Is the reluctance on the part of pro-gun folks to come on board with this due to the fact that in order to make universal background checks effective, registration and licensing would be the logical next steps?Patricia Maisch, one of the people who helped halt the Tucson shooting , holds up a photograph of victim John Roll, a federal judge, while testifying before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday. Maisch testified in support of legislation that would strengthen federal power over the states' handling of background checks.
Supporters of the legislation want to keep guns out of the hands of more criminals, domestic abusers and people who are mentally ill. They say that might have made a difference last January, when a gunman in Tucson, Ariz., killed six people and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, who has been charged in the shooting, is being treated after he was found not mentally competent to stand trial.
Requiring background checks on every sale would greatly improve the current situation because many lawful gun owners unknowingly and innocently allow their guns to flow into the criminal world. This would cease. Being law-abiding folks, these gun sellers would comply with the law and require background checks before selling.
Some gun sellers, whom I like to call "hidden criminals" are staying within the letter of the law, but for personal gain or apathy, they're knowingly allowing guns to go to criminals. These activities may not be prevented by a law requiring background checks but such a law will force these hidden criminals to come out in the open. Under the new law, anyone selling a gun without a background check is engaging in criminal activity.
So, although much improvement can be expexted from this background check law itself, only when it's combined with registration and licensing will it have maximum effectiveness. Straw purchasing will be eradicated and gun flow into the black market will be drastically curtailed.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Sure, as long as it's not illegal under one or the other of the oppresive and restrictive laws of the nannyjacked bootstate that is the ATF.
ReplyDeleteI know a couple of guys who've built 1/4 scale artillery pieces, late 19th century variety, that they fire at competitions. I know other people who've built small pivot guns that could, I'm sure, fire something other than wadding.
I never have had a problem with firearms; I just have a problem with shitheadz owning and carrying gunz, cuz', well shitheadz are always gonna be shitheadz.
Or, to borrow a turn of phrase from one of the blue collar comedy tour comedians... you can't fix stupid.
ReplyDelete1. As a private citizen without a Federal Firearms License, I can't run a background check on another private citizen.
ReplyDelete2. Will you require background checks if I sell a book to someone I meet at the library? Then why a gun to someone I meet at the range? I know, books don't shoot people. So? Rights are rights.
Greg, you keep saying 'rights are rights'.
ReplyDeleteUh.....no. It should be as illegal for you to sell a gun to someone who is a felon or crazy as it is for a licensed gun dealer to do so.]
We should be making it possible to either have private individuals selling a firearm do so, or for them to have one done by law enforcement.
As to doing a check? Here you can do a Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions data base check for a nominal fee - something on the order of $5 to $10. While not quite the same as an NCIS check, I think we SHOULD require the same kind of check to sell someone a firearm that we require to employ someone as a teacher, school bus driver, camp counselor, etc. We do those checks to ensure that someone is safe; we should do the same with firearms for the same reason.
Library books? Seriously Greg, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously as a critical thinker when you make such blatantly false analogies? Either you are inept at critical thinking for not recognizing that this is a false analogy, or you are dishonest in presenting it and just hoping that no one will notice.
THAT was what I meant when I wrote that such incredibly flawed reasoning would not have been tolerated by my teachers K-12, much less by an subsequent professors or instructors. You should be ashamed to posit such nonsense.
Rights are not absolute, they never have been. I know that doesn't make you happy, but your happiness or unhappiness has as little significance on this point as it does on the physics of gravity.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me how you can distinguish between the rights ennumerated in the First Amendment from those in the Second? The language is the same, and the rights are presented in the same manner.
My point is that if the government can take away one set of rights, it can take away the other. You may say that the Constitution was badly written, but it's what we have. Can you not see how a move to take away one right might not inspire a move to take away another, especially in this age when we see terrorists around every corner?
Greg Camp sez:
ReplyDeletePlease tell me how you can distinguish between the rights ennumerated in the First Amendment from those in the Second? The language is the same, and the rights are presented in the same manner.
Greg, not only are you an ignorant dumbfuck, but you appear to be illiterate as well if you think that about these two disparate Amendments:
First: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Not only do they deal with different topics, but they are syntactically different.
The first comes out and says what it is that Congress shall not do in regard to multiple rights.
The Second States a purpose and then how that purpose is to be implemented.
We can get into the legal differences as well, Greg, but you have demonstrated that you aren't too brite and that would go beyond your limited intellectual capabilities.
Do you really teach English and critical thinking?
Is that why most yanks are dumbfucks who can't think beyond kindergarden level even if they have advanced degrees? No wonder the country is going down the shitter.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"My point is that if the government can take away one set of rights, it can take away the other."
Why YES, our government CAN take away rights.
We've taken away the rights of some people to own other people for an example, after the civil war, despite the Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme Court and the original provisions of the Constitution as drafted by the Founding Fathers. They were human beings, not gods, and therefore fallible.
What part of our history don't you understand?
Just because WE can, through our representative government, alter rights, the fact is that we generally do so for the better, as in expanding suffrage to women and other people who were previously denied the vote.
We have also revoked and then rescinded the right to drink alcohol, although that right ALSO continues with strict regulation and consequences for violation of those restrictions.
Sheesh - do you know anything about history at all? Is all your teaching in the classroom this poor in content and critical thinking? You seem to have missed some awfully seminal concepts and events that would clearly show your claims to be invalid.
Greg once again you demonstrate that you do not distinguish between a moral right and a civil right.
ReplyDeleteThat is an important distinction, not to mention an exercise in vocabulary that you should practice.
The two kinds of rights are related, but they are not the same.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou've just supported my point. Yes, our society has taken away rights, both from everyone in this country and from specific groups. I find that ability to be an example of what evils a society can do, while you seem to accept such actions.
You do realize that you've just equated taking away the right to firearms with taking away the rights of people of African descent. That works for me. Neither is acceptable.
I do understand that there are different categories of rights. My students with disabilities have the right to services from the college. Those who aren't enrolled--in other words, everyone outside of our school--do not have that right.
I say that the right to be a free person and the right to live are fundamental natural rights. A firearm is an effective tool for defending both.
I say that choosing a religion or reading a book is an expression of the natural right to intellectual autonomy.
As I've said before, what the government gives, the government can take away. Given the horrible violations of rights that you named, are you comfortable with the government having that power?
First: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ReplyDeleteSecond: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The state/states do not have rights they have powers, the people have rights.
Thats why the 2nd does not say,
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the power of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The requiring a background check for private sales is a no-brainer. Most non-gun-owners I talk to already assumed it to be the case and are surprised that it isn't, here in Oregon and most of the rest of the U.S.
ReplyDeleteObviously, no one with a shred of decency wants people who are felons, dangerously mentally ill, underage, illegal immigrants, domestic abusers, people with outstanding warrants for their arrest, sex abusers, or people convicted of assault to be able to be armed with guns. But without a background check, you have no idea if the buyer falls into any of those categories. Thus, it is in the seller's best interest as well, unless they wish to aid and abet a criminal.
And what would that entail? It would mean that the seller and buyer would need to go to a licensed firearms dealer to do the background check, for a small fee (which I've heard estimated at $14, which wouldn't be outside of the price range for someone already shelling out several hundred dollars, at least, for a gun). Certainly the number of dealers will increase to accommodate the need.
Extremists have commented, thinking themselves clever, that an illegal buyer would still be able to buy a gun "out on the streets." But doing so would now require a knowing accomplice who could be charged for abetting a criminal (how many underworld criminals do YOU know?). This will drive up illegal gun costs. Both factors will reduce the availability of guns to the typical criminal.
Baldr Odinson,
ReplyDeleteI don't know many criminals, but I suspect that even if this sytem were in place, buying a gun would be as easy as buying illegal drugs. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply and a supplier.
Greg, here's a test. Which one of the following things is different from the other two and why?
ReplyDelete1st Amendment
2nd Amendment
3rd Amendment
Greg, I know criminals and can tell you that if registration came about and the gun runners were made accountable--the amount of illegal guns on the black market would drop precipitously.
ReplyDeleteThe real hitch is that US gun laws are pretty much meaningless.
But the real glitch, and why all these measures are being fought--the gun manufacturers would lose a shitload of business.
Too much money in all those dead bodies.
So, they expect ignorant people like you to keep being cheerleaders for crappy laws, or just getting rid of them.
So, thanks for being a fuckwit, Greg.
Luv,
the merchants of death
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDeleteGreg, here's a test. Which one of the following things is different from the other two and why?
1st Amendment
2nd Amendment
3rd Amendment
Good comment MikeB. I think it belongs even more over on Laci's Apples and Oranges post.
Greg, here's a test. Which one of
ReplyDeletethe following things is different from the other two and why?
1st Amendment
2nd Amendment
3rd Amendment
Questions about the 3rd amendment have never made it to the SCotUS....
Dang, Thomas beat me to the punchline. But I do observe that the Third Amendment makes no mention of the rights of the people. It only names the owner of a house. I could be wrong, but I also haven't heard that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states, unlike the other two.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you'd like to answer your own question.
Laci the Dog,
I suppose that we also have no problem with illegal drugs or illegal immigrants, since both of those are, um, illegal? Somehow, those two cross our border without too much obstruction.
All three limit the power of the state..... against the rights of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is the gun controllers ignore that in regards to the 2nd....
@ Greg: Unlike drugs, you can't chemically engineer or grow guns. The trail for guns starts with manufacturers, goes to licensed dealers, and then disappears. If background checks were required for private sales, there is a much better chance that you could continue tracking the gun to the final set of hands to find the criminal. Drugs, on the other hand, start "off the grid" and stay that way unless discovered by law enforcement. So the comparison between the two is meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThe Gun Show Loophole and the Private Sale loophole need to be eliminated. Criminals, mentally ill, and idiots buy guns and sell guns at these situations. End these loopholes. There is nothing in the constitution which allows these loopholes.
ReplyDeletePOed Lib,
ReplyDeleteThere's also nothing in the Constitution that allows what you propose. Congress would have to pass legislation to authorize that, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Baldr Odinson,
I suppose that you haven't spent any time around a machine shop lately. It wouldn't be hard to wiki up a firearm, at least a crude one, without anyone knowing about it.
POed Lib,
ReplyDeleteI suppose that you added idiots to your list of purchasers at gun shows so as to make your statement an interpretation and not an unsupported assertion? I've bought several guns at gun shows, including a few without paperwork. Will that piece of information keep you up at night?
Mikeb302000,
We're still awaiting your answer to how one of the first three amendments in the Bill of Rights differs from the others.
Jesus, Greg, maybe you're not listening.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the first three amendments are anachronistic and have no relevance in today's world. That's how one of them differs.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThat's your claim, not a fact. I want to keep the Third Amendment, since it's a good reminder to the government of where we came from. The First and Second are essential parts of our liberty, now more than ever, given recent foolishness like the Patriot Act.
In addition, what's to keep our government from deciding that the First Amendment is an anachronism? After all, it allows people to advocate and believe all kinds of dangerous things, especially with the technology that our Founders never imagined. Wouldn't we be safer if the government regulated expression? Couldn't we have quiet funerals if the government banned offensive religious beliefs?
ReplyDeleteJust because something is an old idea does not make it an anachronism.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteIn addition, what's to keep our government from deciding that the First Amendment is an anachronism?
Lets see...TWO things leap out at me about that statement.
The first is WE are the government; the government is not some alien 'other'.
And the second is that the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech is not an anachronism. If it ever becomes one, then that is something to worry about. But so long as non-violent peaceful assembly is a right which is growing and evolving, not only here but worldwide, that is not really a serious risk, or a legitimate comparison to other rights which ARE anachronistic.
You still seem to be missing that rights start with our understanding and CONSENSUS about moral rights, from which we create, by consensus again, our civil rights. That means that what we identify as rights is always changing and evolving.
You can either fear change, or embrace it and work towards the positive direction of it. You seem to be one of the former who fears change and tries to prevent it from happening.
Change is INEVITABLE. If we get something wrong, we change and experiment until we get it right.
That is why we made it a right under our Constitution that people could own other people, and then corrected that. And that is why we made it not a right to drink alcohol, and then made it a right again. That is why we have expanded the right to vote to women and minorities and non-land owners.
That is why we are clearly formalizing and defining the right to collective bargaining and union organizing as a right.
Why is this such a struggle for you to grasp?
GC, rule of thumb - trying to go backwards is usually NOT a good idea in the area of change.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you want your fellow citizens to trust you when you are armed to do the right thing. You want your government to presume you are qualified and a good person without testing any part of that assumption. You SAY you believe your fellow citizens are mostly good people.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, you distrust what those very same people MIGHT choose to do, and fear improbably and unlikely events.
You can't have it both ways, but you keep trying to do exactly that. What concerns me is how incapable you are in seeing the logical inconsistencies in your own arguments.
And yet, you want us to accept that what we have as the basis for disagreement is values not problems with facts or reasoning.
NO, we have a problem with your lack of facts, and your seriously flawed reasoning.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDelete1. When you're going in the wrong direction, turning around and going backward is the correct thing to do.
2. Generally, a democratic system works. We do need a strong protection of rights, since majorities do sometimes make bad choices--see the civil rights arguments that we've had in this country. I'd like to believe that good wins in the end.
3. It's not a struggle for me to grasp the idea of a consensus on rights. Look carefully at the trend in gun laws in this country. The consensus for a while now has been in the direction that I want. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
1. When you're going in the wrong direction, turning around and going backward is the correct thing to do.
That occurred in the instance of prohibition. I can't think of any other examples of a turn around. You expressed concern about a change in the 1st Amendment rights; yet that is unlikely and an improbable occurrence. It was an unreasonable concern, not a serious hypothetical, and you used it as an example of making rights unchangeable.
World wide, the progress is not towards more guns and less gun regulation or more carry, open or concealed. The last example that I can think of where this nation was going contrary to the rest of the world was in ending slavery. The civil war was about, in part, expanding slavery to other states, like Texas. I believe that gun rights will be like expanding slavery, in that there will be some big money and some largely single-issue supporters pushing it; but ultimately, I don't see more guns and less gun regulation succeeding any more than slavery did. Rather it is only a matter of time before this country follows the same path of progress that the rest of the world does. We don't live in a vacuum, and now even less so than during the 19th century. We are part of a larger global society.
2. Generally, a democratic system works. We do need a strong protection of rights, since majorities do sometimes make bad choices--see the civil rights arguments that we've had in this country. I'd like to believe that good wins in the end.
So do I; that is why it is unlikely that a useless so-called right that results in one of the highest death rates by firearms of any comparable society and economy has no reasonable expectation of continuing. The only question is how long, not if, but when it will happen.
3. It's not a struggle for me to grasp the idea of a consensus on rights. Look carefully at the trend in gun laws in this country. The consensus for a while now has been in the direction that I want. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
There is no such consensus,any more than there is the consensus on anti-abortion that is claimed by the religious right. You say in one breath (figuratively speaking) that you believe in consensus; but in the breath before, you speak of making right unchangeable so that the majority cannot replace or change current gun laws.
You bring up the bogus argument of oh NO! what if a majority tries to change the 1st Amendment. Then you suddenly back off of that when I don't blink and run around like my hair is on fire.
It is making arguments like that Greg that persuade us you are not a critical thinker. Those are bad arguments.
Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
If you were so sure you were right or so sure you were winning, you wouldn't be so obviously afraid you aren't going to prevail.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that the right result is inevitable. I said that the trend is favorable at the moment. The majority of states and the voters of those states have supported my side.
When I discussed the idea of consensus, I was playing with your notion, not adopting it myself. I believe that my rights are inherent and not subject to anyone else's approval. You're the one who argues for a consensus view. I was merely suggesting that the current consensus isn't with your position.
Now I see why you accuse me of lacking critical thinking skills. You're attacking your version of what I said, rather than my actual ideas.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that the right result is inevitable.
Effectively you have said exactly that in your comments here; you have said that the U.S. is a gun culture and that the U.S. would never accept stricter gun regulation, including some weapons or components being made illegal, registration for all transfers including private sales, far stricter storage security requirements, and stricter carry requirements,
I said that the trend is favorable at the moment. The majority of states and the voters of those states have supported my side.
No Greg you have argued here that your rights are absolute and that we cannot trust the government not to take them away or try to take them away. And you appear to me at least not to believe that anything about gun control is 'inevitable'. You have rather given the impression that you believe in our advocacy for better, more rigorous gun regulation that Laci and I, and presumably MikeB, democommie and Jade are on a fool's errand to somehow eradicate your personal liberty, an effort doomed to fail.
That isn't it, and I don't think you DO get what we are saying. We don't ignore the thrust of your arguments, we fault the factual basis and the reasoning of them, and I'm reasonably confident we haven't missed the point of any of those arguments.
You are simply not making any arguments that win the point.
(But that doesn't mean we dislike you!)
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou're a true believer, as am I. We're just on opposite sides. I doubt that I'll ever convince you. But it's not the job of blogs like this one or like mine to convince the missionaries of the other side. We say what we have to say, and I hope that undecided readers are paying attention.
That being said, the discussion is fun. All of you are welcome to come argue with me on my weblog. You might find a subject or two on which we agree, as shocking as that might seem.
Greg says, "I want to keep the Third Amendment, since it's a good reminder to the government of where we came from."
ReplyDeleteThat's an idea. Let's keep the second for the same reason. Future generations will marvel at how antiquated and charming it is and how primitive we must have been to actually put it in writing.
No matter how often you get your consciousness raised, no matter how many electronic gadgets you buy, and no matter how desperately tied in to the times you are, there's nothing anachronistic about rights.
ReplyDeleteBullshit, Greg. Have you read The Pillars of the Earth? In that period were there not some "rights" that have no relevance in today's world. Go back further to the Roman times, same thing.
ReplyDeleteYour idea of 2A "rights" is a self-serving justification for owning guns, nothing more.
You're a big believer in America being a free country, right. Why don't you just say you LIKE guns and want to have them, in exactly the same way you like cars and television sets. Then we can talk fairly and openly about reasonable restrictions.
Reasonable restrictions? How about I don't point a gun at anyone who isn't threatening my life or the life of another innocent person?
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteReasonable restrictions? How about I don't point a gun at anyone who isn't threatening my life or the life of another innocent person?
Exactly. I don't want to trust you to know when that threat is taking place to your life or someone else's. Because you fear things like reasonable restrictions, and dogs barking at you, and mental health professionals.
You're a fearful guy Greg.
If we have reasonable restrictions, you have less reason to fear someone ELSE because there is a proven record that fewer firearms equates to fewer firearms in the hands of criminals. There IS no amount of safety that will make you safe. Your not objective, not fact based fears, make you a gun nut.
The crazy things that scare you, the absence of logic and clear thinking, concerns me when it comes to your judgment. That you think it is more reasonable to go for a gun than a cell phone is just one example of why you are nuts. That you would try the 'gunzs is just safe inanimate objects that would never hurt anybodyz' is another example of dysfunctional thought process. That you think police and military is 'outsourcing' what should be personal violence is ludicrous. That you don't recognize the dissimilarity between peaceful civil disobedience protests and civil war and opposition to foreign invasion is just plain scary.
Not because you can shoot me - I'm safely out of range from you.
No, I'm shocked and a bit worried that you think you understand critical thinking well enough to try to teach it to our kids. I'm beginning to understand more and more all the time why it is our kids rank so damn far down the list in comparison to other countries kids in education and test scores.
You're my new poster child for flawed education, particularly critical thinking.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not fearful. Do you call me fearful because I wear a seatbelt when I drive? I recognize that bad things happen, but I don't go looking for them.
Your attacks on me show that you read my comments through your own filter. You've decided what I mean without attending to my actual words. You think that I'm irrational and fearful because that's what your side believes about my side. So be it.
The good news is that you don't get to make decisions that matter about me. You don't get to decide whether or not I can own or carry a handgun, and you don't get to decide whether or not I can teach.
You want to talk about poster children? You're mine for an elitist prig who should never have power over anyone.
If you support our military or our police, but refuse to take any such action on your own, what you're doing is outsourcing your violence.
ReplyDeleteNo, one is being intelligent since a civilian armed with a firearm will be crushed by the modern military--especially one with a tyrannical bent.
Ask the citizens of Halabja to Confirm that.
Elitist prig
There is this interesting proclivity amongst Americans to distrust experts and the true intelligentsia. I think that goes a long way to explain you, Greg.
Of course, people get the government they deserve--and the Septic truly deserve the mess they are in!
Do you call me fearful because I wear a seatbelt when I drive?
Another false analogy, and a really stupid one on your part, Greg.
IS it fearful to do a safety chcek before flying an airplane or parachute jumping?
Following safety rules isn't fearful--it's commonsense!
One the other hand, walking around with a weapon implies a lot of very negative things about you.
If you aren't afraid, why are you carrying a weapon? Do you mean to harm an individual(s)?
What is there keeping someone else from deciding that you are a threat?
Would you carry the gun if you knew how easily you could be disarmed or killed by someone who truly means to harm you?
The fact that you are ignorant and oblvious to this fact shows me that you are a complete shit for brains, Greg.
But, Greg, you are a moronic follower--someone who hears one side of the story and makes up your mind that is a really brilliant idea.
Until the time when you injure yourself or someone else.
No, it's not fearful to do a safety check before jumping out of an airplane or some other situation like that. It's also not fearful to carry a handgun. Your choice is to insist on a monopoly of power--i.e., the police--while I want power more broadly distributed. There is a middle option between being fearful and intending to do harm, but apparently you don't understand the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteWhat's to keep someone from deciding that I'm a threat? I don't go around cursing at people who express their opinions. I don't make veiled threats of using force against someone with whom I have a disagreement. I don't go around making juvenile comments about the relative manhood of others.
I'm going to apply the same test to you that I used with Democommie. If a neutral observer read your comments and mine, which one would come out as looking safer?
Greg, You're right about your comments compared to Laci's, but that's no the point.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, even if you're the paragon of responsibility that all gun owners should aspire to, many are not like you. In order to identify some of the worst of them, unfortunately, you're going to be inconvenienced a bit.
You bought one of your rifles at a gun show with no background check. Fine, but don't you see that the system you benefitted from in ease and convenience is abused by others? This is what has to stop.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteYour attacks on me show that you read my comments through your own filter. You've decided what I mean without attending to my actual words.
The problem Greg, for you, is that I DO pay attention to your actual words. I respond to them specifically, making a point to cut and paste to be absolutely clear what words I am criticizing. I fault you for making claims that are not true about criminals getting guns. I fault you for making statements without checking first to see if they are true. I fault you for not knowing if your state complies with the NCIS by providing names - that is YOUR job, as a citizen of that state, to know. It is YOUR job as a person who blithely asserts names are supplied without knowing if they are, or not. You state it is my job? It is not.
You think that I'm irrational and fearful because that's what your side believes about my side. So be it.
I think you are irrational and fearful because you think it makes sense to carry a gun but not a cellphone, to shoot rather than call police. I don't see indications that you think well or clearly, and I don't trust your judgment, based on YOUR WORDS, to know when it is proper to shoot or not.
But most of all I find you fearful, because you feel a need to carry a gun no matter how unlikely it is that you will be attacked by a criminal. An exaggerated fear of something happening compared to the reality of it happening defines someone as fearful.
The good news is that you don't get to make decisions that matter about me. You don't get to decide whether or not I can own or carry a handgun, and you don't get to decide whether or not I can teach.
The good news is I am better at logic and persuasion than you are, and I DO get to use that ability to limit what you can do through my writing - and I get increasing, not decreasing, opportunities to use that skill.
The good news is I can criticize your lack of critical thinking, and make it stick. You may get paid to teach, but if you don't know literature better than you have demonstrated, and if you can't frame better arguments than you have so far, whatever you're doing, teaching is possibly the wrong label for it.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who's harping on reporting to the NCIS. That's not my duty. It is not my job to know. I'm not in favor of the system. I have said that I'll accept such a system, if your side will agree to stop there. But you won't do that.
Can't you see that this is a societal negotiation? You want us to compromise by coming over to your side, but that's not compromise. That's capitulation. We have to start as far from your position as possible so as to force you to move our direction. I've named some compromises that I'm willing to accept, but I've never seen you offer anything in return. Until your side is willing to move our way, we're not budging.
We don't have a basis for any negotiation, and you don't have a position of credibility, when you don't know what the facts are.
ReplyDeleteYou argue for example against any mental health test requirement - but you have NO CLUE whatsoever how easy or difficult it is for dangerously crazy people to get guns - legally, just by walking into any store that sells them.
The challenge I posed to you is easy; I can do my side in a matter of minutes.
As an informed citizen of your own state, and a gun carrier, you should know this. It directly impacts your reasonable expectation of encountering someone who is dangerous and who has a firearm in his or her possession.
What are you afraid of? Surely with your background of post-secondary degrees, you are familiar with basic research (like your critical thinking skills, that just 'happened' in those other courses you were taking).
This is kind of a 'put up or shut up' challenge - except that I wouldn't dream of enforcing the shut up part.
And I keep telling you that I don't care what the number is. I'm not afraid. I don't care.
ReplyDeleteAs I've told you before, I don't regard the assessment of mental health professionals as reliable, particularly when it comes to what a person is going to do in the future.
I also know that unless you can get a large percentage of the guns out of this country, you won't be able to achieve what you propose. Illegal goods are readily available to the determined person. Add to this that if you get what you want, guns will be illegal, and the blackmarket price will make selling guns an attractive business. Since most guns aren't registered, the sellers won't fear them being traced back.
We're not negotiating? You're trying to convince the readers here to accept your side, and I'm trying to convince them to choose mine. If we're to reach the kind of consensus that you've talked about elsewhere, we need to discuss what compromises each of us can accept.