<p>ROTFL! My bet is on Kluge! It’s a slam dunk!</p>
<p>but kluge as you have pointed out before, no amount of data will change the belief/emotional system. I am convinced that conservatives are wired differently. The data and reality don’t have to match. Take examples of global warming, Iraq invasion, the economy, gun control, pollution, SUV justification and so on. The real data will have no bearing. They will spend time looking for things that support their belief system.</p>
<p>I second allmusic.</p>
<p>Simba, I’m not that cynical (yet.) It’s true that the belief systems are strong, and constantly reinforced by the propaganda outlets from Fox News to Free Republic. The 2003 study of people who believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq was a bright light on the indoctrination process. Repetition is a strong rhetorical force, used with great effect by the right wing propaganda machine. The calmly stated truth is frequently drowned out by the shouted lies. But people can change their minds. Sjmom is a smart person - I wouldn’t be surprised if she has downloaded the IRS charts and is looking them over right now. Will this affect her assessment of reality? I don’t know. Maybe in the future she won’t be so quick to uncritically accept the bilge produced by the likes of Thomas Sowell (I found that he was the author of the article she cited - and he - unsurprisingly - never identified the source of his alleged “facts.”)</p>
<p>Sjmom can do the math. She can see that in her example of her $1M income and my $100K income, with both of us earning 10% more, we’d end up the following year with the same relative piece of the pie - her with 90% and me with 10%. She can look at the IRS records and see that the top 1% share has increased from 11% to 21% over the past 20 years, while the bottom 50%'s share has dropped from 16.6% to 12.8% during the same period, and recognize that her model of a rising tide lifting all boats doesn’t match the reality. </p>
<p>Take heart from the nation’s experience with cigarettes! The tobacco companies were the initiators of much of the current right wing stealth propaganda techniques. (The “tort reform movement” for example, was actually founded by the tobacco companies.) But the truth eventually did win out. Global warming? Even GWBush has been forced to acknowledge it at this point. It’s frustrating talking to people - smart people - who have been bamboozled by the slickly packaged propaganda, but it’s worth the effort.</p>
<p>Simba I would be careful. That is quite a statement about conservatives. I am a conservative myself, but I don’t go looking for things that fit my belief system. Anyway to the topic of the forum. I think parent2noles hit it right on spot.</p>
<p>"Here is one analysis of how effective a rifle can be in military conflict in the last fifty years: Weapon Of Mass Destruction - washingtonpost.com</p>
<p>Note that a technically superior force can be fought to a virtual standstill by people with rifles that are willing to do whatever it takes to win.</p>
<p>In the United States it is extremely unlikely such events, as related in the article, would occur because we have orderly methods for resolving conflict short of war. However, I think it is important to point out that we have developed such methods because the government is held in check by the people, should the need ever arise, as guaranteed by A2."</p>
<p>OK, Kluge, you have stated your belief that “gun nuts” (with the assertion that the most powerful segment of pro-2A people are such) are driven by irrational beliefs. What is your rational argument for the restriction of gun rights?</p>
<p>I am a libertarian who generally believes that less government is better. I want the government to fund public goods, but leave anything that can be managed privately to the people. I might be what kluge calls a “gun nut.” I want to own firearms for personal enjoyment (i.e. range shooting and competition), personal protection, and professional skill (I’m in the military, and believe that I should be skilled in their use). So, along with my libertarian lines, why should you, or anyone else, prohibit me from purchasing a gun (since I am a law-abiding, responsible citizen)?</p>
<p>Problem isn’t necessarily you, raimus, but all the violent gun nuts who get firearms illegally, or even legally, and increase the danger on all of our city streets. Or those who have guns, for obstensibly personal reasons, like you (protection, enjoyment, etc), and harm others inadvertently.</p>
<p>But it is the increased violence in this country that concerns me, and is directly related to the number of guns floating around in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Maybe you believe it is an individual’s right, but that doesn’t negate the dangers and violence that result from gun use.</p>
<p>Hey Allmusic: If we didn’t have guns, would violence go down? Most likely not. If all the guns were taken away, people would just move on to the next best thing like something sharpa and pointy, a knife perhaps.</p>
<p>Good point jclay2, in fact crime rates have decreased as gun ownership has increased, suggesting the exact opposite of these anti gun fanatics. Maybe those saying guns are leading to increased crime and violence should read this:</p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics): Books: John R. Lott Jr.](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636)</p>
<p>I agree that guns are very dangerous objects, along with a long list of other things. My opinion, is that crime is not caused by guns, but that guns are merely the tool used by criminals. I would go after criminals more severely and leave gun-rights alone. </p>
<p>The other major idea in my opinion is that gun restrictions have not been very effective. DC has had a rediculously (IMO) restrictive law to combat gun crime, but it is still one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Chicago also has severe restrictions, but also ranks high amoung homicide rates in the US. To state the cliche phrase, “When guns become illegal, only criminals will have guns.” If gun ownership and violent crime rates are not directly correlated (which from the stats I have seen, they are not), there must be better ways to combat violent crime.</p>
<p>I have heard many people and groups argue for restrictions on guns. Many times they cite public safety as the overriding concern. After looking up a lot of statistics, I am not convinced that restricting everyone’s rights is the best way to increase public safety. I value my ability to own firearms, and strongly prefer to retain that right. Also, I believe that personal decisions are better than group restrictions. I believe that many people will find that the benefits (enjoyment, protection, etc.) of gun ownership outweigh the costs (risk of accident, monetary costs, etc). I think that people should be able to determine the cost-benefit relationship by themselves, then make a decision on whether or not to own a gun. If you decide not to own one, you just saved yourself a lot of money (good for you). If you decide to own one, also good for you.</p>
<p>One way to look at A2 is in terms of who has control of the means of effective violence. Do we trust government to have a monopoly on all forms of violence? Should only the police and the military have weapons? </p>
<p>History says that is not wise. Power corrupts. This distrust of people in power is the essence of our successful system of checks and balances. Remember that the United States was created by revolutionaries who fought off perhaps the most effective army the world had seen to date, and that had the best weapons. </p>
<p>Who is ultimately in control of the U.S.? The people, as a whole, permit government some elements of power, but not all of the elements of power.</p>
<p>Federal employees and the military swear an oath to the Constitution and only the Constitution…no political party nor person, nor president.</p>
<p>See: [U.S</a>. Office of Personnel Management](<a href=“http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp]U.S”>http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp)</p>
<p>Parent2noles: You read my mind, but have much better writing skills.</p>
<p>Sure, now we are back to the same argument that a car in the hands of the wrong people can be a lethal weapon. Yawn.</p>
<p>The issue isn’t whether or not guns are safe or that owning one to protect oneself is a good idea. It’s not whether or not crime varies with gun ownership. It’s not a liberal or conservative question, except in one sense. </p>
<p>It is a question of whether or not the founders intended to specify an individual or a collective right to own a gun. I think that most people agree that when the Constitution speaks of “the people” it is referring to rights of individuals, not government. Doesn’t the 2nd amendment refer explicitly to “the rights of the people” not “the rights of the state or the militia?” The second amendment means that the government really can’t allow a complete ban on gun ownership, as has happened in D.C.</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean that there can’t be restrictions applied, however.</p>
<p>So, again, it seems to be that the only way to really ban gun ownership across the board is to repeal the amendment. And I don’t see that happening.</p>
<p>Actually, there are two issues: the second amendment (and what it does or doesn’t mean) and the general policy issue of what (if any) regulation of personal gun ownership is optimal for our society, given due consideration to all values, such as personal freedom, rights of others, social stability and safety, etc. As to the second amendment, I don’t know the answer - I haven’t researched it. I recognize facially bogus arguments, but it’s an interesting intellectual exercise, which could reasonably come out either way, as far as I know. I would reject jmom’s argument as presented in post 93 as being simplistic. A proper “strict constructionist” argument would have to address what "well regulated militia’ meant in the context of the time the document was drafted; what “the people” meant (only adult, male, free citizens?) and what “arms” meant - and how all three of those terms interrelated in that context. Then the reasonable analog for all those terms would be translated into modern terms, and you’d see where you were. Of course the problem with the “strict constructionist” approach is that you can end up with an answer which is clearly inconsistent with the intent of the framers - that’s why it is also a simplistic approach. But Sjmom might still be right as to the ultimate answer.</p>
<p>As to the underlying policy question: “If I were king of the world (or the US) what would I decree?” the issue is similarly murky - and not helped by the facile and superficial arguments presented a page or so ago on this thread. Individual ownership of guns undeniably results in more innocent (or at least not homicide-worthy) people being killed or seriously injured. The ability to kill someone just by pointing a relatively small object at them and flexing your finger takes guns out of the realm of objects which require a lot of up close and personal attention to hurt people with like knives, ropes or baseball bats. The reality: more guns = more net mayhem, more innocents dead and maimed. (The painfully flawed “research” of panderers like Lott, Kleck & Gertz is readily debunked with only the slightest bit of skeptical analysis and contact with reality, but will be seized on by people who are looking for a justification for the answer they seek.) So is preventing that loss to society worth limiting the freedom and internal swagger of the would-be gun-toters? the guys with the unadmitted and certainly unspoken hero fantasies? I’m actually not sure. But then, I’ve never lost anyone close to me to gun-facilitated violence. </p>
<p>I will admit, I have little patience for fence-straddlers like Sjmom and P2N who claim to support the second amendment but then get all squishy with unspecified “restrictions.” If it’s a “right” which “shall not be infringed” then it’s a right, not a privilege, and you can’t “infringe” it - how’s that for “strict construction?”</p>
<p>What’s wrong with restrictions? We restrict things all the time i.e. alcohol, driving a car, voting etc. What about the right to free speech? Doesn’t that have restrictions? </p>
<p>I certainly don’t think the second amendment gives anyone the right to own a bazooka, a tank or a machine gun. We don’t allow convicted felons to vote and they shouldn’t own a gun, either. No one uses an AK-47 to hunt deer. It is possible to have reasonable restrictions on gun ownership without denying any form of gun ownership as they did in D.C.</p>
<p>Given the facile and superficial arguments that deny the individual right to bear arms presented in this thread, I won’t worry about whether or not I try anyone’s patience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you cite some research to prove your statements, and facts to refute the current pro-gun research?</p>
<p>I agree that there are those with “hero fantasies” but I think you are over-generalizing. I know a few who, by their description, view carrying pistols as a sort of “life insurance” policy against unexpected attacks (i.e. they don’t relish the idea of using a firearm in self-defense, but prefer to have one available). The majority of gun owners I know use their guns more for sport and hunting, but some carry for protection as well.</p>
<p>As for restrictions, I believe there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction. I think that such restrictions should fall under the strictest legal scrutiny, like many restrictions on other rights in the Constitution. I believe that these restrictions could place safeguards and checks on some people (mentally unstable, violent criminals etc). As much as I would like no restrictions whatsoever, I recognize that the world is not perfect.</p>
<p>The people I trust the most with guns are generally those who want them the least.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And therein lies the problem. How can you propose to be the one with logical arguments if you haven’t done the research? I am with Ramius on this one (which I suppose makes me a “gun nut”), and I have very logical and rational reasons for my support of private gun ownership. </p>
<p>Thing is, the research you speak of has already been done, and in an very academic and philosophically rigorous manner. The simple conclusion is that the only intellectually honest way to interpret the second amendment is that it protects the right of all citizens to own and carry arms. </p>
<p>The intent of the founders is also very clear - see for yourself:</p>
<p>(since green is the color of the day)
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
–James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46</p>
<p>Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. </p>
<p>Now if you also read up on the meaning of a “well-regulated militia”, you will find that the militia meant (at the time of the ratification of the constitution) “all able bodied men” and “well-regulated” referred to the idea that they should be well trained in the use of their weapons. In fact, even current law (Title 10 U.S. Code 311) defines the militia as “all able-bodied males between ages 17 and 45”. </p>
<p>I suppose that all people who argue against the second amendment on the basis of the militia clause would advocate a system like switzerland, where we would issue all men of military age automatic rifles and ammunition. Not that all this matters much, because an honest evaluation of the language of the amendment indicates that the militia clause is not a restriction on the latter part, but only indicates the reason for the protected right.</p>
<p>I also enjoy this analogue:</p>
<p>“A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.”</p>
<p>Surely, this doesn’t mean that only the well educated should be allowed to read. Nor does it mean that you can only read books on topics that would lead to a well-educated electorate. The only logical conclusion is that this language guarantees the right of all people to read and compose books because that right is necessary to the preservation of a free society.</p>
<p>All right thats it for tonight. Please try to refrain from calling me uneducated or “purely emotional”, as I am neither. This is definitely a very intellectually intriguing debate simply because it shows so much about human nature.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>Please post which of the personal rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is unrestricted. </p>
<p>Anybody?? ;)</p>