Guess what America's leading cause of death by injury is.
Suicide...
That's right folks, your number one violent killer in this
country isn't some nut that got a hold of a rifle... your number one threat is...
you.
Why? Look at how many people are on psychotropic medication.
Feeling sad? Here's a pill.
Does it hurt? Here's a pill.
Is life really hard? Here's a pill.
Is your current medication not making the sadness go away?
Here's a pill.
Here's a pill.
When I was young I went to a psychiatrist for some hard
stuff I was dealing with. I said "I don't want pills, I want help."
After hearing my story for 45 minutes what kind of help did he offer?
Pills.
I never went back. I'm not walkin' on crutches just because
it hurts to walk.
I'm gonna walk and maybe it'll get better, maybe it wont,
but by God's grace I'm gonna figure out how to live life.
The problem is that this solution trains a person
(especially a young person) that pain, hurt, and sadness are bad and need to be
eliminated as soon as possible so you can do better things.
This creates a bigger problem. It teaches this person that
pain, hurt, and sadness aren't indicators that something is wrong but rather
that they themselves are the sickness. It trains people to rely on drugs instead
of problem solving skills.
That wouldn't be so bad but here's the kicker: life is hard
and its only going to get harder. You don't wake up one day after sitting on
your couch for ten years and decide to go climb a mountain. The guy that climbs
the mountain has spent years training his body to endure the pain and be strong
enough to hold on to the rocks.
So these teenagers who get on these insanely powerful drugs
snap and go off on people. Sometimes they kill themselves. Sometimes they kill
others.
Ya know what these kids needed instead?
Dad.
My father is a clumsy, emotional, sometimes ridiculous kind
of guy but one thing he repeated over and over is now a treasure to me.
Endure.
We are weak enough without depending on crutches. When you
stretch a muscle it sort of fills in the torn parts with new muscle. God is
pretty smart, He built our minds like that too. If you feel bad just ask
yourself "should I?" because I promise you, looking back on my life,
I've needed to feel bad a LOT, and without the gift of feeling like I had
totally wrecked things I wouldn't have learned from my mistakes.
Don't rob your children of the gift of their consequence.
Don't hear me say "let them walk into traffic"
because that's not what I'm saying. Protect their innocence with a lion's
ferocity but when they go over that line do not protect them from what they
honestly need to endure.
Obviously this doesn't mean that if your kid walks off in
the mall you should let him get kidnapped. If you take what I'm saying to that
extreme you're being defensive and should probably check yourself.
Believe me that when the bible says Christ was a man of
sorrows I take comfort in that because its as if God knew "Doug is going
to need this" so He in all His wisdom put it there to let me know that
having sorrow isn't bad.
With all of that said kids need dads to be around and
engaged. Believe me I know this is hard. My little one isn't even here yet and
I have a hard time just engaging my wife well. We're not supposed to be perfect,
we're supposed to try.
But above all of that your kid needs Jesus. People need
hope. Dad, that's your job but really your job is just to point to your anchor
and that should be Jesus Christ.
Summary:
- pills are bad (as they are used in America, in this context, which is over-prescribed) because they promote weakness using strength as fuel
- endurance is good because it promotes strength using weakness as fuel
- repent and trust in Jesus because fuel doesn't last forever
Don't write this off as coming from someone who knows not
heartache that welcomes a black tide called death to sweep him into the sea of
eternity.
That would be a mistake. Don't fall for it.
Interesting stuff. I thought this would be about suicide being a bigger killer than guns from your first few sentences but then it went into psychiatric drugs, and then offered Dad (how bout Mom?) and Jesus as "the answer."
ReplyDeleteWhy even mention guns? Deaths due to gun crime aren't less of an issue BECAUSE suicide kills more people. Suicides only passed car wrecks as the #1 cause of death recently, partly due to car safety improving, partly due to rise of suicides during recessions. There isn't any evidence of a suicide epidemic caused by psychiatric meds.
While drugs are def overprescribed, I've never heard of a shrink arguing that people should remain medicated for the long-term...except for very sick folks (paranoid psychotics) who are dangerous when they are NOT on their meds.
Why mention guns? Fair question.
ReplyDeleteBecause right now in America lots of people want to blame these inanimate objects for the actions of evil and desperate people.
A common statistic is "lots of people die from guns!". The problem is that more than half to hem are intentional self-inflicted gunshot wounds thus nullifying that statistic's relevance completely.
The reality is that this person (take the sandy hook monster for example) didn't have a great life devoid of problems with parents who trained him up in the way that he should go.
It had been 2 years since he'd last spoken with his dad and 1 year since his dad divorced his mom. This kid already had issues, this just compounded them. He was also on the usual anti-psychotic drugs that all of these killers have been on.
Here's my point. Bad parenting doesn't start when dad decides to walk out. Dad walking out just shows evidence of dad's character that the family has seen the whole time.
This all goes back to the need for fathers. Fathers who teach their children how to deal with issues instead of doping them because its easier. Fathers are supposed to lead their families, these monsters are the product of neglect, bad parenting, and a culture of entitlement.
America says "you're worth something!" all the while neglecting their own children with their actions.
I'm not saying medication is always bad but I am saying that in this culture its usually just a band-aid on an infected gaping wound that will only get worse if left untreated.
Hm. So, yes, slightly over 50% of gun-related deaths are suicide. However, that doesn't negate the deaths of those who died due to gun homicide. While responsibility lies with the shooters, putting reasonable measures into place to prevent gun violence is still good policy.
ReplyDeleteAdam Lanza seems to have been a bit beyond the garden-variety "angry kid" with bad parents. Whether or not he was on psychiatric meds is actually unknown at the moment...reports that he was are still speculative. So are reports that he was on-spectrum. But even so, Dad walking out didn't turn his other brother into a crazed killer.
Columbine kids: didn't have divorced parents. One sociopath, the other depressed and suicidal (there's some fascinating reading available on the dynamic between the two, and Dylan Klebold's mom wrote about her own culpability).
VA tech: close-knit Korean family, extremely hard workers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041104103.html). Shooter had a sister with no violent tendencies. He, however, had a clinically-diagnosed disorder.
Aurora: parents still married. Clinically-diagnosed disorder.
In every active-shooter situation, the gunman has had a clinical diagnosis. In most, he's had married parents. In some cases, pharma was involved. In some cases, pharma wasn't involved and likely should have been.
Reasonable measures to prevent gun violence. I agree, like letting everyone carry a means to defend themselves against violent killers regardless of their location.
ReplyDeleteAnd just because dad shares the same address doesn't mean he's actually there...
Understand?
Maybe. Or like instituting tougher controls to close loopholes in gun buying laws. Or tracking who's buying enough bullets to stockpile an arsenal. Or linking the DB of the mentally ill with the background check DB. Or any host of other measures, decided by the states. Data on effectiveness of concealed carry is as inconclusive as data from assault weapon bans. Just because people have fantasies about stopping active shooters doesn't mean they're capable of actually doing it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, sure, there are absentee fathers who still live in the house. But where's the evidence to indicate that was the case in any of the scenarios above? In VA Tech the opposite seems to be true. So this "dad" theory seems like overly simplistic reductionism. Generally true that kids need dad? Sure. What teenagers who shot up schools or killed themselves needed was dad? ...
There are no loopholes in gun buying laws. What the media is referring to is "private sales". You probably haven't heard it referred to in that way because if they actually said "we think the govt should track business between private individuals" people would raise a huge stink (rightfully so).
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you're getting your data from but there have been SEVERAL of these mass shootings prevented by the either the employment or mere presence of a concealed carriers weapon.
But you won't hear about that on CNN, I wonder why?
Ever think it was odd that the calackamus shooter only killed 2 people?
That's because a CCW permit holder was present, chose not to take the shot due to the angle and bystanders present (rightfully so), and the shooter killed himself.
Wanna know why there haven't been any mass shootings in Texas? Oh they've tried but they've all been prevented or stopped by CCW permit holders (in one case an off duty sherif, which is a CCW holder).
This argument you're presenting is pretty common and it seems to assume that acting as if bad things WON'T happen is more wise than acting as if things MIGHT happen.
I disagree.
...and you can say that the dad theory is over simplistic reductionism but it doesn't change everything I know about people.
Kids need dad around. Kids need discipline. Kids need love. Kids need all sorts of stuff that mom can't provide all by herself and a huge percentage of this population's kids go to sleep every night having no idea where their dad is.
That has been a problem for decades and we are seeing the fruit of it now.
Think about why these kids do these things. They are desperate and they want to end their lives. They are also in a culture that preaches self-entitlement as a virtue, not a vice. They are also in a culture that over-medicates instead of dealing with actual issues.
These factors mix together to create a very violent storm.
But this is a very easily stopped storm, with the proper tools.
These people are cowards who just want to make a big splash on their way out and almost always at the first sign of resistance they take their own life.
People are each unique but you've got to understand that people are unbelievably predictable.
I don't disagree with your statement about kids needing discipline, overly entitled culture, etc. But citing 'everything I know about people' isn't evidence for your premise about Dad being what's missing in the lives of mass shooters.
ReplyDeleteThere HAVE been mass killings in Texas. And in other states with CCW. It isn't a panacea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas. (When you're done there, the main article has school shootings, too.) It isn't just kids doing these things.
An off-duty sheriff is a well-trained expert capable of performing under pressure. Your average citizen isn't. Sure, let people who have CCW permits take the shot if they have it. But simultaneously try to keep guns out of the hands of people who show all the signs of impending criminality.
WRT loopholes in gun buying: if you need a federal background check to buy a gun from a dealer, you shouldn't be able to skirt that by buying a gun from a friend. When you buy a car from a friend, you re-register it in your name. There's precedent. Also, this is the age of the internet. It takes about 5 seconds to check a database. There's no undue burden here.
Actually the only mass shooting on that list AFTER CHL permits became available was in 99 at a church and no good guys were there to put the bad guy down.
ReplyDeleteIts a common misconception to think that a sheriff deputy is highly skilled at firearms compared to a civilian with even decent training. That is simply not true. There have been plenty of occasions where civilians actually assist officers to take down the bad guy (one here recently, actually).
You know who invented gun registration?
NAZI germany. Ya know why? So they'd know where all the weapons were when they went to go get them.
And they did.
The federal government has no business knowing what you or I own.
To assume that the US government is or will always be in favor of liberty is just not wise.
The federal government has a mandate to maximize the safety of its citizens. It's why we have an army. Registration of potentially hazardous objects is within that mandate. You haven't responded to the database issue; do you think we shouldn't be running background checks or cross-checking criminals and the mentally unfit as well?
ReplyDeleteWill the US govt go tyrannical at some point? Unlikely, but assuming hypothetically that it does...will the guns that most people can own help in that case? Not much. You can't shoot down a drone with your handgun. You want to argue gun rights for personal protection, home defense, fine. You want to argue gun rights for armed uprising against the govt...I'm skeptical.
Re: the Nazis. Misconception. Weimar Germany had tougher gun registration laws prior to the Nazis coming to power, in part due to stipulations in the Treaty of Versailles. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership or http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
"The federal government has a mandate to maximize the safety of its citizens."
ReplyDeleteProve it.
Haven't seen you doing much proving of your assertions above...or any response to the disproved stuff, like that little foray into Godwin territory.
ReplyDeleteBut here.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - govt instituted for the purpose of securing etc etc.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - govt by the people, for the people, for the common defence.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" - funding it.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" - President as head of the armed forces
Unless you're arguing that the federal government isn't responsible for defense against threats, foreign and domestic. Like terrorism.
Now you can go ahead with your proof.
You just posted the mandate for the government to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic.
ReplyDeleteWhat you failed to do is show me where in the constitution the 2nd amendment is allowed to be infringed upon.
I believe that all law abiding citizens should be allowed to own whatever arms they want.
Laws are only for honest people.
I proved the quote you asked me to prove. You still haven't provided any proof to support your theory (or acknowledged that the Nazi talking point is inaccurate).
ReplyDeleteYou are entitled to your interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, the Supreme Court doesn't read the document in the same way; it doesn't give you carte blanche to own an RPG or machine gun.. Fortunately, we enjoy a Federalist system and you can live in a state with whatever gun laws most closely align with your opinions.
You said the federal government is in charge of MAXIMIZING SAFETY for its citizens. That isn't true and that is not what securing a free state means. Ensuring domestic tranquility does not mean they regulate every little corner of our country.
ReplyDeleteIt means they are in charge of security as long as it doesn't conflict with our our constitutional rights.
What I said about the Nazi's is in fact true unless by "less restrictive" you were referring to the fact that they made it illegal for Jews to own firearms.
You're right about one thing, though, fortunately we do live in states where our states can nullify federal laws.
God bless Texas :)
Also, the states created the federal government, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteWe delegate power to them, they don't tell us what to do, and people are remembering that.
Here's a few guys from history on the 2nd amendment BTW.
ReplyDelete"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
Not another Texan who loves to fantasize about nullification. :) You're right, people are predictable.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that federal law is superior to state law. Article III gives the judiciary the final power to interpret the Constitution. The most relevant quotes about the 2nd Amendment now are the opinions from the Supreme Court cases in which it's interpreted.
So, you have no Constitutional right to an RPG or a machine gun.
This love of nullification is a funny thing. It's using a loose interpretation of the 10th Amendment to justify a literalist interpretation of the 2nd. The 2nd provides for a well *regulated* militia; welcome to regulation.
None of the legal silliness coming out of TX or Wyoming makes a bit of difference in the end, it's just saber-rattling by politicians who want to continue to suck on the NRA teat. The preppers who fancy themselves "true American patriots" may not like it, but the reality is that federal regulation is absolutely constitutional. The politicians know it as well. They're just pandering.
And btw, your claim was, verbatim: "You know who invented gun registration? NAZI germany." FALSE. Being able to acknowledge when you were wrong (or misled by Infowars) is a good thing.
If the 2nd amendment isn't literally true then the 1st amendment isn't literally true.
ReplyDeleteJefferson once said that the beauty of the second amendment was it wouldn't be needed until they tried to take it.
If you think he wasn't talking about the people rising up to check the feds you're just living in a fantasy world.
Apparently other dictatorships established gun registration for the purpose of controlling people before Hitler. The point I was making stands, though, the purpose of it is to control, not keep people safe.
I'll let Hitler refute you himself:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolph Hitler
The gun control act of 1938 was copied with by America in 1968.
Yeah america would never put people in camps against their will.
America would never black list people of certain social categories.
America would never disarm and then murder people.
Ahem, native americans/japanese/other folk...
"Literalist" doesn't mean "literally true" - it's a judicial-interpretation term. http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/methods.html But it was a bad choice of word, regardless; what I was trying to say was that that's an inconsistent way of interpreting the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe Weimar Republic wasn't a dictatorship, it was a democracy. And the Hitler quote doesn't refute anything I said, but it does prove Godwin's Law (which also means you lost the Internet this time, sorry). ;)
What I have said is:
1. The Constitution indicates that federal regulation is acceptable when constitutional as federal law supersedes state; regulation isn't de facto infringement.
2. You have no Constitutional right to an RPG or a machine gun.
3. The "daddy" interpretation of why mass murderers kill is simplistic and seems unsupported by facts.
I have a theory that when people get ready to become parents they have a tendency to start to see all problems through the lens of "poor parenting." But it's also totally unsupported by facts. :)
1. Regulation that restricts the right of the people to bear arms is, in fact, infringement.
ReplyDelete2. That's actually not true at all. In fact, I could own both right now if I really wanted to. Call the ATF if you don't believe me.
3. The epidemic of fatherless households in this country is not only a documented fact but its one of the main reasons why this nation has been on a downward spiral for decades.
We live in a nation of participation trophy getting safety scissor entitlement junkies hopped up on self esteem like a junkie on smack and you don't think that just might have something to do with how kids are raised.
Right.
Our culture produces sociopaths at a rate of 1 per every 25 people but it can't possibly be the parents' fault.
Like I said, self esteem junkies addicted to i-phones and American Idol while whole communities get flushed down the toilet.
I think my comment got eaten. Here is the general gist of it, sorry if this is a dupe.
ReplyDelete1. Regulation itself is not infringement. Your first amendment rights are not infringed by not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or slander someone else. Likewise, restrictions on type of arms are perfectly constitutional - private individuals didn't own cannons during the first World War and no one complained.
2. Go try it and see what happens. If you jump through the correct hoops and pay the proper fees, at best you can own an old machine gun. The Firearms Owner Protection Act - the very one that said ATF was overreaching, signed by Reagan - took away the right of private citizens to own machine guns. ("Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.")
3. What downward spiral are you talking about, exactly? So far you've focused on crime. Violent crime overall has been dropping for the past 50 years, in most places. It's one of the main talking points against gun regulation, in fact. You can't have it both ways.
American Idol is an interesting choice to use when talking about anti-community...I don't watch it, but isn't it a site that relies on community to vote up previously-unknown individuals and recognize their talent?
I don't like participation trophies either. But I hear a lot of anger in your comment directed at something or someone but not cohesively tied to what you're trying to argue.
And BTW, I read that Martha Stout book too and saw a combination of nature and nurture arguments, none conclusive. Given those numbers, I believe I should have met a sociopath by now. Also, the weird lack of objectivity and data around Asian culture was kind of unscientific.
On an entirely unrelated note: saw your post re:shutting down FB. Good for you. I keep it around to stay in touch w/remote friends and family, but it's pretty bad for intellectual conversation. I've really enjoyed engaging on G+. Smart people, interesting things to say. And the best part is, I don't know them IRL and they're totally outside of all social circles, so I hear perspectives I wouldn't otherwise get to easily.
1. Regulation just sounds nicer than restriction. It sounds way nicer than infringement. Doesn't change the fact that the one thing the founding fathers were crystal clear on was that people need to be equipped and ready to check the their governments.
ReplyDelete2. What I said is not only true but that regulation needs to be overturned as well as the NFA act of 1934 which is grossly unconstitutional.
3. The downward spiral from a great country to one soaked in a spirit of entitlement, laziness, and cowardice. If a man eating lion got loose in America the odds are he'd starve to death.
American idol offers the illusion of community but nothing of substance at all. What is community without people that will set you straight when you are crooked? I don't want friends that only tell me nice things but sadly most of america tends to disagree.
Most people want only people to surround them with positive thoughts and uplifting commentary.
Forget that, I want reality. I want to grow. You can't grow if you only have people stroking your ego and that's what this safety scissor participation trophy generation does because that's what most of us grew up being TAUGHT to do.
I'm not angry at these people because most of them honestly don't know any better because they are the product of neglect.
Look up how many kids go to sleep in this country every night not knowing where their dad is. Look at how that number has grown... and look at the degradation of society into the toilet bowl of entitlement reflected in all forms of media specifically "reality TV".
Here's a case in point. Two guys. One guy who works fifty hours a week slinging a hammer to provide for his family is looked down on while another guy who spends 40 hours a week in an office where he does little to nothing and all the while gets paid twice or three times as much as the construction worker.
The first is looked down on in our culture and the second is seen as having a position that people should strive for.
That's a glimpse into why our society is so jacked up. Everybody wants something for nothing because they were trained to be that way.
1. So then, your legal inability to yell fire in a crowded theater is infringement as well? Any time you can't do something you want to do because the government says so, you're being infringed upon?
ReplyDelete2. What you said - that you "could own a machine gun right now if you really wanted to" - was actually NOT true, unless you were talking about collecting antiques. You don't have a legal right to buy a machine gun because there are regulations in place that ensure that you can't. You might not like them, but they've stood up to decades of scrutiny. Because they are, in fact, constitutional.
American Idol has someone who sets you straight - judges who tell it like it is. It is possible to deliver criticism with kindness and compassion; that isn't coddling or ego-stroking. It is fully possible to grow via that type of criticism. It's important to teach kids that their self-worth shouldn't be tied into success...especially not the bullshit success of winning some stupid little-league game.
So yeah, this country takes participation-trophy culture to an extreme...but I still don't see how any of that ties into some epidemic lack of dads.
1. false dilemma. I have that ability and it is not being infringed upon. You may want to rephrase that question.
ReplyDelete2. You're either willingly lying or ignorant here. Buying a machine gun is no more difficult than buying a short barreled rifle or a suppressor. Full auto guns just tend to be so expensive only the wealthy can afford them.
By the way, I do appreciate the comments and dialogue :)
1. Not a false dilemma at all - a request for clarification of this ". Regulation just sounds nicer than restriction. It sounds way nicer than infringement. Doesn't change the fact that the one thing the founding fathers were crystal clear on was that people need to be equipped and ready to check the their governments." They were actually clear on a great many things.
ReplyDelete2. You can only transfer around the supply that's been in the market since 1986. 25 year old guns. You can't buy a machine gun from a manufacturer. If that isn't regulation, legally and constitutionally passed and signed by the Republicans' favorite president, I don't know what is.
Yeah, me too.
1. Yeah, that is a false dilemma because the dilemma you've presented is concerning the restriction of people's ability to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of how making something illegal doesn't affect someone's ability to do it. You can put the death penalty on yelling fire in a movie theater and it wouldn't decrease my ability to do that incredibly awful thing one bit.
You can only regulate law abiding citizens in the same way that your deadbolt only keeps out law abiding citizens and your gate only keeps out law abiding citizens.
You're correct in saying they were clear on a great many things but they were clearest of all on this. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2. A. that pool is a lot larger than you think and B. to have a M4 all I would need is an M16 lower and those exist in DROVES. Also there are billions of AK47's on this planet.
It really doesn't help your case very much to point out how the government is infringing on my rights while trying to convince me that they are not trying to infringe on my rights.
First of all, I said your LEGAL inability. No false dilemma but nice try. Second, I didn't show they govt is infringing. I showed they're regulating, with sensible restrictions to maximize the common good and provide a framework for punishing wrongdoers. You are equivocating but those are two different things. In your view, any law passed concerning weapons ownership is infringement but you are only expressing that view WRT the 2nd Amendment. You haven't called that restriction on your first amendment right an "infringement", presumably because that would be ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWould it be nice if the guy who yelled fire was dealt with by people in the stampede he caused? Maybe. But the reality is that we need codified laws because as a society we've evolved past Hammurabi's justice and we work to create a framework we can all agree on. Just saying "well the bad guys will just break them" is silly. God didn't withhold the Ten Commandments because sinners would break the rules anyway. We don't say, well, we won't put laws in place to regulate drunk driving because people will do it anyway. We might debate the structure of the law or punishment for breaking it, but we don't pretend it's "infringement."
It's still a false dilemma, you're just confusing the words "able" with "allowed" and I'm using that to point out the fact that being allowed to do something in the legal sense is not a restriction to someone who is intent on carrying out the action.
ReplyDelete"You haven't called that restriction on your first amendment right an "infringement", presumably because that would be ridiculous."
Because me POSSESSING something guaranteed by the constitution is not the same as me DOING something because doing something carries all sorts of things from motive to effect.
"Just saying "well the bad guys will just break them" is silly"
No, passing laws for the purpose of controlling lawbreakers is silly. I'm not the fool hoping that new gun legislation will eventually have an effect on bad guys (after countless people are raped, assaulted, and murdered because they are defenseless).
My stance is simple. Bad guys will break the law and I am the first responder in my house.
I am a husband and a father and I am charged with providing for my family. That includes their safety so if a man kicks in my door and I don't have a means (that I could have had) to protect them I have not only failed them but I've sinned against God by virtue of my neglect for His command that I'm to provide for my family.
I'll put this simply. The people are unpaid law enforcement. They may be crappy at it or neglect their job but they're still on duty.
People a means to repel evil is a means to enforce justice.
That's why if I'm not in bed or the shower I'm wearing my sidearm.