Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

That would be the slightly different, but very similar antithesis to the "ban all guns" crowd.

Neither one is a reasonable option.

The problem is whereas one extreme has no real political champion, the other is the avowed policy of a major party. This is one of those cases in which the crazy is very one-sided, so presenting them as if they balance the scales is, while true logically, not at all reflective of our real policy options.

The anti-regulation side is saying that ANY deviation from 100% purity is unacceptable. That's patently ridiculous, but because there is so much money and passion behind it that side usually wins.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

seriously though, you must realize that's a judgment call right? There are others who would say that since there's no strict "necessity" for non-farmers to own a 1/2 ton pickup, we should take them away from the city-dwellers and make laws to outlaw such a tragic waste of carbon. And once we're at it, are samurai swords really "necessary" for anyone? How about 5-bedroom houses? Should we outlaw everything that some knucklehead decides isn't "necessary"? What a ****ty world to live in.

Chairman Mao died too early, missed his opportunity to pass along the seat of power to Chairman Jim.

Holy ****. How could you not resist going after him for his ridiculous assertion that a 1/2 ton has use and could kill a bunch of people but since we train and license people they never get used for that.

It's not like we don't do that already

It's like Senator Klobuchar says, "A vehicle in the hands of a woman is a dangerous weapon."

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

The problem is whereas one extreme has no real political champion, the other is the avowed policy of a major party. This is one of those cases in which the crazy is very one-sided, so presenting them as if they balance the scales is, while true logically, not at all reflective of our real policy options.

The anti-regulation side is saying that ANY deviation from 100% purity is unacceptable. That's patently ridiculous, but because there is so much money and passion behind it that side usually wins.

In my opinion the anti-regulation side wins for two reasons. First, impact or lack thereof. 99.9% of all people who have guns, or even come across guns, are not impacted in the least by them. They aren't robbed or shot or threatened with them. They're just there. That percentage is probably the same for those that don't own guns. For all the publicity about mass shootings, it's a non-factor in most of our lives.

Second, there is no logical, cohesive gun control plan advanced by anyone. It's a bunch of half-baked proposals with no clear explanation for how the plan will address the problem. The closest they ever came was the temporary ban on "assault rifles", whatever those are. But even then people recognized the zero impact the law had.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Second, there is no logical, cohesive gun control plan advanced by anyone. It's a bunch of half-baked proposals with no clear explanation for how the plan will address the problem. The closest they ever came was the temporary ban on "assault rifles", whatever those are. But even then people recognized the zero impact the law had.

And here's the problem with the other side, the belief that any proposal is half-baked and zero will to help address the problem. If you don't like the proposals then help come up with one instead of going "nothing will work, it's useless."

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

And here's the problem with the other side, the belief that any proposal is half-baked and zero will to help address the problem. If you don't like the proposals then help come up with one instead of going "nothing will work, it's useless."

There is no proposal that will work in a world where people actually believe in 2nd Amendment remedies. Everyone's ignoring me on this but it's true and irrefutable.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

And here's the problem with the other side, the belief that any proposal is half-baked and zero will to help address the problem. If you don't like the proposals then help come up with one instead of going "nothing will work, it's useless."

It'll never work because I don't want it to. I live in the suburbs and guns couldn't possibly harm me here (though I better stock up just in case)!

 

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

My proposal removes everything that isn't reasonable for civilian use.

Preposterous. One shotgun allowed per person? Because that's all a hunter needs? Spoken like one of those "experts" who really has no idea about the subject itself. Let me enlighten you a bit.

I hunt birds. Lots of different types. From mourning doves up to crane. All of which provide food for my family. But I should only be allowed one shotgun to cover this wide size range of birds? Please. To hunt what I do, it requires a .410, 20 gauge, 12 gauge and sometimes even a 10 gauge. And that's reasonable. The .410 (smallest of the group) is perfect for smaller birds and won't destroy it beyond edibility. But it sure won't do much to take down a crane at 70 yards. I'll need a 10 gauge for that. But, said 10 gauge would blow a dove to bits and pieces.

Make sense?

 

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

If not for mass murders, there would be very few calls for gun control.

And you win the prize for second-most preposterous statement of the thread.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

.

And here's the problem with the other side, the belief that any proposal is half-baked and zero will to help address the problem. If you don't like the proposals then help come up with one instead of going "nothing will work, it's useless."

It's arguments/proposals like this that are the reason gun control advocates never succeed.

The knee jerk reaction is to take away guns. Whether it's literally taking them away, or implementing absurd buying limitations, that's always the proposal. It's a non-starter, it's constitutionally questionable, it plays into the NRA's "they're trying to take our guns away" argument, and maybe most significant, most people realize they are ineffective.

Here's what I'd do.

1. Require insurance on all guns. Mandatory minimums. Crime if you don't carry it.
2. Civil liability if one of your guns is used in the commission of a crime. Call in the Financial Responsibility Act for guns, similar to what we do for cars.
3. Criminal liability if you let, intentionally or accidentally, one of your guns be used in a crime. We don't have to make it a death penalty case. But substantial criminal sanctions.
4. Substantial taxes on guns and ammunition. Do like they are doing to tobacco.

You won't get rid of guns. You won't get rid of crime. But you will certainly remove casual gun purchases because it will be too **** expensive. And on top of it, we'll have someone to parade into court every time one of these clowns shoot up a school but save the last bullet for themselves.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

There is no proposal that will work in a world where people actually believe in 2nd Amendment remedies. Everyone's ignoring me on this but it's true and irrefutable.

40 years ago, when I was hunting with my dad and spending spare time plinking soup cans with old .22 caliber rifle, you never heard of anyone hoarding ammunition. You never heard of anyone going to a gun shop or hardware store to buy a gun because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to buy one due to government action. People bought guns only when they wanted one, and more particularly, only when they really needed one.

I went to Cabela's a month ago with a friend of mine. While we were there he said he wanted to check out the ammunition and see if they had any .22 caliber bullets. My response was why the heck wouldn't they have .22 caliber ammunition. He then proceeds to tell me that rifle ammunition, handgun ammunition and in particular .22 caliber ammunition has been really hard to come by. People are buying and hoarding because "Obama is going to take it away."

People are idiots!!! Do they really think Obama is going to come and take away their .22 caliber bullets, or forbid the sale of it?

I know people a few years ago who went out and got a handgun permit, and bought a friggin' handgun, because they thought it was going to get harder or impossible to do so.

I like guns. I'm a gun owner, although I have no use for a handgun. But I was asked shouldn't I be worried I wouldn't be able to get one too?

Why? I don't need a stupid handgun. What would I do with it?

What we have seen in this country in the last 20 plus years is a classic example of what happens if you create an artificial (or in this case, non-existent) shortage of a good, but everyone thinks there is or will be a shortage.

Stop telling people the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. Stop trying to ban the sales of guns or ammunition. You are creating a feeding frenzy by people who don't know any better. You are Smith & Wesson's best salesman.

People will sooner or later realize they have no use for a gun, but if by some crazy set of circumstances that should change, they'll believe they can still buy one. Guns are expensive. Ammunition is expensive. And guns have very limited use.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

There is no proposal that will work in a world where people actually believe in 2nd Amendment remedies. Everyone's ignoring me on this but it's true and irrefutable.

I both agree and disagree: there is no proposal that will work that involves direct government regulation (just like we cannot regulate pornography). At one point, we had social remedies that went far beyond government control.

You can think of it as an unintended consequence of progressivism: the more we look to government to run our lives for us, the less ability we have to bring non-governmental social pressures to bear. Some people even wind up believing that if government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done!



A good analog perhaps is domestic violence. For too long, people who have known about it have stood by and allowed it to happen. Yet the court system can only intervene after a crime has been committed and in many cases only if the victim elects to press charges.

Attitudes are starting to shift. Former bystanders are starting to become active interveners. Non-governmental social pressures of various kinds and degrees will do more to produce a long-term solution to this problem than any formal "proposal" will.




We need a similar attitude shift. "Gun" control is not and never will be the answer. Controlling crazy people with access to guns is where we need to direct our emphasis. Non-governmental interveners will be far more effective here than any formal government program.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

40 years ago, when I was hunting with my dad and spending spare time plinking soup cans with old .22 caliber rifle, you never heard of anyone hoarding ammunition. You never heard of anyone going to a gun shop or hardware store to buy a gun because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to buy one due to government action. People bought guns only when they wanted one, and more particularly, only when they really needed one.

I went to Cabela's a month ago with a friend of mine. While we were there he said he wanted to check out the ammunition and see if they had any .22 caliber bullets. My response was why the heck wouldn't they have .22 caliber ammunition. He then proceeds to tell me that rifle ammunition, handgun ammunition and in particular .22 caliber ammunition has been really hard to come by. People are buying and hoarding because "Obama is going to take it away."

People are idiots!!! Do they really think Obama is going to come and take away their .22 caliber bullets, or forbid the sale of it?

I know people a few years ago who went out and got a handgun permit, and bought a friggin' handgun, because they thought it was going to get harder or impossible to do so.

I like guns. I'm a gun owner, although I have no use for a handgun. But I was asked shouldn't I be worried I wouldn't be able to get one too?

Why? I don't need a stupid handgun. What would I do with it?

What we have seen in this country in the last 20 plus years is a classic example of what happens if you create an artificial (or in this case, non-existent) shortage of a good, but everyone thinks there is or will be a shortage.

Stop telling people the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. Stop trying to ban the sales of guns or ammunition. You are creating a feeding frenzy by people who don't know any better. You are Smith & Wesson's best salesman.

People will sooner or later realize they have no use for a gun, but if by some crazy set of circumstances that should change, they'll believe they can still buy one. Guns are expensive. Ammunition is expensive. And guns have very limited use.

Follow the NRA. They feed this stuff every single day. Everyone believes Obama is coming for their guns because that's what Rush, The NRA, and Fix News have told them over and over and over again. I have relatives that have bought into this mindset hook line and sinker.

Then add what Joni Ernst has said on the campaign trail and the fact that she will get elected statewide into office in what used to be a pretty purple state and you have the makings of full blown crazy being the norm. Pretty much why the Democrats have given up on this issue. In fact I agree with them. They should just stop mentioning it altogether. If Gabby Giffords can't get any traction what's the point? Just ignore the issue if you're a liberal running for office and you'll get a lot further than trying to reason with a "2nd Amendment Remedy" Republican.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

This is a map of the relative urbanization of the country.

People who live in a brown place have every reason to have guns. People who live in a red place have no reason to have them. So just let the jurisdiction decide.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Here's what I'd do.

1. Require insurance on all guns. Mandatory minimums. Crime if you don't carry it.
2. Civil liability if one of your guns is used in the commission of a crime. Call in the Financial Responsibility Act for guns, similar to what we do for cars.
3. Criminal liability if you let, intentionally or accidentally, one of your guns be used in a crime. We don't have to make it a death penalty case. But substantial criminal sanctions.
4. Substantial taxes on guns and ammunition. Do like they are doing to tobacco.

You won't get rid of guns. You won't get rid of crime. But you will certainly remove casual gun purchases because it will be too **** expensive. And on top of it, we'll have someone to parade into court every time one of these clowns shoot up a school but save the last bullet for themselves.

A more concrete example of "treat guns like cars." Very nice. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SJHovey again..

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Follow the NRA. They feed this stuff every single day. Everyone believes Obama is coming for their guns because that's what Rush, The NRA, and Fix News have told them over and over and over again. I have relatives that have bought into this mindset hook line and sinker.

Then add what Joni Ernst has said on the campaign trail and the fact that she will get elected statewide into office in what used to be a pretty purple state and you have the makings of full blown crazy being the norm. Pretty much why the Democrats have given up on this issue. In fact I agree with them. They should just stop mentioning it altogether. If Gabby Giffords can't get any traction what's the point? Just ignore the issue if you're a liberal running for office and you'll get a lot further than trying to reason with a "2nd Amendment Remedy" Republican.

Take a pill about Joni Ernst will ya?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Take a pill about Joni Ernst will ya?

Nope. I will not take a pill over a soon to be sitting Senator who believes in 2nd Amendment Remedies. It's dangerous.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Nope. I will not take a pill over a soon to be sitting Senator who believes in 2nd Amendment Remedies. It's dangerous.

In the alternative, shut the h*ll up about her. We get it. Her election will usher in some sort of new Dark Ages. And your generalizations about what "everybody" believes reveal you to be as big a dimwit as you claim they are.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Then add what Joni Ernst has said on the campaign trail and the fact that she will get elected statewide into office in what used to be a pretty purple state and you have the makings of full blown crazy being the norm. Pretty much why the Democrats have given up on this issue. In fact I agree with them. They should just stop mentioning it altogether. If Gabby Giffords can't get any traction what's the point? Just ignore the issue if you're a liberal running for office and you'll get a lot further than trying to reason with a "2nd Amendment Remedy" Republican.

Braley's still in it, albeit only about a 1 in 3 shot.

"2nd Amendment Remedy" was never going to be an election-deciding gaffe. Every voter who understands what that is code for was already either for or against her, and the quote only cemented their support / opposition. The only gaffes that matter are when somebody accidentally exposes an attitude they were hiding (e.g., Romney's "47%"). Ernst wasn't hiding what she said; it is perfectly typical of her mindset, so it changes nothing.

 

[joecct]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

If a baseball bounced off his head for a home run, would you let him own a firearm?

@nbcbayarea: JUST IN: Former Oakland A's superstar Jose Canseco accidentally shot himself in finger while cleaning gun, police in Nevada tell NBC News.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

The gun owners I know are responsible and well-versed in safety. They are actually a lot more freaked out about irresponsible gun owners, since they're the ones who are far more likely to run into them at ranges, out hunting, etc.

Gun culture is very much an urban/rural split. In most of the geographical area of the country guns are an unremarkable part of life. In cities, guns are bizarre. Seems like an instance in which state and local law should vary to reflect local culture. The Second Amendment overlay is a ruse (a very profitable one), and it's unfortunate because it is so inflexible. And of course it strongly plays into the victim culture that sees any law as tyrannical.

The gun owners I know are the same way. A former neighbor would go hunting. He'd check his gun before packing it in his vehicle. Drove solo. Re-check his firearm(s) when unpacking his vehicle. Why? To be sure of the status of it being loaded/unloaded. One can NEVER be too cautious with firearms. My brother has a firearm next to his bed. In a coded safe. At all times.

Why?
1. Safety
2. He has two young daughters.