Boston Marathon hit by explosions - gun derail

[laklak]

But but but - we can't judge ALL muslims or ALL welfare recipients by the actions of a few! We can, however, judge gun owners by the actions of a few. I'm still trying to get my inbred redneck head around the difference, I'm probably just not smart enough.

[pErvinalia]

There's an obvious way to link owning guns with killing with guns. But there's no logical link between getting welfare and blowing up random people.





*But to be clear, I don't particularly argue that guns should be banned/regulated because of a small minority. It just makes sense to me (that they should be more heavily regulated).

[Seth]

But but but - we can't judge ALL muslims or ALL welfare recipients by the actions of a few! We can, however, judge gun owners by the actions of a few. I'm still trying to get my inbred redneck head around the difference, I'm probably just not smart enough.

No, you're plenty smart, it's the argument you dissect that's idiotic. But thanks for the sarcasm anyway, it needed to be said.

[Seth]

There's an obvious way to link owning guns with killing with guns.

And that would be, pray tell?

I've owned guns since I was 10 years old and haven't killed anybody...yet.

But there's no logical link between getting welfare and blowing up random people.

The argument is not that getting welfare is causal, it's that our Progressive government is so focused on getting people (even political refugees/moles) on government assistance that it will pay to support perfectly healthy terrorists not to work so they can plan their attacks at their leisure.

*But to be clear, I don't particularly argue that guns should be banned/regulated because of a small minority. It just makes sense to me (that they should be more heavily regulated).

Why? And how? And what are the unintended consequences of doing so?

Those are all questions that hoplophobes refuse to consider in their mindless chant for gun control.

I would love to have a truly effective universal background and mental health check for every firearms owner or purchaser. I have no desire for criminals to obtain guns any more than anyone else does.

However, as a gun owner I must consider carefully exactly HOW we might go about this because historically, the methods demanded by hoplophobes have always been used to facilitate gun bans and seizures. Every. Single. Time.

So, unless you can come up with a system that will protect me and my rights as a law abiding citizen to demand that the government not infringe on my RKBA that is foolproof, I'll opt for dealing with the inevitability of criminals getting weapons somehow myself rather than create a system which allows a despotic government to identify me as a gun owner, identify what guns I have, and which facilitates the government in finding me so it can seize my guns.

The problem is that the two goals are mutually exclusive.

Any background check system that will be completely effective in screening out criminals and the insane necessarily requires a central database of ALL individuals and their mental health and criminal status, at the very least. This means that I must submit to being identified and tracked by the government at all times, both socially and medically, so that when I seek to buy a gun the database will be accurate and government agents reviewing it will make a proper decision about my qualifications to own a gun.

The mere creation of such databases makes it certain that anyone seeking a firearm will be so identified in those databases, which means that the government has sufficient tracking information to facilitate the seizure of arms from the individual.

That's simply intolerable. The safeguard of an armed citizenry against government tyranny demands that the government NOT know who has the guns or where they are.

And to answer the inevitable question, no, you can't just make a database of gun owners, you have to have records on EVERYONE so that ANYONE who seeks a firearm can be screened. Moreover, because one's criminal and mental health status can change literally overnight, this database must be frequently updated, which requires ubiquitous surveillance and data gathering by government.

So, the test is failed right there, before we even get to the necessary database of firearms, which just compounds the problem.

And the final fatal blow to the notion is that no matter how carefully the government tracks gun owners and/or guns, criminals will always operate outside the law and will therefore be outside the databases, and all of the purported benefits of the system will vanish, leaving nothing more than an infringement of the rights of the very people who are LEAST likely to engage in armed criminality while doing NOTHING to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally.

So a "universal background check" system is simply not possible, acceptable or effective, even if it works perfectly in tracking those who use the system voluntarily.

That makes "universal background checks" nothing more than a stalking-horse term for "gun ban and confiscation data collection" by those who are intent on seizing guns from the People using a step-by-step plan to create the systems needed to identify gun owners and their guns so that they can be visited and/or arrested when their guns are outlawed.

And we gun owners are perfectly aware of the fact that those who advocate such systems have exactly that result in mind, and have been working for decades to achieve it.

That's why we refuse to comply with those "reasonable gun control proposals." We know you are lying about your motives and intents and we refuse to trust you any longer, because we've been lied to so many times.

No more. We're going to stand our ground and refuse to give one single inch of the battlefield...and we intend to retake the field and destroy those who are enemies of the Constitution, and therefore enemies of the People.

[JimC]

Enemies of the people, eh...

A good Stalinist phrase if I ever heard one...

[Collector1337]

Enemies of the people, eh...

A good Stalinist phrase if I ever heard one...

Well, I know that I consider those who seek to oppress me my enemy.

[Ian]

Could you pass a background check? If so then any problem you have with requiring then in general boils down to paranoia.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Could you pass a background check? If so then any problem you have with requiring then in general boils down to paranoia.

Or lack of cash. A Barrett ain't cheap. (Saw two today at the Secret Policeman's St. Louis Ball.)

[Collector1337]

Could you pass a background check? If so then any problem you have with requiring then in general boils down to paranoia.

I see that you've clearly exercised zero critical thinking on the subject. Nor do you have the education or training required to make you competent in deeming what is "paranoid" or not.

There's certainly a plethora of armchair psychologists around here who love to call anything and everything they feel like "paranoid."

[Ian]

It's a defense mechanism if you think I'm uneducated or have done no real thinking on the issue. That would make it easier, wouldn't it? Because how can anyone who has seriously thought about the matter not come to the conclusion that background checks are a bad idea on the road to oppression, right?

People in favor of greater restrictions on firearms are reacting to a legitimate grievance. Maybe such things won't do as much good as we think, but we've identified a problem and have proposed some realistic solutions. You guys just have paranoid fantasies about how background checks (heaven forbid) will only lead to more and more tyranny. Your post above about oppression and so on just drips with fear, which is very much the default stance of gun fetishists (that and selfishness). And there's nothing original there, just regurgitations of NRA talking points. Which might be OK except that the NRA does not speak for gun owners like you and me - they speak for gun manufacturers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's certainly a plethora of armchair psychologists around here who love to call anything and everything they feel like "paranoid."

Reading your posts would be enough for that Dx.

[Seth]

Could you pass a background check? If so then any problem you have with requiring then in general boils down to paranoia.

No, it boils down to privacy and a healthy distrust of government, something which the Founders embodied in the Constitution by making the document, particularly the Bill of Rights, a charter of negative liberties which place fetters on the ability of the government to interfere with the individual. They had good reason to distrust government, having just freed themselves at great cost from the iron grip of Mad King George.

Your cavalier attitude about the nature of government displays a gross lack of understanding of history and human nature, and a high degree of gullibility and mindless obedience. I'd rather be paranoid, if that's what I...and billions of others who likewise have a perfectly sound and rational mistrust of the supposedly benign nature of government. Government is a great evil. A necessary evil in some cases, but evil nonetheless, which must be fettered and bound tightly by those it seeks to rule in order to preserve their liberties, their property, and their lives.

Blind, sheep-like trust in the beneficence of government such as yours is nothing more than willful ignorance and genetic stupidity and people who have this trait are a grave danger to the freedom of everyone else because, as we see, as they become more and more dependent on government for their survival, they cede more and more freedom to government until there is no freedom left for them to enjoy, and along with their fetters they place chains on everyone else in their infantile quest for the Mommy State to take care of them.

That makes them slaves. And idiots who are probably undeserving of sympathy or assistance from those who are smart enough to see the danger and fight against the excesses of unbridled government.

So go right ahead and call me paranoid, I just consider the source and laugh at you.

[Ian]

It is such a terrible thing that so many people have a mindset that government = evil. In a democracy, believing that means that you have a very dim view of human nature, and thus of yourself. Government is not inherently evil. If you can (and I do not think you can) approach thinking about an issue without having already assumed that government is an automatic malefactor, then you might actually be able to think with some degree of objectivity. But objective and rational are never, ever words I would use for you Seth. I consider you to be an unintellectual buffoon, which is why I so rarely bother to trade posts with you. You're just plain beneath me; I'm only mentioning this now because your post was directed at me, and I think you ought to know why so few of mine are directed at you. Go ahead and call me arrogant; I'll just consider the source and laugh at you.

[pErvinalia]

Great, another gun debate. That's my cue to leave this thread behind.

[Seth]

It is such a terrible thing that so many people have a mindset that government = evil. In a democracy, believing that means that you have a very dim view of human nature, and thus of yourself. Government is not inherently evil.

It is inherently evil. Government, by definition, intrudes on the liberty of the individual, which is inherently evil. Now, for humans to live together it is necessary to intrude on individual liberty from time to time, but who governs best, governs least. Like fire, government is a useful tool and a dangerous master, and like fire must be kept in check at all times so that it does not, as it is always wont to do, go astray and become despotic. If left to it's own devices, without constraints and control, government ALWAYS becomes despotic and wreaks death and destruction on those who suffer under it. This is a fact of human nature; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Founders knew this and deliberately created a system of small, limited government that is to be kept in control and under the thumb of the People who are governed ONLY by their consent.

If you can (and I do not think you can) approach thinking about an issue without having already assumed that government is an automatic malefactor, then you might actually be able to think with some degree of objectivity.

Government, like fire is not ALWAYS a malefactor, but it can all too easily BECOME a terrible danger to the body politic if it is not kept in check. Those who trust that government will always remain benign and benevolent just because that is so at the moment are usually referred to by later generations as "slaves."

Thus, like fire, it is prudent for people to keep the tools necessary to extinguish an out-of-control government before it becomes a raging monster that destroys everyone it's supposed to be serving.

This is not "paranoia," it's simple common sense and good judgment.

But objective and rational are never, ever words I would use for you Seth.

That's because you don't understand the terms, poor thing.

I consider you to be an unintellectual buffoon, which is why I so rarely bother to trade posts with you.

Takes one to know one.

You're just plain beneath me;

You've got nothing. You don't debate honestly and you can't step outside your own prejudices and narrow minded attitudes long enough to actually explore a subject. If it doesn't fit within your narrow political and social view, you can't cope with it, much less argue the point effectively.

I'm only mentioning this now because your post was directed at me, and I think you ought to know why so few of mine are directed at you. Go ahead and call me arrogant; I'll just consider the source and laugh at you.

You're not arrogant, you're a laughable little sheeple who deserves whatever government cares to hand out, or not hand out to you.