Gun Control 2022

[tuttle]

. . . And so, the solution goes well beyond the need to introduce some new gun reform laws. Black and white, it's a freedom issue.
. . . That's it. Keep freedom and promote virtue, or create a nanny state.
That's it boiled down, but there's certainly more involved. More issues that mingle with it.

I shouldn't be shocked that you can condense this whole historically and socially nuanced issue down to freedom and virtue (Guns and God) vs a nanny state

At least there at the end you left a little wiggle room for more issues that mingle with it. But those issues are the heart of the matter. Free and virtuous men don't kill innocents. The government already does a million things trying to promote virtue but neither the president nor the pastor can force it upon anyone. The issue, then, is what to do about the free and non-virtuous man. I'd be OK with preemptively killing them at the schoolhouse door. But could we maybe do some things before that? Identify them. Surveil them. Arrest them. Imprison them. Hospitalize them. Treat them. Rescind their right to own firearms. Even if that right is granted by God Himself, I'd let the courts rescind/restrict it. These guys are almost always known as a threat by someone in their community. Keeping an eye on them wouldn't be that hard.

When you write "That's it. Keep freedom and promote virtue, or create a nanny state" you seem to be giving up and saying there's nothing - short of a miracle that turns all men's hearts toward God or at least towards virtue (which truly won't be found apart from Him) - that can be done short of creating a nanny state which regulates every breath we take. The non-virtuous man with a gun is the problem here.

If you really want to make it about Godliness or Godlessness, and you want to boil it down to black and white, maybe we should ask, "at the end of the day does He care more about us protecting innocents or about virtuous men owning guns?"

To be fair, I was really trying to highlight the constitutional issues that distinguish America vs other countries that have the right to bear arms. It's a thorny issue because of how our founders set it up. In a country like Switzerland the government can just restrict ammo at a whim because they State is who bestows the right to bear arms in their system. There is no real question from the people about the authority of the State in that regard, like their would be here in America. That's why I was boiling things down that way. And in reality, that's why I think many are maligned in this current debate as valuing guns over innocent lives. I'm trying to point out that there is more at play due to our system. And I don't think that system is flawed. But it is dangerous in the hands of an idiotic and evil population.

So lots of layers are running through this debate. I don't doubt there are people out there who care more for their guns than innocent lives, but I think when most people do fall back to foundational issues (and begin framing things like freedom vs nanny state) it's not that they don't care for the innocent victims of the latest tragedy, but rather they recognize a greater danger to even more innocent lives if the State removes inalienable rights. It's the same mentality of putting the oxygen mask on yourself before your child. It's not selfish, it's not thinking of yourself before an innocent, it's in all reality the best way to save more lives.

Now that said, I'm not denying the reality in front of my face. We're in a heaping mess. However, I still don't think infringing on our rights is the solution. There are a plethora of ways we can begin righting things without infringing rights. But I also don't know if our country has the fortitude or will or wisdom or morality to implement them and see them through. And that in and of itself is why so many people will throw up their hands (if they haven't already) and just give the State control.

[FredS]

To be fair, I was really trying to highlight the constitutional issues that distinguish America vs other countries that have the right to bear arms. It's a thorny issue because of how our founders set it up. In a country like Switzerland the government can just restrict ammo at a whim because the State is who bestows the right to bear arms in their system. There is no real question from the people about the authority of the State in that regard, like their would be here in America. That's why I was boiling things down that way. And in reality, that's why I think many are maligned in this current debate as valuing guns over innocent lives. I'm trying to point out that there is more at play due to our system. And I don't think that system is flawed. But it is dangerous in the hands of an idiotic and evil population.

So lots of layers are running through this debate. I don't doubt there are people out there who care more for their guns than innocent lives, but I think when most people do fall back to foundational issues (and begin framing things like freedom vs nanny state) it's not that they don't care for the innocent victims of the latest tragedy, but rather they recognize a greater danger to even more innocent lives if the State removes inalienable rights. It's the same mentality of putting the oxygen mask on yourself before your child. It's not selfish, it's not thinking of yourself before an innocent, it's in all reality the best way to save more lives.

[emphasis above added by me]

Wait a minute. You think the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right? It wasn't listed as such in The Declaration of Independence (it wasn't excluded either) and it wasn't written in to the original Constitution. That right was added, by the State, later as an amendment to the Constitution and could just as easily be removed by another amendment today if the conditions to do so are met. The State has the authority to regulate guns and there are literally hundreds of laws that do just that. Hell, there's hundreds of laws that regulate and restrict just ammo.

None of us has the answer(s) but these discussions themselves are important. "Thoughts and prayers" and all that.

[coco]

MSNBC has me all straightened out: We don't need guns to protect ourselves from bad guys because law enforcement does that. Law enforcement "failed at every level" in Uvalde, but that was the Republican's fault, since they spent all their money on border security rather than "hardening schools."

Life is so easy to understand when you just realize that everything Democrats do is good and everything Republicans do is bad. Thinking is easier when you watch news outlets like MSNBC, since they don't bother you with facts for you to analyze, they just give you the conclusions you need.

[coco]

Part of the bill seems to require the safe storage of guns. It will be interesting to see if that means that law enforcement can check your domicile without a warrant.

[coco]

. . .The interesting point is that Biden said "high-caliber" guns, not understanding that "caliber" refers to the diameter of the bullet being used.* His use of "caliber" in this context reveals his utter ignorance of the subject, and the gleeful repetition of his faux pas by the media and gun control supporters reveals their ignorance. "Caliber" isn't relevant to the gun control discussion. . .

I'd give Ol' Joe a pass on this and presume that he misspoke - saying "caliber" when he meant "capacity". He does that a lot.

High-power is a nother possibility that came to mind. However, in order for him to have misspoken, he would have to actually undertand the difference between caliber and capacity. I'm not under the impression that any of these guys get such fine distinctions.

I did a little more investigation into this one. Joe did not misspeak, and his statement makes perfect sense in the wider context of his plea. He was referring to the 9mm Parabellum in contrast to the .22 LR, saying that the "high-caliber" 9mm (9.01 mm/0.355 in.) was an "assault weapon" round that would blow the lung right out of someone whereas the .22 LR might simply lodge in the lung to be removed by doctors. Another source indicated that he and Kamala both want all 9mm weapons banned.

If the ban were based on caliber, everything to the right of the .32 Auto would be banned:

If we count the .25 Auto, that would leave at least three viable, popular handgun caliber choices for public use.

The same standard presumably would not be used for rifles, since most rifle bullets are less than 0.355 inches. Perhaps it would be easier just to say that the .22 LR is permissible for public use, but others are not.

[Thunktank]

It does appear that he did in fact talk about “high caliber.” 9mm. He also once suggested people use a shotgun for defense and “shoot ‘em in the leg.”

He apparently can’t fathom the fact that some things need killing. I also don’t believe he’ll get the support needed to outlaw 9mm. Good grief, is he trying to lose the next election? Even a lot of Democrats are scratching their heads on that comment of his.

Of what he has officially pushed for a few days ago are things I already live with here in CA. Safe storage, magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, background checks for all transactions through FFL and California department of justice. I still get to enjoy my guns and no enforcement agency is entering my home without a warrant. California gun laws are annoying at times and semi auto handgun choices are getting pretty slim here. Our assault weapons ban is basically a dress code for semi auto rifles.

[tuttle]

To be fair, I was really trying to highlight the constitutional issues that distinguish America vs other countries that have the right to bear arms. It's a thorny issue because of how our founders set it up. In a country like Switzerland the government can just restrict ammo at a whim because the State is who bestows the right to bear arms in their system. There is no real question from the people about the authority of the State in that regard, like their would be here in America. That's why I was boiling things down that way. And in reality, that's why I think many are maligned in this current debate as valuing guns over innocent lives. I'm trying to point out that there is more at play due to our system. And I don't think that system is flawed. But it is dangerous in the hands of an idiotic and evil population.

So lots of layers are running through this debate. I don't doubt there are people out there who care more for their guns than innocent lives, but I think when most people do fall back to foundational issues (and begin framing things like freedom vs nanny state) it's not that they don't care for the innocent victims of the latest tragedy, but rather they recognize a greater danger to even more innocent lives if the State removes inalienable rights. It's the same mentality of putting the oxygen mask on yourself before your child. It's not selfish, it's not thinking of yourself before an innocent, it's in all reality the best way to save more lives.

[emphasis above added by me]

Wait a minute. You think the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right? It wasn't listed as such in The Declaration of Independence (it wasn't excluded either) and it wasn't written in to the original Constitution. That right was added, by the State, later as an amendment to the Constitution and could just as easily be removed by another amendment today if the conditions to do so are met. The State has the authority to regulate guns and there are literally hundreds of laws that do just that. Hell, there's hundreds of laws that regulate and restrict just ammo.

None of us has the answer(s) but these discussions themselves are important. "Thoughts and prayers" and all that.

I think the right to keep and bear arms is derived with the intended purpose to protect our inalienable rights. Those who seek to remove it or infringe upon it are directly or indirectly aiming at our inalienable, natural, God-given rights. The fact that they were added later doesn't mean anything other than the same founders who wrote and approved the constitution recognized the need for certain protections. They gave us the Bill of Rights as a shield against the government if ever the government sought to infringe upon our inalienable rights.

So when the government begins to tell us that our shield is dangerous or needs to be altered in some way, how should we interpret their actions? When have we ever thought that someone who breaks a locked door has no intentions beyond breaking the lock for our own good? That's the link I have in mind when I say statements like what you highlighted. It was probably a poor shortcut to use, though not unreasonable.

[Del]

To be fair, I was really trying to highlight the constitutional issues that distinguish America vs other countries that have the right to bear arms. It's a thorny issue because of how our founders set it up. In a country like Switzerland the government can just restrict ammo at a whim because the State is who bestows the right to bear arms in their system. There is no real question from the people about the authority of the State in that regard, like their would be here in America. That's why I was boiling things down that way. And in reality, that's why I think many are maligned in this current debate as valuing guns over innocent lives. I'm trying to point out that there is more at play due to our system. And I don't think that system is flawed. But it is dangerous in the hands of an idiotic and evil population.

So lots of layers are running through this debate. I don't doubt there are people out there who care more for their guns than innocent lives, but I think when most people do fall back to foundational issues (and begin framing things like freedom vs nanny state) it's not that they don't care for the innocent victims of the latest tragedy, but rather they recognize a greater danger to even more innocent lives if the State removes inalienable rights. It's the same mentality of putting the oxygen mask on yourself before your child. It's not selfish, it's not thinking of yourself before an innocent, it's in all reality the best way to save more lives.

[emphasis above added by me]

Wait a minute. You think the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right? It wasn't listed as such in The Declaration of Independence (it wasn't excluded either) and it wasn't written in to the original Constitution. That right was added, by the State, later as an amendment to the Constitution and could just as easily be removed by another amendment today if the conditions to do so are met. The State has the authority to regulate guns and there are literally hundreds of laws that do just that. Hell, there's hundreds of laws that regulate and restrict just ammo.

None of us has the answer(s) but these discussions themselves are important. "Thoughts and prayers" and all that.

Pipeson gave a lot of thought to the nature and meaning of "unalienable" rights. Pipeson offers a unique insight: "One test for an unalienable right is that when the right is taken away, it doesn't only hurt the person deprived of rights. It also harms the person or authority who is taking away those rights."

Such thieves of basic rights are called tyrants, savages, murderers, thieves, rapists, abortionists, slave-holders.... They may get away with it, but their own souls are harmed or destroyed. And history does not regard them kindly.

Unalienable rights are natural human rights, given by God. Jefferson lists "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The 14th Amendment protects "life, liberty, and property."

The right to "keep and bear arms" is corollary to the natural right to self-defense: To protect one's life, family and property.
=============================
It is the duty of just government to "secure" the natural rights for citizens.

Our government has failed at times to secure our natural rights, such as slavery and abortion. The harm that the perpetrators inflicted upon themselves and others is evident.

Current policies are treading on thin ice: Allowing criminal culture to proliferate, and attempting to disarm peaceful citizens. Also encouraging children into increasingly disordered sexual behavior and even poisoning their own gender, while obstructing parents who want to protect their children.

It is amazing to me that the Democrat Party is always the one on the wrong side of the natural law and natural rights. A large political party is supposed to be a coalition of good citizens seeking good policy for the common good. Somehow the Democrat party keeps getting taken over by elite special interests -- Slave-owners, union mobsters, abortion lobby, sexual deviants. It doesn't have to be like this.

[Del]

It does appear that he did in fact talk about “high caliber.” 9mm. He also once suggested people use a shotgun for defense and “shoot ‘em in the leg.”

He apparently can’t fathom the fact that some things need killing. I also don’t believe he’ll get the support needed to outlaw 9mm. Good grief, is he trying to lose the next election? Even a lot of Democrats are scratching their heads on that comment of his.

Of what he has officially pushed for a few days ago are things I already live with here in CA. Safe storage, magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, background checks for all transactions through FFL and California department of justice. I still get to enjoy my guns and no enforcement agency is entering my home without a warrant. California gun laws are annoying at times and semi auto handgun choices are getting pretty slim here. Our assault weapons ban is basically a dress code for semi auto rifles.

My working theory is that Democrats don't care if they lose elections. Their goal is to press their policies as hard and far as they can. Then lose elections if they must, keep pressing with noise and chaos until they win again, and then press as hard and far as they can. They don't care about elections -- they don't have to win to keep pushing the Overton Window.

They are pushing gun control just now because that is the current Window with the least amount of resistance. They have pushed their racism and LGBT issues as far as they can for now. Parents and families are starting to lean in and push back.

[FredS]

For once, I think Del is right. The D's don't care about the next election cycle. They move the needle to left when they have the power then shout from the sidelines when they don't. The R's don't completely recover the lost ground so we're inching further and further left. Two steps left, one step right.

I'm absolutely certain that firearms in the hands of citizens will be illegal in the US some day. It may take a hundred years, but incremental cuts and jabs will eventually get it done. Like eating an elephant.