Bring to the bargining table

[Murph]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - so Socialism with a dash of 2A flavor. Nice. At least it falls inline with the NRA's flavor of Statism. But hey, as long as it's "good" for guns, it must be good.

I'm glad to see we share the definition that good for guns, means good for all.
I just think NRA flavoured statism is tastier than Brady Campaign statism, but neither can hold a candle to chocolate, caremal socialism, with sprinkles.
Unless your being sarcastic in which case never mind. 1-5 is socialism? Sure I suppose if you need a reason to dismiss an idea and you like the word socialism, then we could stretch it enough to label these, Crom knows the term has been used to label everything else.

6 - WTF is that supposed to even mean?

My thought exactly. WTF does extra liability mean? Liability for who? Liability from who? Generally civil liability is the purview of the state, if the state declares no liability exists then there is no liability.
It's your term, but until you make your case, I can assert that all liability can be safely dismissed by a government official saying, "We don't see a liability".

7 - So non-minorities are superior to minorities in your mind?

So you mean in your mind minorities are inferior?

8, 9 - Evil can't possibly be used for good.

Ah, but since good is the natural state, and since all good is the bane of all evil, everywhere, evil can't help but be used for good.

10 - See 6.

Exactly=)

 

[vvvvvvv]

Someone needs to be a politician. They definitely have the skills in making hyperbolic rhetorical statements with no ability to argue for them other than repeating them.

 

[Dale00]

OP takes a social engineering approach to the problem and steps all over the first amendment. Power belongs in the hands of the individual not the state.

Here's what I bring to the table - outrage over the death of those twenty kids in Connecticut and the total inability of the teachers and administrators to defend them. We need to demand an end to gun free-school zones. People with concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry in public schools. We have a strong experience base with concealed carry which proves that it makes people safer.

 

[Murph]

Murph, i can only answer a couple of your points in your response.

As for debates, yes, they are part of the process. Usually it works like this. Me n you sit down, i propose something, we debate the pros n cons, we present our arguments against the pro n cons, if we are still at odds and cant reach a compromise, we take what we have, present it to congress, let them debate on the floor, then it gets voted on.
Anyway im really only interested in what could gun owners could concede without loseing the right to bear arms. For me personally, i think we ought to try to make it easier to adjudicate people with diagnosed mental issues.

I can see that. My viewpoint is that we don't have a lot of wiggle room in what we can safely be conceded. That making concessions are what has caused the problems in the first place. But I'm willing to agree to disagree=)

But I do agree that there may be more that we can do in making sure the violent mentally ill people are discovered and treated before they have a psychotic break.

Also i think its pointless to ask a gun buyer if they are addicted to drugs. If a drug addict can lie, they can buy. Do we want addicts to buy guns? I mean being an illegal drug addict is like being a felon except they haven't been caught. So if a person commits felonious acts but hasn't got caught, and can tell a lie on a form for a generic background check, are we OK with that?

I don't know if I'm ok with letting someone with a criminal lifestyle buy a gun, although from a constitutional standpoint the idea might run afoul of the 4th and 5th amendment, but IANAL.
I agree completely that depending on criminals to tell the truth when buying a gun is nonsense. Yet another 'sounds like a solution' but is 'really a waste time', fig leaf. I wonder sometimes if letting these does nothing but provide a soundbite non-solutions being allowed to stand without challenge might be doing more harm to our country than the spree killers. Not just the time they take away from trying to figure out what reforms might actually work, but also as blocks to keep us from trying things that might actually work.

 

[Murph]

OP takes a social engineering approach to the problem

But the folks on the other side consider themselves to be social engineers. I don't know how else to combat their nonsense, without speaking their language. And I sincerely think that a world based on my original post, is just as feasible as what we have now. Without being as destructive as the present system

and steps all over the first amendment.

.
Nolo contendere. Is there any mitigation if I'm not breaking new trail? Because the first amendment looks to have been used for clog dancing.

Power belongs in the hands of the individual not the state.

I agree. We already know that. I am willing to keep saying it, because I think it's true, and I think if we don't constantly defend the truth it will be replaced by lies. But the anti's don't know this. They believe that power should be in the hands of the state, or more clearly, in the hands of state actors. I am not willing to stop, I don't think I can stop, with merely asserting the truth. I don't think I'm some kind of bad ass who could go out and eliminate the anti's. I don't think I'm some political genius that could go out and convince the masses to mend their ways. All I can think of so far is I should be doing more. I just don't know what I can xor should be doing extra. That is why I am here.

Here's what I bring to the table - outrage over the death of those twenty kids in Connecticut and the total inability of the teachers and administrators to defend them. We need to demand an end to gun free-school zones. People with concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry in public schools. We have a strong experience base with concealed carry which proves that it makes people safer.

then you might find this agreeable. http://murphaticlaw.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/a-call-to-arms/

 

[Murph]

Someone needs to be a politician. They definitely have the skills in making hyperbolic rhetorical statements with no ability to argue for them other than repeating them.

Truth=)
It is easy to pretend to be wise. Start with a few true statements. Throw out some assertions, imply that the other is lacking in wit or morals, and before you realize, you leave the field victorious, the crowd stunned by your magnificence, your opponents brought to heel by your sagacity and wit. Truly a modern marvel.

 

[Dale00]

But the folks on the other side consider themselves to be social engineers. I don't know how else to combat their nonsense, without speaking their language. And I sincerely think that a world based on my original post, is just as feasible as what we have now. Without being as destructive as the present system

.
Nolo contendere. Is there any mitigation if I'm not breaking new trail? Because the first amendment looks to have been used for clog dancing.


I agree. We already know that. I am willing to keep saying it, because I think it's true, and I think if we don't constantly defend the truth it will be replaced by lies. But the anti's don't know this. They believe that power should be in the hands of the state, or more clearly, in the hands of state actors. I am not willing to stop, I don't think I can stop, with merely asserting the truth. I don't think I'm some kind of bad ass who could go out and eliminate the anti's. I don't think I'm some political genius that could go out and convince the masses to mend their ways. All I can think of so far is I should be doing more. I just don't know what I can xor should be doing extra. That is why I am here.


then you might find this agreeable. http://murphaticlaw.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/a-call-to-arms/

I now think I better understand your essay. You are attempting to fight fire with fire. This was not clear to the readers on this board. Perhaps it was clearer when your posted it on your blog - the readers there would have read enough of your other essays to realize that you were deliberately writing out of character.

To stand alone, your essay needs a preamble which better explains your background and intent. Something along the lines of the following:
"I give up. I'm worn out from using logic and arguments with gun control advocates to no effect. It is time to re-frame the argument in terms they can understand. Forget about talking about individual rights and responsibilities. Instead lets pretend we are "statists" and talk about what the government should be doing to correct the problem of gun violence."

High praise for your other article: http://murphaticlaw.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/a-call-to-arms/

 

[vvvvvvv]

I don't know if I'm ok with letting someone with a criminal lifestyle buy a gun

So just because a person has a lifestyle that a certain segment of society distastes means they shouldn't own a gun?

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

 

[sanjuro893]

I now think I better understand your essay. You are attempting to fight fire with fire. This was not clear to the readers on this board. Perhaps it was clearer when your posted it on your blog - the readers there would have read enough of your other essays to realize that you were deliberately writing out of character.

To stand alone, your essay needs a preamble which better explains your background and intent. Something along the lines of the following:
"I give up. I'm worn out from using logic and arguments with gun control advocates to no effect. It is time to re-frame the argument in terms they can understand. Forget about talking about individual rights and responsibilities. Instead lets pretend we are "statists" and talk about what the government should be doing to correct the problem of gun violence."

High praise for your other article: http://murphaticlaw.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/a-call-to-arms/

I think Dale's right about having a preamble so your message is more clear.

 

[dennishoddy]

I understand what murph is saying. I was kind of confused at the beginning, but basically its like budget time where I work. We throw out every possible project we can muster, and when the bean counters get done throwing out this and that to justify their positions, we end up with exactly what we wanted.
Diane Feinstein is doing the same thing.
The gun owners typically enter these negotiations with the thought of "how much of our rights can we preserve from this assault"?
We need to use their same tactics against them, throwing out all kind of stupid mandates about why everybody SHOULD own a gun from birth to death, and make the tax government pay for it.
When the negotiations are complete, the dems have eliminated/reduced spending, made sure that kids can't buy guns until they are 18-21, and 200 round drum mags for AR's are no longer legal, and both sides walk away with basically the same thing we have now.
Politicians are happy, constituants are happy, its a winner!