Chatham County Online BBS
October 23, 2014, 02:39:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read the best Chatlist posts at Chatham Chatlist Highlights
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Can there be a middle ground?  (Read 10098 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 12:44:53 AM
Date Registerd:February 21, 2006, 12:25:33 AM
Posts: 9765



« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2012, 01:45:19 AM »

Taste and nutritional value are two completely different things. Crow may taste awful, but it will keep one alive in time of need. And some stuff coated in chocolate may actually be BS and thus may be poison to our system, no matter how sweet the coating.
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 02:15:49 AM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7882


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2012, 01:57:10 AM »

Taste and nutritional value are two completely different things. Crow may taste awful, but it will keep one alive in time of need. And some stuff coated in chocolate may actually be BS and thus may be poison to our system, no matter how sweet the coating.

True.  I'll settle for the stuff that doesn't taste so bad and won't poison me.  Better start feeding the tree rats.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 02:15:49 AM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7882


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2012, 02:22:34 AM »

"Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, in her classic testimony, addresses it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/128878.html#.UNDZZdkU3No.blogger

Go watch it.  Please.  Even if you've seen it, it's worth watching again if for nothing more than her last statement.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 02:15:49 AM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7882


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2012, 02:37:02 AM »

Bob Owens validates hb727

"The fabled “assault weapons ban.”

Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).

To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.

That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.

The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of  largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” – a term that was created by the law itself – if it had two or more of the following features:"

The rest at the link.

Dang.  Now I hafta get after Owens and his little dog too.  Work .... never done.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
tiredofbs
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 10, 2013, 08:58:33 PM
Date Registerd:April 16, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Posts: 181


« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2012, 07:00:17 AM »

Thanks to those who took the time to post thoughtful replies. I must go off to work, but I look forward to more discussion later. I think the first step in opening meaningful discourse is for thoughtful people to examine their positions and listen to others’ concerns. It would be good to think we here on this bulletin board were able to do just that; I know I have done much reflection since last Friday.
Logged
tiredofbs
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 10, 2013, 08:58:33 PM
Date Registerd:April 16, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Posts: 181


« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2012, 05:39:57 PM »

Jack Stevens,

Thank you for your honest and personal reply. I greatly appreciate that you are willing to have an open and reasoned discussion. You seem to have found a real middle ground that makes sense to me.

Thanks also for your clarification regarding the interpretation of the term “assault weapon.” While I tend to agree with Mary’s comment yesterday, I will try to avoid using that term in future discussions.

Your position on the “cooling off” or waiting period seems extremely reasonable, and I definitely agree that a more thorough background check would be an excellent idea. Would people who tend to be more opposed to controls of any sort go along with that, do you think? And would they be willing to pay the associated costs?

And your statement about not having a problem with restricting the purchase of automatic weapons is quite refreshing, since I believe that many posters here may not share that opinion.

You have also made a bit clearer to me why some folks (not implying anything about you) so thoroughly resent what looks like uneducated meddling, and I am now a bit closer to understanding the passion with which many assert what have oftentimes in the past looked to me to overly dramatic defenses of the right to own guns.

I also have come to agree (almost) completely with your last paragraph. I think mandatory weapons training is an excellent idea, and I agree that teaching people from a young age to respect the weapon and to use it safely might save countless lives in this country.

As I have come to respect your reasoning and thinking on this, how do you feel about raising the age for purchasing a gun? (Before anyone jumps on me, I do understand that wouldn’t have mattered in Connecticut.) Would it make sense to raise the age of purchasing a weapon to, say, 25? I do understand that lots of kids hunt, so perhaps they could be allowed to buy some rifles in a more limited fashion? Or at least have to produce some proof of attending weapons safety classes?

And, although I know very little about terminology (as evidenced by my inflammatory use of “assault weapons”), would it make sense to limit the sales of ammunition clips capable of holding more than maybe 5 or 10 rounds?

Thanks again; I am learning. And even if I come to support much more limited sales of some weapons, I feel that my exploring the question with people, many of whom feel exactly opposite than I on many matters, will make my own conclusions much better informed.
Logged
tiredofbs
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 10, 2013, 08:58:33 PM
Date Registerd:April 16, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Posts: 181


« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2012, 05:50:56 PM »

Jeff,

Thanks for taking the time to compose such a lengthy and obviously painstakingly composed and documented reply. I agree with some things you said and disagree with others, but I have to admit that you sort of lost me when you said: “The worst offenders are school teachers, . . . Teachers lying to students are particularly mendacious; those who use students for political protest (and there are many) or who selectively teach that collectivism is somehow superior and will "work" (even though history shows it never has) and then argue that they are somehow "special" and should have "retirements" that are guaranteed at a level that nobody else can achieve in private industry are in fact trying to defend the right to financially hornswoggle their students!”

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do have several teachers in my extended family, and I know how beaten up and demoralized they have become in the past few years; they seem to have become for some a convenient whipping boy, and it seems that every year they are expected to do more and more, and every year, their salary remains stuck while they pay more for things like health care benefits. We can definitely shelve that discussion for another time, as I think it is not really addressing the central question of the thread.

However, I wonder how you square your (apparent) disdain for teachers with suggestions put forward by some that teachers should be armed? It would seem to be a really bad idea to arm teachers if they are indeed so mendacious, but maybe I am missing something here.

I greatly appreciate the time you spent gathering information to support your position. While I, personally, disagree with the notion that having heavily armed citizens roaming the streets unregulated is a net positive, let alone that it would increase general safety, I acknowledge that you have put thought into the issue and I respect that your conclusions are not the simple and simplistic knee jerk responses of some on the right.

While it may be true that many, if not all, of our society’s problems are due to a loose and relative morality, how do you propose we could fix that? Not trying to argue, but short of mandating and/or brainwashing, how would you change the general tenor of the populace?

Again, thanks for your willingness to engage in a dialogue.

Axiomatic and 1911:

Thanks to you as well. We have agreed on very little here on this bulletin board, but I think we can agree that people who presently own guns are certainly always going to be able to keep them.
Only a fool would think or propose the notion of taking weapons away from people who already own them. Even IF some might think it a good idea, it clearly could never happen. So, is there anything that can be on the table regarding more restrictions on either automatic weapons or large clips?
Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 02:15:49 AM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7882


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2012, 06:17:12 PM »

Quote
While I, personally, disagree with the notion that having heavily armed citizens roaming the streets unregulated is a net positive, let alone that it would increase general safety ..

And yet, they do increase general safety.  You've been provided with links and stats -- "More Guns, Less Crime" -- and you still choose to disagree.  Your prerogative, of course. As a matter of fact, there are many, many heavily armed people "roaming the streets", regulated AND unregulated, of which you are simply unaware because they don't advertise and there remains a mysterious absence of street shoot-outs among these folks and others who just go about their business.

Quote
1911:

Thanks to you as well. We have agreed on very little here on this bulletin board, but I think we can agree that people who presently own guns are certainly always going to be able to keep them.
Only a fool would think or propose the notion of taking weapons away from people who already own them. Even IF some might think it a good idea, it clearly could never happen. So, is there anything that can be on the table regarding more restrictions on either automatic weapons or large clips?

I took the time to write a lengthy post, and then added another, correcting both Jack and myself, by clarifying that the use of "assault weapon" was made applicable and correct by law in reference to certain semi-automatics, and issued an apology to you to boot.  Perhaps you missed it or hadn't enough time, but you've omitted acknowledgement of both, and instead are NOW referring to guns that shoot one bullet to one trigger pull as "automatic".   And they're not "clips", they're magazines.

I've come to the conclusion that you intend to believe what you feel and will feel better about what you believe when anybody validates any of that, such as Jack did, so there's little to no point in my trying to educate you further nor in more conversation.

The problem is not the guns, nor their parts and pieces and accessories, it's bad and evil people.

So, NO, no more restrictions.  The answer is NO.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 04:35:33 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3508



« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2012, 06:20:46 PM »

Tiredofbs,

What you seem to be asking is whether or not there's some further restrictions or hurdles to gun ownership that can be put on the table.  At the end of the day, you are asking for more regulation.

But what I think you are missing is that if in fact you are calling for suggestions for more regulation, you also have to offer some sort of logical explanation as to how further regulation will work.  Otherwise, we're simply passing laws for the sake of passing laws.

For example, limiting magazines to 5 or 10 rounds does very little.  It only takes a couple of seconds to reload.  So what is the purpose of such a law?  The only real purpose is to further restrict my rights.  That kind of round limitations has an effect on shooting sports, especially competitive ones like 3 Gun.  

The burden of proof for making more gun laws should not be placed upon those who want to keep their rights.  Rather, the burden of proof should be placed on those who want to infringe upon them.  Since you are the one wanting further regulation, you should be making an ironclad case as to how the last ban had some sort of impact.

But if you were to take the time to research it and look at data sources other than the Brady Campaign, which have made some really bad assumptions with respect to the data, you would find that the last ban did nothing to curb crime.  And since the ban ended, the crime rate did not respond as gun control advocates predicted.

Case in point:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-under-2-percent-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons/article/2516512#.UNORTbbBRvJ

Despite their overwhelming popularity, assault weapons like the rifle used by the Sandy Hook Elementary killer are very rarely used in crimes, according to a comprehensive Congressional Research Service report on guns and gun control legislation.

Citing a survey of 203,300 state and federal prisoners who were armed during the crime for which they were incarcerated, "fewer than 1 in 50, or less than 2 percent, used, carried, or possessed a semiautomatic assault weapon," said the report.

The weapons, however, are at the center of President Obama's bid to put in place new gun control rules following the Connecticut killings last week. His effort, backed by gun-control Democrats, is expected to lead to a new proposal to ban the weapons and also crack down on gun sales throughout the nation.

While the emotionally-charged anti-gun bid is accepted by many Americans and congressional lawmakers still coming to grips with the Sandy Hook killings, the CRS report makes the case that even without the tougher weapons rules, gun deaths are plummeting as gun sales are surging, including those of semiautomatic pistols and rifles. Gun advocates are seizing on the report to help brake new gun-control legislation which they claim would do nothing to stop crime.

Consider gun ownership. "Per capita," said CRS, "the civilian gun stock has roughly doubled since 1968, from one gun per every two persons to one gun per person."

Then look at gun deaths. CRS found that in the last decade, from 1993 to 2011, gun-related murders have been cut in half. In 1993, there were 17,073 gun killings, for a rate of 6.6 per 100,000 people. Last year that was cut to 9,903 murders for a rate of 3.2 per 100,000. Over the past decade, suicides by guns have far outnumbered murders.

And the drop in youth killings by guns has been even greater, from a 1993 high of 1,975 to 887 in 2009, said CRS.



In other words, if you want to infringe upon my rights, it is on you to make the case for it.  It is almost as if you want us to choose the method of our own punishment.  That's a pretty cold hearted way of going about this conversation, don't you think?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 06:30:39 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
tiredofbs
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 10, 2013, 08:58:33 PM
Date Registerd:April 16, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Posts: 181


« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2012, 06:31:39 PM »

1911:

Sorry, I did miss your apology. I was trying really hard to read, or at least look at, all of the links Jeff so painstakingly provided. I did read and appreciate your post, and I apologize that I was not careful enough in realizing that it was you, yourself, who you referenced in the “eating crow” comment. My omission, and my apologies.

I am grateful for reasoned discussion, and I regret that I did not sufficiently acknowledge your response, and that I misread or misinterpreted your comments.

I am sincerely interested in hearing from people here on this board, and I have learned quite a lot. Even when we disagree, I think we can learn from each other. Thanks for enlightening me about “clips” versus “magazines.” Clearly my youthful activities did not provide me with a very comprehensive education, but we were probably drunk!  Smiley
Logged
tiredofbs
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 10, 2013, 08:58:33 PM
Date Registerd:April 16, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Posts: 181


« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2012, 06:37:25 PM »

Pi,

I continue to learn. Perhaps it is true that smaller magazines (thanks, 1911) would make no difference in these sorts of crimes; obviously I don’t know much about that. But, setting aside for the moment your assertions about your rights, why does anyone need huge amounts of ammunition that quickly?
A sincere question.
Logged
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2012, 06:46:22 PM »

tiredof bs:

Please understand when I mentioned "teachers," it was NOT in a "universal" sense. NOT ALL teachers have such a proclivity as I alluded to. I would have thought such would be a reasonable inference. Nor should it be reasonably inferred that ALL teachers should arm themselves in the name of public safety. It seems it would once again be reasonable to assume that ONLY those who qualify with necessary training and all else that encompasses the "wherewithal" to safely do such.

Also, whatever in the world is the difference between 'heavily armed," and "armed"? Is this something you envision when you conjure up thoughts of a CCW holder? I'm just asking, as I honestly haven't a good understanding as to the basis of your views.

Further, although it is tried every day by our elected officials, morality cannot be legislated (at least not in the sense I'm referring to), which should be clear already to everyone. It hasn't worked well up to this point. After all, legislating morality is what happens whenever certain bills are passed and become law. Sure, there are many folks who look to political figures and celebrities as if they are gods (in a sense this is what happens when they become so attached and biased), and will go along with whatever is mandated due to the fact they believe something may be for the general good of all, without giving much (if any) critical thought.

Lastly, in hopes of effecting the overall morality of our society, the first thing to get people to understand is IF it's true there is a theist God, and He died on a cross so we all could be reconciled to Him, THEN the need for salvation that is available for all applies to everyone regardless of "felt" need. The basis of which I've tried to cover in a couple of the posts I previously provided links.

As Christians, we are supposed to be "salt" to the world, and Christ told us, "What can you do when the salt loses it saltiness?" Many Christians (and thus Christianity) have lost the "saltiness" and it must be reattained through critical thinking and defense of the faith, otherwise, we cannot impact the world for Christ as He intended. Fact is, Christianity is viewed mostly by the secular world as an emotional crutch because of the way the Gospel is pitched to them. Most reply that they have no "need" for such an emotional crutch. But, as previously mentioned, if Christianity is true, then it applies to all regardless of any "perceived" need.

Anyway, the above simply serves as a starting point with much work to be done thereafter.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 06:53:11 PM by Jeff G » Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 02:15:49 AM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7882


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2012, 06:58:12 PM »

Alright, t.o.bs, you're welcome.

Further ...



... that ^^ is one type of magazine for a handgun ....



.... this ^^ is another, for a rifle.



..... this ^^ is a clip, sometimes known as a stripper clip, which makes loading the magazine or the rifle easier and faster.

TMI?
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 04:35:33 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3508



« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2012, 07:00:42 PM »

Pi,

I continue to learn. Perhaps it is true that smaller magazines (thanks, 1911) would make no difference in these sorts of crimes; obviously I don’t know much about that. But, setting aside for the moment your assertions about your rights, why does anyone need huge amounts of ammunition that quickly?
A sincere question.



Why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit?  When exactly does "need" become the litmus test for whether or not someone gets to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

But let me outline a scenario for you where several rounds might be needed to defend yourself and your family.  Most of the time, when people think about burglaries, they imagine one guy climbing in a window.  But that isn't always the case.

Sometimes there are three bad guys:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/stunning-home-invasion-caught-on-tape-in-arizona/

Sometimes there are 4 or 5 of them:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8856873

Four in this instance:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8915643

What if they come in heavily armed, and again, there are several of them:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715

Remember that story not so long ago about the man who was some sort of philantropist on an estate?  I will try to find the story, but there was something like 8 home invaders that hit him all at the same time.  He and his family never had a chance.

A double barrel shotgun is not going to be sufficient.  There are time when you need several rounds.  When people are under stress, their accuracy goes down.  Maybe in some of the movies they only need one bullet per bad guy.  But in the real world it doesn't always work like that.

Again, I just want to repeat that what you feel I need or don't need is not the issue.  You should make a case as to whether or not such a law is necessary, and that the benefits of said law somehow outweigh my rights.  I'm sorry, but you can't just push my point about the right to bear arms aside.  If you cannot show that limiting magazines makes any difference, then why have the restriction?

I hope that you will change your mind once you've seen and understood our point of view.  I really believe this comes down to making symbolic legislation.  And I think that with almost no exceptions, the people that support these regulations don't understand firearms very well.  Perhaps it is that since shooting sports are not that important to you, neither is the right to bear arms.  Of course, you might not want to see all guns banned, but you don't feel any loss of freedom if these laws were put into effect.

But let me put it this way: I am not homosexual.  I have never been homosexual.  I have no desire to marry or enter into a civil union with a man.  However, just because the recent marriage amendment didn't affect me personally, and I perceive no personal loss to my freedom, it doesn't mean that freedom isn't lost. If we begin to define our rights as such if and only when they affect us personally, then eventually none of us stand up for each other.

And so, the powers that be, because of their desire for power, will come for each of us in turn.  Today it is guns.  Tomorrow perhaps it is wire tapping to the extent that every single call made is recorded and screened.  At what point do we band together and say that enough is enough?

What is happening is that the powers that be have setup this left/right dichotomy in order to play us off against one another.  We fail to recognize it at our own peril.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 07:12:51 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
hb727
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:June 13, 2013, 06:16:10 PM
Date Registerd:October 12, 2008, 07:35:36 PM
Posts: 1847



« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2012, 07:19:34 PM »

Pi,

I continue to learn. Perhaps it is true that smaller magazines (thanks, 1911) would make no difference in these sorts of crimes; obviously I don’t know much about that. But, setting aside for the moment your assertions about your rights, why does anyone need huge amounts of ammunition that quickly?
A sincere question.



TBS,

While you're waiting on Pi's response, I'll give you my opinion and I expect you've heard it before.

I'm going to say that there are millions of people in this country who, because of our financial situation, genuinely fear an economic collapse. They don't have to be categorized as hard-core "preppers" to realize that if that collapse comes, there will be more victims of crime than we've ever seen.

I truly believe that, if the folks who now depend solely on the government, and probably people who have been laid off from their private sector jobs, suddenly find themselves with no money, they will resort to whatever is necessary to keep from going hungry or perhaps even to whatever is necessary to maintain the standard of living they are accustomed to. This would be a situation where the government has no more money to hand out, or what they do hand out, buys literally nothing. This potential scenario has a lot of people frightened and, I think, rightfully so.

In light of all this, people are doing whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves which, of course, includes stocking up on weapons and ammunition to protect your family, yourself, and your property. I doubt you share the feeling of many of us, who have been around for a while, who believe, in the absence of some exrtraordinary feat, we're approaching the end of our rope on debt and deficits. It just cannot possibly go on, just as if a family were paying its mortgage with credit cards, that cannot continue for very long. IOW, it's frightening.

Here's a glimpse of "reported" crime that has occurred in Durham over the last 8-9 days. Durham County is our adjacent county and I live only a few miles from where many of these crimes took place.

Imagine what's going to happen in extremely tough times when those who are in urban areas run out of money and things to steal... there. Notice the high number of burglaries, robberies, and assaults, along with the thefts.

http://www.spotcrime.com/nc/durham

« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 07:25:50 PM by hb727 » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!