patrick.net

Dan8267 says

If only people felt that way about human rights and all other civil rights including privacy.

The Constitution doesn't contain the word privacy. Nor abortion, nor a host of other things many consider civil rights now.

I get where you're going here. It's startling however to me, how RKBA advocates as I used to be, can be so stern in their warning about slippery slopes and and DETERMINED that any limits at all represents unacceptable abrogation of a civil right. 9 times out of 10 you ask them if a 7-day wait to buy a gun is a violation they'll say HELL YEAH. TOTALLY UNREASONABLE! You ask them if a 5-day wait and limited access and attempts to dissuade a woman from seeking abortion are "reasonable" and suddenly the answer may change.

Vicente says

9 times out of 10 you ask them if a 7-day wait to buy a gun is a violation they'll say HELL YEAH. TOTALLY UNREASONABLE! You ask them if a 5-day wait and limited access and attempts to dissuade a woman from seeking abortion are "reasonable" and suddenly the answer may change.

Crime doesn't wait 7 days to come and violate you.

FortWayne says

Crime doesn't wait 7 days to come and violate you.

If the need for a gun is so urgent that you can not wait 7 days, then it is more than likely a gun is not actually going to solve your problems.

Not to mention the fact that using a gun to solve a problem first requires some training, and that is going to take a couple of days at least. The last think I would want is someone who does not know how to use a gun trying to use a gun to solve a problem.

Criminal - I'm coming to kill you in 6 days.
FortWayne - Damn, I need an extra day.

FortWayne says

Crime doesn't wait 7 days to come and violate you.

Yes and this is the point I was making. No compromise is acceptable if there could be ANY consequence when it comes to RKBA. The odds of it don't matter. I'll admit freely there have been cases where stalked individuals were killed during waiting periods. Is this acceptable cost, or unacceptable? That depends on the right and the people arguing it. For hardcore RKBA, there is no such thing as compromise or cost/benefit, it's an absolute.

However, let's say you want to balance privacy versus fears of terrorism, how do people come down then? Oh right, in that case let's be "reasonable" and allow some infringement on citizen privacy. Let's be "reasonable" and allow some torture.

robertoaribas says

pointless of course. Unless you advocate that every city must have a gun store open 24/7 so that the moment you feel threatened you can run and get one...

I'll play along, but how about a 7 day waiting period for free speech, would you like that?

Vicente says

No compromise is acceptable if there could be ANY consequence when it comes to RKBA.

On a serious note I would not make any compromises with someone who I know wants to take guns away. Feinstein has made it clear in the past that she wants us all to turn our guns in, and she is the main cosponsor of Obama gun regulations. Hence no compromises with the devil.

FortWayne says

Feinstein has made it clear in the past that she wants us all to turn our guns in

Is there a link to this quote?

leo707 says

FortWayne says

Feinstein has made it clear in the past that she wants us all to turn our guns in

Is there a link to this quote?

Famous words would be "Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in"

There might be a wikipedia entry for this by now.

Youtube has a few footages of this:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=feinstein+turn+them+all+in

FortWayne says

I'll play along, but how about a 7 day waiting period for free speech, would you like that?

Do you really think that it is a good idea to let untrained, scared and/or angry people to have instant access to guns?

leo707 says

Do you really think that it is a good idea to let untrained, scared and/or angry people to have instant access to guns?

No I don't, just being devils advocate. I do however not wish to compromise with Feinstein/Obama on issue knowing their intentions.

FortWayne says

leo707 says

Do you really think that it is a good idea to let untrained, scared and/or angry people to have instant access to guns?

No I don't, just being devils advocate. I do however not wish to compromise with Feinstein/Obama on issue knowing their intentions.

While I also disagree with Feinstein on the gun issue (thanks for the link BTW), and I am fully aware that there are many Americans who would like to see a complete and total ban on firearms (in the quote she was just referring to "assault weapons", but I think it is safe to assume she feels that way about all guns), I don't think compromise is out of the question. I am not a fan of ill-conceived gun law from either end of the debate. I will support any reasonable gun regulation regardless of who else is in support of it.

I think that a waiting period of 3, 5, 7ish days is a good idea for gun purchases. However, I would like to see a loophole that would allow people already proficient to obtain guns without waiting (people with stalkers, etc.), and I don't really see the point in making someone wait for a gun when they already own a similar gun (but not a big deal).

Moderate Infidel says

Criminal - I'm coming to kill you in 6 days.

FortWayne - Damn, I need an extra day.

Yes, thats how violence happens in the big city.. some gangbangers lays claim from down the street, contesting the other gangs from the other side and your right in the middle of a gang war which starts tonight .. 9am... are you lock and loaded !

10,000 gang members ... and thats just one city... and all you have is 8 cops for protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYOPI29tytE

leo707 says

FortWayne says

I'll play along, but how about a 7 day waiting period for free speech, would you like that?

Do you really think that it is a good idea to let untrained, scared and/or angry people to have instant access to guns?

nada.. many actually go for training long before making a purchase... getting coached on proper gun handling and operations. Many gun clubs promote training and coaching for prospective buyers. A fact many gun shops point out and many journalist keep ignoring.

Its no different than learning to ski...

Given that most gun supporters have no respect for the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth (and don't get me started on later amendments), I find their strong support of the second truly bizarre.

thomaswong.1986 says

10,000 gang members ... and thats just one city... and all you have is 8 cops for protection.

You're dumber than usual today if you think Oakland only has 8 cops.

Oh, man, this is precious. That 10,000 figure sounded like typical thomaswong.1986 BS, so I googled that shit:

http://www.streetgangs.com/news/discovery-channel-lies-about-the-number-of-gangs-in-oakland

lollercoasters.

Please, keep being afraid of everyone around you, places you've never been, and people you've never met. You're only helping rational people look good.

I mean, shit, have you ever even been to Oakland? It's not 1985. The poor people who join gangs can't afford to live there anymore. It's just another gentrified san francisco suburb.

The worst part? Despite these improvements, Oakland is still one of the most violent cities in the country. "Most violent" here is relative. The most violent cities today have less than half of the violent crimes and murders today than the AVERAGE city had in the late 70s.

So one of the most violent cities in the country has "maybe 2000" gang members out of a population of 400,000 people, virtually all of the crime is concentrated in 3 very poor districts, and the crime rate is decreasing every year.

And yet....people like thomas believe that everything is so scary that they need a fucking ar15 because they're afraid of black people.

Don't worry, though, dude, virtually all of the people being assaulted are young black men and latinos. All other ethnic groups together accounted for less than 8% of violent crime victims in the city last year (and 10% of suspects...so, you know...). You're probably safe.

Just to reiterate my point, since I think a few people didn't get it... I wish the pro-gun people (and the anti-gun people) where as gung ho about all the other human and civil rights as they are about gun rights.

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

Surely, these other rights are at least as important as gun rights. As such, no one should compromise on any of these rights. You want to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus? Over my dead body. You want to listen in on my Google searches? When you pry my encryption keys from my cold, dead hands. The people should give government as much of a hard time on all our other civil liberties as we do about guns.

thomaswong.1986 says

Yes, thats how violence happens in the big city.. some gangbangers lays claim from down the street...

The 1980s called and wants its fear mongering back. YouTube videos and watching "Colors" every weekend are not representative of city crime statistics.

thomaswong.1986 says

10,000 gang members ... and thats just one city... and all you have is 8 cops for protection.

In Oakland and any city with a "high" gang problem, about half the homicides are gang related and most of the gang related murders are gang members killing each other. Unless you are a young man who is a gang member living in a low socioeconomic neighborhood your chances of getting shot by a non-gang member are much greater.

Yes, and as Kevin said Oakland does have more than 8 cops.

IDDQD says

Most of "pro-gun lunatics" I know are also strongly against TSA. Rand Paul, for example, had some well-publicized run-ins with this lovely organization and has filed several anti-TSA bills in Senate.

And in how many of those run-ins did Rand Paul use a gun to defend himself from abuse by the TSA?

leo707 says

And in how many of those run-ins did Rand Paul use a gun to defend himself from abuse by the TSA?

I would pay to see that. And I would support Rand Paul if he did.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

And in how many of those run-ins did Rand Paul use a gun to defend himself from abuse by the TSA?

"That's a clown question, bro" (c) Harry Reid

No, Leo's point that guns can't protect us from government tyranny is perfectly valid. We can't even use guns to protect us from rape scanners and sexual molestation by TSA agents. How would guns protect us from serious government attention?

Now, there many be many good reasons for a well-armed society, but defense against the federal or even local government isn't one of them. No one in our country's history has ever, ever come even close to defeating the federal government, a state government, or even a local government using guns.

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

This guy was so awesome, I'd have his babies if I could.

But even his success was minimal and obtained using a home built tank, not a gun.

leo707 says

The 1980s called and wants its fear mongering back. YouTube videos and watching "Colors" every weekend are not representative of city crime statistics.

Now this is terrifying violence from the 1980s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsUsXVyKBw

thunderlips11 says

leo707 says

The 1980s called and wants its fear mongering back. YouTube videos and watching "Colors" every weekend are not representative of city crime statistics.

Now this is terrifying violence from the 1980s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsUsXVyKBw

Horrifying, makes me want to carry a gun so I can avoid being victimized like that.

Dan8267 says

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

Yeah, that is a really sad story. It is kind of the American version of those monks who burn themselves in protest.

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun?

The answer is, "Abstraction." People think they understand gun rights but miss the abstract societal elements that keep violence as integral to human experience. Other constitutional amendments are more obviously abstract, so they're easy to play without triggering the notice of those less aware.

robertoaribas says

FortWayne says

Crime doesn't wait 7 days to come and violate you.

pointless of course. Unless you advocate that every city must have a gun store open 24/7 so that the moment you feel threatened you can run and get one...

Texas has made gun shopping even easier:

This particular store is in Schulenburg which is just a few miles south of La Grange, the same La Grange from the song of the same name by ZZ top.

Guns, booze and hookers - Its a mans world in Texas!