Skip to main content

View Diary: Civil gun discussions? Our community is the shelter for each other. (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I trust the government to a point, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Otteray Scribe

    and the 2nd Amendment is where there is a line in the sand for me. I trust social services administration to provide a service, sure, why not, but that is not in the same league as trusting police to tell law abiding citizens what firearms they can have. Please tell me that you see that there is a profound difference between those two areas of trust.

    I do not grant the government any rights when it comes to firearms with respect to law abiding citizens. I want the populace to be armed and dangerous, so dangerous that any government official will think twice before attempting to impose any sort of a tyranny against the populace.

    Don't get me wrong, I will engage in a civil approach on all measures in dealing with problems, and I do not personally advocate violence as a solution, my point is for there to be an armed populace merely as a deterrent, this is all. If there is an armed populace, I firmly believe that no violant uprising will ever be necesary, because no despot would ever attempt a tyrrany against an armed populace. Never happen. That's my point. "Talk softly, but carry a big stick."  

    •  I think this is a game for you. Unfortunately. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No rights for the government regarding firearms when it comes to law abiding citizens?

      So, fully automatic .50 cal machine guns are ok?  

      Non-registered dealers buying and then selling hundreds of guns a month (because they "changed their mind" about owning for personal use) is ok?  

      No need for gun locks or gun safes, even when children or mentally unstable family members share the house?  

      How about armor piercing and exploding rounds? All ok?  

      And the biggest piece of your nonsense is that you don't own a gun yourself, supposedly: which tells me you don't actually believe what you say.  If I say I believe voting is important: I vote.  If I say owning guns to fend off an untrustworthy government is important: I own guns.  

      Enjoy your time at DK: you'll annoy many, and change no minds with your absolutism, but you'll have a pretty good time.

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:47:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me take this in parts (0+ / 0-)

        Firstly, I do not own a gun, no, but I would like to, if I had the funds. Or if I felt the urgent need, then I want to make sure that I can, legally. I do not at present, but I will someday purchase one when I have discretionary funds. I am trained in fighting, and I do know how to use fire arms, and I have used them, and I am not gonna engage in any bragging about my life, but suffice it to say, I am not an ordinary citizen. (And please do not insult or attack me for describing myself in this superficial manner. I prefer to keep my personal life out of this. Please respect this.) And, although I do not personally own one, no, I do have friends and family who own guns. But the point is, I want an armed populace, period. Yes, I am inflexible in this, but so were the founding fathers, hence they encoded this into our constitution. Please try to remember this when you criticize me for being "inflexible." Consider: are you "inflexible" in your commitment to the Separation of Church and State? Are you? Because I am. So, similarly, for those (law abiding citizens) who desire to own a gun, they should be allowed to own one, Period. If one does not desire one, then I respect that, and I do not believe that respecting a person's personal desire on this subject negates my views on the necessity of allowing by constitutional law an armed populace.  

        Secondly, there already is a law regarding "FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS" which was enacted about 50 years ago .... so if you are asking me if I feel we should repeal that law, no. Of course, this leads to the question of where I draw a line in the sand. Well, let's look at the text from the 2nd Amendment:


        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        This passage stats: "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        Not infringed, is the point. I admit that I error on the side of allowing for as much freedom as possible. Let me be clear, I am not paranoid or afraid of the government, I just believe in principle that no government should ever be fully trusted. This is a principle I have. Prudence. I am advocating for a healthy intelligent reservation of granting any governing body unilateral trust. This is all. Can you not see the wisdom of that prudent distrust? Can you not see that the founding fathers shared that same prudent distrust, and that it was specifically because of their prudent distrust of all governing bodies that they penned the 2nd Amendment... along with the other checks and balances in our government's constitutional charter? Isn't it a fact that the founding fathers felt that the greatest danger to freedom was from the abuse of power by the government itself? Isn't this a fact? Can we at least agree on this one basic fundamental truth and that it is inherent to the charter of the US Constitution? Can we?  

        Please try to put aside the tragic events of gun abuse and objectively consider this one question: Can we ever fully trust any government?

        John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, said NO!

        I say NO!

        This is not paranoia, this is wisdom from studying history and understanding how governments must work. This does not make governments evil, no, but it just means that we must be ever vigilant and never fully entrust the government, and most especially, we must never entrust any governing body to disarm the people. Look, if I felt that a government could be fully entrusted, I would vote for disarmament in a heartbeat, but I just don't. I think that gun control advocates are engaging in wishful thinking, mistakenly believing that government can be fully trusted, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, evidence that they blindly blatantly ignore. There is a line in the sand here. And, I realize that republican tea party wackos voice an extreme distrust of government on all issues, but that is not what I am saying here. I do not share those irrational illogical fears, (and so please do not group me with them) but I do council prudence in this one area. Just this one. And, again, remember, so did our founding fathers. I think some liberals are deluding themselves if they think the government can be fully trusted on all issues. Yes, on most issues, but not all.

        The focus of gun control advocates is always on protecting people from gun abuse, and I appreciate their fears due to the abuse, and I share those same fears, I assure you, but they seem to completely ignore the wisdom and intent (on this one issue) of our founding fathers' which was driven by prudent distrust of all government. They, and the majority of folks here on Daily Kos, seem to have completely forgotten this, which, as I said in another comment, I find rather ironic, since it is the Liberal community who have been the most diligent in voicing concern over the abuses of power of the government. Why would you trust a government to disarm a populace when you know full well that that government is already abusing its powers.

        Need I mention issues which I am sure you well know: Started a war under false pretenses? Indefinite detention?
        Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Torture? Targeted Assassinations? Patriot Act? Repealing of Habeas Corpus?

        Need I go on?

        Why have they forgotten or ignored these? Why?

        Well, I think I know why. It's because of fear. Fear makes people blind, all too often. I have seen it in my personal life, and I am seeing it here on Daily Kos. I know the signs of fear all to well.

        And, for the record, I get why a government sometimes needs to do these sorts of things to protect the people, like taking out Bin Laden, etc. but I think it is clear that governments, by their very nature, are capricious. And, I know I am repeating what I have written several times now, but please be honest: don't you see the truth of this?

        Unfortunately, since the NRA folks are typically right wing republican idiots, usually evangelical Christian fanatics filled with their delusional and frightening "holy war" end-of-days lunacy, and even though they obviously do support the 2nd Amendment, they rarely voice the pertinent issues in an intelligent way that reflects my own sentiment and spirit. And, since I saw Daily Kos folks writing diaries on this subject with a fervor that seemed one-sided and unchecked, I felt it necessary to comment here on Daily Kos to explain why some liberals (who agree with you all on most other issues) actually do support the 2nd Amendment, and that we do so for reasons that I felt that liberals would appreciate, and I believe, should agree with. Fortunately, I had created an account a few weeks ago, because I felt like I might have something to say here, but I had only really used it to post a cute cat~dolphin video and an RIP comment on an IGTN diary.

        But here, since you asked, these are my views....

        I am in favor of background checks to determine if a person has a criminal record.

        I support gun locks and guns safes. I even support the notion that we might benefit from people being required to take a class in proper safe gun use and safe secure storage. Yes. People take driver's test to drive cars. This seems prudent, and does not seem to infringe on a person's right to drive.

        I am uncertain of my position on "armor piercing" bullets, although my understanding is that this law is also already in place, and upon reflection, I don't believe I would vote for repealing it, no.

        Lastly, please don't dismiss my position as "nonsense" ... I believe I have been nothing but respectful of you and your views, and I have even been deeply appreciative of your candor. This can only be the beginning of a long relationship if there is mutual respect. I taken time away from my responsibilities to explain the other side of this issue, which seemed lacking on Daily Kos. I felt during these past 2 years that the discussion here has been very helpful to the Democratic Party, and turn, to democracy itself, and for this I am sincerely grateful. But, in all candor, I do not think I have the time, patience for childish insults and name calling, or maybe "thick skin" ... to play here much longer, but I absolutely will continue to read, and I will always be a fan.

        •  Interesting. (0+ / 0-)

          First, as you probably know, the Amendments, by definition, were not "encoded" into our Constitution.  They were added later.  Clearly the Founding Fathers chose not to add a Second Amendment-like right into the actual Constitution.  It came 2 years later.  

          And you're completely consistent in your inconsistency.  You're not an absolutist on the 2nd.....finding it completely acceptable whatever exceptions happen to be carved out at the moment--no fully automatic weapons (rifle or pistol), no sawed-off shotguns, some registration but not complete registration or purchasers.  There's no guiding principle there, just adherence to the NRA position.  Why isn't the same fully automatic rifle the military uses be ok for a well regulated militia?  What's the principle?  

          And I am curious about the source of your extreme deadlines.  After all, you brought it up...not anyone else.  If you make a claim, back it up, while remaining anonymous if desired. Are you a UFC fighter, the master of Dim Mak the death touch, a disciple of Kwai Chang Caine?  

          Are you familiar with the concept of straw man arguments?  When you argue that liberals, or this site, seek the confiscation of all is complete nonsense.  No one serious is proposing that.   Many of us, including people like me who own guns and actually made their living with guns as part of their tool belt, want smarter restrictions and tougher regulation.  I'm a believer in the 2nd Amendment, just not in the idea that it's the only amendment that matters, and that any restriction on guns is a violation of our Constitutional protections.

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:19:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've made assumptions (0+ / 0-)

            I never said that I support the views of the NRA.... in fact, if you will reread my last comment, I thought that I just said that I thought they were idiots and did not reflect my views.

            I am expressing my views as to why I support the intent of the 2nd Amendment and what that intent was.

            "encoded" "written" "articulated" "represented" "enshrined" .... choose whatever word you prefer, the intent of the founding fathers remains the same.

            I have not been inconsistent, you never asked my specific views until this morning, hence this evening was the first time I gave specifIc positions. My focus in my comments was and is to advocate for us all to remember the intent of the 2nd amendment and why it is there. We can add restrictions, and background checks, etc .... but there will always be abuses. Can we mitigate them, yes, and we have, but only to a point, and that is my point, namely, to keep things in perspective. There will always be abuses. There is always danger and with that danger, tragedies occur. This is a sad reality. Perspective.

            It's good that you have trained, please do not dishonor mine. I have shown you nothing but respect here.  

          •  and you are incorrect (0+ / 0-)

            some people are advocating for complete ban.

            •  You're all over the map. Not sure this is helpful. (0+ / 0-)

              Look, to me, it seemed like you started out with a complete absolutist position: 2nd Amendment above all, callous towards death of children because RKBA is essential, never ever ever trust the government, implied no controls or restrictions.  

              At this point, you say we can add restrictions and background checks and limitations on types and numbers of armaments.  You've just put yourself in agreement with 99% of DK, with the exception of the very very few calling for a complete ban on ALL  weapons, as opposed to just assault rifles.  Your new reasonable take is in complete opposition to your previous absolutist take.  Which is good, in my humble opinion.  I've never seen anyone on this site advocating for complete and unquestioning trust in the government or even the president--you're arguing against a straw man.

              I am curious what you studied, and your perspective and experiences regarding personal violence.  

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:46:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And to me, you have been inconsistent. (0+ / 0-)

                You have been respectful in one moment, and completely disrespectful in another. Whereas, I think I have been entirely consistent in my dealings with you and in here throughout my comments, and I have been nothing but respectful to you and to others. I, however, do not feel I have been accorded the same respect that I have given. I have been called immature names on this site for merely stating the harsh reality with brutal candor, and my points have been ignored, resulting in my feeling the foolish need to repeat myself. And then, in a laughable observation, I am criticized for repeating myself, yet we both know that I would not have felt the need to repeat myself, if my points were heard the first time. And now you want to interrogate my background, after I already expressed the respectful desire to leave my background in superficial terms, and you do so with a mock tone of civility, yet we both know that your aim is now merely an ad hominem attack to discredit my points, but since my points stand on their own, regardless of my background, this is a pointless endeavor, and one that dishonors the accord I have given you. In short, you have lost my respect.

                Here is the entirety of my position:

                I advocate for a tempered perspective. This is all.

                I have said my piece.

                Good day, Sir.

      •  and no, this is not a "game" for me (0+ / 0-)

        Please give me a little more credit than that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site