Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Common Sense Gun Control Pt. 2

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Common Sense Gun Control Pt. 2

Unread postby Cog » Sat 01 Feb 2020, 09:16:35

This is what happens when the Second Amendment is conflated with hunting or target practice. In many European countries, yeah you can have your hunting rifles or shotguns but they are kept locked up at a hunting club inaccessible to you except for the purposes of hunting or sighting in your gun. That is the type of gun ownership that the left envisions. Guns totally useless for the purpose of why the Second Amendment was created. Regarding guns for self-defense, forget about that entirely. New Zealand and Australia, as well as most European countries recognize no right to keep arms for that reason. Only for hunting or pest control.

Most states have well developed seasons and regulations for hunting various types of animals. The gun control people can easily make the argument that you don't need access to those guns unless its actually hunting season. Most if not all the Democrat candidates view gun ownership within the scope of hunting or target practice alone. Conceal carry or even ownership of guns for self-defense makes them quite queasy. Unfortunately Fudd gun-owners view gun ownership exactly the same way.

As much as I like the US Constitution and see it as a masterful work of organizing political power and recognizing our individual rights, its still just a piece of paper with writing on it. Ultimately the rights contained within can only be enforced by bearing arms. Some people trust police or the military as those agencies which protect rights. But history has shown its the people themselves who safeguard their rights and governments trample on them.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13377
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 01 Feb 2020, 11:24:37

Cog,

I don’t support much gun legislation, if at all, depending upon how you define it.

One thing I do support is requiring gun owners to be responsible for their own weapons. I’m thinking of those few irresponsible folks who buy then resell guns to otherwise ineligible folks. When the serial number is chased down to them they say the gun was stolen.

My suggestion is to require gun owners to secure their weapons against theft. If someone repeatedly looses weapons to theft, let’s say 3 instances, then he has shown himself irresponsible and is barred from having weapons.

I would like your thoughts on this particular suggestion.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Sat 01 Feb 2020, 19:18:13

State laws vary. In my state I'm required to report a missing or stolen gun WHEN, I become aware of it. I thinks it's a fine or low level misdemeanor not to.

Securing guns is something a prudent gun owner does, especially around children. But any gun safe can be breached with pry bars and Sawzalls.

I'm ok with reporting a stolen gun. If it's used in a crime and recovered, it will trace back to you if you bought it at a FFL. Not a fan of charging people with a crime or taking their guns away because they had guns stold multiple times . Some people live in high crime areas. House break ins are common. I am for charging parents with criminal neligence if their kid accidently shoots himself with an unsecured gun though.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13377
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby evilgenius » Sun 02 Feb 2020, 11:22:04

Cog wrote:This is what happens when the Second Amendment is conflated with hunting or target practice. In many European countries, yeah you can have your hunting rifles or shotguns but they are kept locked up at a hunting club inaccessible to you except for the purposes of hunting or sighting in your gun. That is the type of gun ownership that the left envisions. Guns totally useless for the purpose of why the Second Amendment was created. Regarding guns for self-defense, forget about that entirely. New Zealand and Australia, as well as most European countries recognize no right to keep arms for that reason. Only for hunting or pest control.

Most states have well developed seasons and regulations for hunting various types of animals. The gun control people can easily make the argument that you don't need access to those guns unless its actually hunting season. Most if not all the Democrat candidates view gun ownership within the scope of hunting or target practice alone. Conceal carry or even ownership of guns for self-defense makes them quite queasy. Unfortunately Fudd gun-owners view gun ownership exactly the same way.

As much as I like the US Constitution and see it as a masterful work of organizing political power and recognizing our individual rights, its still just a piece of paper with writing on it. Ultimately the rights contained within can only be enforced by bearing arms. Some people trust police or the military as those agencies which protect rights. But history has shown its the people themselves who safeguard their rights and governments trample on them.

I think the reason why Europe is like that is because of their experience with charismatic populist leaders who have risen up in various countries, usually from a small power base. Violence was never far from those people's minds. Populist gun ownership would only feed that form of tyranny. Experience is their teacher. It's true that they don't see all sides of the situation, but they do see a valid side.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 06 Feb 2020, 10:12:49

Evil,

It’s interesting how your thoughts intertwine with Cog’s arguments.

Could make for an interesting night over a couple of 6 packs.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby evilgenius » Sun 09 Feb 2020, 09:30:56

Tanada wrote:
evilgenius wrote:
Cog wrote:You want a gun registry accessible to the general public so people exercising their rights can be harrassed, fired, or intimidated? Gee, wonder why us gun owners might not embrace this?

Equal rights! For everybody, not just one particular faction. Any true patriot would embrace that.


Under that standard shouldn't every abortion be published on an easy to access webpage so that pro-life believers can avoid hiring or associating with these particular individuals?

I don't know. Does abortion rise to the same level of nondeterminism which we reach when we argue over silencers, or bump stocks? Just because each side has bedrock reasons for taking their position, and they are at loggerheads, doesn't necessary mean that the definition of the thing is indeterminable. Actually, it has a perfect set of definitions. It has two of them. How's that for referencing abortion and not getting into what I think about it?

So, not clouding the issue with my own take on the morality of it, we can see a difference. As I said, when I was introducing the idea, it's not about registering the obvious. No pistols or hunting rifles. This is about those things which can be fetishes for those who push this issue too far. Referencing abortion, in whatever way may be pertinent, it might well be like registering those who've been convicted of attacking an abortion doctor because they are the ones who take that issue as far as mass shooters take the gun issue. You might find out a woman's name because a protester attacked her at a clinic, but only because of the attack. It wouldn't be any kind of carte blanche affair. This is about listening to the people's fears. Trying to find a compromise which doesn't overreach.

I don't know that much good comes out of being afraid. We learn to avoid those things for which there is an experiential reason for us to avoid them. We also feel the same way about things we have no experience with. Trying to fill in the gap of knowledge, as to whether we should be afraid, is very hard. Go too far and you risk the very society you intend to protect.

I also stated when I introduced the idea that my faith in the gun lobby is actually strong. I trust them to fight overreaching. In fact, I suggested that as a result of their success doing that precedents may be set. Those precedents could have impacts upon other issues within society. I gave the example of how someone who gets fired for suddenly appearing on the registry may fight back and set a precedent that gay people could use to not get fired for suddenly being found out to be gay. Such is the power of an indeterminate issue. Their definitions are owned by so many groups within society, in vastly differing ways, that they make contact upon so many other spheres within society. Again, the bipolar issue of abortion doesn't do that. It's similar to the difference between an official and unofficial issue. Or, whether something rises to the point of becoming a new thing, like some new art style (complete with definitions), or staying fluid within the minds of the culture.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.


Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests