Gun Violence Facts for 2012

Sammich you are arguing one of two things: Either 1) you are arguing for the exclusive communal ownership of weapons (ie communism like Hegel and Marx) or 2) the transcendental nature of government having greater rights than the individuals that comprise that government (government worship like Immanuel Kant).



True saying you are for communism and government worship might get your ire up and lead hawkwing to believe I am calling names, but it is an accurate portrayal of your argument. The fact you make a misguided utilitarian argument against the private ownership of certain weapons does not make your argument any less dependent on the principles of communism and/or a transcendent government.

Sammich wrote:

Individuals or groups raising armies can be easily as, if not more, dangerous than allowing the government that ability.

Why? There are more private militias (ie. private security groups) than there are governments. Which group infringes more upon your life, liberty and property? You give no reason for this assertion. You made the argument previously that government is somehow more effective than private militias. I would contend that for the price of one government operative I could hire 5-6 private security professionals and they would be far more effective in defending my life, liberty and property than any cop.

Sammich wrote:
I recognize that it may be necessary to oppose the government with force at some point, but when that happens it should be a larger movement, not something at the whim of some small group or faction.

About 5-8% of colonists actively opposed British rule and I'm sure you would agree they were justified. If we held your position the American succession from Britain would never have occurred. What matters is not the size of the opposition but the justness of their cause and their ability to defend their rights with military might comparable to those attempting to infringe upon those rights. Moroni would still have had justice on his side even if no one else had taken up the standard of liberty.

Sammich wrote:
This is exactly the reason why I would be opposed to widespread access to grenade launchers. I don't implicitly trust the government use of military, but if I am opposed to their use of power, at least as it stands I can peacefully (and if enough others feel the same, effectively) oppose that in various ways because of the rights and protections afforded me by the constitution. Is there a way to peacefully create opposition to a privately funded military group that is unfettered by law?

Tell me how effective the peaceful opposition to government use of the military by the majority of Americans has been? There is no difference between a private military and a public one. Both are subject to whatever contract is in place between the military and those that hire it. The choice of peaceful or violent opposition to either is a choice one must make.

Sammich wrote:
This is the paradox of government, the necessary evil of it. A SWAT team is empowered to exceed the power of the individuals they are needed to apprehend, but allowing them to have that power necessarily limits my rights somewhat and increases the power of the government (even if in most cases that limitation is merely supporting that team with my taxes).

I disagree that government is a necessary evil. It is ordained of God when properly implemented. You have the same right as the SWAT team to apprehend those who encroach upon your life, liberty or property. The fact you delegate that right to another group, public or private, does not limit your right, it is an exercise of your right.

Sammich wrote:
[Y]ou appear to be suggesting ... there should be no limit to the power of an individual in the face of the government, which is not how our laws were ever meant to work.

The limit is that no individual or group of individuals should take the life, liberty or property of others. That is the basis of all law.

Sammich wrote:
You're acting like my opposition of civilian access to military-grade weapons is because I welcome the tyranny of the government, but it's the opposite: I'm suggesting we afford the government a limited amount of regulation over the type of weapons an individual can possess so as to avoid a different sort of tyranny. You and I can argue whether that line should be drawn at grenade launchers or nuclear weapons, but I don't think it is wrong to suggest that there should be a line. Which is the whole point why I posted in this thread in the first place.

Your argument does welcome tyranny because its basis is in the idea of communal ownership weapons while excluding private ownership (ie communism). Can you point to any occurrences of this other type of tyranny you allude to? because I have the whole of history as evidence of the tyranny of government.

jvquarterback wrote:
Sammich you are arguing one of two things: Either 1) you are arguing for the exclusive communal ownership of weapons (ie communism like Hegel and Marx) or 2) the transcendental nature of government having greater rights than the individuals that comprise that government (government worship like Immanuel Kant).



True saying you are for communism and government worship might get your ire up and lead hawkwing to believe I am calling names, but it is an accurate portrayal of your argument. The fact you make a misguided utilitarian argument against the private ownership of certain weapons does not make your argument any less dependent on the principles of communism and/or a transcendent government.

Individuals or groups raising armies can be easily as, if not more, dangerous than allowing the government that ability.

Why? There are more private militias (ie. private security groups) than there are governments. Which group infringes more upon your life, liberty and property? You give no reason for this assertion. You made the argument previously that government is somehow more effective than private militias. I would contend that for the price of one government operative I could hire 5-6 private security professionals and they would be far more effective in defending my life, liberty and property than any cop.

Sammich wrote:
I recognize that it may be necessary to oppose the government with force at some point, but when that happens it should be a larger movement, not something at the whim of some small group or faction.

About 5-8% of colonists actively opposed British rule and I'm sure you would agree they were justified. If we held your position the American succession from Britain would never have occurred. What matters is not the size of the opposition but the justness of their cause and their ability to defend their rights with military might comparable to those attempting to infringe upon those rights. Moroni would still have had justice on his side even if no one else had taken up the standard of liberty.

Sammich wrote:
This is exactly the reason why I would be opposed to widespread access to grenade launchers. I don't implicitly trust the government use of military, but if I am opposed to their use of power, at least as it stands I can peacefully (and if enough others feel the same, effectively) oppose that in various ways because of the rights and protections afforded me by the constitution. Is there a way to peacefully create opposition to a privately funded military group that is unfettered by law?

Tell me how effective the peaceful opposition to government use of the military by the majority of Americans has been? There is no difference between a private military and a public one. Both are subject to whatever contract is in place between the military and those that hire it. The choice of peaceful or violent opposition to either is a choice one must make.

Sammich wrote:
This is the paradox of government, the necessary evil of it. A SWAT team is empowered to exceed the power of the individuals they are needed to apprehend, but allowing them to have that power necessarily limits my rights somewhat and increases the power of the government (even if in most cases that limitation is merely supporting that team with my taxes).

I disagree that government is a necessary evil. It is ordained of God when properly implemented. You have the same right as the SWAT team to apprehend those who encroach upon your life, liberty or property. The fact you delegate that right to another group, public or private, does not limit your right, it is an exercise of your right.

Sammich wrote:
[Y]ou appear to be suggesting ... there should be no limit to the power of an individual in the face of the government, which is not how our laws were ever meant to work.

The limit is that no individual or group of individuals should take the life, liberty or property of others. That is the basis of all law.

Sammich wrote:
You're acting like my opposition of civilian access to military-grade weapons is because I welcome the tyranny of the government, but it's the opposite: I'm suggesting we afford the government a limited amount of regulation over the type of weapons an individual can possess so as to avoid a different sort of tyranny. You and I can argue whether that line should be drawn at grenade launchers or nuclear weapons, but I don't think it is wrong to suggest that there should be a line. Which is the whole point why I posted in this thread in the first place.

Your argument does welcome tyranny because its basis is in the idea of communal ownership weapons while excluding private ownership (ie communism). Can you point to any occurrences of this other type of tyranny you allude to? because I have the whole of history as evidence of the tyranny of government.

I'm not arguing for anything you have said and you either know it and are trolling or you are honestly blind to the idea of hard realities and compromise in politics. You've taken nearly everything I've said and pushed it until it distorts and becomes something else entirely. In short, I'm exhausted with trying to make what started as a very simple point: that the debate is worth having and articles like this are worth looking at.



I will say this though: study what happened in Rwanda a few years back and you will see an example of tyranny brought about by a faction of people. Most of the military there stood by while it happened because when the people were out in full force they didn't stand a chance (I never said an armed nation was weak, only the smaller groups you referred to). There might be a hundred different ways to avoid such a conflict and maybe access to more powerful weapons could be a component, but the risk of something like that is real and should be a factor in the policies that are made just like policies should balance the popular vote vs. economic and regional interests (whether or not you think that the EC addresses that well).

BroncoBot wrote:

D&C 45:70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion own grenade launchers; wherefore we cannot stand.

Fixed it. ;)

LOL but I think Paul in Timothy has something to say about this interpretation..... ;) Well done. Seriously, I see no way any sort of militia would stop a tyrannical military with the fire power of the US Army. More likely would be the sort of protest strike and disobedience that Ghandi pulled off in India. Not saying it would work but it has more chance than waging some sort of gunned conflict

tww wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

Well since you were so fatigued with me calling your argument by its rightful name - communism - I figured I would give you a few days to recuperate. You say we should all accept the communal ownership of something while preventing the private ownership of the same thing. There is no other name for that than communism ... unless you've come up with some sort of 1984 double-speak madness for what you "hope we can all agree" on.



Btw whatever reality you're trying to sell compromise of any god-given right is always a bad thing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

Well since you were so fatigued with me calling your argument by its rightful name - communism - I figured I would give you a few days to recuperate. You say we should all accept the communal ownership of something while preventing the private ownership of the same thing. There is no other name for that than communism ... unless you've come up with some sort of 1984 double-speak madness for what you "hope we can all agree" on.



Btw whatever reality you're trying to sell compromise of any god-given right is always a bad thing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I think you are talking to Sammich but just to be clear, I do not believe that the federal government was given constitutional power to restrict military firearms from civilians.

jvquarterback wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

Well since you were so fatigued with me calling your argument by its rightful name - communism - I figured I would give you a few days to recuperate. You say we should all accept the communal ownership of something while preventing the private ownership of the same thing. There is no other name for that than communism ... unless you've come up with some sort of 1984 double-speak madness for what you "hope we can all agree" on.



Btw whatever reality you're trying to sell compromise of any god-given right is always a bad thing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No point arguing with someone who is already convinced. And even worse to argue with someone who characterizes your argument incorrectly in an attempt to make you look bad. That's trolling and I'm not taking the bait.

Sammich wrote:

tww wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

Well since you were so fatigued with me calling your argument by its rightful name - communism - I figured I would give you a few days to recuperate. You say we should all accept the communal ownership of something while preventing the private ownership of the same thing. There is no other name for that than communism ... unless you've come up with some sort of 1984 double-speak madness for what you "hope we can all agree" on.



Btw whatever reality you're trying to sell compromise of any god-given right is always a bad thing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No point arguing with someone who is already convinced. And even worse to argue with someone who characterizes your argument incorrectly in an attempt to make you look bad. That's trolling and I'm not taking the bait.

I think you brought this type of response on yourself with your smug first comment, which I'm glad to see was widely disputed.

BroncoBot wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

Well since you were so fatigued with me calling your argument by its rightful name - communism - I figured I would give you a few days to recuperate. You say we should all accept the communal ownership of something while preventing the private ownership of the same thing. There is no other name for that than communism ... unless you've come up with some sort of 1984 double-speak madness for what you "hope we can all agree" on.



Btw whatever reality you're trying to sell compromise of any god-given right is always a bad thing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No point arguing with someone who is already convinced. And even worse to argue with someone who characterizes your argument incorrectly in an attempt to make you look bad. That's trolling and I'm not taking the bait.

I think you brought this type of response on yourself with your smug first comment, which I'm glad to see was widely disputed.

It was not smug. I too would have hoped for that which Sammich stated. Obviously there are others who disagree. It was not,however, smug. Don't belittle please.

BroncoBot wrote:

I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

I think you brought this type of response on yourself with your smug first comment, which I'm glad to see was widely disputed.

It was never meant as a smug comment and I'm sorry it came across that way. I didn't mean "no sane person would think otherwise", my intention was to say I expected that most people had a line to draw somewhere, somewhere between free access to grenade launchers and free access to a button that destroys the world. I admit I really thought everyone had a line, even if they didn't realize it, but I now see that it is possible to reasonably believe that there is no line (I still think that would be extremely problematic but I understand how some might be willing to accept those problems to avoid others). I never said that the federal government should be leading the charge in this area, but I think some people got that idea from what I said in spite of my best intentions. I hate that about the internet---without talking to someone's face they filter your words through whatever inclinations they have---and since I'm an artist and not a writer, that happens to me more than I want it to. And I hate arguing, which is why I'm bowing out even though jvquarterback is still chomping at the bit.

BoiseBYU wrote:

It was not smug. I too would have hoped for that which Sammich stated. Obviously there are others who disagree. It was not,however, smug. Don't belittle please.

I would not be happy if my idiot next door neighbor, who can't even keep his stupid dogs from comming into my back yard had ANY military-grade weapons... I'm not even happy that he's got a gun actually.



Actually, I wonder if there is anyone here who beleives that military-grade weapons should not be controlled. No one beleives tht Charles Manson is entitled to an attack helicopter or an atomic bomb right? No one beleives that a convicted felon is entitled to a tank and that they ge to drive it right up to a school right? No one thinks that we need to allow a mental patient the right to own a rocket lanuncher do they?

ABYUFAN wrote:

It was not smug. I too would have hoped for that which Sammich stated. Obviously there are others who disagree. It was not,however, smug. Don't belittle please.

I would not be happy if my idiot next door neighbor, who can't even keep his stupid dogs from comming into my back yard had ANY military-grade weapons... I'm not even happy that he's got a gun actually.



Actually, I wonder if there is anyone here who beleives that military-grade weapons should not be controlled. No one beleives tht Charles Manson is entitled to an attack helicopter or an atomic bomb right? No one beleives that a convicted felon is entitled to a tank and that they ge to drive it right up to a school right? No one thinks that we need to allow a mental patient the right to own a rocket lanuncher do they?

Since you are late to the discussion, I will bring you up to speed. The question isn't whether some weapons should be controlled or not, it is at what level they should be controlled. The constitution states that the federal government shall not control them. So the point is that it is a state or local issue.

tww wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

It was not smug. I too would have hoped for that which Sammich stated. Obviously there are others who disagree. It was not,however, smug. Don't belittle please.

I would not be happy if my idiot next door neighbor, who can't even keep his stupid dogs from comming into my back yard had ANY military-grade weapons... I'm not even happy that he's got a gun actually.



Actually, I wonder if there is anyone here who beleives that military-grade weapons should not be controlled. No one beleives tht Charles Manson is entitled to an attack helicopter or an atomic bomb right? No one beleives that a convicted felon is entitled to a tank and that they ge to drive it right up to a school right? No one thinks that we need to allow a mental patient the right to own a rocket lanuncher do they?

Since you are late to the discussion, I will bring you up to speed. The question isn't whether some weapons should be controlled or not, it is at what level they should be controlled. The constitution states that the federal government shall not control them. So the point is that it is a state or local issue.

I should re read the the posts - but the 14th amendment basiccly says that any limitation of the Federal Government also applies to state (and local governments) so if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

Schmoe wrote:

I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Actually, I'm in Califoria and my vote counts for less than yours - my viewpoint will probably in my lifetime never be reflected on a national stage from my state. Chances are, yours will be

ABYUFAN wrote:
I should re read the the posts - but the 14th amendment basiccly says that any limitation of the Federal Government also applies to state (and local governments) so if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

The Supreme Court adopted this as the official interpretation as to the Second Amendment in 2010--McDonald v. Chicago. As it applies to the Fed, it applies to the States (and counties, municipalities, etc.)

snoscythe wrote:

I should re read the the posts - but the 14th amendment basiccly says that any limitation of the Federal Government also applies to state (and local governments) so if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

The Supreme Court adopted this as the official interpretation as to the Second Amendment in 2010--McDonald v. Chicago. As it applies to the Fed, it applies to the States (and counties, municipalities, etc.)

How about militias? The 2A mentions militias so they aught to be able to regulate themselves.



Here is the thing though, the argument is still going to come back to, how much firepower is too much? As long as that question is hanging then that precludes that someone has the authority to regulate it or we must stop asking the question. If we are going to allow the question to be asked then we must first return to the original intent of the founders on the 2A, which is that whoever ends up doing any regulating it must never be the federal government. Otherwise, they will use this confusion to grab extra-constitutional powers and then the the 2A becomes void without an amendment process.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Actually, I'm in Califoria and my vote counts for less than yours - my viewpoint will probably in my lifetime never be reflected on a national stage from my state. Chances are, yours will be

One concept regarding the political process that you guys may be missing (because it is taught in schools and promoted by the media incorrectly) is that voting is not the great meaningful event in the republican process. Voting is the very last thing that you do and it is mostly symbolic. It is kind of like showing up to play in a game and never have participated in a practice then complaining about your playing time. The only thing that truly matters in the republican process is your preparation. It is how many converts you bring with you to the voting booth. The patriotic ra ra about showing up and voting as an individual vote is a lie that many people have been conditioned to believe.



For example, right now everyone of us should be thinking about and working on the 2014 house of representatives races because now is when the high ground is taken. That is how you make your vote count.

tww wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Actually, I'm in Califoria and my vote counts for less than yours - my viewpoint will probably in my lifetime never be reflected on a national stage from my state. Chances are, yours will be

One concept regarding the political process that you guys may be missing (because it is taught in schools and promoted by the media incorrectly) is that voting is not the great meaningful event in the republican process. Voting is the very last thing that you do and it is mostly symbolic. It is kind of like showing up to play in a game and never have participated in a practice then complaining about your playing time. The only thing that truly matters in the republican process is your preparation. It is how many converts you bring with you to the voting booth. The patriotic ra ra about showing up and voting as an individual vote is a lie that many people have been conditioned to believe.



For example, right now everyone of us should be thinking about and working on the 2014 house of representatives races because now is when the high ground is taken. That is how you make your vote count.

And that is still harder to do in California than Utah or Idaho...

ABYUFAN wrote:
if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

Government can have no rights except those given it by the individuals that compose it. No citizen can give government a right he does not possess. If an individual citizen has no right to an attack helicopter he cannot give it to government. You can't have it both ways. Either the individual has the right to it or no one does.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:

if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

Government can have no rights except those given it by the individuals that compose it. No citizen can give government a right he does not possess. If an individual citizen has no right to an attack helicopter he cannot give it to government. You can't have it both ways. Either the individual has the right to it or no one does.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you're saying that you, as an individual, have the right to drive to a distant city in a different state and tell a shop owner in that City that their sign is too large, and force them to take it down? Because that City does have the power to do so, but you, as an individual do not, but the City government did not get that power from you, a citizen of a different city in a different state.

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:
if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

Government can have no rights except those given it by the individuals that compose it. No citizen can give government a right he does not possess. If an individual citizen has no right to an attack helicopter he cannot give it to government. You can't have it both ways. Either the individual has the right to it or no one does.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you're saying that you, as an individual, have the right to drive to a distant city in a different state and tell a shop owner in that City that their sign is too large, and force them to take it down? Because that City does have the power to do so, but you, as an individual do not, but the City government did not get that power from you, a citizen of a different city in a different state.

I'm saying unless there is an individual who does have the right to limit the size of your sign (possible if you signed an HOA) then nobody has the right to limit the size of your sign.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">