Guns, Guns Guns

I believe you were said something as you were patting your gun cabinet as to weapons. So do you own weapons or not? Yes...you do. The opposition has just said no one has the right to own weapons in America. That is from one of the chairs of the democratic party. That's their ultimate goal!

Why should I conform to your views? In order to accomplish your stated goals, you have to use force to enforce your viewpoints upon others. I will not surrender my God given rights (endowed by the creator!) to freedom and the ability to protect what is mine from Evil! When I was sworn in as a soldier, I swore to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Just because I no longer a soldier that oath still applies to the end of my days. I will never see eye to eye on this issue because to enforce your will upon me...You will have to pry my weapons from my cold dead hands! I guess I am that gun nut that Daryl rails against as evil. Off to reeducation camps or the grave for me. He plants his flag into the ground...Come and Get It! Daryl, the worse I ever done in my life is speeding and parking tickets!

As for climate change deniers...is the climate in constant change our entire history...Yes! So that is misnomer. We tried to address that problem (carbon output) with Kyoto accords....that was a economic relocation of wealth and jobs to China and India from America. They do not take part in the Kyoto accords. Hmm....wealth redistribution! I will not prescribe to some plan unless it applies to everyone...which means you need a world government. I don't think that's going to happen unless everyone converts to Islam and they can force people through religion and government law. So that's not going to really happen. What is your proposal on climate change that is fair to everyone?

Daryl wrote:As evidenced by the climate change deniers and the tobacco lobby, you can always find an academic to selectively quote to "prove" your point.
A more practical approach is the old adage of the proof of a pudding is in the eating. Regardless of language definitions all developed countries have had socialist systems for many decades. I feel totally free and not in a police state. Our main national newspaper featured a letter to the editor of mine along with a graphic cartoon showing our PM being an anal suppository to Bush at the Iraqi invasion time. I'm still free.
Some of the comments here talk about the state taking charge of all the citizens' rights. Not so, all functional states do have to regulate some citizen activities, but socialism is not uniquely or specifically involved in this.
Societal norms also regulate behaviour. Despite being largish I can legally wear racing swimming pants (budgee smugglers) downtown, but am not likely to do so.
Despite SMR's assertion I own a number of legal guns, but our society has decided that I have no need or right to carry a handgun when just generally out and about, and I'm happy with that as it brings safety and freedom of movement to me.

smr wrote:I believe you were said something as you were patting your gun cabinet as to weapons. So do you own weapons or not? Yes...you do. The opposition has just said no one has the right to own weapons in America. That is from one of the chairs of the democratic party. That's their ultimate goal!

What she actually said was that a) yes, noone should have a gun and b) nothing is ever solved by having guns. Which is true. The fact that you feel the need to own guns is a tragedy, because it implies that you are not safe. You owning guns does not make you safer, it doesn't make your community safer.

Above all though, this is not "the opposition" saying this. This is one person saying it. This is not proposed legislation, it's an expression of a philosophy, and unless you wish that everyone that disagrees with you would just shut up and disappear (or be forced to shut up and disappear), it is something you will have to tolerate. Laws and traditions need to be questioned and examined for their utility, else they become useless dogma. Asking whether or not widespread gun ownership is necessary or desired is not a big crime against freedom.

Why should I conform to your views? In order to accomplish your stated goals, you have to use force to enforce your viewpoints upon others. I will not surrender my God given rights (endowed by the creator!) to freedom and the ability to protect what is mine from Evil! When I was sworn in as a soldier, I swore to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Just because I no longer a soldier that oath still applies to the end of my days. I will never see eye to eye on this issue because to enforce your will upon me...You will have to pry my weapons from my cold dead hands! I guess I am that gun nut that Daryl rails against as evil. Off to reeducation camps or the grave for me. He plants his flag into the ground...Come and Get It! Daryl, the worse I ever done in my life is speeding and parking tickets!

Good for you.

No, seriously, good for you that the worst crime you have ever committed is parking in the wrong place or driving too fast.

Now, what is your opinion on the fact that most guns used in terror attacks were purchased legally and above-board? Or on the fact that, due to gun lobby interference, there is no way to stop someone on a terror watch list from walking into a store and acquiring deadly weapons?

In order to protect me from terrorists, I can't have a weapon. (not going to happen!) As for owning weapons, yes they make me safer to respond to threats. As for the terror attack last weekend, he was on terror list for 9 months and then removed while he worked for DHS contractor as a security guard.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:I believe you were said something as you were patting your gun cabinet as to weapons. So do you own weapons or not? Yes...you do. The opposition has just said no one has the right to own weapons in America. That is from one of the chairs of the democratic party. That's their ultimate goal!

What she actually said was that a) yes, noone should have a gun and b) nothing is ever solved by having guns. Which is true. The fact that you feel the need to own guns is a tragedy, because it implies that you are not safe. You owning guns does not make you safer, it doesn't make your community safer.

Above all though, this is not "the opposition" saying this. This is one person saying it. This is not proposed legislation, it's an expression of a philosophy, and unless you wish that everyone that disagrees with you would just shut up and disappear (or be forced to shut up and disappear), it is something you will have to tolerate. Laws and traditions need to be questioned and examined for their utility, else they become useless dogma. Asking whether or not widespread gun ownership is necessary or desired is not a big crime against freedom.

Why should I conform to your views? In order to accomplish your stated goals, you have to use force to enforce your viewpoints upon others. I will not surrender my God given rights (endowed by the creator!) to freedom and the ability to protect what is mine from Evil! When I was sworn in as a soldier, I swore to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Just because I no longer a soldier that oath still applies to the end of my days. I will never see eye to eye on this issue because to enforce your will upon me...You will have to pry my weapons from my cold dead hands! I guess I am that gun nut that Daryl rails against as evil. Off to reeducation camps or the grave for me. He plants his flag into the ground...Come and Get It! Daryl, the worse I ever done in my life is speeding and parking tickets!

Good for you.

No, seriously, good for you that the worst crime you have ever committed is parking in the wrong place or driving too fast.

Now, what is your opinion on the fact that most guns used in terror attacks were purchased legally and above-board? Or on the fact that, due to gun lobby interference, there is no way to stop someone on a terror watch list from walking into a store and acquiring deadly weapons?

smr wrote:In order to protect me from terrorists, I can't have a weapon. (not going to happen!)

How often are you, personally, or the community you live in, the target of a terrorist attack? How many terrorist attacks have you personally been able to stop because you own guns?

I think you're misunderstanding the reasoning here: The fact that you have a (real or perceived) need to own guns is deplorable. You shouldn't have to own a tool for killing in order to live a peaceful life. Is that so hard to understand?

As for owning weapons, yes they make me safer to respond to threats.

Do they? Do you regularly go on training courses designed to test and improve your ability to respond to someone shooting into a crowd? Do you regularly attend courses on how to engage an attacker in a chaotic situation safely? Are you completely assured of your ability to react with the appropriate amount of force to a perceived threat?

And, more importantly, even if you answer in the affirmative to all of the above, can you say the same about most gun owners in your vicinity? Are you absolutely confident in their ability to react to such a situation correctly and not harm you by accident?

If all of that were the case, then you would have a solid case for saying that improved gun control is unnecessary. But you don't, because unless someone goes out and specifically acquires all that training, they're not going to have it.

As for the terror attack last weekend, he was on terror list for 9 months and then removed while he worked for DHS contractor as a security guard.

And why was he able to get that job? Why is there no legislation in place that requires arms dealers to check whether or not a person is on the terror watch list before closing the deal? Because the fact of the matter is that even if he still had been on that list, he would still have been able to purchase the guns used here.

I also note that you haven't actually answered my questions, so here they are again:
What is your opinion on the fact that most guns used in terror attacks were purchased legally and above-board? Or on the fact that, due to gun lobby interference, there is no way to stop someone on a terror watch list from walking into a store and acquiring deadly weapons?

So if the US ammends it's constitution to ban a gun you own you will:
Hand it over because you swore to obey the constitution, or
Refuse to hand it over using deadly force in the process?

Or C: bury your semi automatic shot gun in a field, properly wrapped of course, because there was no way the government was getting that gun... ah 1996. I had some interesting friends

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Total disconnect here.
For the umpteenth time I do own guns (more than 5 and less than 10), but none are pistols or assault rifles. I did own a couple of SKKs (Chinese AK47 semi auto copies) but gave them up in our gun buy back.

Do I insist you conform to my views. Hell no, why should I? You are on another continent so your weapons are no threat to me, although from what you have said they could be a danger to you (explain later).

Do I want you to surrender your "God given rights(endowed by the creator!) to freedom and the ability to protect what is mine from Evil!" WTF. Firstly I don't believe in your sky fairy, thus have no belief that she gave you any rights, and even if she existed why you & how was it done?
Plus anyway I really don't think you are effectively defending yourself or what is yours (explain later).

When have I ever claimed that "gun nuts" are evil? I own guns, am an enthusiastic range shooter and have actually earned my living in the past from hunting, and in my last career earned my living spending billions on buying weapons for my country. When you raved on about come and get it, enforcing wills, and prying weapons you really sounded irrational.

Now as to (explain later), as others here (who do know their stuff) have tried to explain, owning a gun without regular thorough training in both how to use it and how to handle crisis situations, just makes you less safe. Guns don't come with force fields or shields. If there is a shooting episode and you pull out a hand gun, guess which person the shooter will target next? I've done commando and SAS courses along with Tai Kwan Do and Aikido, plus have consistently won at range matches for over 50 years, so I do know what I'm talking about.

Now as to "What is your proposal on climate change that is fair to everyone?". There is no such thing. I quietly get on with my life trying to responsibly limit the amount of pollution that I cause while still retaining a very high lifestyle. I actively encourage others to do the same, and guess what, doing that usually end up costing less anyway. I do get annoyed with those who don't try to look at all the mountain of evidence and make adult decisions without cherry picking, but am comforted in that they are an ineffectual small minority.

smr wrote:I believe you were said something as you were patting your gun cabinet as to weapons. So do you own weapons or not? Yes...you do. The opposition has just said no one has the right to own weapons in America. That is from one of the chairs of the democratic party. That's their ultimate goal!

Why should I conform to your views? In order to accomplish your stated goals, you have to use force to enforce your viewpoints upon others. I will not surrender my God given rights (endowed by the creator!) to freedom and the ability to protect what is mine from Evil! When I was sworn in as a soldier, I swore to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Just because I no longer a soldier that oath still applies to the end of my days. I will never see eye to eye on this issue because to enforce your will upon me...You will have to pry my weapons from my cold dead hands! I guess I am that gun nut that Daryl rails against as evil. Off to reeducation camps or the grave for me. He plants his flag into the ground...Come and Get It! Daryl, the worse I ever done in my life is speeding and parking tickets!

As for climate change deniers...is the climate in constant change our entire history...Yes! So that is misnomer. We tried to address that problem (carbon output) with Kyoto accords....that was a economic relocation of wealth and jobs to China and India from America. They do not take part in the Kyoto accords. Hmm....wealth redistribution! I will not prescribe to some plan unless it applies to everyone...which means you need a world government. I don't think that's going to happen unless everyone converts to Islam and they can force people through religion and government law. So that's not going to really happen. What is your proposal on climate change that is fair to everyone?

Daryl wrote:As evidenced by the climate change deniers and the tobacco lobby, you can always find an academic to selectively quote to "prove" your point.
A more practical approach is the old adage of the proof of a pudding is in the eating. Regardless of language definitions all developed countries have had socialist systems for many decades. I feel totally free and not in a police state. Our main national newspaper featured a letter to the editor of mine along with a graphic cartoon showing our PM being an anal suppository to Bush at the Iraqi invasion time. I'm still free.
Some of the comments here talk about the state taking charge of all the citizens' rights. Not so, all functional states do have to regulate some citizen activities, but socialism is not uniquely or specifically involved in this.
Societal norms also regulate behaviour. Despite being largish I can legally wear racing swimming pants (budgee smugglers) downtown, but am not likely to do so.
Despite SMR's assertion I own a number of legal guns, but our society has decided that I have no need or right to carry a handgun when just generally out and about, and I'm happy with that as it brings safety and freedom of movement to me.

Daryl wrote: I don't believe in your sky fairy, thus have no belief that she...

No need to read on, disproved your opinion, in my mine anyway.

Reports are starting to come in that this guy may have been considering Disney World as a target. I'm rather glad he chose otherwise.

The E wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding the reasoning here: The fact that you have a (real or perceived) need to own guns is deplorable. You shouldn't have to own a tool for killing in order to live a peaceful life. Is that so hard to understand?

I'd like to point out that a gun is a tool with more uses than killing people. Personally I hardly think living in rural Canada is deplorable, but people do NEED guns. In Germany there may not be any need for them, but North America has a lot of real wilderness with predators that will Attack people and livestock. A customer I was working for had a Grizzly kill 3 of his pigs last month, he won't enter the woods on his property without a gun, is it deplorable that he would rather be able to kill a predator than simply die or see his livestock killed? Another friend of mine had a wolverine hanging out around his place a few years ago, he carried his rifle anytime he was outside his house, again, is that really deplorable? Personally I don't see any need for people to have guns designed for killing people, but there are many legitimate reasons to own a firearm. Also, hunting is a legitimate reason to own guns, and is a valuable tool for controlling population of wild animals. Around here a very large part of the population owns guns, and there have only been 2 shootings in my area in the last 17 years. But people die regularly in wildlife collisions, heck, in the last 7 years I've hit 3 deer, a moose and an Elk. I'd far rather have a large number of responsible gun owners in the area than see the ungulate population explode and cause far more deaths than firearms do

The E wrote:

Indeed with this as the principal incentive, there is no competition. Why produce more than the bare minimum when excess production is claimed by the collective to a greater or lesser degree? Within the State, national socialism works the same way.

Except that national socialism sees productivity as the highest good: In order to fulfill its goals, it needs to be as productive as possible, else it can't claim to be superior to the rest of the world.

That sacrifice must be made by government on behalf of its citizens. In other words it must be imposed upon the individual for the greater good as defined by that government. Mandating individual initiative be sacrificed in this way underscores the principal objections most conservatives have with socialist ideals.

Except socialism doesn't actually say anything about that. Five year plans and command economies are an expression of a dysfunction socialism is unfortunately prone to, that of vanguardism (the idea that society needs a vanguard in charge that leads the people to salvation because only the vanguard sees the big picture).
"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" has room for individuals taking the initiative or acting creatively.

Government imposes its moral paradigm of sacrificing the individual upon the citizenry. This is true for both National Socialism and the more generic Socialism. Supporting the greater good is a choice individuals can make without being mandated to do so by government. Both of these forms of Socialism assumes that citizens won't make that choice must be compelled.

A large part of the social contract in any society is the enforcement of mutually acceptable rules that define what measures of authority any member of the society has to give up in order to be part of the society. Whether that be through law enforcement or cultural mores doesn't matter, the end result is that living in society means sacrificing individual freedoms.

We agree that national socialism retains more of the capitalist mechanism to increase productivity. National socialism retains ownership of property for small and midsized businesses, whereas socialism advocates complete ownership of private property. We further agree that socialism as a general rule relied on command economies that were less efficient than market economies.

You asset that socialism is silent on eliminating the incentives to retain those increased efficiencies. I submit that the ownership or private property IS the incentive to increase efficiencies. Furthermore that the ability to retain the fruits of one's labor is essential to increasing the total wealth of a society. The two go hand in hand. Retaining the product of one's labor and the ability to voluntarily trade it is the best method to increase wealth for both parties of a transaction.

The issue with socialism is that it demands much if not all of that ability to retain the fruits of one's labor be sacrificed for the collective good. Yet, the collective good is reduced when that ability is sacrificed. Individuals may voluntarily share their wealth/savings/labor without reducing his or her right to it, but to have it forcibly taken through the rule of law means that the product of that labor was never his or hers to own in the first place. Why spend any portion of one's limited lifetime increasing someone else's gain?

I know why I would share my savings and possessions with those less fortunate or even the community at large. It is my choice. But why would I take my time, risk my possessions in ventures that will profit others should it be successful? If it fails, the loss is mine. If it succeeds, the gain goes elsewhere.

If the ability to retain the product of my labor is first and foremost mine, then the government cannot sacrifice it or my ownership of it for the collective good. Only my decisions can do that. Which brings us back to the discussions of prior threads about the sovereignty of the individual. At its core the US government is an agent of the individual citizen who retains the sovereignty over his property which includes the fruits of his labor. Government cannot make those decisions on behalf of the citizenry without asserting its ownership over our possessions and the fruits of our labor. We can change our Constitution to allow our government to do just that. Yet, if we do we give up our sovereignty.

Many of us are quite leery about giving up more of our sovereignty by allowing government to infringe upon our liberties in that way.