indefinite period of time before they could get put right.

Lets get real.  How well did owning guns prevent FATCA from being passed?  The Patriot Act from being passed?  Gay Marriage from being legalized?  Prevent our undocumented-illegal-alien immigration invasion?  I could go on and on.  The ship has sailed a long time ago as far as original intent.  If anything, owning a gun is now security theatre for anything but self-defense.  You can't shoot the cops.  You can't shoot the military.  You can't shoot the politicians, the attorneys, the lawyers, the bureaucrats.  Hell, you can't even shoot an actual criminal without manslaughter charges and long imprisonment in most cases.  All the guns, bravada and dick swaggering in the world is not going to change the sad, impotent reality we now live in.  No, we are more civilized and evolved now. 

[Libertarian666]

the second amendment isn't about defending romantic notions about defending oneself from government, (even if a lot of 2nd amendment supporters succumb to such romantic notions...) the reality would be an ugly, bloody, civil war like, country shredding, mess.. where both sides are likely to be right in some respects and wrong in some respects and sorting the good from the bad is likely to be tough, the second amendment isn't about defending the 2nd amendment alone, its also about protecting people from loosing their other freedoms or being overrun by tyranny as well...  yes the military will have drones but that only helps so much, imagine faluja or Baghdad in a city near you, (and the civilian side would probably get militarized and have their own drones soon enough)

And exactly how does it do that if the citizens can't use their arms to prevent tyranny? 

who said they couldn't? unless i have gibberished up my post somehow i believe i have taken the stance that they could prevent tyrany but that if they failed as a deterrent and it came time to use them to fight it would (like all wars) be a difficult and bloody affair that would tear things apart in a big way for an indefinite period of time before they could get put right.

Ok, if that's what you meant. I didn't get that from what you were saying about "romantic notions" of defending yourself from the government.

sadly there is some truth to the above... we have lost the second and probably most important half to the freedom equation, and that is an intelligent educated population that knows what freedom is. the ability to defend freedom alone is pretty weak without understanding it and having the balls to take a stand.....

it is undoubtedly an un-provable assertion but i tend to think that tyrants and the power mad, if left to their own devises would have us in a place far closer to a Orwellian dystopia than we are right now ..just because the second amendment has acted as a set of brakes.. in-spite of all the sliding we have done down that slope. i don't think it is completely dead in its ability to help freedom.

and there is always the "wake the dragon moment" maybe there is a thing government will do someday, the one step to far, some "patriot act" of the future that will unite and spark a stand needing to be and being taken (i have my moments of doubt but who knows)

Ok, if that's what you meant. I didn't get that from what you were saying about "romantic notions" of defending yourself from the government.

ya i just meant the movie version of a patriotic fight VS the real ugly freezing to death, starving, dying from some illness, sleeping in the mud, untreated festering wounds, reality's of war..

[Mountaineer]

l82start,

Do you REALLY believe your sig lines? 

... M

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”

[Pointedstick]

Another way to look at it:  Imagine what the U.S. government would do if they didn't have any fear of the citizens.

Exactly. The second amendment slash an armed citizenry are not applicable to the normal political process; they are a doomsday provision. You don't shoot government agents when they pass FATCA or the PATRIOT act or even if they seize your house via eminent domain. You pull out the guns when they're disappearing people, torturing people, gunning them down in the streets, exterminating them, and things like that.

Pretend you're a repressive government for a moment. If you wanted to do those things, would you rather do it against a disarmed people, or a people who are armed to the teeth?

[l82start]

l82start,

Do you REALLY believe your sig lines? 

... M

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”

  Do i REALLY believe my sig lines?  the second one... definitely.. (except that i do question it... i would hate for it to be a certitude and limit my ability to think about that aspect of existence)