Gun Violence Facts for 2012

BoiseBYU wrote:

Well - call me crazy - and not to be argumentative. But in my mind, I wouldn't support having shoulder fired, anti-tank weapons being available to the general public. I also would not support making hand grenades legal and available.



That said - I am 100% against Diane Feinstein's gun ban effort. I live in the Republic of Kalifornia and I see what effect the progressive anti-gun agenda can have. The scary part is these cats are just warming up. Make no mistake, Feinstein's bill is a first step.

I'm with Ddawg (a first! ;) ) I'd ban shoulder fired anti-tank weapons. I'd also ban military grade firearms--kalishnikovs etc. But I'd also go much farther than my friend from Kalifornia and ban large gun clips (how large is too large? I am not certain to be honest) I'd ban armored piercing bullets too. This line drawing is hard. But, as I tried to make clear in some other thread some time ago, our Constitution demands this again and again in all sorts of other contexts: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment require a balancing of competing rights and acts

This rates a journal entry! Trust me, I'm use to being disagreed with. My wife disagrees about what time we get up. She disagrees with the shirt and tie I select for church. I am corrected for how I make our bed when I change the sheets. I don't load the dishwasher the "right" way. My kids disagree about doing homework and yardwork. Oy vey.



This is a special day. Thank you! :lol: :lol:

Wow Dawg, did you go to bed Sunday night or Monday morning?



In this discussion the question I have is not where to draw the line on just the private citizens but the government as well. Throw in the criminals here. If we limit ourselves to small capacity magazines and a criminal comes at me with a large capacity while I'm despartly trying to reload my single shot .22 I will not think very much of Diane F'stien's reasonable gun laws. So you that think a small magazine makes you safe, buy one or don't buy one, but don't take my right to have one.



My concern with the government is what laws will they make in the future that will be unconstitutional and they then come to get me. It reproduces that which was happening in 1776. I am very grateful that our forfathers had rifles and not just smooth bore brown besses. If I could go back there and could take them with me, I'd hand out to our boys every assault weapon on F'stien's list and all the ammo I could haul even though they were private citizens.



Now Hawkwing, I'm ready to take your poll.

nuk13 wrote:
Wow Dawg, did you go to bed Sunday night or Monday morning?



In this discussion the question I have is not where to draw the line on just the private citizens but the government as well.

That's my point to - where does the govt. draw the line on what guns I can own, what size of magazines I can own, what shape of gun can I purchase. Certainly, the question of where we draw the line is all about where the govt. (both state and federal) impose restricting gun ownership.



I have not even scratched the surface of how CRAZY Kalifornia is - and the liberals here are NOT satisfied. Not by a long shot.

hawkwing wrote:
I also am not sure what a 'military grade firearm' is. All firearms are military grade, so that point is essentially a non-starter for me.

I think this is usually referring to fully automatic weapons. Which are not illegal but tightly regulated. I agree they should be regulated in some way but not sure whether our current regulations are good or not.

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
Well - call me crazy - and not to be argumentative. But in my mind, I wouldn't support having shoulder fired, anti-tank weapons being available to the general public. I also would not support making hand grenades legal and available.



That said - I am 100% against Diane Feinstein's gun ban effort. I live in the Republic of Kalifornia and I see what effect the progressive anti-gun agenda can have. The scary part is these cats are just warming up. Make no mistake, Feinstein's bill is a first step.

I'm with Ddawg (a first! ;) ) I'd ban shoulder fired anti-tank weapons. I'd also ban military grade firearms--kalishnikovs etc. But I'd also go much farther than my friend from Kalifornia and ban large gun clips (how large is too large? I am not certain to be honest) I'd ban armored piercing bullets too. This line drawing is hard. But, as I tried to make clear in some other thread some time ago, our Constitution demands this again and again in all sorts of other contexts: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment require a balancing of competing rights and acts

This rates a journal entry! Trust me, I'm use to being disagreed with. My wife disagrees about what time we get up. She disagrees with the shirt and tie I select for church. I am corrected for how I make our bed when I change the sheets. I don't load the dishwasher the "right" way. My kids disagree about doing homework and yardwork. Oy vey.



This is a special day. Thank you! :lol: :lol:

I know it's going to be a rough one when I lose arguments with myself....

Sammich wrote:

I also am not sure what a 'military grade firearm' is. All firearms are military grade, so that point is essentially a non-starter for me.

I think this is usually referring to fully automatic weapons. Which are not illegal but tightly regulated. I agree they should be regulated in some way but not sure whether our current regulations are good or not.

Essentially that is what i inartfully meant.

CougarClaw wrote:
The reason a government wields more power is because citizens give up some liberty and freedom in order to enjoy the benefits of society. Individuals do have these rights but they relinquish them in order to coexist peacefully and advantageously with their neighbors. Lots of examples of this:



We subject ourselves to speed limits set for the common good so we can enjoy national standards on signs, road accessibility and general road quality. We restrict our travel ability with stoplights and wait our turn in turn lanes. We allow ourselves to become licensed by the state even if we can drive without it. We limit our cars with license plates for easy government tracking and auto standards so we can participate In Commerce and mobility.



We give up the ability to shoot anyone who offends us in order to live peacefully with our neighbors.



We give up the liberty of inventing our own currencies in exchange for a widely used and more efficient currency system. Love or hate the usd, it's infinitely better than the barter system.



We give up the ability to steal, lie, cheat, plunder, in Exchange for a justice system and laws that provide for our common welfare. And yes, we also give up the right to privately own nuclear weapons and tanks for the good of society.

This “relinquishment of rights” is the great farce those in government would have you believe. I can think of none of the founders who believe as you do – not even Hamilton and the rest of the federalists believed that – perhaps a few of the Tories who still believed that Hobbesian madness might agree with what you wrote.



We have relinquished no rights. The very most that can be said is that we, at times, allow government to exercise my rights. Rights are not exhaustible. Just because we allow a policeman or infantryman to act in our name does not mean we give up the right to act ourselves. To say that individuals relinquish rights stinks of the divine right of kings.



We have no right to shoot someone who offends us or steal, lie or cheat because those are not rights. You confuse the ability to do something with the right to do something.



As for not speeding or running red lights: that is a property rights issue and has to do with respecting the rights of others. It is not the mad relinquishing of rights you describe.

Sammich wrote:

If someone believes (as many here do) that the government cannot be allowed to have something the citizens can't, there are only two options: take the weapons away from the government, or give them to the people. I haven't seen an argument yet that successfully describes the logistics of the first, or how to avoid the massive problems of the second. So which is it, and how would it work?

Good question. What you describe is what many don't understand: We live in a state of nature whether we have a government or not. This means we have scarce resources and are unable to always bring about justice. A murdered person had the right to protect themselves but lacked the power to do so.



I lack the power to take take away nuclear weapons from the US government just as the US government lacks the resources to take nuclear weapons away from North Korea. Just because you lack the power to do a thing does not mean you do not have the right to do it. What do you do in that scenario? Try to gain the power to effect justice? Recognize you are unlikely to ever have the power to effect justice and wait for God to mete it out? Is there really an answer to this question?



Your second thought deserves a response as well. There are two ideas about restricting the ownership of property of any sort. 1) A person can only be prohibited from ownership if they have actually done something improper with that property. According to this idea there would be no grounds for prohibiting ownership of any nuclear weapon (unless you consider the US government's use of nuclear weapons against innocents in Japan as wrong). 2) Any item that cannot discriminate between the innocent and guilty cannot be owned. As outlined above, enforcement of your rights using this definition may be difficult.

jvquarterback wrote:

Good question. What you describe is what many don't understand: We live in a state of nature whether we have a government or not. This means we have scarce resources and are unable to always bring about justice. A murdered person had the right to protect themselves but lacked the power to do so.



I lack the power to take take away nuclear weapons from the US government just as the US government lacks the resources to take nuclear weapons away from North Korea. Just because you lack the power to do a thing does not mean you do not have the right to do it. What do you do in that scenario? Try to gain the power to effect justice? Recognize you are unlikely to ever have the power to effect justice and wait for God to mete it out? Is there really an answer to this question?



Your second thought deserves a response as well. There are two ideas about restricting the ownership of property of any sort. 1) A person can only be prohibited from ownership if they have actually done something improper with that property. According to this idea there would be no grounds for prohibiting ownership of any nuclear weapon (unless you consider the US government's use of nuclear weapons against innocents in Japan as wrong). 2) Any item that cannot discriminate between the innocent and guilty cannot be owned. As outlined above, enforcement of your rights using this definition may be difficult.

I think there might not be satisfying answers to the dilemmas you outlined, but that does not mean there are no answers. I was asking after the practical application---once you've sorted through the injustice of the government (and rival goverments) having weapons too powerful to effectively take them away, what do you do about it? Let the problem lie and focus on other things? Spend your life fighting against it in courts and with legislatures at the cost of other battles you could be fighting? What compromise do you make?



I like your second idea for prohibiting weapons that can't discriminate. And I am happy that military weaponry is leaning that way now as well---less focus on weapons that destroy towns and more focus on precision targeting.

Sammich wrote:

I think there might not be satisfying answers to the dilemmas you outlined, but that does not mean there are no answers. I was asking after the practical application---once you've sorted through the injustice of the government (and rival goverments) having weapons too powerful to effectively take them away, what do you do about it? Let the problem lie and focus on other things? Spend your life fighting against it in courts and with legislatures at the cost of other battles you could be fighting? What compromise do you make?

You decide on your own. Just don't take my money to do it. This is one of the reasons the founders were so insistent on avoiding affairs of other countries.

JV, you seem very well versed in political philosophy and I fear to tred on your expertise. But I’m with CougarClaw that by living in a civil society we have impliedly relinguished “rights” or “freedoms” we otherwise might have in nature. Thomas Hobbes said that in a "state of nature," before society, human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." I think there is truth in this. The natural man is an enemy to God. Absent an order, structure and law in the world, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder. We’d live in an endless "war of all against all." To avoid this unwanted scenario, men essentially agreed with each other to establish a civil society through a social contract in which they all gain security for these harms in return for subjecting themselves to a government. This seems consistent with D&C 134, which says governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man. Indeed, what benefit are governments other than to achieve this sense of security? So to repeat, I’m with CougarClaw that by living in a civil society we have impliedly relinguished “rights” or “freedoms” we otherwise might have in nature. But that relinquishment makes for a better world for me and my family.

BoiseBYU wrote:
JV, you seem very well versed in political philosophy and I fear to tred on your expertise. But I’m with CougarClaw that by living in a civil society we have impliedly relinguished “rights” or “freedoms” we otherwise might have in nature. Thomas Hobbes said that in a "state of nature," before society, human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." I think there is truth in this. The natural man is an enemy to God. Absent an order, structure and law in the world, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder. We’d live in an endless "war of all against all." To avoid this unwanted scenario, men essentially agreed with each other to establish a civil society through a social contract in which they all gain security for these harms in return for subjecting themselves to a government. This seems consistent with D&C 134, which says governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man. Indeed, what benefit are governments other than to achieve this sense of security? So to repeat, I’m with CougarClaw that by living in a civil society we have impliedly relinguished “rights” or “freedoms” we otherwise might have in nature. But that relinquishment makes for a better world for me and my family.

What jv is preaching is much simpler than what our brave leaders are currenlty trying to accomplish through legislation. I don't undertsand your logic that in a less regulated/legislated world men would have "freedom to plunder, rape or murder". Every one of those acts treads on the rights of others. I do not believe that JV wants anarchy. Also,I don't buy that we would turn into cave men by having MORE rights and freedoms. By relinquishing these rights and freedoms, all we do is become weaker and less able to deal with real problems at a state and local level. We become a society that is ruled over, and does what the state tells us to do.



My view of the role of government and your view also varies widely. Larger, more intrusive government gives me no sense of security. Instead, the government exists to ensure that my rights are protected, and that the defense of these rights are ensured. Laws of course, as taught by President Benson, must be followed. But if those laws restrict God-given rights or those rights as outlined by the constitution of the USA, that law is as good as null and void. Government certainly does not exist to limit rights of law abiding citizens.

BroncoBot wrote:

JV, you seem very well versed in political philosophy and I fear to tred on your expertise. But I’m with CougarClaw that by living in a civil society we have impliedly relinguished “rights” or “freedoms” we otherwise might have in nature. Thomas Hobbes said that in a "state of nature," before society, human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." I think there is truth in this. The natural man is an enemy to God. Absent an order, structure and law in the world, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder. We’d live in an endless "war of all against all." To avoid this unwanted scenario, men essentially agreed with each other to establish a civil society through a social contract in which they all gain security for these harms in return for subjecting themselves to a government. This seems consistent with D&C 134, which says governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man. Indeed, what benefit are governments other than to achieve this sense of security? So to repeat, I’m with CougarClaw that by living in a civil society we have impliedly relinguished “rights” or “freedoms” we otherwise might have in nature. But that relinquishment makes for a better world for me and my family.

What jv is preaching is much simpler than what our brave leaders are currenlty trying to accomplish through legislation. I don't undertsand your logic that in a less regulated/legislated world men would have "freedom to plunder, rape or murder". Every one of those acts treads on the rights of others. I do not believe that JV wants anarchy. Also,I don't buy that we would turn into cave men by having MORE rights and freedoms. By relinquishing these rights and freedoms, all we do is become weaker and less able to deal with real problems at a state and local level. We become a society that is ruled over, and does what the state tells us to do.



My view of the role of government and your view also varies widely. Larger, more intrusive government gives me no sense of security. Instead, the government exists to ensure that my rights are protected, and that the defense of these rights are ensured. Laws of course, as taught by President Benson, must be followed. But if those laws restrict God-given rights or those rights as outlined by the constitution of the USA, that law is as good as null and void. Government certainly does not exist to limit rights of law abiding citizens.

I fear you and I are talking past one another. My point, no doubt made poorly,is that in a state of nature man is unfettered to do whatever he wishes. He can walk naked, he can take whatever, he can act however. Government serves to bring order to this unfettered freedom, the exercise of some of which you and I would both agree is a good thing. For example, in nature there's nothing to stop a man from dumping his sewage into the river. We're glad that there's a government that says dont do that,yes? It is this coming together that brings security and health and safety we would not otherwise enjoy in nature. Now what rules we want to impose is a whole different thing. I am not saying that more rules and laws mean more safety or protection. I am just trying to say that being part of a civilized society means you have given up something but in doing so you have also gained. Politics is the art of drawing the line--what level of sewage, what type of guns etc. you and I no doubt would draw the line differently. That's ok I respect your view that you'd draw the line different from me.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I fear you and I are talking past one another. My point, is that in a state of nature man is unfettered to do whatever he wishes. He can walk naked, he can take whatever, he can act however. Government serves to bring order to this unfettered freedom, the exercise of some of which you and I would both agree is a good thing. For example, in nature there's nothing to stop a man from dumping his sewage into the river. We're glad that there's a government that says dont do that,yes? It is this coming together that brings security and health and safety we would not otherwise enjoy in nature. Now what rules we want to impose is a whole different thing. I am not saying that more rules and laws mean more safety or protection. I am just trying to say that being part of a civilized society means you have given up something but in doing so you have also gained. Politics is the art of drawing the line--what level of sewage, what type of guns etc. you and I no doubt would draw the line differently. That's ok I respect your view that you'd draw the line different from me.

First, Thomas Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man as he described it in Leviathan. Is a natural man and enemy to God? Sure, but that is a far cry from saying without government people will be out killing, raping and stealing at their leisure.



Second, you confuse civilization and government. If you look at the big industrial offenders of dumping into rivers you will find that they used government to cloak what they are doing. The same is true of the whole carbon credits madness; polluters will be given the right to pollute the air by government.



Third and last, Government as instituted by God, has nothing to do with relinquishing rights. It has only to do with preserving the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property.

I just stumbled into the "lounge" and found this conversation and have read about 1/2 of it. Regardless of where we all stand on guns, what I really want to know is when is the CougarCorner hunt at JV qb's 100,000 acre property in Canada? :D JV i'll bring the retriever if we're going for geese or ducks and I'll offer to drive and pay for gas. I'm open to anyone riding in my truck up to the voter who included biological warfare weapons in the "ok to have" voting. No biological warfare allowed in a multi day road trip.



I think we have two bye weeks to work with this fall so we should be able to schedule it.....



What do you say JV? :crazy:

jvquarterback wrote:
I own a few thousand acres in northern British Columbia recognized by the Canadian government. Between my brothers and three cousins we own probably about 100000 more acres. Unfortunately the royal Canadian government disagrees claiming it for itself. If my family had the weapons we could assert our prior right to the land in question. So I have the right to own enough weaponry to assert my property ownership rights. That means I personally have the right to at least as much as the entire Canadian government.



Every individual has the right to protect their life, liberty and property. The thieving US government now says they have the right to steal 38% of the product of my labor and I say they have the right to none of it. I have the same right to protect my property from theft by the government as I would to protect my wallet from any thug on the street. So I would be within my rights to amass an arsenal large enough to protect that property from the US government.

+1. Mongo like. 8)

jvquarterback wrote:

First, Thomas Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man as he described it in Leviathan. Is a natural man and enemy to God? Sure, but that is a far cry from saying without government people will be out killing, raping and stealing at their leisure.

This is a significant point that you'd like us to just take your word on. I disagree with you. There are parts of virtually every city that people refuse to walk after dark. Do you know what's gangs do? Take away the government and gangs grow exponentially.



I'll take your word for this if you and I put $1,000 in a pot, you come to Fresno and I'll give you a route to walk from 1:00 to 3:00 in the morning. Short o you being willing to do that, we'll just disagree on what man would be like without a government



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



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

Ddawg wrote:

I own a few thousand acres in northern British Columbia recognized by the Canadian government. Between my brothers and three cousins we own probably about 100000 more acres. Unfortunately the royal Canadian government disagrees claiming it for itself. If my family had the weapons we could assert our prior right to the land in question. So I have the right to own enough weaponry to assert my property ownership rights. That means I personally have the right to at least as much as the entire Canadian government.



Every individual has the right to protect their life, liberty and property. The thieving US government now says they have the right to steal 38% of the product of my labor and I say they have the right to none of it. I have the same right to protect my property from theft by the government as I would to protect my wallet from any thug on the street. So I would be within my rights to amass an arsenal large enough to protect that property from the US government.

+1. Mongo like. 8)

On a couple islands near kitkatla, BC. You'll need a boat or float plane though. The hunting's great but most prefer to fish. But for now you'll have to apply to the Canadian government for a license instead of just asking me and my cousins. I do have some land in Alaska though if you prefer.



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

What is the difference if a gang takes your $1000 and gives you nothing in return or the government does? Sure the gang may take it in a lump sum but give the government time and it does a fine job of taking it and making you think they're doing you a favor. Sometimes they take your property and put you in jail.



It seems like some think if it's government it must be good or mostly good but if it's an individual it's most likely bad. If I have a neighbor I trust I don't have to lock my door. Same for a government, If I trust them we'll get along, if not there's problems. I agree with JV, he and we should be able to protect our property from thieves whether they are individuals or governments.

ABYUFAN wrote:

First, Thomas Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man as he described it in Leviathan. Is a natural man and enemy to God? Sure, but that is a far cry from saying without government people will be out killing, raping and stealing at their leisure.

This is a significant point that you'd like us to just take your word on. I disagree with you. There are parts of virtually every city that people refuse to walk after dark. Do you know what's gangs do? Take away the government and gangs grow exponentially.



I'll take your word for this if you and I put $1,000 in a pot, you come to Fresno and I'll give you a route to walk from 1:00 to 3:00 in the morning. Short o you being willing to do that, we'll just disagree on what man would be like without a government



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



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

And yet, shouldn't this support those who believe they have the RIGHT to protect themselves and their loved ones with whatever force they feel necessary? Especially when (I'm beginning to believe there is no if) the government collapses? who will make the rules after the government has taken all serious firearms from the citizens are left sitting ducks to those who did not care one iota about the law? Gangs, and you won't have your local or federal law enforcement to protect you anymore.