HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » All arguments regarding t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:37 AM

 

All arguments regarding the banning of guns or severely limiting access are ultimately circular

because at some point or other they come back to the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, the proliferation of guns in American society is a symptom of the malaise affecting the people and not the malaise itself. A healthy society would have no use for guns, except to hunt or perhaps as a competetive sport. A healthy society would not be consumed with the concept of self defense. A healthy society would not have gang bangers shooting up neighborhoods or mentally unbalanced youth shooting up schools.

58 replies, 3997 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply All arguments regarding the banning of guns or severely limiting access are ultimately circular (Original post)
Toronto Dec 2012 OP
Loudly Dec 2012 #1
Toronto Dec 2012 #2
msongs Dec 2012 #4
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #6
Toronto Dec 2012 #10
hack89 Dec 2012 #13
thucythucy Dec 2012 #26
hack89 Dec 2012 #30
thucythucy Dec 2012 #32
hack89 Dec 2012 #47
Loudly Dec 2012 #5
jody Dec 2012 #23
thucythucy Dec 2012 #27
jody Dec 2012 #29
thucythucy Dec 2012 #34
gejohnston Dec 2012 #35
Loudly Dec 2012 #41
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #3
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #7
hack89 Dec 2012 #14
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #15
SecularMotion Dec 2012 #8
Toronto Dec 2012 #9
SecularMotion Dec 2012 #12
Toronto Dec 2012 #16
SecularMotion Dec 2012 #18
Toronto Dec 2012 #24
SecularMotion Dec 2012 #25
Toronto Dec 2012 #37
SecularMotion Dec 2012 #46
hack89 Dec 2012 #48
SecularMotion Dec 2012 #50
hack89 Dec 2012 #52
Toronto Dec 2012 #53
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #20
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #11
spin Dec 2012 #17
Toronto Dec 2012 #19
spin Dec 2012 #21
Toronto Dec 2012 #28
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #22
Toronto Dec 2012 #33
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #44
libdem4life Dec 2012 #31
Toronto Dec 2012 #36
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38
libdem4life Dec 2012 #39
gejohnston Dec 2012 #40
libdem4life Dec 2012 #42
gejohnston Dec 2012 #43
hack89 Dec 2012 #49
Kennah Dec 2012 #45
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #51
Toronto Jan 2013 #54
gejohnston Jan 2013 #55
Toronto Jan 2013 #56
gejohnston Jan 2013 #57
Toronto Jan 2013 #58

Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:44 AM

1. The 2A correctly interpreted would be a help.

 

And an unhealthy society is not one for which more widespread availability of the means of convenient slaughter can possibly be a prescription.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:56 AM

2. I agree, but as has been pointed out to me

 

short of adding a new amendment to the constitution vis-a-vis the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms seems to have almost unlimited scope. Attempts to curtail that scope brings you into conflict with the original intent. Although the original reason for its existence has no particular application in modern society, defenders seem to be willing to endure insurrection to uphold their constitutional right to bear arms. Perhaps it would take less time and effort to begin treating the societal problems that result in the use of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:42 AM

4. not unlimited scope - only for purposes of having a well regulated militia and that is ALL nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:53 AM

6. You can quite beating that horse. It is very dead. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:45 AM

10. Unfortunately jurisprudence is not on your side...

 

and unless Congress has an epiphany, you'll have a tough road to hoe there as well. Don't forget that the NRA machine spends millions each year lobbying to ensure that their perfidious product finds its way into the Christmas stockings of the nation. Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore - so they can buy a gun and shoot someone. Yes Virgina, there is a Santa Claus and his name is Wayne LaPierre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:24 AM

13. You really need to read Heller - it is the law of the land

like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:40 PM

26. Which can be overturned by a different Supreme Court.

Unless you're willing to admit that Citizens United is "the law of land" from now until the end of time?

Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land until Brown v. Board.

Even the US Supreme Court can change its collective mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:56 PM

30. But until then

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

there are real limits on what gun control legislation can actually do.

The Scalia court has yet to overturn Roe v Wade - the SC is not in the habit of overturning precedent lightly. They will not move until it is clear that there is a clear national consensus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:06 PM

32. I believe it's "Roe v. Wade."

And I love how so-called progressive Democrats suddenly cite Scalia and Clarence Thomas as the go to authorities on all things Constitutional.

Don't look now, but "a clear national consensus" is rapidly developing. And it says that the rights of six year-olds to live are somewhat more important than the rights of survivalists to their favorite child-slaughtering toys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:09 AM

47. Accepting political and legal reality is a progressive virtue

we are suppose to be reality and fact based.

There will be changes. Improvements to background checks are a given. The AWB as proposed by Senator Feinstein has a 50-50 chance of passing. Unfortunately improvements to mental health will be lost in the entire health care debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:53 AM

5. Worship and adoration of guns is a serious social problem.

 

I don't think it's helpful to coddle it. Or tiptoe around avoiding calling it a problem.

Delusional people who want to adorn the 2A with meanings it doesn't have probably need to be confronted Dr. Phil style.

True it might make them feel uncomfortable and trigger some paranoia.

But who do you want setting the standard for what is normal?

People who demand the ability to deprive you of all your genuine rights by indulging their belief in an imaginary one?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:39 PM

23. 2A has been correctly interpreted in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. That's the law so learn to

 

live with it or stay angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:44 PM

27. Whether it has been "correctly interpreted"

will be decided by future Supreme Court majorities.

Plessy v. Ferguson was also seen as a "correct" interpretation of the Constitution--until it was overturned by Brown v. Board.

Citizens United, DC v. Geller, McDonald v. Chicago--all it takes is the appointment of a few new Supreme Court justices, and they too shall pass.

Unless you think A. Scalia and Clarence Thomas are endowed with divine powers of constitutional discernment, which no future justice will ever challenge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:52 PM

29. Still the laws the law. Learn to live with it or wallow and seethe in anger. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:10 PM

34. "Learn to live with it?"

Did abolitionists learn to live with slavery? Did the suffrage movement learn to live with the disenfranchisement of women?

I have yet to "learn to live" with homophobia, sexism, racism or ableism. Why should I "learn to live" with a society so obviously disfunctional as to place the rights of some to possess their favorite toys over the rights of children to live?

"Learn to live with it."

Tell that to the children of Sandy Hook. Or their parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:20 PM

35. you might not want McDonald v. Chicago overturned

Rather than focusing on the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendmentís framers, Chicago and Oak Park urge the Court, instead, to uphold rejecting incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Chicago and Oak Park point to the Slaughterhouse Cases, where the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendmentís Privileges or Immunities Clause includes only those rights that ďare dependent upon citizenship of the United States, and not citizenship of a State.Ē Such rights would include, for example, the freedom to petition the government, to run for political office, to become a citizen of any state through residence; however, such rights did not include those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. Chicago and Oak Park also point to the seminal cases of United States v. Cruikshank, which held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States, and Presser v. Illinois, which held that the right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege or immunity of United States citizenship. They thus argue that the Court should use the doctrine of stare decision to uphold cases that explicitly reject incorporation of the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendmentís privileges or immunities clause.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521

But many liberal legal scholars supported McDonald hoping it would overturn the Slaughterhouse cases. One of them included CA Gov Jerry Brown, although he supported the 2A angle.
Cruikshank also said the first amendment, freedom of assembly, did not apply to the states either. That same decision interpreted the 14th in such a way that made civil rights laws of the time unenforceable and paved the way to Jim Crow. If McDonald were to be overturned, that could open the floodgate for nutcase state governments to attack other rights, like choice, using Privilege or Immunities Clause.
Careful what you ask for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:28 PM

41. That bullshit is decidedly incorrect. And the fruit of some concerted conservative mindfuck

 

among the judiciary and their legislative enablers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:30 AM

3. The media doesn't help. Watch the evening news. You would think good things only happen rarely. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:17 AM

7. USA is not a healthy society and has not been for nigh on forty years. We tend to

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

reward sociopaths and I don't doubt that some are CEOs of our largest businesses. We measure success by the financial yardstick. Empathy, Compassion and Mercy need not apply.

I blame it on Disco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:26 AM

14. In that time we have cut gun deaths due to murder and manslaughter in half

we have seen steadily declining rate of violence for 30 years and are joying historically low levels of gun violence.

That sick society has been getter healthier in some areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:33 AM

15. some of that is due to medical advancement and can not be denied. I did not speak specifically to

gun deaths. But, you do make a point as to why society would feel the need for defense mechanisms.

Also, I think that resistance features such as alarms, fences, wrought iron on windows have been advanced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:19 AM

8. NRA propaganda is the disease

The glorification of guns and gun culture must end.

Reality is proving that "more guns" is not the answer to our problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:14 AM

9. The NRA propaganda is more of

 

a parasitic infection. It can only thrive on a debilitated host. You can and should treat the infection, but in the end, unless you improve the health of the host, it or some other parasite will reinfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:51 AM

12. Wrong

The NRA and FOX News exploit our healthy natural instincts to create irrational fears. They then claim the only answer is more guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:43 PM

16. OMG...you think that the NRA and FOX are the only ones exploiting your fears...

 

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

have you ever heard of disaster capitalism! The powers that be in the US have been doing that very thing since the 60's - slowly and insidiously. The entire concept is the brainchild of Martin Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics who's ideal free market economy disregards the needs of 80% of the population in favor of the needs of the 20%. The idea is that when people are scared, they can be easily distracted away from standing up for their rights. During that period of time all manner of legislation designed to make you poorer and the rich richer is legislated. Rumsfeld is a disciple of Friedman. So was Margaret Thatcher. He once stated he thought the Pentagon should be privatized. That was just before the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld is the guy responsible for Blackwater -more defense contractors than troops. He was also one of G.W's puppet masters. Did you ever notice that during Republican administrations, everytime there were economic issues affecting the American people, there was a convenient war or disaster to distract and dismay the population? Once it's all over, gee the US is deeper in debt from funding military campaigns and oh by the way, there is no money for social programs, health care etc etc. Meanwhile the government has allowed your jobs to be shipped overseas to third world countries and all of your social programs, social security etc have been watered down. Also, lets not forget that this brand of economics was behind the loosening of the regulations on financial institutions, leading to the crash in 2008. Thus you have a population that is becoming poorer and more desperate with every passing year.

However, whether or not you subscribe to conspiracy theories, there is no overlooking the fact that the Bush era administration was responsible for exploiting the fears of Americans. Every person flying on an airline is now treated like a criminal as a result of that crash course in mass paranoia, and no one complains. Big brother says it's good for you. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in "Homeland Security". Who has benefited? Not, I would suggest, the American people. But there are a number of defense contractors who couldn't be happier.

By the way, outside of the US there are few people who don't believe that the Bush adminsitration didn't cause 911. The NRA is only the tip of the iceberg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:54 PM

18. The NRA is the tip of the iceberg? Please elaborate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:16 PM

24. Eisenhower once referred to the Military Industrial Complex (MIC)

 

This is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. Intertwined with the MIC is Big Oil and the 200 or so global corporations that own most of the rest of the global industry. The NRA, who represent small firearms manufacturers, is one small aspect of MIC. The MIC is represented by such illustrious corporations as Halliburton, who spend billions of taxpayer dollars and deliver inferior materials without any apparent oversight by government. (Note it was Halliburton that was intrinsically involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster).

Under the first Bush administration and following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones. Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait. During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation, and other life-cycle management services. In 1995 Dick Cheney became CEO of Halliburton. In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg-Brown Root. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton; his son, former president George H. W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951. Cheney retired from Halliburton in 2000 with a $36M retirement package in order to join G.W Bush on the US presidential ticket. On January 24, 2006, Halliburton's subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build "temporary detention and processing facilities" or internment camps in Guantanimo Bay.

Such is the influence in government of Halliburton, who have among other things, the contract to supply the military with food and laundry services, such that your own poor soldiers can be sent abroad and fed inferior food unfit for dogs and have their clothing laundered in such a toxic soup that many soldiers have been washing their own to avoid the lesions that developed on their bodies. Under the Bush adminstration, NASA's Constellation Project was outsourced to Halliburton, one of Bush's largest corporate donors. How do we spell conflict of interest! Such lobbiests are so enmeshed in US government activities that the ends and means of the corporations have become the ends and means of the government. The people of the US don't factor into it. What's good for big business is all that concerns the government.

If the ends and means of the IMC involve heightened paranoia in order to ensure the sale of small arms to the American people or their support of offshore wars soley for the purpose of selling massively expensive weapons, then so be it.

Obama comes from a place apart from the incestuous relationship between big business and government. There is a chance that things could change, but Obama is facing an uphill battle with Congress, because they are all part of the society that supports the global corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:36 PM

25. All fine and dandy, but this is the gun forum.

Our focus here is the NRA. Please stay on topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:29 PM

37. The NRA does not exist in a vacuum

 

but for a government that tolerates the rest, the NRA would have no influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:09 AM

46. You seem to be making a great effort to absolve the NRA of any responsibility

for the increase in gun violence in our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:12 AM

48. There is no increased gun violence - it has been falling for 30 years

it has fallen to historically low levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:47 AM

50. Do your statistics include 2012?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:25 AM

52. Don't want to talk about the past 30 years? Don't blame you.

hard for the "more guns = more violence" crowd to explain.

There are no official 2012 stats. Even the 2011 data is preliminary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:44 PM

53. I grant no absolution to the NRA

 

They are a disgusting collection of death merchants whose only motivation is financial reward. My apologies to any of their membership who feel they still stand as representatives of traditional hunters. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are simply shills for the weapons manufacturers. But if you think that they are the only reason for the increase of gun violence in the US, you are being naive. As odious as the NRA is, it is not at the root of crime; greed, poverty, immaturity, irresponsibility and the lack of compassion is. The NRA is responsible for the dilution of weapon legislation, so they are aiders and abettors of crime and should be sanctioned for that. Perhaps a class action would hit them where it hurts. There are class actions for everything else.

So, what if the NRA were silenced. Would people stop buying guns, semi-automatic or otherwise? The love affair with the gun would continue. Criminals would continue to break into homes and steal guns. Irresponsible people would continue to leave loaded guns where children can get their hands on them. Parents will still raise their children to believe that owning a gun is the only thing that stands between "them" and "us". People having an argument will still take leave of their senses and grab that all too available gun and shoot, rather than taking a walk and cooling down. Socially maladjusted/mentally ill people would still have access to weapons, whether they can legally purchase them or not, because either someone in their home would have them or they can purchase them from some scumbag around the corner. What separates the US from the parts of the world where gun violence is a rarity is the attitude of its citizens to each other, and the realization that you can't have a healthy society with so many living below the poverty line without access to proper medical care or equal education. Economic neoliberalism is one of the causes of economic inequality. The U.S. economic and social model is associated with substantial levels of social exclusion, including high levels of income inequality, high relative and absolute poverty rates, poor and unequal educational outcomes, poor health outcomes, and high rates of crime and incarceration. If that weren't problematic enough, you have the 2nd Amendment, which some interpret not so much as the right to bear arms, but the duty to bear arms. Ironically, the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Amendment to ensure that they had recourse against a despotic government, but instead the US has developed an economic oligarchy that controls the government, is answerable to no one and is in effect more despotic than any they ever could have imagined.

I say go ahead and hold the NRA's feet to the fire. Outlaw, restrict or ban certain weapons or ammunition, but don't be surprised if the outcome falls short of expectations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:36 PM

20. I have a Field & Stream mag nearly a half cent. Old...

The NRA ad is b&w, and stuck in the classifieds in the back pages. That's all changed. The diff? The gun-control outlook, pumped up by the hegemony of MSM.

One unhealthy aspect of this society is our addiction to prohibitionist politics; we can't get enough because prohibitionism is merely the facade to engage in culture wars where the despised Other can be punished.

So, we now have the Frankenstein monster of the NRA. And most gun-owners did not create it.

BTW, gun-owners are no more prone to criminality than non-gun-owners. But they are the Other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:51 AM

11. Put semi auto rifles and pistols under NFA regulation.

The current rightwing whacko court *might* overturn the existing federal laws, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:23 PM

17. A perfectly healthy society would be a utopia or if you believe in religion a heaven. ...

Unfortunately mankind has never developed such a society.

Still I feel we can make some headway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:17 PM

19. I'm not so naive as to believe that humanity could even create a utopia

 

but you have to admit, society has been on a downward spiral and they've had a lot of help on the way down. People are afraid to recognize the elephant in the room. Let's put it simplistically, GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. The sooner people wake up and demand change, not just in respect of gun laws, because let's face it, people are not afraid to sleep at night because all is well with the world, but in the fundamental expectations that they have from the society they live in, the sooner people will feel safer. People must re-evaluate what's really important. A society that believes in gratuitous consumerism from morning until night is not sustainable. Something will suffer along the way. We have become a disposable society. We dispose of everything we become bored with, including people. If we prioritize people over the acquisition of things, the disparity between the haves and the have nots will diminish, along with the crime. This is not Utopia. America had that as recently as the 40's. Investors in the 40's were content with a one or two percent return on investment. Not now. If they don't make 10-20%, heads roll. Terms like downsize, rightsize and redundancy didn't exist. They were invented by a new form of economics that valued profit over everything else. More and more, corporations demand more returns for less investment. The net result, jobs are exported to places where people live a subsistence existence. Does anyone find this immoral? Not many. They are content to buy cheap goods while their own jobs become forfeit.

People used to have the expectation that when they bought something it would last. These days you can shell out $2K for a refrigerator that doesn't last 5 years, yet no one complains, although in the past you could have a refrigerator for 40 years! For the corporations, there is no profit without repeat purchases. Where does this leave people with the fewest resources? Eventually you develop an alienated, poverty stricken population that feels they have no choice but to prey on the better off. Enter the NRA with the magical solution. Buy more guns. That's where we are now. If you prioritize people over stuff, then you vote for social programs to equalize the opportunities between rich and poor. Better everyone live a decent lifestyle, than a few having more than they can use and the rest starving and looking for ways to feed and clothe themselves by taking it from the ones that have more than they need. Will it eliminate crime - of course not. There will always be maladjusted people, but there will be fewer of them and there will be societal resources to deal with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:46 PM

21. That was possibly one of the best replies I have ever received on DU. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:48 PM

28. Thanks

 

Just trying to make a difference, one blog at a time...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:50 PM

22. I agree with your take on consumerism and...

The Ponzi scheme that passes for financing (a scheme still intact, post-recession). You can add to that the end of political viability: Politics are NOT polarized. One party is an appendage of modern capital; the other will not challenge capital. We have reduced to culture war and political impotency.

The NRA is an outgrowth of the gun-control outlook. Please read up on the outlook (it's not very old), and the language enployed by prohibitionists to describe gun-owners, courthouse lavatory wall stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:07 PM

33. I'm afraid gun control outlook

 

on the part of politicians is a matter of political opportunism. Some of your Dems are former Republicans who supported the NRA's agenda as little as two years ago i.e. Charlie Crist. It doesn't really matter, because if there was an honest political point of view amongst the lot of them I'd really be surprised. The only thing that really motivates (most) politicians is the possibility of votes and how much capital, political or otherwise, that they can garner by taking one position or another. Call me a cynic, but the only way to assure an outcome that is favorable to the people is to demand change. Once upon a time in America people were willing to demonstrate; that occurs rarely now. It's time to stand up for what you believe in. It's the hallmark of democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:02 AM

44. Social media is the new political expression, I suppose...

But even the Mid-East where SM was/is instrumental, folks ended up in the street -- or worse. I think some of the social media folks are turning off to politics and trying to create a new (cyber) world. But it's the same old orb.

I also think quiet streets are seen by the estab. as the new norm, and may brook no disruption when the social folks discover their lives really are part-time and temporary, and finally choose to do something about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:03 PM

31. Could Obama not sign an Executive Order with a process that has absolutely nothing to do with

banning or control per se...just the requiring to re-register, pay a fee, show ID, a permit and a signature...just like we do at the pharmacy for "controlled substances", or turn it in no question asked for a flat $100 regardless of condition, impose a transaction fee on every transfer, double or triple the cost of ammunition based on taxes...just like cigarettes.

Not saying he would do it, but would it not be within his power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:27 PM

36. That's a question for someone with more knowledge

 

of the scope of the executive power of the presidency than I have. But even if he has that power, how much would really change. You already have 80m plus guns in circulation and I'm sure a goodly number of unregistered weapons. You would have to enforce the re-registration - who would be charged with that duty? I doubt that anyone in government would be willing to expend the millions of dollars to chase down each and every registered weapon, so you would be relying on the conscientious citizens to come forward. You might get 50% and that's optimistic. That still leaves 40m weapons in circulation that won't be re-registered, not necessarily because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. I agree that the cost of ammunition could be taxed at a huge rate. Competitive shooters would scream blue murder, but it can be done. Perhaps that more than the registration of weapons would curtail the use of guns. I'm afraid however that someone would make a 2nd Amendment challenge and you'd be back to square one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:30 PM

38. do you know much about current federal gun laws?

show ID, a permit and a signature...just like we do at the pharmacy for "controlled substances"
It has been federal law for most of my life, other than the permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:00 PM

39. No I don't and like many other non-gun owners, getting up to speed as quickly as possible.

And and I wrote of re-registering...like a census...and also for ammunition. Add extra fees to pay for the higher security we seem to keep needing including our elementary schools...nothing personal, but some things innocently cause pain and death. Motor vehicles also come to mind...just one drunk, idiotic, show off, illegal driver can cause a world of pain and death. That's why we control them.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:10 PM

40. there is a sales tax since 1919

11 percent. Since 1937 the monies have been funneled to wildlife habitat restoration and other environmental projects. I support that and it should remain regardless. Since the cops and security in schools was was a Clinton administration, and before, idea it should be funded. Since most gun violence in the US is due to criminals killing each other, often drug related, and not "gun collectors going bad" (although that does make the news) I think head shops should pay their share. While Newton was tragic, it is equally as tragic that at least that many kids are beaten to death by their parents each year. Yet, there is no outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:17 AM

42. Good to know. I think it's going to have to increase however, on every level of the trade

just like cigarettes had to do. Even though not everyone is going to die of lung cancer, there are huge costs. And like the airlines were seriously regulated after 9-11, and cars have been regulated forever, so now with the guns trade. It's time...it's getting so huge and wealthy...time to share and protect and my project is the schools since Sandy Hook.

Kids getting hurt in the home...that is such a hard one, too. Foster homes aren't always that great, either. And death...put them away for ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:29 AM

43. guns are also regulated

on the federal level, much more than cars. For example I can legally buy a car in any state. I can not legally buy a gun in Arizona. Before I came to Florida, I could only legally buy a gun in Wyoming. Now that I am a Florida resident, federal law says I can only buy one here. Feds don't inspect car dealers inventory and have specific record keeping and inventory control requirements. Car dealers don't have to do background checks. So, the car/gun argument is kind of bogus.
With any luck, I'll be able to convince the wife that snow and wilderness is better than life under the Scott regime. But until then..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:14 AM

49. No - registration is left to the states

it would be a huge power grab that would ignite a massive political firestorm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:26 AM

45. In one sense, I agree ...

... but I don't think that means we cannot enact meaningful restrictions.

I don't believe a renewed "assault weapon" ban would be meaningful, mostly because it's not a ban. If fact, I think the assault weapon issue definition is pretty close to meaningless.

Now the magazine ban, there I think is a significant and meaningful issue, if we were talking about either a real ban or licensure.

Real bans of anything seem unlikely, but perhaps the answer is to enact a real semiauto ban, fast track the appeals, and get SCOTUS on record with Yea or Nay. If they say Nay, then pursue licensure, which does not seem likely they would no licensure ever.

Some talk about imposing the NFA on semiautos. NFA, or National Firearms Act, is perhaps one of the most restrictive licensure measures in the U.S., and it is applied to machineguns. I doubt one could get the NFA applied to semiautos, and I think it would create a strong motive for a black market in machineguns. National licensure of semiautos, though less onerous and restrictive than under NFA, seems a good middle ground approach that even some of the GOP would get behind and support, without looking like a fucknut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:59 AM

51. The 2nd Amendment Can Be Repealed, Replaced Or Modified - So Banning Guns Is Wholly Possible

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:23 AM

54. How?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:40 AM

55. 2/3d vote in each federal chamber

and be ratified by 75 percent of the states
or
the same number of states ratify it by a ratifying convention, done once to repeal Prohibition.

Or be reinterpreted by a different SCOTUS into a collective right. To do that, an entity with standing would have to sue and push it up though the federal courts to the SCOTUS. That can be a roll of dice. The Brady Campaign didn't want DC to pursue it to the SCOTUS, while the NRA didn't want the lawyers for Heller to do it either. Yeah, the NRA takes credit in fund raising propaganda, but they are lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:55 AM

56. And the chances of this happening

 

are approximately the same as the second coming of Christ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:04 AM

57. closer to

a Liberal sweep in every Alberta riding, a Republican sweep in San Francisco, my Wiccan daughter feeling comfortable at a Pentecostal revival, or replacing my Fleetwood Mac Mp3s with Ted Nugent. Even before I knew his or my politics, I hated his music.
Some say I'm still waiting for the first coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:10 AM

58. Pretty much what I thought.

 

I think changing how people think about each other may be easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread