CDZ Guns, Culture & Politics

[BlackSand]

Let's try it this way:

Instead of spending this time and energy endlessly defending the 2nd Amendment, hashing over the same arguments, would you rather be discussing how our popular culture is creating animals who are more and more likely to use guns to slaughter innocent people?

And if your answer is "yes", why are we not hearing this argument anywhere?
.

If you don't want me to have to defend the 2nd Amendment ... Then stop assaulting it.
If you want the discussion to be about popular culture and not gun rights ... Then don't mention the 2nd Amendment nor gun rights.

That's not what you suggested though ... You suggested we yet again leave ourselves open to more abuse and erosion of our rights.
I simply said you have nothing to bargain with ... And there is no reason for us to expect good faith from the opposition.

If the argument is wearing you out and/or misdirected ... You have the ability to argue something else.
We are not going to discuss any desire for me to compromise my rights ... Outside of the fact you have nothing I want in return for any compromise you could offer.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's try it this way:

Instead of spending this time and energy endlessly defending the 2nd Amendment, hashing over the same arguments, would you rather be discussing how our popular culture is creating animals who are more and more likely to use guns to slaughter innocent people?

And if your answer is "yes", why are we not hearing this argument anywhere?
.

If you don't want me to have to defend the 2nd Amendment ... Then stop assaulting it.
If you want the discussion to be about popular culture and not gun rights ... Then don't mention the 2nd Amendment nor gun rights.

That's not what you suggested though ... You suggested we yet again leave ourselves open to more abuse and erosion of our rights.
I simply said you have nothing to bargain with ... And there is no reason for us to expect good faith from the opposition.

If the argument is wearing you out and/or misdirected ... You have the ability to argue something else.
We are not going to discuss any desire for me to compromise my rights ... Outside of the fact you have nothing I want in return for any compromise you could offer.

.

Holy crap.

Okay.
.

 

[Mac1958]

This country is becoming more myopic by the moment.

 

[BlackSand]

This country is becoming more myopic by the moment.

What is the great intellectual foresight you deem is required to compromise your rights and principles as a matter of convenience ...

You want compromise ... Yet you have nothing to offer in return.
We already have what we want ... And don't desire letting you abuse nor erode our protections any further.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

The problem isn’t a “sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.”

‘Culture’ is neither ‘sick’ nor ‘decaying’ – the ‘blame society’ motif is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Moreover, movies, music, television shows, and video games likewise do not contribute to ‘social decay’ that in fact does not exist.

The problem is a conservative minority government that refuses to pursue meaningful healthcare reform, expanding Medicare to afford every American access to basic, affordable healthcare – including access to affordable mental healthcare and treatment.

And ‘the left’ as been focusing on the real problem for quite some time.

If those who oppose more restrictive firearm regulations (such as limits on magazine capacity) were smart, they’d stop contriving and propagating ridiculous lies about ‘gun grabbers’ and inane slippery slope fallacies, such as universal background checks leading to ‘gun confiscation,’ and other like moronic demagoguery and inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

The problem with this is that culture is not ‘broken.’

More Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any point in this country’s history – although that’s currently in jeopardy the consequence of the current ‘administration.’

The problem is reactionary conservatives frightened by our healthy, inclusive, and diverse culture that acknowledges and values dissent, disagreement, and expressions of individual liberty.

One needs to look elsewhere for the root causes of gun crime and violence, and why consensus as to a solution to the problem is so very elusive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

You asked what would do it, I told you. That you would use a strawman argument to refuse a solution that could save schoolchildren from being shot at school says a lot about you.

Btw, there's already an age limit on buying guns and you don't seem too bent out of shape about that. So you AGREE with an age limit, the only question now is what age should the limit be at? Which is why your Constitutional Right angle is a strawman argument, you're already letting a whole class of people be refused that right.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of age restrictions with regard to purchasing a firearm – absent such a ruling no rights have been ‘refused’ or ‘violated.’

And the age restriction concerns purchasing firearms, not their possession.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is the left is never satisfied, give and inch and they demand another mile. History proves it.

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

But they can't drink alcohol. Why is it that they are entrusted with all of these important responsibilities at 18, yet they are considered too immature to be able to have a drink?

In most – if not all – states one must be 21 to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm, where the courts have held that carrying a concealed firearm is a fundamental right – yet no one has challenged the constitutionality of an age restriction for carrying a concealed firearm, potentially denying adults under 21 that fundamental right.

That government might enact age restrictions with regard to some activities and not others doesn’t mitigate the legitimacy of all age restriction measures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

You asked what would do it, I told you. That you would use a strawman argument to refuse a solution that could save schoolchildren from being shot at school says a lot about you.

Btw, there's already an age limit on buying guns and you don't seem too bent out of shape about that. So you AGREE with an age limit, the only question now is what age should the limit be at? Which is why your Constitutional Right angle is a strawman argument, you're already letting a class of people be refused that right.

A Constitutional right is not a strawman...good gawd

The right to bear arms will always exist even if some weapons are banned, like nukes. So since you (and everyone else) agree on limits to the 2nd, the question is only how long the list of banned weapon will be?

And that’s a question the courts will wrestle with for decades.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, and still evolving; it could be another 50 years, if not longer, before we have a comprehensive understanding as to the possession of what weapons are entitled to Constitutional protections and what weapons are not.

 

[FireFly]

Republicans pay to watch violent war action movies & play violent war video games. Hollywood produces more & more of what they are buying. So instead of the Walton's & Little House on the Prairie, we are bombarded with all this brain damaging shit today.

People run out buying guns with large quick reloading magazines so they can blast the hell out of stuff like in the movies. Then occasionally one slips off the reservation & fires 1,500 founds into a crowed concert hitting 600 good people having fun.

So for over a decade now over 100,000 people get shot in the USA every year. That's over a million people shot in the past 10 years!!!!! That's 270 people a day and 87 dead per day.

 

[BlackSand]

In most – if not all – states one must be 21 to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm, where the courts have held that carrying a concealed firearm is a fundamental right – yet no one has challenged the constitutionality of an age restriction for carrying a concealed firearm, potentially denying adults under 21 that fundamental right.

That government might enact age restrictions with regard to some activities and not others doesn’t mitigate the legitimacy of all age restriction measures.

Federal Law does have an age requirement that prohibits ownership and possession of handguns by minors (younger than 18) ... (18 U.S.C. § 922(x)).

Federal law does not however have an age requirement for possession of a rifle or ammunition.
Conceal and carry wouldn't matter much if you could only carry a rifle anyway.

.

 

[EGR one]

No, you are not trying to fix this country, you are trying to convert it to something more to your liking.

Yeah, because the country I grew up in the 1970's was a lot nicer.

Our gun culture hasn't changed in over a hundred years, so that hasn't affected the pretty good country that people wanted to come to. And, they still want to come here.

Actually it has changed. When I was growing up, we had common sense gun laws, and even the NRA supported them.

And, they still want to come here.

If you are from Western Europe or Japan , you don't want to come here. YOu want to come here if you are from a worse off country like Mexico.

I want to strive for, "Doesn't suck as bad as Mexico", don't you?

What foreign governments do, or do not do, is of little concern to me. I am far more interested in what the left wing wants to do to this country.

I'm more concerned with what the Right Wing has done to this country.

The right wing has not been in political power since the 1980's. So, there is very little that the right wing has done to this country.

Prior to the late 1970's the NRA did little to contest "common sense" gun control, and actually approved of some of it. However, once the NRA realized that "common sense gun control", was just a left wing rhetorical cover for their real goal of banning firearms, the NRA began to stand up and take notice.

We have legal and illegal immigrants from Europe and Japan, and just about every where in the world here, because they all want a better way of life. Strangely, very few left wingers, who are so unhappy here, go anywhere else where they claim life is better. Try another tack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

I have to agree with those who say 'how many more inches?' We have laws regulating guns already - re: types, waiting periods, registrations, carrying...how many more inches will it take to prevent guns from being used to kill people?

Why does it have to be the burden of those who recognize the clear language of the 2nd to 'compromise' their right with those who'd like to repeal it?...or define the right as limited to weapons of the time when that requirement would be laughed at if applied to the First.

If your neighbor wants to place his fence 6 inches over the property line (on your property), do you compromise and allow him 3 inches?

There are a number of problems with this

Only 9 states require some type of registration; often that registration is only partial or applies only to handguns.

Not all states have waiting period requirements.

And only 8 states (including the District of Columbia) have assault weapon ‘bans.’

Consequently, the notion that gunowners Nationwide are somehow ‘overburdened’ with gun regulation is clearly not the case.

As for the “clear language of the 2nd,” the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

It was the understanding and intent of the Framers that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited,’ that they are subject to restriction by government, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the Supreme Court, where restrictions that comport with Second Amendment case law are in no manner a ‘burden.’

Last, laws and measures that place restrictions on the Second Amendment right are not subject to the same level of judicial review as laws and measures that place restrictions on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment; to compare the two Amendments in this regard fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, you believe that my rights (which are inherent) are the cause of society collapsing? Interesting, but doubtful.

Huh?

I haven't come within 500 miles of that.

You're missing my point.
.

Well, you seem to be suggesting that my giving up a constitutional right would somehow "right" society. First of all, the biggest problem that we have is that there are too many people and hence too many scumbags in the world. The more people you have, the more scumbags you are going to have. I will keep my rights and my gun, thanks.

Again, no, I'm not. Holy crap.

Please see Post 12. That's the real source of our cultural decay.
.

The real source of cultural decay is there being too many people. There used to be a time when we had close knit communities where everyone knew everyone else's business, and there weren't fences everywhere. Nowadays, people put up fences to keep the neighborhood kids out. Why? Because there are too many of them. They don't even know one another. Neighbors don't get to know each other and watch out for one another. Small close knit communities are becoming more and more rare, and fences and barricades are becoming more and more common as our population continues to grow and grow and grow.

Which clearly calls for a Soylent Green solution.

 

[Taz]

Laws can be changed back. Fixing a culture is a much larger task. We either get on this, or no laws really matter.
.

What new law would have prevented Parkland....I've asked this numerous times and still haven't gotten a honest answer. If current laws had been followed Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a firearm

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

You asked what would do it, I told you. That you would use a strawman argument to refuse a solution that could save schoolchildren from being shot at school says a lot about you.

Btw, there's already an age limit on buying guns and you don't seem too bent out of shape about that. So you AGREE with an age limit, the only question now is what age should the limit be at? Which is why your Constitutional Right angle is a strawman argument, you're already letting a whole class of people be refused that right.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of age restrictions with regard to purchasing a firearm – absent such a ruling no rights have been ‘refused’ or ‘violated.’

And the age restriction concerns purchasing firearms, not their possession.

“Shall not be infringed”. An age limit is an infringement.

 

[Taz]

Raising the purchase age limit to 21 (or higher?) would have prevented Cruz from buying guns. Teenagers are still too immature to handle weapons on their own.

An 18 year old can vote, can serve in the military, get married, work productive, pay taxes, have children...it's an infringement on their Constitutional right

You asked what would do it, I told you. That you would use a strawman argument to refuse a solution that could save schoolchildren from being shot at school says a lot about you.

Btw, there's already an age limit on buying guns and you don't seem too bent out of shape about that. So you AGREE with an age limit, the only question now is what age should the limit be at? Which is why your Constitutional Right angle is a strawman argument, you're already letting a class of people be refused that right.

A Constitutional right is not a strawman...good gawd

The right to bear arms will always exist even if some weapons are banned, like nukes. So since you (and everyone else) agree on limits to the 2nd, the question is only how long the list of banned weapon will be?

And that’s a question the courts will wrestle with for decades.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, and still evolving; it could be another 50 years, if not longer, before we have a comprehensive understanding as to the possession of what weapons are entitled to Constitutional protections and what weapons are not.

So to start with, we need to take out a huge eraser and rub out the part that says “shall not be infringed”.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And once again, we get a False Premise from Mac... which I gleefully get to take apart.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

Um, no. Not really. Every generation thinks the culture is decaying and sick. I grew up in the 1960's, and my parents thought that the hippies were bringing the world to an end.

We aren't producing any more or less psychopaths than we ever have. What is happening is that the psychopaths have access to more devastating weaponry now than they did back in the 1960's.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Well, it's a good thing you aren't getting your way then. The real elephant in the room is that the gun industry NEEDS fear to sell product.

Much like the alcoholic beverage industry realizes that drunks are their primary market, the gun industry realizes that their primary market is not the sensible gun owner who bought a gun in 1995 and stuck it in the back of his closet and maybe fires it at a range once a year. They know that their market is that 3% of the population that own 50% of the guns, who want more guns because they are scared of criminals and the government.

And when you are marketing to that kind of person, you shouldn't be all that surprised when a few of them do something crazy. So they market bump stocks and semi-automatics and armor-piercing bullets that most sensible gun owners wouldn't need and won't want.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Yawn. here's the thing. In Japan, they consume 20% more violent video games than we do, they watch ultra violent manga cartoons with women being raped by tentacle monsters and people getting blown up, and only 1% of the population is Christians.

Yet they have a whopping 11 gun homicides a year. It's considered a bit of a scandal if cops even take their guns out of the holsters.

Societal divisions? When I grew up in Chicago, you didn't go west of Western Avenue in Chicago if you were black, and you didn't go east of it if you were white. That's societal division.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.

Well, you are right, the gun owners are being "played", but they want to be played. They enjoy living in the fantasy world where there's a bad guy around every corner ready to do awful things to them, so they need more guns. So you have Nancy Lanza arming herself like the Zombies are coming, only to be killed by her own son (who to be fair, kind of looked like a Zombie)

View attachment 185647

The real question is, why do the rest of us tolerate it, when it spills over to us.

I think you libs need to decide, is there or isn't there a "bad guy" around every corner because the way you talk, you would think just about every American is a "bad guy."

The problem isn’t ‘libs.’

The problem is conservatives’ ignorance of, and contempt for, the law.

The problem is the lies, demagoguery, and fallacies contrived and propagated by conservatives – that’s what makes good-faith debate concerning guns impossible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You do it the same way it got there: Through the culture, through popular demand, through raising expectations. By being patient and focused and consistent.

I've said this, multiple times.

Patient, focused and consistent goes to work every day to support those who are not.

Expectations are 'conditional' and 'biased' against the 'under-privileged'...or so we're told.

We are in the middle of a culture war - and much of it is supported by the courts against popular opinion. We have social justice warriors who aren't really about 'blind justice', yet some of their agenda is just. On the other hand there are those who see stability and order as guides to social change. Our society is more mobile, more informed (at least we should be), less structured than ever before. It's a confused time...confused on science, confused on life, confused on relationships and roles, confused on the law to the point of ignoring some of them.

My biggest concern is the new-to-me demonization of whole segments of the population by well paid elected officials ' hired' to represent us all. When disagree speech becomes an excuse for violence against the speaker, or a trampling of their right to speak, or silencing debate - all with the approval of our leaders - it can only lead to a serious breakdown of our cultural order.

The above, in my opinion - infringement on free speech, ridicule of opposing views, selective enforcement of the law, demonization of dissenters - are more damaging to culture than video games etal, which are symptomatic, not causative.

Nonsense.

A majority of Americans support a woman’s right to privacy.

A majority of Americans support equal protection rights for gay and transgender Americans.

And a majority of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform, including codifying the DACA program into immigration law.

The courts have appropriately invalidated laws and measures which sought to violate those rights and protected liberties, consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and consistent with the will of the majority of the American people.

Conservatives are at war with a culture that values change, diversity, inclusion, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, a war conservatives started some 40 years ago, the consequence of their fear, ignorance, and hate.

 

[Mac1958]

You'll notice that some deny that ours is a culture in decay.

They want to pretend that our popular culture is not saturated by increasing violence, gore, hate, incitement, vulgarity and division.

They're enjoying this. America's comeuppance. They want to keep the focus away from what they're enabling.
.

 

[JoeB131]

I've never had a thread be so completely misunderstood as this one.

Pretty freakin' fascinating.

No, Mac... everyone kind of has your number at this point.

I didn't kill anyone this year ... Nor will I agree to be punished for something I didn't do.

And the Parkland kids refuse to be punished for your fears and insecurities.

Don't much care what the rest of the world does nor whether you are fine with punishing someone for something they haven't done.

I'm fine with taking your guns because I don't trust you with them. That you consider that a punishment is on you.