18
   

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 07:04 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Think of the US as Europe, but with more countries. Do you think Europeans would be happy with one giant government telling all of them what to do? How would France feel about the European Union telling them what laws applied to them and which didn't? Now compare those same laws in Switzerland?


No, I get it. It's ultimately greater self-determination vs greater power and efficiency.

The US may never have become the country of its size without this, but now that it is if it were able to standardize things it would offer greater power and efficiency now.

Similarly, in Europe the EU would not exist if the only option were what I think is their ideal (something closer to the US than their even more fragmented cultures) as many people are not like me (I grew up all over and am not married to any particular culture) and value the culture they consider theirs.

So I am not really trying to change these things, I'm just saying things would work better and I would like things more if there were more and more things that were globally consistent and I think we are going to gradually move towards that with globalization and the world becoming smaller and more things becoming codified etc.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 08:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think history proves your point.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 09:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm not sure that it could...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 09:24 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I get what you are saying, I do. I know that there are many things in the US that only the federal govt is qualified to handle.

I guess one of the things that rubs me raw about it is the feeling that somewhere else, there is a collective of people that somehow feel that their way of thinking is some how superior to everyone else's. That goes on all sides. I honestly wish that government was as local as the saying goes, but it doesn't.

I think that when government gets involved, things stop working correctly. You can't get something in that simply states "People found mentally incapable of owning firearms, shouldn't." No sane person in America should fight that simple phrase. The problems arise though when my neighbor Bob calls up the cops because my kid hit a baseball into his yard and says that I am mentally defective and that starts a process that has no happy endings. Like CPS, only worse.

People are the problem and government is run by people and the more govt is involved, the worse people's lives become.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 09:54 pm
@McGentrix,
I disagree; cops are needed in all environments.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yeah, but city/village cops, town cops, county cops, state cops, federal cops? How many cops we need?
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:07 pm
@farmerman,
You should have had your 50 cal hand gun with you like baldy and shot his ass off. Its what he would have done.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 09:02 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
You seem to be comparing a right with a privilege. False analogy.


I really wasn't thinking in those terms. I was thinking both could dangerous in the hands of those who are mentally not capable of either driving in safety or handling a firearm in safety. Both kill innocents in the wrong hands and we should all want to safeguard against it as much as possible.

As for the second amendment, in my opinion, it is too ambiguous to be discussed without controversy as to what it actually means, in particular the term "well regulated." I am going into fields beyond me, but, from what I read on a google search the term means (in the days it was written) "something in proper working order."

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

So, if you have mental issues which would interfere with your ability to operate a firearm in a proper working order, that would seem to me to represent a limit of your right to bear arms. (you as in anyone)

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 09:17 am
@revelette2,
The 'Militia' term in the 2nd amendment is a much abused term in this kind of discussion. I think it's important to remember that militia is very distinct from a standing army or its auxiliaries (national guard, etc.).

A militia was formed as needed from the citizens (The People) who went back to their homes and jobs when the need for them was over. When the people no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia is no longer possible and the 'free state' is also then at risk.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 09:28 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
People are the problem and government is run by people and the more govt is involved, the worse people's lives become.


I think that people who complain about government miss this often, people in general are wasteful with their time, even the private sector is mostly waste.

But the saying that the more government is involved the worse it gets is simplistic. After all it's obvious that at one extreme (complete anarchy) that government involvement is a positive.

This kind of saying doesn't lend itself well to absolutism, both extremes are obviously unideal and it's a matter of balance. Sometimes more government is better, sometimes it's worse. Any saying that says it is absolute one way or the other is just wrong.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 09:55 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
The 'Militia' term in the 2nd amendment is a much abused term in this kind of discussion. I think it's important to remember that militia is very distinct from a standing army or its auxiliaries (national guard, etc.).

A militia was formed as needed from the citizens (The People) who went back to their homes and jobs when the need for them was over. When the people no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia is no longer possible and the 'free state' is also then at risk.


I wasn't talking about the term militia but the term "well regulated." I wanted to establish that the framers thought those who bare arms should know what they were doing.

In the term of context it was written, well regulated meant training so that when they needed to bear arms, folks would know which end of the gun to shoot from and who to shoot at. If you are mentally disabled, you couldn't really be able shoot in proper working order which the terms "well regulated" means.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 10:15 am
@revelette2,
the source of much of the debate re: the second amendment IS on the term "Well regulated" since its implications are wide (and the "Originalists wish to finely focus its meaning while still benefitting from a "recognition that the framers presciently had " of weapons and ammo that hadnt been dreamt of during that time)
Hope that made sense .
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 10:27 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
I wasn't talking about the term militia but the term "well regulated." I wanted to establish that the framers thought those who bare arms should know what they were doing.
Understood. I was just making the point that 'well regulated' was not synonymous with a government's own army who was the source of the tyranny they were concerned about.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, 'well regulated' was advice to current and future generations to get organized when the militia was needed. Obviously that advice would not be needed if it was directed to an Army.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 11:55 am
@RABEL222,
You really shouldn't project your reactions onto others.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 12:04 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
My typos are all over the mp but hey, Im high as a kite.


this is lovely

(not the smushed foot part)
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 12:40 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
In the case of the 2nd amendment, 'well regulated' was advice to current and future generations to get organized when the militia was needed. Obviously that advice would not be needed if it was directed to an Army.


I think if people actually in this day and time start building up arms and regulating their militia against the government, they could well be arrested for terrorism. Kind of like that situation in Utah.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 04:01 pm
@Baldimo,
But after years of reading your opinions I feel that I know you like a brother. I just know how you would react to a slight.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 04:15 pm
@RABEL222,
Pfft. You continue to show your ignorance, well done Rabel.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 04:18 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
People are the problem and government is run by people and the more govt is involved, the worse people's lives become.


I think that people who complain about government miss this often, people in general are wasteful with their time, even the private sector is mostly waste.

But the saying that the more government is involved the worse it gets is simplistic. After all it's obvious that at one extreme (complete anarchy) that government involvement is a positive.

This kind of saying doesn't lend itself well to absolutism, both extremes are obviously unideal and it's a matter of balance. Sometimes more government is better, sometimes it's worse. Any saying that says it is absolute one way or the other is just wrong.


A certain amount of government is good. Like a certain amount of tequila is good. But, the more you have, the worse it gets.

Federal government says no one can have automatic weapons, hand grenades, or other weapons considered to be military grade. That is good government. Federal Government says no one can have a gun with a pistol grip that fires semi-automatic and has a flash surpressor is bad government. Banning guns because of the way they look that has ZERO influence on the way they operate is bad government.

In NYS these guns fire the same bullet at the same rate. Yet one is illegal and the other is legal.

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/thebangswitch/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/before_after.jpg

This is TERRIBLE government being led by feel good about oursleves platitudes.

This is an example of too much government being a bad thing that I was referring to.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 04:36 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Federal government says no one can have automatic weapons,
Actually they don't say that. It's just one more example of how Liberty has become something that has a price tag on it.

I've never acquired the taste for automatics but if you have the patience to jump through the legal hoops and the money to maintain the required permits, you can have a full mil-spec mini gun that fires something like 6000 rounds per minute.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 08:34:12