Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun control and buggy whips (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  3D printers aren't game-changers here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north, 88kathy, coquiero

    The kind of 3D printing technology that can reproduce a functional firearm is not ordinary garage 3D printing; it's expensive ($10k) and likely to remain that way.  On the other hand, traditional machining (with less expensive equipment) has been able to produce functional firearms ranging from "zip guns" to full-auto Sten facsimiles for decades.  Mechanical drawings abound online for such projects.  It is true that you don't see guns made in this way being used in crime.  In my view that probably has to do with the fact that it's much easier and faster to get a gun "off the shelf", and criminal activity is often impulsive and begotten by desperation or wrongheaded thinking in the moment rather than careful advance planning.  In my view, a lot of gun killings in America are the direct or indirect result of cultural attitudes toward guns, attitudes deeply ingraining in the gun-owning community.  The idea that one needs guns for self-defense in this country.  The paranoid idea that guns are important tools for protecting liberty.  I maintain that the soundest, most legitimate reason to own a gun is because shooting is fun--hence the gun is a toy and it's important to reflect on appropriate balance of public safety and personal freedom with that in mind.  Yes, I'm aware there are a few subsistence hunters, private security people, etc. who need a gun for reasons other than it being a toy, but they're in a small minority in this country.

    •  You mean.... (8+ / 0-)
      ...it's expensive ($10k) and likely to remain that way.
      ...exactly like every other mass-produced product... ever...?

      Heh....  I give you.... the modern home computer.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:14:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can already buy a Chinese lathe (0+ / 0-)

        for far less money than you can buy a 3D printer that will make a barely-usable firearm.  And you can make a machine gun the boring ol' fashioned way by turning metal.  Additive machining (like 3D printing) has its place, but in my view these printers have no broad implications for society and specifically for the gun situation.  Lots of people worship at the altar of these printers in the local hackerspace, for instance, but in my engineering career and my hobby life I see a more limited applicability.

        •  I entirely agree (8+ / 0-)

          Home CNC tools have been around for a while. However, the 3D printers almost remove the need for skill (download the files and hit the start button), and I suspect the market penetration of the devices will be such that simply owning one is in no way odd. Plus there is the possible advantage that you can use a 3D printer quietly, so as long as the plastic does not stink or is properly ventilated, someone could be making stuff in the apartment next door and you would never know it.

          And just as the home CNC machines have dropped in price and increased in capability, so will the 3D printers. Go to Kickstarter and look at the models being proposed. Then go back three months from now and see the better models being proposed.

          88kathy may believe "plastic printed guns are still only a theory", but the rest of us can go to YouTube and see them being fired and reloaded and fired again. It is crude now, but it was not even possible a few years ago. The diary is to get people thinking about it so that five or ten years from now there is no excuse for saying "we had no way of knowing!".

          •  But the unskilled lumpenproletariat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            are pretty much the ones who have the guns already: the vast commodification of guns and the lack of legal control on them has brought them within reach of practically everyone wanting one, at everyday low prices: WalMart, stealing from an owner, "borrowing" from an owner, private sales, etc. Even in other countries with strict controls, underground fabrication seems to be an unrealized hypothetical, despite its being a job within reach of not-particularly-skilled home machining.  Nerfing the commercially-available arsenal and legally babysitting the paranoiacs in America's gunbound population would seem reasonable and effective long into the future, regardless of where 3D printing goes.

            •  snobbery is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, PavePusher

              the last refuge for failures.

              "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." Lewis Carroll

              by Wordsinthewind on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 01:41:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The "last refuge for failures" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                would be an American-style killing spree with a bargain assault rifle.  "Snobbery" is mostly just what is perceived in a situation where people disrespectfully disagree with one another.  Small potatoes kinda stuff.

                •  ROFL..."disrespectfully disagree".... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru

                  Maybe You Get Bad Customer Service Because You're a Bad Customer

                  You, on the other hand, become a maniacal tyrant when society hands you temporary and meaningless power over 17-year-old fast food cashiers. I shudder to think what you'd do if you had an army at your disposal.
                  And I'll tell you this, my firsthand experiences at a National Car Rental Company with the animals we call "customers", is the worst I've ever experienced in my 30+ yrs in Customer Service.  People aren't "respectfully disagreeing" they're brutal little tyrants.

                  Our society has failed at be "civilized" and that "killing spree" you reference is a result of that failure.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:34:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Are you speaking to me? (8+ / 0-)
              legally babysitting the paranoiacs in America's gunbound population
              Are you referring to the tens of millions of Democrats with guns, the Daily Kos RKBA community, the 99.99% of gun owners who are not criminals, or are you demonizing some other group? If you are not referring to people like myself, then I guess my gray-haired ass does not need your "legal babysitting". On the other hand, if you are referring to someone like me, some supporting evidence as to why I and people like me are "paranoiacs" who are so immature as to need "babysitting" would seem to be in order.
              •  Now I don't know people well enough (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shamash

                on this thread to make any educated guesses about whether or not any particular individual may or may not be a paranoiac here.  And even if I did have suspicions, I am too polite to be comfortable sharing them in public.  I do know a few bona-fides via work and social connections and I would reckon that as Americans we all do: you know, the kind of guy who seems perfectly okay until you go over to his upscale suburban house and you find an AK with a full banana clip stashed in the broom closet because he's "going to blow away anyone who tries to get my fambly."   The friend who insists on packing a sidearm on an ordinary hiking trip or a shopping trip "just in case".  My experience with gun owners is that in many cases, there is some kind of pathology going on upstairs (and keep in mind, I am not a mental health professional so this is all just my off-the-cuff assessment).  Now that of course does not mean every gun-owner fits my generalization.  As I said early on, there are folks who regard guns as energetic toys for a good time now and then and treat them with the greatest care and go out of the way to keep them out of public.

                •  Thank you, but does not answer the question (6+ / 0-)

                  If say, someone who treats weapons with care does not need legal babysitting, then that would mean their firearms are not an "arsenal" and do not need to be "nerfed".

                  Correct?

                  If so, it means that even at the outside, 99.9% of gun owners fall into the "responsible" category, and thus at most one in a thousand gun owners would be affected by the things you wish to transpire. Not saying that it isn't a good thing to identify "Crazy Eddie", but identifying that one is not a matter of looking at their gun collection, because by then it might be too late.

                  It seems to fall more on the social and mental health side of the equation than the hardware side.

                  you know, the kind of guy who seems perfectly okay until
                  Yes. Among the circle of people I am blessed to know there is one guy who is a "moon landing never happened" nut, a climate change denier and one who thinks MI6 has Obama's Kenyan birth certificate locked up in the Tower of London. But otherwise completely normal people. Except for being conservatives, of course.
                  •  The MOST responsible choice is to not have a gun. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    There are varying degrees of less-responsible choices.  Close to the top are people who obtain firearms for recreation and understand they are a liability.  At the bottom rung--and unacceptable in my view--are people whose mindset regards the gun to be a security investment, something to counter "tyranny," a big stick to walk with in public, an organ of "justice," and that kind of thing.  That's nuts (with exceedingly rare exception usually linked to one's occupation in a security profession). Those less-responsible types ought to be babysat assiduously in my opinion, since I suspect a close correlation between those attitudes and gun violence.

                    •  Two questions, a request and an observation (7+ / 0-)

                      q1) Does a person have an inherent right to self-defense?
                      q2) If so, is there a more effective tool for this purpose than a firearm?

                      r) If so, please provide the evidence to support this claim, bearing in mind that this evidence needs to be at least as reputable as the CDC, which says firearms are the most effective tool for self-defense.

                      o) The key word in "responsible choice is to not have a gun" is choice. If you deny someone that option, then calling it a "choice" is disingenuous.

                      •  The right to self-defense is bounded (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        by appropriate regard for other peoples' rights (to due process, to their own physical safety, etc.).  An appropriate balance between the right to self defense and the various basic rights of proximate persons is situational; one may adopt a different standard in, say, Somalia versus where I live in downtown Albuquerque.

                        To answer your second question, I would like to refer you to the capabilities of nuclear weaponry.  It is generally held to be superior at defending oneself than a firearm, and will neutralize an armed assailant even if you know his position no better than a ten mile radius.  I think the gun community is fond of the phrase "stopping power" and with a two-stage thermonuclear approach you have better stopping power than, say, the AR15s popular with young kids these days.  It appears the CDC limited its thesis to those devices an individual is legally allowed to possess rather than thinking outside the box at what may be the more effective solutions that the government has decreed the people should not have.

                        I believe in the choice to have personal protection.  I believe it is possible, and common, for people to make badly-balanced choices.  The law restricts certain choices that are unbalanced in the extreme, but allows other choices that situationally are often very silly-under-the-wig.  And I believe in the power of scorn and ridicule, as well as the power of sociological study, to help combat the prevalence of unbalanced choices.  I also think it is the proper place of the law to bound the choices available in order to make sure everyone's basic rights are respected.

                         

                        •  From self-defense to nukes (6+ / 0-)

                          Thanks for playing honestly. Seriously- such a rational and reasoned discussion.......? :(

                          •  Do you need a hint? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            If the point of above comment's reference to nukes is eluding you, I will help you out.  Literal interpretation is not advised.  That's a pretty big hint...sometimes I wonder why I am so generous.

                          •  Instead of that (4+ / 0-)
                            sometimes I wonder why I am so generous.
                            Instead of that, you ought to wonder why you are so evasive. You did not usefully answer either of the questions, when both could have been accurately answered with either "yes" or "no", as they were not "have you stopped beating your wife?" kinds of questions.
                          •  A binary answer is not a discussion. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            I avoid being pigeonholed by such arrangements.  Sorry if that makes it hard for ya.

                          •  At least you admitted to being an elitist. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            No doubt comforted in knowing that your party and elitist position is secure for your lifetime and that of your offspring.

                            Your admission below, regarding repeal of the Second Amendment, and with it - this notion of personal firearms is insufficient.

                            a) The Second Amendment has a body of law attached to it.
                            The NFA '34, and GCA '68 hinge on certain cases reviewed, ruled or refused by the SCOTUS.

                            b) The Tenth Amendment also applies, should the Second Amendment be revoked.  This was pointed out to you below, that in granting certain powers to the Government, the Second reserved certain powers to the Right of the People.

                            Strike that, and the power to regulate firearms comes from what Constitutional source?

                            i) Um, fuck it.  I said so.  No guns for the masses.
                            See: Elitist.  
                            I, and my cadre of armed Security Contractors may do as we see fit.  You've been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

                            ii) Here's a new law, which uses "National Security" and "Terrorism" multiple times.

                            iii) both i, and ii, above.

                            The problem is that Tenth Amendment.
                            That whole concept of reserved to the States and the People.

                            While your at it, how's the "turn 'em in" going to work?
                            Better shitcan the Fourth and Fifth Amendments too, or this is a paperwork masturbatory session.
                            Come to think of it, the aspect of telephone, text, social media, and internet communication would permit organized resistance.
                            The First Amendment should be nullified too.

                            The ideal solution, for an Elitist; would be to cement the control of the government, for 80 plus years.
                            Declare a ¡State of Emergency! and suspend the Constitution, and send Congress home.
                            Nationalize all Guard units, recall all military forces, disarming all, save a loyal cadre.
                            Keep it within the borders, and you have a plan for success.

                            A new Gulag operation would be required.  Re-education Camps, I believe was the popular phrase.
                            As you and yours will run the camps, no reason for this to be a problem.
                            You might want to avoid certain uniform colors, and logo symbolism at the start-up.  Afterwards?  Do as you please, as that was your entire intention.

                          •  Your strawman is gonna need bariatric surgery! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            To refocus, try replacing "firearms" in your own question with "cars," "fireworks", "mortgage lending", "air pollution," or "medical care."

                            Strike that, and the power to regulate firearms comes from what Constitutional source?
                            The answers come from different places in the federal and state domains, and it's beside the point to venture into the details.  The point is that regulation to balance risks with benefits is widely--almost universally--seen in this world as a legitimate role of democratic government.  The US government has some unique machinery not found elsewhere, but that nonetheless is means to this same legitimate end.  If your issue is that it might be difficult to adapt this machinery to a new regulatory task, then I don't have a specific answer other than to point out that good government is responsive to the changing needs of its people and I think ours is fundamentally capable.  We've done it before.
                        •  I enjoyed reading this comment, but I'd point (7+ / 0-)

                          out the premise is faulty.

                          Self-defense is not bound by anything, especially "due process".  If you do not wish me to become judge, jury and possibly executioner, do not attempt to harm me.  You loose your rights when you become the aggressor.

                          "Due process" is the standard the agents in our government must follow. I, on the other hand, have no lawful duty to do so when and if you attack me.

                          As for utilizing "scorn & ridicule" to stop people from doing what you don't like. I'd point out that if I allowed societal scorn and ridicule to pressure me into being/doing what you wanted, I'd be a dead man, not the transgendered woman I am today.

                          Your morality does not equal mine, therefore please stop trying to use the levers of our government to institute your morality upon me that will deny me freedom of choice.

                          I'll make this clear.  I summarily reject your premise to engage in "peer pressure" to emotionally manipulate those you believe make "unbalanced choices".

                          How about we raise our children to think critically and logically, teach them to the best of our abilities by giving them the tools for success to become mature responsible adults.  Empower them to do the right thing and then have faith they will.

                          Do not deny others freedom of choice for whatever contrived reasoning you may come up with.  Freedom is the founding principle of our nation.  It's time we got back to that concept.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:06:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Scorn & ridicule are just communication techniques (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            Ever read Hunter's stuff on the front page?  Scorn and ridicule are a fitting rejoinder to the sanctimony and anti-intellectual barnyard noise coming from the teabagger corps.  In a similar vein, I think a little bit of this medicine might help provoke a much-needed reflection on the limits of judgement in the gunbound community.  

                            You correctly point out that scorn and ridicule have been used to demoralize and abuse our fellow human beings.  The deployment I advocate is strictly aimed at discouraging socially-consequential misbehavior, not attacking immutable characteristics or personal lifestyle choices.  Bullying is a countervalue strategy aimed at crushing the ego and draining the will to live.  To be clear, I don't think there is any reason to crush the ego, or cause hydrostatic shock to vital organs.  I believe in being as gentle as possible while still clearly sending the message that the assailant's behavior is out of bounds.  So there's my philosophy on "scorn & ridicule."

                          •  Remember that this "philosophy" has been (6+ / 0-)

                            used against many people.

                            Recall interracial dating, and god forbid, interracial marriage???

                            Recall how if you were Catholic you couldn't run for political office?

                            "As long as you're not one of those people, all's good!"

                            Your "philosophy" leaves me with disgust.  It's dishonest emotional manipulation meant to intimidate and coerce people from exercising a right you disagree with.

                            Isn't this what Republicans want too? To deny people rights they don't agree with?

                            "Those loose women getting themselves pregnant!"  Why they oughta be responsible and birth that child!"

                            Should we then do the same for religion?  Since I believe religion is a mental disorder, shouldn't we discourage people from exercising it?  Shame and bully them into atheism?

                            Or how about how this "philosophy" has been used to by those in power to keep whistleblowers, environmental activists, animal rights activists and "peace loving liberals" from being taken seriously???

                            They were just being sent "a gentle message that their behavior is out of bounds!"

                            And what's with the label "assailants"???

                            Since when did it become a crime to "keep and bear arms"???  Did you guys already rewrite that damn piece of paper and didn't Cc me on it?

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:58:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice strawperson (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            There's an explicitly-clear distinction...a little gap...you might say an ocean...between my philosophy and the various ills you attribute to it.  

                            I don't think what Hunter writes on the FP is "bullying."  I don't think Bill Maher's "New Rule" soliloquys are "bullying."  I don't think A Modest Proposal was "bullying."  All these examples humiliate their targets through a derisive stance, but the goal is not to crush the ego of the opponent, it is to illuminate and neuter bad ideas.  Yes, there's a difference.

                             

                          •  So, you're dogma of circular logic is being used (6+ / 0-)

                            to tell me that black is now white and up is down.

                            You wish to deny people their rights,
                            just as the Republicans do.  As it stands, gun control is a lost cause and these tactics smell of desperation.  Can't win in the courts, can't win in the Congress or Senate, can't win at the polls, can't put forth a reasoned legitimate argument and you devolve into emotional conditioning.  The problem with that, we're not Pavlov's Dogs.  How elitist of you to think you will get away with it.  

                            "It's for their own good!  They just don't understand, the poor wretches!"

                            I don't buy into Eric Holder's"brainwashing" or Hunter's and your "philosophy" espoused here.  It won't get more or better Democrats elected, it will however, alienate a huge portion of the American population.  Including many democrats (small d) such as myself that don't buy into propaganda or emotional manipulation.

                            And I haven't watched Maher in years, he's controlled opposition, nothing more or less.

                            The last time he said anything I remotely agreed with was this:


                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:56:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I admit the elitism (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bevenro, coquiero

                            and I admit to thinking it's past time to repeal the 2nd (and eat cake while dancing the can-can on its grave; maybe bring a piñata for the kids).  However, we disagree a little bit about the reasons why I see the gun question as a cultural battlefield.  It's not because the factual arguments in favor of improved gun control are lost, aren't reasonable, don't poll well, aren't important to the discussion, etc.; I don't believe any of that.  It's because fundamentally the culture of the gun in America is the problem. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and the people doing the killing worship the ease and rapidity and efficiency of the firearm-based snuffing process.  In the absence of this prevailing culture of antisocial arrogance and anachronistic frontier mentality, this culture that causes actual harm while contributing jack squat of value in the 21st century, I think we could actually handle the permissive right to bear arms that the founders bequeathed us a couple centuries ago.  The stupidity would certainly have to pipe down to a dull roar before we can talk seriously about the value of the number two amendment as we look to the future.
                             

                          •  not likely (5+ / 0-)
                            The stupidity would certainly have to pipe down to a dull roar before we can talk seriously about the value of the number two amendment as we look to the future.
                            As long as people want to restrict others' constitutional rights until society changes to their satisfaction, such stupidity as you espouse will never "pipe down."

                            Self-confessed elitists don't get to determine my rights. Thank you for playing.

                            Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                            by Tom Seaview on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:22:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're welcome, Tom. Now it's your turn (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            to say something well-intentioned and meaningful.

                          •  History teaches us how "well-intentioned (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north, ER Doc, PavePusher

                            and meaningful" causes more harm than good.

                            MURDER BY GOVERNMENT

                            Eugenics Are Alive and Well In the United States

                            Forty Years of Failure

                            I seriously don't find the abrogation of rights as "well-intentioned" or "meaningful".

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 07:41:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ops, missed the link for the last one... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:25:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He did. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, PavePusher

                            You on the other hand have not.

                            Wanting to take a Constitutional Right away from innocent Americans isn't 'well intentioned'.
                            Your opinion isn't 'insightful'.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:21:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you really understand that if the 2nd A was (6+ / 0-)

                            repealed, the limited authorities granted to regulate the arms of the militia would be further curtailed?

                            Our rights do not come from that piece of paper, you can't "repeal" something we inherently possess.  Would you wish that a new amendment be put in its place?  Something along the lines of "no person shall have the right to self-defense"?

                            The problem I see with your argument stems from a false belief that our government has some inherent or divine right to exist and rule over us...it does not.

                            The quintessential Federalist, Hamilton, gives a concise argument explaining what our Constitution does and does not do.

                            The Federalist No. 84

                            It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.

                            -cut-

                            Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.

                            -cut-

                            But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

                            We do not have an arbitrary government that grants us political privileges, if it so desires, We The People created it and granted it limited authorities.

                            So, when you speak of repealing the 2nd A, it tells me you really don't understand the nation we live in or the central government we created.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:24:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My understanding (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            Repealing ol' Number Two would make room for a responsive gun regulatory framework such as those we have for automobiles and radioisotopes.  We have an assumed or implicit right to those things too, and that right has been reasonably bounded by statute in order to protect society.  The Second Amendment has long been interpreted as an expression of an inviolable individual right to possess any and all weaponry in "common use," and that static bound makes less and less sense as weaponry evolves.  

                          •  "Commerce Clause" theories??? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            Or the red herring called "national security"???

                            Or both???

                            You see, if we didn't grant our government that power, they can't exercise it.  That's pretty clear.

                            Our government can't and won't protect society, only we can.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Our government is us (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            The government is (at least in principle) an embodiment of the social contract we make with each other to advance our individual interests.  We have an interest in automotive transportation, but we also have an interest in living long and productive lives.  So, the theory goes, we contract to go about our business under a set of rules that proscribe reckless and unsafe use of automobiles.  In the USA specifically, the machinery of fulfilling such a legitimate role of government may include the Commerce Clause.  In other democracies without our unique federal structure, the specific machinery may not include anything resembling the Commerce Clause; the varying nature of this machinery seems irrelevant to the more fundamental matter of government's legitimate role.  Do you have particular opprobrium toward the Commerce Clause or something? I detect a slight hint of ronpaulism rearing its ugly head here.      

                          •  Our government in principle and our government (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, gerrilea

                            in practice are two radically different things right now. Look at the influence those with money have over those without, as just one example.

                          •  Beside the point of this discussion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero
                          •  No, not really...this isn't an esoteric exercise (0+ / 0-)

                            any longer.

                            We're paying attention today.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:09:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The political theories we founded this nation (0+ / 0-)

                            under still are battling today.  Anti-federalist vs Federalist.

                            When you label my positions as "ronpaulism" you are attempting to control this conversation with "scorn & ridicule", it won't work with me.

                            As I quoted Hamilton previously:

                            But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.
                            These 15 words in the Commerce Clause has been used in ways never imagined by our founders:
                            Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
                            I absolutely agree with this Federalist.  I don't want you in my house, in my car, in my life telling me what I can and can't know or eat or drink or grow.  I vaguely recall a SC decision that said Congress could deny me the right to grow food to sell because of the commerce clause.  That's why we now pay farmers not to feed the world, to create a scarcity and artificially inflate food prices worldwide to benefit an elite few mega agricultural corporations.
                            http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

                            The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

                            What's further distressing here is that these "federal agencies" were granted police powers and now have their very own swat teams!  What the hell is the FDA going after raw milk producers again?  Is this so that their buddies at Monsanto can add aspertame to milk and still call it milk?!!!

                            It's that "good-intentions" thingy again.

                            Considering what we got out of these "re-interpretations" of the Commerce Clause, I'm all for disbanding every single federal agency and starting over. Give We The People the power again to do it ourselves.  The sycophants that have infiltrated our government must be sent packing.  

                            Now if my reasoned argument sounds like "ronpaulism" then you really haven't been paying attention.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:08:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ...and the wheels are off the bus! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero
                            I'm all for disbanding every single federal agency and starting over
                            Mea culpa.  How could I possibly confuse this with ronpaulism?  I mean, Ron Paul was more moderate in that his "Plan to Restore America" only called for axing about half of the federal agencies rather than every single one.  Now the two of you may differ on the fine points of "starting over":  You may prefer to build something else on the post-apocalyptic rubble and Ron may prefer to just put up his heels and call it a day.  Whatever.  That's an irrelevant discussion to me, but my guess is there are online forums where there is much wind over the decks on such subjects.  You might try paulistas.com, paulbots.com, pault...AHEM! Right.

                            Anyway, those with a progressive outlook, such as me, approach the various dysfunctions of our government with the goal of fixing them.  We aim to keep the baby and flush the bathwater.  Keep the Commerce Clause, flush corporate influence among the regulators.  Keep the ATF, flush the deuce amendment.  Onward and upward, not backward and downward.  

                          •  Your dishonest ad homimens are getting (0+ / 0-)

                            tiresome, adding in "the no true scotsman" diatribe and your failure to discuss is complete.

                            You'll never be able to "flush corporate influence" from our government, not as long as they are "legal persons".  Hell, you'd have a better chance of repealing the entire Constitution and replacing it with this.

                            As long as you espouse "solutions" that will do nothing but move our society closer and closer to an authoritarian dictatorship, one that you believe you'll control...you'll find that people of reason, such as myself, will be standing in your way at every step, pointing people to the facts.

                            Facts you can't or won't discuss because they may reveal the true nature of your elitism.  You don't trust your fellow Americans and you wish to control their every thought and every action from cradle to grave.

                            And imagine, all this started with your "scorn & ridicule philosophy" to emotionally manipulate and control others because they exercise rights you don't like.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 05:21:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't let the bastards get you down! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            Just as the waiter might grind a little pepper on your salad, I prefer to add a lite spritzing of ad-hominem zest to the discussion just to keep it mirthful rather than allow it to get bogged down in dour sniffling.  This is an RKBA thread, fergodsakes; gravitas and humility and ballroom decorum just aren't appropriate.  I mean, you don't wear black tie to Barnum & Bailey!  Loosen up a bit (and try not to step on all the elephant dung).

                            This thread was never about corporate influence, or Goldman Sachs, or the NSA, or the decline of civil liberties (aside: I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty).  Those are serious matters.  We probably are in fundamental agreement about what the problems are, even if the approach to fixing them might differ.  The gun topic, which is the topic of this thread, is one where we don't even agree about the problem.  And so we just need to relax and enjoy the flow and put the piece away.

                             

                          •  I'll relax when you realize it's your (0+ / 0-)

                            position and approach to our constitutionally protected and preexisting rights that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

                            Your  conditioned compartmentalization is a plague on this nation.

                            This thread was never about corporate influence, or Goldman Sachs, or the NSA, or the decline of civil liberties (aside: I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty).
                            And I'd love nothing more than to progressively move forward where rights are exercised by all, not just a select few.  

                            Understand that which you espouse here has historically proven disastrous to the very goals you claim you wish this nation to move towards, excepting of course, the right to keep and bear arms.

                            Alexis de Tocqueville

                            In America, when the majority has once irrevocably decided a question, all discussion ceases--Reason f or this--Moral power exercised by the majority upon opinion--Democratic republics have applied despotism to the minds of men.

                            -cut-

                            I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.

                            -cut-

                            Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: "You shall think as I do or you shall die"; but he says: "You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death."

                            It's your philosophy of "scorn & ridicule" that have been employed by the "Moral Majority" to deny me Equity Under Law as a transgendered woman in the majority of these "United States".  30 yrs of their bullcrap that has destroyed unions, destroyed jobs, destroyed our social safety nets, destroyed rights and gone on to kill 133,000 Americans each and every year from forced perpetual poverty while going on to kill millions more worldwide?

                            And then you tell me I should just accept your position/philosophy as valid when you attempt to justify its use against others?  And that now I should "lighten up"?

                            Codswallop!
                            (there I got to use my new word of the day!)

                            ROFL!

                            I'm sick and tired of the demagoguery that has kept us from reaching the stars and evolving past emotional blackmail and manipulation utilized through "social pressures" and now you'd have us pick up that same mantle and do the same?

                            If at any point had you presented a legitimate reasoned argument, I'd have loved to debate you on it.

                            Get back to me when you're ready for a good honest debate and/or discussion.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:09:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  And YOU get to define "MOST responsible choice"... (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, Kasoru, theatre goon, gerrilea

                      ...for everyone else?

                      Yeah.... good luck with that.  The Bureau of NewSpeak is over there ==>....

                      Your hate-mail will be graded.

                      by PavePusher on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:18:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Life in the USA must be absolutely terrifying (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, gerrilea

                  for you.

                  I don't share your irrational fear nor your disgust with my fellow citizens.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:42:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, that's a stretch! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    I'd characterize my American experience in less "absolute" terms.  Mostly pleasant, mostly enriching, mostly rewarding...punctuated by the occasional frustration.  I have gotten to know mostly good and decent people, with the occasional rotter thrown in just because I suppose life can't be perfect all the time.  Now I confess I spend a disproportionate, and perhaps unjustified, amount of time bewailing the rotters among us.  You know, why do we have to contend with these particular individuals and all their sound-and-fury, the outsized wreckage from their tantrums, when we could seemingly so easily get the whole kerfuffle under treatment and move on.  Today we're talking about the gun problem for example.  It so happens that there was another assault rifle rampage in my neighborhood yesterday that had our main thoroughfare closed and sent three cops to surgery, and while it is my natural inclination to whine about the manchild who abetted this action and the national values system that made his crime such a cakewalk, perhaps I should look on the brighter side.  There are good people with guns.  There really are, I'm sure of it.  I have often heard about them.  And I owe them a huge debt of thanks for every day that they don't go all mooncalf on the rest of us.  I think of how much money some of these people have spent on the physical commitment to put another person in the ground, and how painful it must be to just let that expensive hardware languish under lock and key, not paying any return on the investment, even as life gets frustrating, and everyone from the black UN helicopters to black kids with iced tea to God himself seems to have it in for 'em, they manage to hold back and find the restraint that allows life to continue in a mostly-peasant, mostly-enriching, mostly-rewarding way for the rest of us.  No matter how much they secretly urge to trepan our trolling little heads with a .50 cal round from their brand-new Barrett.

                    •  Wow (5+ / 0-)
                      I think of how much money some of these people have spent on the physical commitment to put another person in the ground, and how painful it must be to just let that expensive hardware languish under lock and key, not paying any return on the investment, even as life gets frustrating, and everyone from the black UN helicopters to black kids with iced tea to God himself seems to have it in for 'em, they manage to hold back and find the restraint that allows life to continue in a mostly-peasant, mostly-enriching, mostly-rewarding way for the rest of us.
                      So basically, you operate under the assumption that either most or all people who own firearms would love to kill someone and barely manage to restrain that urge. The only reason we're not knee-deep in blood right now is, as you see it, that somehow all of these inherently-violent people are able to keep their natures in check by force of will (though you also seem to think that could give out at any moment). The idea that maybe they're not really momentarily-restrained nascent murderers never crosses your mind.

                      The only idea I can think of that even approaches this level of superstition is the idea that without "God", people are just amoral motorized instinct with no internal framework of decency to stop them from constantly committing evil acts. I say that mainly because it too is an assumption not backed up by reality and is predicated entirely by bias against the group so condemned.

                      •  I operate under the assumption (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        that most gun owners in this country are well-intentioned, but that only ~10-25% of them are basically okay in the noodle.  The remainder struggle--to varying degrees, from minor to full-blown--with issues like paranoia, megalomania, and the unhealthy commitment to various fantasies that I call Good-Guy-With-A-Gun Syndrome (it's not yet in the DSM).  Furthermore, the gun-owning community as a whole has advanced no endogenous solution to the most widespread of these problems (for example, the paranoid conceit that private small arms are an important barrier to government tyranny).  I am convinced it's going to take "the rest of us" to get some of these issues under management.

                        •  "Paranoid conceit"? (5+ / 0-)

                          You sure do toss off accusation of mental instability a lot.

                          And you seem to be exhibiting a strong tendency towards that diagnosis of Authoritarianism mentioned above.

                          Your hate-mail will be graded.

                          by PavePusher on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:22:47 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I am a bush-league authoritarian (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            Sure, my banter may be peppered occasionally with hints of disrespect toward the autonomy of people who make bad choices that impact my life, but that hardly passes for authoritarianism these days!  Sure, I think some particular individuals ought to be babysat, but I myself have no interest in doing that job even for the money.  (Back in my teenage years it would have been a different story.)  So if I'm an authoritarian, don't you think--and I want your honest assessment as a fellow amateur shrink--that it's pretty low-grade?  I mean, I don't even own a gun!

                          •  Every world-class Authoritarian.... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, Kasoru, theatre goon, FrankRose

                            was "bush-league" once.... until several million people bought into the same ideas.

                            "A waterfall begins from only one drop of water, sir."

                            Your hate-mail will be graded.

                            by PavePusher on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:06:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But not every bush-leaguer makes it to the majors. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            In fact, almost none of them do.  If I wanted to play major-league authoritarian in America, I would probably go buy an assault rifle, join a militia, and get a good Jesus schtick going.  And I have to confess that's just not my style.

                            Practically everyone has certain characteristics that, with an appropriate dose of hyperbole, could be called "authoritarian".  For example, if I express a personal opinion about some special people needing a babysitter, that could be called "authoritarian."  Very well, but my point was that if that's authoritarian, then it's decidedly at the small-potatoes end of the spectrum.

                            Sometimes--just sometimes--a drop of water is just a drop, and doesn't portend a waterfall.  

                          •  P.S. The Irony of my quote was intentional. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Your hate-mail will be graded.

                            by PavePusher on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:20:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Invented percentages, mind-reading, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          irrational fears & opinion-barf.

                          Convincing.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:50:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Impressive (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kasoru, theatre goon, FrankRose, gerrilea

                          Bill Frist needed a video to diagnose Terry Schiavo, one person, as absolutely capable of full recovery from a vegetative state. You only need the internet to diagnose millions with various mental disorders and proclaim yourself and your peers as the only ones with solutions.

                        •  And now accusations of mental illness... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose, gerrilea, Kasoru

                          ...against broad swaths of the American populace.

                          Utter codswallop in the place of rational argument.  The saddest part is that we see this more and more, even at this "reality-based community."

                          "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                          by theatre goon on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  God, I love that word: CODSWALLOP. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            CODSWALLOP!

                            CODSWALLOP!!

                            CODSWALLOP!!!

                            Might I use it from time to time, with your permission???

                            ;)

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:21:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Use it often and in good health! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            It's one of those words I'd really like to see brought back into more common usage.

                            ;-)

                            "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                            by theatre goon on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:06:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now we just need to take a deep breath... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            ...and understand that I am merely sharing personal opinion and judgement, off the cuff, from personal experience only.  In the sense of being based on my experiences, they are "reality based" views.  My experiences may be different from your own.  My opinions on the gun problem are well-developed, but have relevance to others only to the extent that others care about them and engage with them; as I have already said, I have no special authority in the field of mental health and I use the terminology from that field loosely in accordance with popular usage.

                            Bill Frist, a credentialed physician, made the obvious overreach of "diagnosing" a specific person while having no personal knowledge of that specific case.  Even in my amateur-shrink capacity, you'll note that I haven't tried to saddle specific persons unknown to me with the attitudes and pathologies I perceive generally in that population.  I always try as hard as I can to give individuals the benefit of the doubt.  Regarding the gun problem, I meet many who reinforce my stereotypes, and occasionally I meet someone who defies them.

                          •  Yes. You only 'diagnosed' (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, Kasoru, PavePusher

                            126,800,000 people.

                            Thanks for your incredible restraint, Dr.

                            "I meet many who reinforce my stereotypes..."
                            Said every bigot ever.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:42:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  If you create a Prohibition.... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, theatre goon, gerrilea

              you create the market forces that drive an underground economy.

              Why do so many people here lack any understanding of economics and history?

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:14:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Those lathes were once expensive... (4+ / 0-)

          and hence rare.

          They are still comparatively rare, because they take some skill and training and practice to use effectively.  

          3D printers, via the average home computer, make the process far easier for the end user.

          Nearly every new technology is frequently derided and/or dismissed early in it's history.

          Time will tell.

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:11:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please explain.... (7+ / 0-)
      The idea that one needs guns for self-defense in this country.  The paranoid idea that guns are important tools for protecting liberty.
      ...how those two concepts drive "gun killings".

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:17:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frame of mind (0+ / 0-)

        If you are buying a gun with the established notion of using it to kill people, you are predisposed to poor judgement in the direction of using it when saner heads might otherwise prevail.  It's a plausible hypothesis.  I'm not a social scientist and have no means of testing it, but I am all in favor of studying this possibility for statistically meaningful links to gun crime.

        •  If you equate murder and self-defense (4+ / 0-)

          Your hypothesis is all ready on shaky ground to begin with.

          •  A lot of "self defense" killings (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            arise from circumstances that are escalated by the involvement of guns.  Some of those killings are plausibly justified and some are not.  I didn't dwell on the relationship between mens rea (which could be fear, rage, possibly malice, etc.) and outcome other than to suggest that the mentality of walking around with a gun to resolve conflicts often leads to its inappropriate and excessive use.

            •  Citation needed (5+ / 0-)
              I didn't dwell on the relationship between mens rea (which could be fear, rage, possibly malice, etc.) and outcome other than to suggest that the mentality of walking around with a gun to resolve conflicts often leads to its inappropriate and excessive use.
              An estimate by a writer at MSNBC about three years ago had the number of CCW permits nationwide at about six million. According to the Violence Policy Center (which is so far opposite the NRA they might as well be in an alternate reality), the number of people who have been killed by CCW holders under non-self-defense circumstances between May of 2007 and now is 516. Although VPC doesn't give the number of CCW holders responsible for these shootings, it obviously cannot be greater than 516 and is most likely substantially lower.

              So, you might consider rethinking your suggestion that walking around with a gun predisposes people to violence. The numbers don't back it up, no matter how shockingly they're presented.

              •  As I already said up-thread (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                a comprehensive study ought to be done.  Again, what I am offering here is not a sourced statement but my own hypothesis, one that seems plausible to me as a casual observer of human behavior.  There is a vacuum of data on this subject.  You're entitled to an alternative hypothesis.  Looking at CCW licensees only and "non-self-defense circumstances" is arbitrary and a matter of convenience in some limited data being available.  There are plenty of non-permitted (illegal) guns, plenty of open-carry guns, gun use on private property and in the home, and loads of "self defense" circumstances (e.g. Trayvon Martin) that were plausibly if not obviously aggravated by the presence of firearms.  Indeed, it is precisely the latter category that I think bears heightened scrutiny.

                •  You spoke specifically of people who own (6+ / 0-)

                  firearms for self defense. That's pretty much CCW in a nutshell. You spoke in terms of people walking around with firearms being predisposed to inappropriate and excessive use. Non-self-defense circumstances covers everything from murder to accidental shooting and would be the very definition of "inappropriate and excessive". If you're going to extend it to include self-defense under the idea that every person who uses a firearm in self-defense is just another George Zimmerman, it seems rather like you've got a conclusion all ready and you're trying to tailor the data to fit it.

                  •  I don't accept "self defense" claims on their face (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, bevenro

                    "Security" is the number-one reason for gun ownership in this country.  I think it's worth studying how much security is produced by this situation, and yes, right now I am inclined to the view that we'll find it to be a negative amount.  That will be because (1) guns escalate conflicts that would have been avoided otherwise; (2) guns produce more severe outcomes; (3) gun use in a perceived "self-defense" situation is frequently characterized by impulse rather than good judgement.  And just to stay on topic, I will reiterate my earlier assertion that homemade guns will remain an irrelevant part of the private arsenal, notwithstanding even dramatic improvements in 3D printers.  The American arsenal is going to continue to be dominated by mass-produced dime-store hand-cannons made for and fetishized by the lumpenproletariat as security tools.  Anyway, I am probably repeating myself now!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site