Please save us, Feds! I know that you just need more power to do the Lord’s work!
2 Likes
See, I disagree. I think it matters where you see rights coming from that will dictate what limitations one sees as acceptable and just. Because not all trade-offs are good.
Take speech for example, while directly inciting violence (burn this mother fucker down, kill that bastard) or the time tested “yelling fire in a packed theater” are valid limitations on speech, for reasons that go beyond the speech itself; things like hate speech laws aren’t limitations we should make a trade-off from. (Assuming the speech isn’t directly inciting violence.)
And I think one’s position on things like hate speech laws will be shaped by where one believes rights come from. Inherent vs granted.
Sigh… Come on man. I didn’t say your statement was false here, but you can’t deny you used emotive language on purpose in your response. You certainly work in or study greatly within law, which is highly sensitive to the use of specific words and phrases. I know you know exzactly what you are saying when you do, and we both know that statement could have been made without the “who would slaughter children with them” emotive language…
I said there is no evidence this policy would have stopped any of the high profile “mass killings”. So I’m not going to just go along with it for emotional reasons. And gave a specific policy change that points out why.
Not even remotely close to what I did. You just don’t actually quote any of the times I actually addressed what you were saying, but that’s okay.
Come on man with this… I’d rather have a discussion here.
Of course the effectiveness of policy is the (well part of at the very least) issue. I don’t understand how effectiveness of policy could not factor into a discussion of if we should bother with the policy.
Because there are, without a doubt, monetary costs here. Either you have to go through an FFL or .gov will need to set up a portal like MA has. Both of whom cost money. This also will most assuredly mean an uptick in NICS usage, which means more upkeep of databases and more people working there. There are safe guards in the system to prevent an unscrupulous administration form simply under staffing the agency therefore de facto denying every sale. There are issues with common names, hence things like UPIN’s.
So no, the only costs aren’t hurt feelings. I’m not saying this is a billion dollar boondoggle, but to say there is no costs but hurt feelings is objectively wrong.
If you actually read my posts you’d see where I said I never have, nor will sell or buy a firearm without a BGC. Which makes all this here, total and complete nonsense. Care to actually speak to me, and not project some boogieman gun owner onto my posts?
Unsubstantiated fallacy of a statement.
QED, I’d say.
2 Likes
Could you explain that a little.
Another cost is the fact the 4473 is de facto registration. While the government is prohibited from keeping a direct database (which I at this time think they adhere to) FFL’s must keep a detailed log book and copies of every 4473. That is why LEO traces serial numbers…
So while yes, I’m venturing into tin foil hat territory, just making post after post with thinly veiled personal attacks about how those of us on the gun rights side are “bad people”, isn’t going to actually advance your position.
Obviously my bias is going to come through here, and maybe I’m wrong but:
Someone who thinks their rights are granted to them via the State is much more likely to roll over and let them be eroded if not completely taken away. You know the whole “boil a frog” tale/fable/saying right? Someone who thinks their rights are determined by what the State says they are is going to compromise those rights faster, because they obviously feel the State is the final arbiter of what is right, just and correct.
Someone who sees their rights has inherent to their being a human, is going to see the State’s function include protection of those rights, NOT dictation of rights. This person is more likely resist changes in those rights, incrementally and fundamentally because (among other reasons) they have self ownership of the rights, and will see defense of them as a personal obligation.
Obviously this is all based on my personal observations, anecdotes and all that, and I have no empirical evidence for any of it, but it’s why I think one’s perspective on where rights come from is relevant to policy discussion about those rights.
I believe rights are granted since the concept of rights is a human creation. A T-Rex wouldn’t think about our rights before eating us. With that said, my views on hate speech laws would probably make me a Nazi to some Antifa geek.
IMO, when we start thinking that rights are inherent we risk stepping into true fascist, racist, and other potentially violent ideological ways of thinking. Hitler believed in the inherent rights of the German people. Look at the ME and how Israeli’s “neighbors” believe they have an inherent right to it.
1 Like
We did this argument a few months back in some thread. Natural negative rights that are inalienable vs positive rights from the state.
Turns out the declaration of independence is federal law according to a few SCOTUS rulings. There’s also a fair bit of jurisprudence from the states as well.
I’ll bet you can guess how all if the current SCOTUS judges split on the issue.
I obviously disagree with the former, and could argue the later either way.
And we, generally speaking, don’t think about the rights of chickens, cows, horses etc.
I feel like you’re conflating an idea with who has the idea. It’s not really a fair comparison to use Hitler here IMO. Simply because he was an objectively evil man, and the fact he was very rational and deliberate in what he did and said is what makes him that way. Even though it does lend credence to what I said, the passion of those who believe they are inherent will lead to more defense of them, it doesn’t mean the idea is impervious to being used for evil.
Shit look at any religion in the history of man. They can and have been used for evil deeds, over and over again. Used to justify some seriously atrocious things. That doesn’t negate their validity. If anything does, it something else.
But we do have the concept of animal rights. It’s something we could think about. An animal would never be able to consider those things. And if we have these inherent rights then why don’t animals consider, let alone respect, them? Why didn’t nature provide for some sort of protection of those rights?
I prefer reason over passion.
So? Feel free to climb to the top of your local courthouse at 2am with a bullhorn and read a libertarian manifesto at the top of your lungs, and then, in court claim that “my free speech rights aren’t granted by the state!!” See if that gets you anywhere.
You can pretend rights are absolute and not subject to trade-offs. Doesn’t matter.
I didn’t expect a “snowflake”-esque response here - I simply didn’t euphemize the wrong we are trying to correct. And, an “appeal to emotion” is a specific kind of logical fallacy, not merely using blunt/emotive language.
Could it prevent future ones? Yes or no?
This is pretty accurate - it is a fantasyland. It’s a new ideology driven by fantasy and fetish, and resitant to reason. That’s no insult - that’s a description.
Of course it does, and should. I don’t disagree. But we’ve already decided uts effective - background checks already exist for certain purchases. The idea is to take that already-agreed upon benefit and extend it. That would be effective, right?
Ok, but not significant.
Juvenile paranoia is never good policy, but in event, that (largely non)risk is outweighed by the benefit of the effectiveness of an (already agreed upon) good policy. The incremental chance some database bureaucrat does something bad with the info is worth less than than the incremental chance of helping prevent a mass shooting.
Trade offs, again, in the real world.
Addressed. There are no real costs except the heightened stress levels of those who see a federal marshall behind every tree in the neighborhood.
1 Like
I don’t think they’re “bad people” and we’ll set aside how they feel about people who suggest reasonable restrictiona on guns (“traitors! Statists! Thieves!”). I just think they are naive and subscribe to an adolescent form of politics that never seems to grow up, despite the fact that experience demands that it do.
And, candidly, for some of them (not saying you), the ideology is truly based on a fantasy they have that one day, these desk jockey by day “couch commandos” are going to be called into service to fight for crown and country with their secondary market ARs against invading troops, or worse, Federales from D.C.trying to “trample muh rights!” Since none if this will ever, ever happen, that shouldn’t figure into the calculus of policy.
2 Likes
I see that too… Seems like Lefts ideas are too crazy…Rights ideas seem non existant… As usual somewhere in the middle would be a healthy compromise that might do some good but its all about getting votes not actually helping a problem… same ol same ol… Always been curiouse as to UBC why thats a issue and would it prevent anything… I think Vegas shooter could not have been prevented just damage control be getting rid of bump stocks…maybe that guy was wealthy so maybe not… but the church guy, Sandy hook, VT shooter could possibly have been prevented they had weird historys. Also for everyone of these that make national TV theres a bunch that dont. Last week a dude shot up a wallmart killing 3 and some other one. Alot of these guys are nuts. IMO nothing wrong with being a gun collector hunting ect but if you have violent history or demonstated some crazy shit then you waive that right. Theyve really gotta come up with a way to let decent folk have guns and do a better job screening these fucks.
1 Like
The truth is probably that, if we wanted to severely cut down on mass shootings and shootings in general, we would have to adopt the same policies you see in places like many European nations. That’s really the choice we face. Much stricter laws or accept the violence.
You sort of answer your own question then:
Not even remotely close to what I did or said though. Should I type it out again? Or will you continue to ignore the parts of my responses that don’t let you vent your hatred of libertarians?
I don’t know. That’s the whole point of the discussion. Anything could happen, hence the reason for policy discussions. YOu know, try and figure out the “coulds”.
You don’t like libertarians, we get it, I promise.
You’re making assumptions others aren’t. Namely the effectiveness of BGC’s.
Secondly, you are continuously ignoring the fact that I’ve stated several times now, that if you want BGC’s then actually compromise. Give up something to get them. I’ve given you two issues that would more likely than not, in my opinion, have plenty of people backing UBGC’s.
A lot of the resistance in the gun rights community is on lack of compromise. We, generally speaking, feel like the it’s a zero sum game for either side, and we don’t want to lose anywhere, let alone in the places were we’ve won.
You decry the republicans for electing “scream at your TV” teaparty types, but don’t see the lack of compromise I’ve mentioned a couple times now here? Why not?
The entire point of that was to point out your “zero cost” statement was wrong…
Again, this is objectively false dude, as you noted above. Not significant =/= not real. I know you can’t help but toss out contemptuous insults of others during these discussions, but give me a break.
Yes, and constantly twisting your responses so you can insult them is sure to get your policies through lol…
It’s wonderful you have this faith in the future. Not everyone does. And unfortunately for you, their input does actually matter when it comes to getting policy passed.
mistake by the airforce is the only reason he passed his. But remember, TB said database issues were a non-issue and people are paranoid…
Murdered his mother to get the firearm. No BGC check is stopping that.
I believe he passed his BGC’s.
If one is convicted of a felony, even non violent, one is a prohibited person via federal law. Do we want to add misdemeanors to that list? Some states already do.
Again, involuntarily being committed makes one a PP. Do you want to add to this?
That brings up the question: who decides what is or isn’t crazy? Do any of us really want the trump administration in charge of dictating what is or isn’t crazy?
If you want to expand the policy already in place, and want it supported, you’ll need to be very specific and detailed in your policy.
Why wasn’t it such an issue in the 70’s?
As a realist not an idealist I think that will never happen. Baby steps man… Something if it prevents one of these is a step in right direction. Its really crazy no place is safe these days… You name it so far we had mass shooting in almost every kinda place…Except a big sporting event but honestly I think thats coming. I was at a Chiefs game and starring into a high rise hotel I thought this could be next Vegas. I should just enjoy the game but these days going to buy groceries is a ?
You mean restrictive laws like France? That’s how we’ll avoid mass shootings?
Drunk driving wasn’t an issue either, but it happened.
There is also probably a greater availability of semiautomatic rifles now than in the 70s.
I think those attackers were not French.
You said trade-offs were a non-starter because of your view on where rights originate. I said your view doesn’t matter all that much - the trade-offs exist in the real world regardless. What have I misunderstood?
You don’t know? Seriously? Of course it could. Of course. This is yet again where because of ideology (“cannot…concede…any…restriction…could…help”), you say nonsensical things.
Oh, I’m far from done on libertarians.
The laws exist - who is calling for their repeal based on lack of effectiveness? You? Anyone?
But yourr just negotiating for more “stuff” - you haven’t made a policy argument why allowing suppressora, etc. are a good thing. In other words, you want compromise not in the name of achieving some progress on two good policy ends - you just want to exchange a vote for stuff you want.
Ok. But suspect. If UBC would help do something good, why not just support it? If it is intrinsically good?
Because the compromise you seek doesn’t seek the public interest - it serves a special interest. There isn’t a bunch of chin pulling over the efficacy of keeping suppressors off the market. You just want more “stuff” without explaining why the public interest (the point of policy) is served by doing what you suggest.
Make the case why the public would be better off with the things you want “traded” for UBC. Because until you do, “compromise” just sounds like “hold good policy hostage until we get special stuff we want.”).
I see, more pedantics.
Your thin skin aside, what I said isn’t wrong - is not the drive of many a result of fear of the feds coming to get their stuff?
Ain’t gonna happen. It’s a silly fantasy. And if the feds truly ever went rogue turned on these libertarian redoubts, they’d lay waste to the entire area before a single round was fired from libertarian camp.