Should the 1st Amendment be repealed?

[pickles]

California. The trick was easy. First, make registration mandatory. Then, after the fact, pass new laws that make possession illegal. With the former, the rogue, criminal and illegitimate government knows who have the items and with the second, the round-up is easy.

So you don't see the dangers if we were to eradicate registration?

[ms maggie]

California. The trick was easy. First, make registration mandatory. Then, after the fact, pass new laws that make possession illegal. With the former, the rogue, criminal and illegitimate government knows who have the items and with the second, the round-up is easy.

Gun ownership in CA is illegal? Since when?

[dsummoner]

This is truly the best defense imo against making weapons, or even certain kinds of weapons, illegal. We've seen- it just doesn't work.

With a little bit of practice, one could readily fabricate, in one's garage, a functional equivalent of virtually any firearm that is currently in production. A home CNC set-up, some experience with G-Code (anybody having taken manufacturing engineering with a lab component should have this), some raw materials and blueprints are all that one needs to make the process both easy and efficient. The advent of low cost desktop 3D printing makes the process even easier.

That said, gun violence is certainly a problem in our society. I'm not sure what's to be done about it, but I favor an open, honest discussion, and I almost out-of-hand reject the idea of "more guns=more safety."

'Gun violence' is the new buzzword pablum to go along with 'extremist' and 'radical.' Most violent crimes are at decade level lows and excluding the random mass shooting, a good portion of the violent crime, inclusive of the illegal use of firearms, boils down to the illegitimate 'war' on drugs. The last time this country went overboard with an emotive reaction to a statistical blip... the citizenry got saddled with the unionized gropers and molesters of the TSA, DHS and the so-called Patriot Act.

[pickles]

With a little bit of practice, one could readily fabricate, in one's garage, a functional equivalent of virtually any firearm that is currently in production. A home CNC set-up, some experience with G-Code (anybody having taken manufacturing engineering with a lab component should have this), some raw materials and blueprints are all that one needs to make the process both easy and efficient. The advent of low cost desktop 3D printing makes the process even easier.



'Gun violence' is the new buzzword pablum to go along with 'extremist' and 'radical.' Most violent crimes are at decade level lows and excluding the random mass shooting, a good portion of the violent crime, inclusive of the illegal use of firearms, boils down to the illegitimate 'war' on drugs. The last time this country went overboard with an emotive reaction to a statistical blip... the citizenry got saddled with the unionized gropers and molesters of the TSA, DHS and the so-called Patriot Act.

I don't know if I'd say "gun violence" is a buzzword. It is what it is. And yes, a good portion of it is directly linked to our failed drug policies. However, irrespective of that, we'd still be far more violent than Europe, Canada, Austrailia, etc.... This is nothing new. This country's always been extremely violent- from the outset. It isn't movies, and fatherless homes, it's a lot deeper than that.

[dsummoner]

Gun ownership in CA is illegal? Since when?

For certain firearms that were legally owned and then subject to registration and later subject to SB23... absolutely. The fascists were up to their same tricks with SB249.

[dsummoner]

So you don't see the dangers if we were to eradicate registration?

I see more of a danger with it in place given the historical nature of the 'moving of the goalposts' by government under the guise of 'loopholes' claim that one oft sees. Government has shown itself to be a poor arbiter when it comes to protecting the liberties of the citizenry.

[dsummoner]

I don't know if I'd say "gun violence" is a buzzword. It is what it is. And yes, a good portion of it is directly linked to our failed drug policies. However, irrespective of that, we'd still be far more violent than Europe, Canada, Austrailia, etc.... This is nothing new. This country's always been extremely violent- from the outset. It isn't movies, and fatherless homes, it's a lot deeper than that.

The term 'gun violence' has popped up in force after the SH shooting incident. It is a buzzword-type catchphrase with emotive connotation, akin to 'extremist' and 'radical.' It works well as part of an Information ops campaign but belies any serious consideration of the underlying issues.

[pickles]

I see more of a danger with it in place given the historical nature of the 'moving of the goalposts' by government under the guise of 'loopholes' claim that one oft sees. Government has shown itself to be a poor arbiter when it comes to protecting the liberties of the citizenry.

That's true enough.

However, the delusion that firearms somehow protect us from government tyranny, is a rampant fallacy.

It's also highly ironic (not you of course) that often those most in favor of guns to "protect" us from the govt. are the one's who can't fathom why we shouldn't spend so much on "defense."

[pickles]

The term 'gun violence' has popped up in force after the SH shooting incident. It is a buzzword-type catchphrase with emotive connotation, akin to 'extremist' and 'radical.' It works well as part of an Information ops campaign but belies any serious consideration of the underlying issues.

Whatever. Gun violence has been a term used for a very long time. You might hear it more now because the discussion seems to be more open. However, it is what it is: Gun violence describes violence committed w guns. What would you prefer? "Firearms abuse?"

This issue is like every other issue open for public discussion in America: It skirts the most superficial aspects of the topic to benefit the lowest common denominator. Ah, Democracy!

I for one am not a "gun-grabber." Because I don't think it would do any good. Specifically, because I'm willing to concede that the reason for gun violence is an inherent proclivity we have as a nation.

That said, I do think certain common-sense laws, that don't infringe on the right to possess, could curb some violence. Specifically, waiting periods, background checks, and a better registry.

[ms maggie]

For certain firearms that were legally owned and then subject to registration and later subject to SB23... absolutely. The fascists were up to their same tricks with SB249.

So in fact, gun ownership per se is not illegal, it's certain weapons that are. Hyperbole, the arch enemy of thoughtful discourse, rears its ugly head.

I am finishing a book that reminds me of you. One of the character is given to diatribes of the watercannon variety. The book is So Much for That

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/bo...en-t.html?_r=0

I think you told me once you weren't a big fiction reader but for a more relaxing bit, this writer is excellent.

Ok, back to the snow!!!!!

[dsummoner]

That's true enough.

However, the delusion that firearms somehow protect us from government tyranny, is a rampant fallacy.

It's also highly ironic (not you of course) that often those most in favor of guns to "protect" us from the govt. are the one's who can't fathom why we shouldn't spend so much on "defense."

I see at as more of a potential untested hypothesis than a fallacy at this point in time. It is interesting to see how the US is being handed its own arse in Afghanistan.

Interestingly enough, however, a good number of the folks that promulgate that argument (the highlighted) are the same ones that have no problem with empowering government when it comes to the tyrannical stripping away of rights of others.

[soulflower]

'Made for combat..' what does that even mean?

Vietnam. Bosnia. Afghanistan. Somalia. etc...

[pickles]

I see at as more of a potential untested hypothesis than a fallacy at this point in time. It is interesting to see how the US is being handed its own arse in Afghanistan.

Eh. This is Vietnam-esque. When the death count is 20-1, and it's only that close cause we're playing by two sets of rules, I find it an odd take that we're getting handled.

Political will is one thing. The results on the battlefield are another.

Interestingly enough, however, a good number of the folks that promulgate that argument (the highlighted) are the same ones that have no problem with empowering government when it comes to the tyrannical stripping away of rights of others.

Both sides, but particularly the right imo, are guilty of this. Small govt. doesn't mean what it used to.

[dsummoner]

So in fact, gun ownership per se is not illegal, it's certain weapons that are. Hyperbole, the arch enemy of thoughtful discourse, rears its ugly head.

I am finishing a book that reminds me of you. One of the character is given to diatribes of the watercannon variety. The book is So Much for That

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/bo...en-t.html?_r=0

I think you told me once you weren't a big fiction reader but for a more relaxing bit, this writer is excellent.

Ok, back to the snow!!!!!

This, my dear, was the underlying post:

"Give me examples of guns being confiscated from people who haven't broken any laws"

The insidious moving of the goal posts by the governmentistas is what is rearing its ugly head. Agreed upon exemptions suddenly become 'loopholes' and other similar approaches are replete.

In my younger days (aka back when I was a young'in) I read quite a bit of fiction. These days, however, my reading list is more akin to Vehicle Crash Mechanics, Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures, A Concise Introduction to the Mechanics of Rigid bodies, Root Causes of Terrorism and Markov Processes, Semigroups and Generators.

[dsummoner]

Whatever. Gun violence has been a term used for a very long time. You might hear it more now because the discussion seems to be more open. However, it is what it is: Gun violence describes violence committed w guns. What would you prefer? "Firearms abuse?"

This issue is like every other issue open for public discussion in America: It skirts the most superficial aspects of the topic to benefit the lowest common denominator. Ah, Democracy!

I for one am not a "gun-grabber." Because I don't think it would do any good. Specifically, because I'm willing to concede that the reason for gun violence is an inherent proclivity we have as a nation.

That said, I do think certain common-sense laws, that don't infringe on the right to possess, could curb some violence. Specifically, waiting periods, background checks, and a better registry.

Having been around the horn, here and elsewhere, on the issue of firearms, the term 'gun violence' is one that has come to the fore only recently. The term 'gun violence' results in a particular emotive response upon those amenable to its suggestion. A person defending his/her family/home against a violent home invader is engaging in violence using a firearm. Is that the same as a Shoreline Crip shooting at a Florenica 13 member, missing and hitting a bystander? Of course not. Yet the term 'gun violence' fails to distinguish between the two.

Guns are merely a tool that employ some basic tenets of mechanics and chemistry. Nothing more and nothing less. Humans as a species are not so far removed from nature as to make violence an anomaly. Violence is inherent to the human.

'Common sense' (another catchphrase) is in the eye of the beholder.

[dsummoner]

Vietnam. Bosnia. Afghanistan. Somalia. etc...

Those would be places but a provision of places fails to address the question. If memory serves correctly, the Beretta M9 and HK45, among others, are currently used by the US military. Should they be banned in regards to civilian possession?

[soulflower]

Those would be places but a provision of places fails to address the question. If memory serves correctly, the Beretta M9 and HK45, among others, are currently used by the US military. Should they be banned in regards to civilian possession?

Try ambushing a group of Army Rangers with just a 9mm handgun. Let me know how that works out.

Machine guns are made for warfare. They aren't necessary for self-defense outside of war zones.

[bmore_ken]

Vietnam. Bosnia. Afghanistan. Somalia. etc...

Chicago?

[dsummoner]

Eh. This is Vietnam-esque. When the death count is 20-1, and it's only that close cause we're playing by two sets of rules, I find it an odd take that we're getting handled.

Political will is one thing. The results on the battlefield are another.

Body count would be an incorrect method to judge outcome. US servicemember deaths are a fraction of the deaths of the combined insurgency in Afghanistan as well as Vietnam. When it comes to the outcome, however, the words of Abu Bakr Nadji have proven to be prescient:

O people!* * The viciousness of the Russian soldier is twice that of the American soldier.* *If the Americans suffer one tenth of the casualties the Russians suffered in Afghanistan and Chechnya, they will flee and never look back.* * That is because the current structure of the American and Western armies is not the same as their structure during the colonial era.** They have reached a stage of effeminacy that makes them unable to sustain battles for a long period of time, a weakness they compensate for with a deceptive media halo.

The US will be leaving Afghanistan with its goals unfulfilled while the insurgency will have succeeded in driving out the US (aka the US having its arse handed to it).

Both sides, but particularly the right imo, are guilty of this. Small govt. doesn't mean what it used to.

'Right' and 'left' are meaningless constructs in regards to their common usage. This also goes for so-called Conservatives and so-called Liberals.

There are a very small number of people that actually stand for the principal of individual liberty.

[bmore_ken]

Try ambushing a group of Army Rangers with just a 9mm handgun. Let me know how that works out.

Machine guns are made for warfare. They aren't necessary for self-defense outside of war zones.

The 2A is not abouot neccessity, it's about a guaranteed right