The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[Emily]

Emily - you were militarily trained to use a firearm.  That makes you an asset in your neighborhood, whether or not you keep one your home. If you ended up with one in your hands for whatever reason, you know how to unload it or use it for necessity to defend yourself or your family.

First, the "anecdotal" guns in schools are not in the mix.

Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix.

It skews any study.  And creates a false representation of what is really going on.  

School violence with guns does not become part of the court record, the local police database, or perhaps FBI database and that is why it is not reliable.  

Who ever thought a school massacre would ever happen in a place like Newtown, CT, in the most idyllic place in the world?

It is not commonplace but it does happen and schools need to be ready to defend the children and staff.  I think the administration should be trained for concealed carry.  You'd see this whole dynamic evaporate.  Or have armed security as part of the school staff.  No kid would dare bring a gun to school if they thought they would have to go through a metal detector manned by a cop.  It would serve as an instant deterrent.  We need to be universally-prepared for the change in crime climate and not buy into the propaganda that lulls its society into complacency and unpreparedness.  Just sayin'  

I was trained. Happily, it's statistically incredibly unlikely that a situation will come up in my life that using that training will be necessary or advisable.

-"First, the "anecdotal" guns in schools are not in the mix.
Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix." - any proper analysis will take these into account.
-"Who ever thought a school massacre would ever happen in a place like Newtown, CT, in the most idyllic place in the world? " - Given that pretty much anyone can get a gun whenever they want, this doesn't surprise me. People with long-term mental health issues, shorter term breakdowns, etc. live everywhere. That someone in a meltdown state can get a gun so easily is stupid.

I am not opposed to having metal detectors in schools. I am opposed to having armed people in schools. I don't trust teachers, administrators or police officers to not have a melt down any more than I do anyone else.

[filledeplage]

Let's say you make guns illegal unless you're in law enforcement.  You can't believe that the criminals won't find ways to get them.  Then, the outlaws are unarmed and people aren't. 

Putting aside the fact that that historically does not happen (look at Australia, for example), how do you explain your double standard here when it comes to your other opinion on letting in refugees?

Also, if used in a irresponsible manner, you can easily wipe out a life, or lives, with an automobile.  Is anyone calling for them to be banned? 

There have been laws created that make driving safer - call those laws car control, if you will. And, in fact, we should continue to support efforts to make driving safer. Furthermore, the analogy does not hold up. A gun's primary function is to inflict violence or at least threaten it. An automobile serves another purpose, which is transportation, which is its primary function. Obviously anything out there can kill you or hurt you, but those things are distinctly different from the objects that are designed to do so.

Not sure how my stance on not letting in Syrian refugees has anything to do with gun laws.  But why do you want to let 10,000 non-citizens into the country when we have US citizens living on the streets?  We need to take care of our own. 

And I do find it amusing that people say that the 10,000 refugees shouldn't be lumped in with terrorists.  By that logic, the irresponsible gun owners shouldn't be lumped in with the responsible ones. 

KDS  - Ya got that right and start with our homeless vets.  I believe in a safe zone created where refugees can be safely housed and protected til this conflict (undeclared war) is resolved.  

[KDS]

Not sure how my stance on not letting in Syrian refugees has anything to do with gun laws.

We've discussed this before but you never responded. You have admitted before that a terrorist can find a way to enter the country whether by legitimate or non-legitimate means. Yet, you said, why make it easier for them? So my question to you was why make it easier for criminals to access guns by not placing restrictions on them?

  But why do you want to let 10,000 non-citizens into the country when we have US citizens living on the streets?  We need to take care of our own. 

There is enough wealth in the United States to take care of all of them and then some. And given the history of both US domestic and international policy, I'd say they have an enormous responsibility to do so.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.  If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.  

As for the guns v terror thing.  I fail to see the analogy of an object compared to people.  An object can be controlled, people cannot.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix.

I'm sure the countries in the continent who have the most to fear are Canada and Mexico being fearful of the illegal guns that are spreading from the US.

[filledeplage]

Emily - you were militarily trained to use a firearm.  That makes you an asset in your neighborhood, whether or not you keep one your home. If you ended up with one in your hands for whatever reason, you know how to unload it or use it for necessity to defend yourself or your family.

First, the "anecdotal" guns in schools are not in the mix.

Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix.

It skews any study.  And creates a false representation of what is really going on.  

School violence with guns does not become part of the court record, the local police database, or perhaps FBI database and that is why it is not reliable.  

Who ever thought a school massacre would ever happen in a place like Newtown, CT, in the most idyllic place in the world?

It is not commonplace but it does happen and schools need to be ready to defend the children and staff.  I think the administration should be trained for concealed carry.  You'd see this whole dynamic evaporate.  Or have armed security as part of the school staff.  No kid would dare bring a gun to school if they thought they would have to go through a metal detector manned by a cop.  It would serve as an instant deterrent.  We need to be universally-prepared for the change in crime climate and not buy into the propaganda that lulls its society into complacency and unpreparedness.  Just sayin'  

I was trained. Happily, it's statistically incredibly unlikely that a situation will come up in my life that using that training will be necessary or advisable.

-"First, the "anecdotal" guns in schools are not in the mix.
Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix." - any proper analysis will take these into account.
-"Who ever thought a school massacre would ever happen in a place like Newtown, CT, in the most idyllic place in the world? " - Given that pretty much anyone can get a gun whenever they want, this doesn't surprise me. People with long-term mental health issues, shorter term breakdowns, etc. live everywhere. That someone in a meltdown state can get a gun so easily is stupid.

I am not opposed to having metal detectors in schools. I am opposed to having armed people in schools. I don't trust teachers, administrators or police officers to not have a melt down any more than I do anyone else.

Most teachers I know keep their cool.  They would not be able to take the stress of the job otherwise.  Anyone can have a meltdown, but I can share that school police are a deterrent in high crime areas or high crime schools.  

The disconnect is that the courts have not become as involved with bona fide crime in the schools so that bullying can continue, and there is no judge to respond to.  This is just a principal trying to enforce a "code of discipline" which is a joke.  There are no consequences.  

It is really hard to expel a kid from school, even if they are violent.  Principals tell teachers to "handle their own problems" and teachers are there to teach and not to be cops. '

[filledeplage]

Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix.

I'm sure the countries in the continent who have the most to fear are Canada and Mexico being fearful of the illegal guns that are spreading from the US.

You must mean the Russian Kalashnikovs made in China?

[Emily]

Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix.

I'm sure the countries in the continent who have the most to fear are Canada and Mexico being fearful of the illegal guns that are spreading from the US.

The US manufactures more guns than any other country. Neither Mexico or Canada even rank. So yeah.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

 If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them. 

[KDS]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

 If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them. 

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them.

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case.  

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

[KDS]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them.

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case.  

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

If the US were to invest in the problem in Syria, I'd rather assist in taking out ISIS than bring the refugees here.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them.

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case.  

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

If the US were to invest in the problem in Syria, I'd rather assist in taking out ISIS than bring the refugees here.  

We have been invested in that for years and the affect has been to radicalize these countries even more and increase the threat of terror.

[KDS]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them.

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case.  

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

If the US were to invest in the problem in Syria, I'd rather assist in taking out ISIS than bring the refugees here.  

We have been invested in that for years and the affect has been to radicalize these countries even more and increase the threat of terror.

We could always use the same solution we used to end the war in the Pacific 70 years ago. 

[Emily]

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

The military is our biggest and arguably most successful welfare program. Unfortunately, in recent decades, they've been increasingly diverting the welfare that used to go to the impoverished and undereducated to corporations. I do consider corporate welfare to be wasteful, but not welfare that helps people out of poverty.
It is a shame that many Americans will only approve of welfare if the recipient promises to die or kill for it if "ordered".

[Emily]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them.

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case.  

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

If the US were to invest in the problem in Syria, I'd rather assist in taking out ISIS than bring the refugees here.  

We have been invested in that for years and the affect has been to radicalize these countries even more and increase the threat of terror.

We could always use the same solution we used to end the war in the Pacific 70 years ago. 

Oh la. You just figuratively threw a major bomb into this little chat.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I don't feel that the US has any responsibility to assist these refugees.

Even though the US essentially created the conditions that allowed for ISIS to form, as was predicted, and then proceeded to set-up and fund the groups in Syria that turned into ISIS in an effort to counter Assad?

If we have so much wealth, then it can be used to take care of US veterans who don't know when their next meal is coming.

What do you mean if? You deny the amount of wealth in the United States? Like I said, it's enough to take care of all of them and then some. The point is, those in power have a vested interest in not helping any of them.

Maybe if government waste was greatly reduced.  But, sadly, that's not the case.  

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

If the US were to invest in the problem in Syria, I'd rather assist in taking out ISIS than bring the refugees here.  

We have been invested in that for years and the affect has been to radicalize these countries even more and increase the threat of terror.

We could always use the same solution we used to end the war in the Pacific 70 years ago.  

That would never happen because those in power know for a fact that that would probably be the end of the world as we know it. Are you aware of what the nuclear proliferation has been since 1945?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

The military is our biggest and arguably most successful welfare program. Unfortunately, in recent decades, they've been increasing diverting the welfare that used to go to the impoverished and undereducated to corporations. I do consider corporate welfare to be wasteful, but not welfare that helps people out of poverty.
It is a shame that many Americans will only approve of welfare if the recipient promises to die or kill for it if "ordered".

Agreed with all of that.

[filledeplage]

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

The military is our biggest and arguably most successful welfare program. Unfortunately, in recent decades, they've been increasingly diverting the welfare that used to go to the impoverished and undereducated to corporations. I do consider corporate welfare to be wasteful, but not welfare that helps people out of poverty.
It is a shame that many Americans will only approve of welfare if the recipient promises to die or kill for it if "ordered".

Emily - what you said is shocking but true.  Having seen two "basic training" graduations there are stark differences as between and among the branches.  The Army graduation was massively large, and I was impressed that post-high school, that for many of the grads the military was about their only option to get a college education or some type of vocational training.  I was sort of taken back by how poor some of the families seemed but were as proud of their basic "graduate" as though it was a college graduation. 

The Coast Guard graduation was far more elite.  Especially the advanced training component.  Many were children of Coast Guard or other branch "brass" who had other options on the table for employment and education and this was an "adjunct" as a career path.  Interesting that in that class, the top graduate was a woman.   

[Emily]

Government waste is an issue - particularly when it comes to the amount spent on the military, subsidizing the wealthy elite, as well as the massive amount spent on a malfunctioning private health care system. But what's more, there is an enormous inequality in wealth since neo-liberal reforms were brought in in the 1970s, which radically decreased the amount that the wealthiest in the country were being taxed (this actually began as far back as Kennedy because escalated sharply in the following decade). Furthermore, there are major corporations in the United States that do not pay any taxes, which is outrageous.

Any response regarding responsibility for the instability of Syria?

The military is our biggest and arguably most successful welfare program. Unfortunately, in recent decades, they've been increasingly diverting the welfare that used to go to the impoverished and undereducated to corporations. I do consider corporate welfare to be wasteful, but not welfare that helps people out of poverty.
It is a shame that many Americans will only approve of welfare if the recipient promises to die or kill for it if "ordered".

Emily - what you said is shocking but true.  Having seen two "basic training" graduations there are stark differences as between and among the branches.  The Army graduation was massively large, and I was impressed that post-high school, that for many of the grads the military was about their only option to get a college education or some type of vocational training.  I was sort of taken back by how poor some of the families seemed but were as proud of their basic "graduate" as though it was a college graduation. 

The Coast Guard graduation was far more elite.  Especially the advanced training component.  Many were children of Coast Guard or other branch "brass" who had other options on the table for employment and education and this was an "adjunct" as a career path.  Interesting that in that class, the top graduate was a woman.   

The demographics of my Basic platoon were eye-opening and caused me to look into it further. The non-commissioned army is drawn out of the poorest and least educated segments of our population. The bases are also located in poorer regions, allowing the government to redistribute wealth directly through pay, but also through procurement.
The army is the biggest income redistribution tool we have.

[Emily]

I am a political libertarian and a cultural chauvinist. The West is the best. Anyone can be a Westerner if they want to be; who really wants to be a non-Westerner? Humans, as social animals, will organize alongside people with similar beliefs and culture. Would it be enforced? Not necessarily by a state; people can practice good old ostracism. Want to live in Western civilization and not assimilate into Western culture? Good luck. May the odds be ever in your favor. A free society cannot tolerate fifth columns because fifth columns are composed of people who do not value freedom. In the endeavor to preserve the most freedom for the most people, the people who do not value freedom will not be able to coexist in a libertarian social order. Call it a dictatorship if you wish. The people who don't value freedom are not going to be missed; they don't produce anything of value anyway. For the record, the same people who comprise said fifth columns come from nations that also do not tolerate fifth columns. How come they get to have all of the fun?

Liberty is not for the weak of stomach or the faint of heart. Very few truly desire liberty; those who hallucinate themselves as individuals who similarly desire liberty are of the persuasion that liberty does not go both ways.

How is his assertion counterfactual?

-Happily, your idea of Western civilization is a myth.
-"A free society cannot tolerate..." - oxymoron
-"The people who don't value freedom are not going to be missed; they don't produce anything of value anyway" - I wonder who you mean by "the people who don't value freedom" because if it includes whom I think you mean, this is counterfactual. Please tell me who "the people who.. value freedom" are and who "the people who don't value freedom" are. I mean, as far as being non-productive, income redistribution in the US en masse goes from liberals to conservatives, so..
-people do have an idea, based on actual information rather than wishes and fantasies.

Later, with a clearer mind, I'm adding: a lot of people very sensibly don't want to be "Westerners."

[18thofMay]

Well done guys, congrats on another mass shooting!

[Bittersweet-Sanity]

Lol are you for real? yes, congrats to the lucky contestants that got offed today. i mean, who cares, right?

Unfortunately there's a lot of deranged people who take out their frustrations in a grizzly fashion. It's gonna get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

[Douchepool]

Well done guys, congrats on another mass shooting!

Blaming the entire American nation for a shooting, eh?

[18thofMay]

Well done guys, congrats on another mass shooting!

Blaming the entire American nation for a shooting, eh?

No just the guys that come in threads like this and crap on about rights etc...
I love your Country, I love mine the differences in policy is demonstrated and stark.

[Douchepool]

So you're blaming people in this thread for the shooting?