Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Is a Reasoned Approach Possible With Gun Gontrol?

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/05/213803.php

    So I was searching for something on google and this article popped up. I read it, not knowing whether it was pro or anti......

    Is A Reasoned Approach Possible With Gun Control?
    Written by Mark Schannon
    Published September 05, 2007
    Part of Mark My Words




    Daddy was right. Ain't no use in talking about religion, politics, whether that dress makes yer wife look fat, or guns... unless you're sitting among a bunch of hunters all dressed up in their "out-to-kill" finery, oiling stocks and cutting cross-hatches into their bullet points.

    Take abortion. The gyrations politicians go through to avoid waving the banner for either side would be hysterical if it wasn't so obvious... and boring. "I'm for abortion only in the event a woman is impregnated by a creature from another planet — or the dark lagoon. Otherwise, while I personally would never have an abortion, I support a woman's right to be confused." I daresay there must be some kind of middle ground that doesn't leave women between a rock and hellfire and brimstone, but no one's brave enough to suggest it.

    Likewise, in one of the few thundering blunders made by the Founding Dads, we have the Second Amendment, in my humble opinion, a veritable smorgasbord of words that can be construed to arrive at any conclusion one wants. What the hell does it mean?

    "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."


    If one focuses on the first two phrases, it's clear that gun ownership applies to the state's militia, probably as protection against feared federal hegemony, although it didn't work all that well in the Civil War. If one focuses on the last phrase, it's clear that the people's right to own veritable arsenals can never be withdrawn. Put the two together, and you have... mush.

    A case in D.C. may wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The District passed a law banning all hand guns except for current and former police while allowing rifles and shotguns as long as they're either "unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger locks." An appeals court killed the law, and the city has asked the Supreme Court to hear it. Surprise, surprise, the Bush Administration opposes the law.

    And the two sides, one standing on one edge of the Grand Canyon, and the other on the far side, cavil endlessly to anyone with ears about the death of children, the right to protect one's self in one's home, etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is, at last, nothing new to be said.

    So, how does one rationally address this issue? (Pardon me while I fall off my chair laughing.)

    Let us begin by acknowledging that the other side (whichever side you're on) has deep, powerful, often unconscious emotional reasons for their positions. And, while you're at it, admit you're in the same quandary. We pretend to argue logic and reason, but what's driving those arguments are perceived threats to important personal values. If we could talk about those values and those emotions, we'd at least make a start at having a discussion rather than a televised political debate among Presidential wannabes. We may even find that we have some of those values (self-preservation, family protection, security) in common but that the triggers for those values are different.

    Next, how about we throw the 2nd Amendment into the trash heap of well-meant but stupid historical statements. There is no right way to interpret it, and we're just being intellectually dishonest if we pretend there is.

    Then, given common values and no Constitutional guidelines, we seek compromise. The pro-gunners fear that banning handguns is but the first step in taking away all their guns. How are the anti-gunners going to assure them that isn't the case? (There are anti-gunners who do take that position; you probably don't want them in the room when you're negotiating.) The moderate anti-gunners focus on handguns because they're most easily misused by children, adults engaged in a free-for-all, or a simple, stupid, tragic accident. Plus, it's a lot harder to carry around a concealed shotgun than pistol.

    Except for vegetablearians, the blather about hunting is just so much, well, blather. Eat a steak you got from your local supermarket or kill a deer and eat the deer. There's no difference. I admit to being nauseated by those who trophy hunt, who simply kill for the sport of it. If that's a sport, so is smoking and drinking. But I wouldn't let my personal distaste for those chickens (like there's real danger in going after deer) interfere with my desire to strike a compromise with the pro-gunners that guarantees their right to rifles and shotguns.

    Of course, we have to address the automatic vs. semi-automatic issue as well as the increasing number of guns that resemble Rambo's favorite wartime toys, but once we're engaged in good faith efforts, one can hope that we can isolate the extremists on both sides. I can't believe that every pro-gunner wants an Uzi... or at least I hope not.

    See, not so hard. Sure. Actually, what's hardest is the first step, the discussions where people listen to each other with an open mind, seek areas of agreement, begin to develop a bit of trust in the good faith of their opponents. I've engineered this process between chemical plants and the communities in which they operate, and it takes a long, long time, as well as people who truly want a reasonable, workable solution.

    But, it'll never happen, so I will take refuge in that most profound philosophical thought:

    In Jameson Veritas

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Yes, a reasoned evaluation of guns is possible, but few are intellectually capable of it.

    It is analogous to nuclear power for which a risk calculus had to be developed that allowed rational evaluation of infintesimal probabilities and huge costs. Not analogous to nuclear power, we start with very different principles and traditions.

    The first principle of 'gun control' is the Second Amendment that ends "shall not be infringed." Which part of that is unclear?

    The ikon of the tradition is the huge number of guns in citizens' hands.

    Analogous to nuclear power the media has framed the issue to their demotic benefit and given knownothings standing superior to practicioners.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  3. #3
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    To the author: Pick a side, or shut up! There is no benefit in an argument if you choose to claim both sides are wrong without proposing a third option. All you have done is waste your time and mine by letting me know about your feelings. Come back when your balls have dropped and you can accept the fact that as humans we all have the right to be right or wrong, we will either win or lose, and we will be liked and disliked by others.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    watch more and more, the anti side WILL step up the attacks against the founding fathers were in creating the 2nd and that they were extremely shortsided in viewing weapons technology and NEVER would have meant that private citizens should have had matching military weaponry.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    To answer the question, no. Guns are inanimate objects and therefore ineligible for blame. To approach something free of guilt as if it is the source of a problem is unreasonable. Therefore, any product of that endeavor will also be unreasonable.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Ask, "Is a reasoned approach possible with speech control?" Or, "Is a reasoned approach possible with unreasonable searches and seizures?" "Is a reasoned approach possible with cruel and unusual punishment?"

    While I nearly lost my dinner reading the article, it came across to me as anti-gun, though trying to appear neutral, but still using language that denigrates gun owners. Not to mention that it is very misinformed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    While I nearly lost my dinner reading the article, it came across to me as anti-gun, though trying to appear neutral, but still using language that denigrates gun owners. Not to mention that it is very misinformed.
    Exactly. It sounded like the language of somebody trying to suck up to someone who is obviously beating them, while still thinking he is clever enough to talka little trash.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Exactly. It sounded like the language of somebody trying to suck up to someone who is obviously beating them, while still thinking he is clever enough to talka little trash.
    Yeah, no kidding. The author seems to take it for granted that a "compromise" banning handguns would be acceptable!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    The 2nd amendment is only missinterpreted by thoes with an agenda. Anyone who knows english and isn't reading it with the aim of making it unclear, can see that it prevents the federal govenment from infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

    Also to suggest that the founding fathers had no concept of technological advancement is silly. Though they probably wouldn't have guessed at nuclear weapons, the idea of a gun that could shoot repetatively is probably something they could have grasped. Also, since the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to overthrow the government if needed, it can be easily argued that they wanted people to have weapons to rival any the government had.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Notice how this "fair and balanced approach" ends with asking only one side in the discussion to "compromise" by giving up moreof what theythey hold in the current situation while the other side is only going to "compromise" by not getting everything they want.

    It's like the woman "allowing" the rapist to get his way as long as he only does it once and can only hit her anywhere but in the face.

    That's reasonable, isn't it?

  11. #11
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Basic Guy wrote:
    It's like the woman "allowing" the rapist to get his way as long as he only does it once and can only hit her anywhere but in the face.

    That's reasonable, isn't it?
    Graphic :shock:... but true.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    I just cannot understand how ANYONE could claim that "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" is 'so vague as to mean anything one wants.'

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Is A Reasoned Approach Possible With Gun Control?


    Absolutely not, there are the pros and the antis and never the twain shall meet. The legislatures and courts will come up with some kind of solution that will make no one happy.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    We as human beingsbasically have a right to self defense. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant.

    The Founding Fathers had enough foresight to include a Second Amendment into the Bill Of Rights because they anticipated (and experienced) the very argument against basic God given rights that we're now seeing. In other words: the argument is not a new one. Tyrannical governments existed even back then and in order for a tyrannical government to exist you have to have people who are sympathetic towards total government control. The Founding Fathers knew (through experience)that these people would always be around and they wouldput up a fanaticalfight for their cause.

    When we talk about compromising basic rights then we've crossed the line. The Constitution is our basic law guide. You don't compromise below the standard, It doesn't matter how traumatized you are by the sight of a gun.

    Fear and ignorance are powerful tools. There are various reasons whysome want a total ban on civilian possession of firearms and all of these reasons are based on some sort of fear of the people.

    There'll never be enough compromise for fearful persons.





  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    ...a silly and tendentious article from a man with delusions of relevance.....

  16. #16
    Regular Member AtackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    King George, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    ...a silly and tendentious article from a man with delusions of relevance.....
    Most excellent! may I paraphrase & use it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •