Forum Thread

clarification of concerns created by prior posts

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    03/14/2003
    First, I appreciate all responses to what I've had to say in my posts. Somebody's out there!!

    Regarding my 3/9/14 dissertation, it seems I've given a wrong impression, perhaps in part
    due to the mode of my expression!! "Hyperbole" was a critique term used by a respondee to me.
    "Terminological terpsichore" (word-dances) is where it's at. Including sometimes compulsive
    alliteration, I enjoy playing with words. Sometimes "devil's advocate" exaggeration is involved.
    Just one example, I phrased "lunatic gun lobby" -- which was an understandable misunderstanding
    of my intention by a respondant. (But it should be self-evident that the "gun lobby" is not the
    population of gun-owners!! -- so I was not dissing anyone personally.)

    Regarding gun ownership and gun owners, heaven forbid the ignorance, let alone futility, of any
    attempt to disarm the armed populace of this country. Aside from the Constitutional entitlement
    and guarantee, basic brain behavior should reveal that in a world of weapons' threats (perhaps
    so far just latent) abroad -- as well as sporadically domestic . . . . actually being without any
    means of self-defense may represent group naivite', though maybe not quite stupidity.
    Some time or other ago I posted a couple discourses shortly following the Connecticut school
    shooting. I thought I comprehensively presented a rational analysis of gun issues, including my
    conclusion that getting trying to get rid of guns would accomplish weapons-worsenings (a la
    Prohibition).

    I'm all in favor of gun ownership. A gun in one's home could very well be equivalent to a "fire-power
    extinguisher" (should there come an armed intruder . . . or eventually insurgent force) . . An actual fire
    extinguisher to put out actual flames should also be part of one's protection (and I would think required,
    if not by law, by insurance companies!!!!)
    I feel that the gun lobby can be faulted for its abject resistance to registering gun owners, & to some
    format of background check prior to passing the pistol or other over the counter. Think of the myriad
    situations (driver's license, insurance, hospital volunteer positions . . . . ) that require background
    screening of the applicant's suitability for whatever. The "Gun Lobby Ludicry" may be that , given its
    unquestionable influence/clout, it doesn't "legitimize" (even "elevate") its demographic and legislative
    stance by establishing its own criteria. Thus gun-owners would become an "echelon of the qualified!!!"

    I've never owned a gun. But if I were appraised that within X period of time the opportunity for one
    to purchase a weapon would end, but ownership would be "grandfathered", I'd hasten out to procure
    one!!!
    That's as simply as I can state my position on ownership per se. For me 'twould be a pistol.

    Regarding types of weapon . . . another of my issues taken issue with . . . I should think the gun lobby itself
    would back bans on the ballastic baddies . . . military-style assault weapons -- unless, by specific
    licensing, for specific "extreme-target" competitions (for example). What rationale, what justification
    for legal 100-round/seconds (+/-) firepower of a rifle when there's no outcry of threatened autonomy
    or 2nd Amend. "confiscation" threat concerning someone owning a bazooka or grenade?

    As far as there being "bumps in the road" to impede what I've written previously, I thought I'd
    leveled the length and breadth of the lanes we travel. Criminalizing whatever, adds criminality to such
    other concerns (so often subjective) as ethics or morality, kind of synergizing "sin" -- and locking it up
    in contexts and confines such that the penal system may be the worse crime committed!!

    Heaven forbid Sharia -- or Puritan "purity" and punishments -- though such cruelty might equal control.
    But some regulation, registration, seems necessary to assure the Constitutional right of the "pursuit
    of self-preservation" of all Americans.
    Or should we do away with all testing and licensing because that might lead to the government taking
    away our motorcycles . . . . ?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Has been edited.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Why create a new thread when your post pertains to a single reply you received to another thread you started?

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Regarding my 3/9/14 dissertation, it seems I've given a wrong impression, perhaps in part due to the mode of my expression!! "Hyperbole" was a critique term used by a respondee to me. "Terminological terpsichore" (word-dances) is where it's at. Including sometimes compulsive alliteration, I enjoy playing with words.
    Well, you are dancing on a razor-thin line and being I'm the only person that bothered to respond to your March 9th "dissertation", I can say with certainty that you spend most of your time over that line. In all honesty, you should restrict the majority of your writing to just plain English, especially when attempting to write persuasive commentary in which you offer characterizations of people, . . . because your "play with words" alienates people.

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Sometimes "devil's advocate" exaggeration is involved. Just one example, I phrased "lunatic gun lobby" -- which was an understandable misunderstanding of my intention by a respondant. (But it should be self-evident that the "gun lobby" is not the population of gun-owners!! -- so I was not dissing anyone personally.)
    And there you expose your profound tone-deafness. The separation of "the gun lobby" and "gun owners" only exists in the minds of anti-gun rights activists. I understand "divide and conquer" is a time tested tactic but it is only effective when a wedge that already exists can be hammered further down.

    Let me be perfectly clear; I do take it personally when people denigrate, ridicule and MISREPRESENT the NRA or other organizations that defend rights. You attack them, you attack me.

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Regarding gun ownership and gun owners, heaven forbid the ignorance, let alone futility, of any
    attempt to disarm the armed populace of this country. Aside from the Constitutional entitlement and guarantee,
    I don't know of anyone on the gun rights side who is 'fearful' of citizen disarmament who thinks that it would be attempted in one fell swoop. It can happen and it is being advocated for, not pressing for "one law does it all", but as a death of a thousand cuts.

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:basic brain behavior should reveal that in a world of weapons' threats (perhaps so far just latent) abroad -- as well as sporadically domestic . . . . actually being without any means of self-defense may represent group naivite', though maybe not quite stupidity.
    Well, that has existed in selected areas that enacted gun bans. Washington Dc comes to mind where handguns were banned and operational long guns could not be possessed even within one's home.

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Some time or other ago I posted a couple discourses shortly following the Connecticut school shooting. I thought I comprehensively presented a rational analysis of gun issues, including my conclusion that getting trying to get rid of guns would accomplish weapons-worsenings (a la Prohibition).
    Well, it doesn't seem that Conneticuit followed your suggestion.

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:I feel that the gun lobby can be faulted for its abject resistance to registering gun owners,
    And you really think it is just the "the gun lobby" that opposes registration?

    PEOPLE resist registration, look what's happening in Connecticut right now! The state bans new "assault weapons" and extended mags, grandfathering those guns and mags already owned. The owners of those grandfathered guns and mags were required to register them and the registration window has closed with only a very small percentage (< 15% ?) of owners complying.

    What to do now? As many as 100,000 CT citizens are giving the middle finger to the state, facing being charged with a Class D felony exposing themselves to a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine . . . and they own 300,000+ of these guns (and a million or more of the other kinds).

    Of course some (who won't be responsible for actually walking through the doors) are advocating using the original purchase information (ATF form 4473) to issue warrants and arrest these people - so my side question is, if you already know who owns what, what do you need a registration for ; ). http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons...

    Cops and Sheriffs are not too enthusiastic to go busting down the doors of these people, especially enforcing a law that many citizens and many in law enforcement believe is unconstitutional and thus void on its face.

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:& to some format of background check prior to passing the pistol or other over the counter. Think of the myriad situations (driver's license, insurance, hospital volunteer positions . . . . ) that require background screening of the applicant's suitability for whatever.
    Funny that you think that something that happened 21 million times last year, doesn't happen. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2014_monthly_yearly_totals-0... (19KB pdf)

    alongcameaschneider Wrote: The "Gun Lobby Ludicry" may be that , given its unquestionable influence/clout, it doesn't "legitimize" (even "elevate") its demographic and legislative stance by establishing its own criteria. Thus gun-owners would become an "echelon of the qualified!!!"
    Are you aware that NRA qualification courses are the gold standard for citizen and law-enforcement? Tens of thousands of cops and Sheriffs have trained and qualified under NRA programs supervised by NRA certified range officers. NRA is the "echelon of the qualified" and their commitment to citizen and law enforcement training is ongoing; NRA trains those who train law enforcement. http://le.nra.org/training/instructor-development-schools.aspx

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:I've never owned a gun. But if I were appraised that within X period of time the opportunity for one to purchase a weapon would end, but ownership would be "grandfathered", I'd hasten out to procure one!!! That's as simply as I can state my position on ownership per se. For me 'twould be a pistol.
    Well, if you do the first thing you should do is sign up for a training / safety course. After graduating you can nail the shingle on your wall and proudly display the NRA logo on your certification. http://goo.gl/xtkg95

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Regarding types of weapon . . . another of my issues taken issue with . . . I should think the gun lobby itself would back bans on the ballastic baddies . . . military-style assault weapons -- unless, by specific licensing, for specific "extreme-target" competitions (for example).
    Talk about projecting one's feelings onto others . . .

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:What rationale, what justification for legal 100-round/seconds (+/-) firepower of a rifle when there's no outcry of threatened autonomy or 2nd Amend. "confiscation" threat concerning someone owning a bazooka or grenade?
    If there is one type of weapon that meets all the criteria of 2nd Amendment protection, it is the type of gun commonly known as an "assault weapon".

    alongcameaschneider Wrote:As far as there being "bumps in the road" to impede what I've written previously, I thought I'd leveled the length and breadth of the lanes we travel. Criminalizing whatever, adds criminality to such other concerns (so often subjective) as ethics or morality, kind of synergizing "sin" -- and locking it up in contexts and confines such that the penal system may be the worse crime committed!!
    I haven't a clue what that gibberish means. The speed bumps I was referring to, are the constitutional prohibitions that will knock the wheels off the cart carrying the laws you are pushing (i.e., banning assault weapons).


    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Heaven forbid Sharia -- or Puritan "purity" and punishments -- though such cruelty might equal control. But some regulation, registration, seems necessary to assure the Constitutional right of the "pursuit of self-preservation" of all Americans.
    There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, to be safe or to feel safe. The path of "assuring" a right is not by regulating it. The simple assigning of the term "right" removes that interest from the eyes of government.

    ____________________

    "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."

    DC v Heller
    ____________________


    alongcameaschneider Wrote:Or should we do away with all testing and licensing because that might lead to the government taking away our motorcycles . . . . ?
    Well, we have a history to examine when differentiating between registering motorcylces and cars and registering guns. Registration and licensing serves to restrict ownership and use to only what government deems permissable. The history of registration of guns is that once the scheme is in place it is but a small step to close the registration and for all intents and purposes, going forward a ban exsists for those weapons. Grandfathering happens but no transfers of grandfathered weapons, even through one's estate can occur so what was once "just registration", after a generation, becomes an absolute ban. (this is also the situation in CT).

    So, registration leads to confiscation even if nobody is battering down your door tomorrow. That it doesn't happen till after you die doesnt make it any less offensive or incompatible with a form of government that was established to preserve liberty into perpetuity.
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    First, it's perhaps a "thought-process defect" that afflicts me. What I write is just free-flow,
    conversational expression. It's the way I think, and to the extent that I actually converse other
    than just chat, the way I talk about subjects with people is how I write.
    Second, isn't it perhaps the greatest aspect of America -- that we can freely express
    vastly divergent (unto antithetical) ideas and even ideals within a context of "protected right";
    and now, by means of so many forms and forums (including this site)? In my words I've merely
    conveyed my standpoint, my "take" on issues. I surely have not meant to denigrate anyone
    personally -- for another's even diametrically-opposing perspective is his (even unpublished)
    freedom, protection, and potential to promulgate such as on Democratichub etc. venues.
    My "over-the-line" reference to "lunatic gun lobby" should no more be an affront to an
    individual gun owner-proponent of ownership . .. than if I were satirically critiquing some
    manufacturing corporate enterprise, the employee or even management-level person should
    feel insulted. Actually, it's the manufacturing corporate entities which I focus on as "the
    lobby".
    I may be naive. I may be idealistic. Maybe it's both? I think this country's system ultimately
    functions by and for its people. The government consists of those elected, an outcome which
    combines popular support (vote) and private-enterprise (funding, PACs,etc.) promotion of the
    interests of that echelon. To stay in office, politicians must satisfy their constituency -- and
    to be in office represents significantly a responsibility to provide "repayment" of the "venture
    capital" that private sector campaign financing represents.
    Thus, in my estimation, the government is the people (inclusive of strata, echelons, wealth,
    influence, etc. subdivisions). But THE PEOPLE. Is it not "the people" in & of Connecticut who are
    attempting "disarmament" through democratic processes?
    As far as Constitutionality is concerned, had there not been legislative (amendment) and
    judicial (X v. Y decisions) variant from FFF (founding-father format), of course there'd be no
    contest/conflict/consternation at all about bearing arms . . . but only white, male, Protestant
    land-owners would be able to vote, and slavery would be a nation-wide business enterprise,
    and . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    I appreciate your response. I apologize if I have offended, having only meant to offer my
    dissertation -- not to diss. I assume, from your initial comment, that my posting a second
    "thread" (response) to my first on the same subject shouldn't be done? Finally, I cherish your
    right of response to me, and respect your perspective, appreciate your information.