How to get a gun ban passed.

[Langston Hughes]

It seems that if you have a legal right and some people are on the fence about whether you they should change the law perhaps you shouldn't try to educate them.

 

"I'm gonna go inside the state Capitol and see if I can educate a few people," the man says in the video, only identified by his YouTube account name of "martinrps13."

"People need to be comfortable because it's our constitutional right to carry a firearm, and it's my New Mexico constitutional right to carry it openly in the state Capitol," the man said.

 

And since they had failed to pass a gun ban for the capital last time, it might have backfired.

 

 

"I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment. And I'm also a member of the NRA, but I tell you there's many buildings that you should not be able to carry a firearm into and one of them is the state Capitol," Republican Sen. Carroll Leavell said.

"Unquestionably, I think we need to ban guns from the state Capitol, and anywhere there's large numbers of individuals that gather for a very specific purpose," Democratic Sen. Carlos Cisneros said.

 

 

 

[Trimdingman]

 

That way, only assassins will be armed. Non-assassins will be unarmed. Makes perfect sense. Nobody is going to do any assassinating if there are armed people around to prevent them. Assassins will find a way around gun detection. Then they have no fear of being stopped. After the deed, they can spread some lead around and make a safe exit while everybody ducks for cover.

[RangerM]

Implementing gun bans, or Obamacare, or any other government-control mechanism insures only those rich/resourceful enough to circumvent the law will be able.

 

The relatively poor (yet innocent) public are left to the whims of the criminals or the bureaucrats.

 

Why the Left either cannot or will not see it is beyond my comprehension. At some point, one has to wonder if it's intentional.

Edited September 29, 2013 by RangerM

[FiredMotorCompany]

Implementing gun bans, or Obamacare, or any other government-control mechanism insures only those rich/resourceful enough to circumvent the law will be able.

 

The relatively poor (yet innocent) public are left to the whims of the criminals or the bureaucrats.

 

Why the Left either cannot or will not see it is beyond my comprehension. At some point, one has to wonder if it's intentional.

 

The relatively poor (yet innocent) public are left to the whims of the criminals/bureaucrats.

 

Fixed it for ya.

[RangerM]

The relatively poor (yet innocent) public are left to the whims of the criminals/bureaucrats.

 

Fixed it for ya.

Consider......

 

Every time bad people commit gun crimes against good (or bad) people, the more the Left promotes policy that best serves to disarm good people.

 

Every time bureaucrats implement bad policy against good (or responsible) people, the more the Left wants to grant more power to the bureaucrats.

[Langston Hughes]

That way, only assassins will be armed. Non-assassins will be unarmed. Makes perfect sense. Nobody is going to do any assassinating if there are armed people around to prevent them. Assassins will find a way around gun detection. Then they have no fear of being stopped. After the deed, they can spread some lead around and make a safe exit while everybody ducks for cover.

 

Well, there will be armed guards within the building as there currently is, but I brought it up as more as a discussion of unintended consequences than potential assassinations.

[Langston Hughes]

Consider......

 

Every time bad people commit gun crimes against good (or bad) people, the more the Left promotes policy that best serves to disarm good people.

 

Every time bureaucrats implement bad policy against good (or responsible) people, the more the Left wants to grant more power to the bureaucrats.

 

I'd prefer to change the culture but the right hates that as much as it does gun regulation. Any suggestion that we embrace a European model enrages the typical conservative who buys into "rugged individualism" like it's oxygen.

 

Ranger, we both know that a large number of gun crimes is committed in high gun ownership areas, not low. It might be mostly illegal ownership but they still have guns. That simple fact has led criminals to use things like drive bys and other methods to keep from having anyone return fire. If you look at places like Detroit, it has a decent amount of legal gun ownership and a high level of illegal ownership. Some how between all the guns there is still a lot of crime in the city. Why hasn't high levels of gun ownership stopped the crime?

 

Shouldn't the level of guns be the deterrent that the NRA says it is?

[RangerM]

I'd prefer to change the culture but the right hates that as much as it does gun regulation. Any suggestion that we embrace a European model enrages the typical conservative who buys into "rugged individualism" like it's oxygen.

 

Ranger, we both know that a large number of gun crimes is committed in high gun ownership areas, not low. It might be mostly illegal ownership but they still have guns. That simple fact has led criminals to use things like drive bys and other methods to keep from having anyone return fire. If you look at places like Detroit, it has a decent amount of legal gun ownership and a high level of illegal ownership. Some how between all the guns there is still a lot of crime in the city. Why hasn't high levels of gun ownership stopped the crime?

 

Shouldn't the level of guns be the deterrent that the NRA says it is?

You're assuming correlation equals causation, but have you considered which direction it goes? Does higher rates of gun ownership result in high crime, or could the opposite be true?

 

If I live in a low crime area, am I (as a law-abiding citizen) more or less likely to own a gun? I'd say I'm more likely to arm myself if I live in a high crime area.

 

If you go out to rural West Virginia (where I'm from), most every house will not only have a gun, but several. Yet, in this near-100% gun possession area, gun "crime" is low. Why?

 

You hit it when you said, culture. But, are you prepared to actually say a "culture" is bad? I've certainly seen how the NRA is bad, but how about the culture of thuggery that is so prevalent in certain demographic groups?

Edited September 29, 2013 by RangerM

[FiredMotorCompany]

You hit it when you said, culture. But, are you prepared to actually say a "culture" is bad? I've certainly seen how the NRA is bad, but how about the culture of thuggery that is so prevalent in certain demographic groups?

Beware. You'll be accused of being a racist for using "code words".

[Langston Hughes]

You're assuming correlation equals causation, but have you considered which direction it goes? Does higher rates of gun ownership result in high crime, or could the opposite be true?

 

If I live in a low crime area, am I (as a law-abiding citizen) more or less likely to own a gun? I'd say I'm more likely to arm myself if I live in a high crime area.

 

If you go out to rural West Virginia (where I'm from), most every house will not only have a gun, but several. Yet, in this near-100% gun possession area, gun "crime" is low. Why?

 

You hit it when you said, culture. But, are you prepared to actually say a "culture" is bad? I've certainly seen how the NRA is bad, but how about the culture of thuggery that is so prevalent in certain demographic groups?

 

There is a culture problem in America on a grander scale than just among African Americans. It is based on a rather violent past and the puritan penchant to allow violence but limit sexuality. You see it when conservatives advocate solely for abstinence in regards to sex but not for guns. It's funny how conservatives want to reduce it to just the problems in African American communities.

[napfirst]

You're assuming correlation equals causation, but have you considered which direction it goes? Does higher rates of gun ownership result in high crime, or could the opposite be true?

 

If I live in a low crime area, am I (as a law-abiding citizen) more or less likely to own a gun? I'd say I'm more likely to arm myself if I live in a high crime area.

 

If you go out to rural West Virginia (where I'm from), most every house will not only have a gun, but several. Yet, in this near-100% gun possession area, gun "crime" is low. Why?

 

You hit it when you said, culture. But, are you prepared to actually say a "culture" is bad? I've certainly seen how the NRA is bad, but how about the culture of thuggery that is so prevalent in certain demographic groups?

The problem here that you are using logic in a debate with an idiot....

[Langston Hughes]

Beware. You'll be accused of being a racist for using "code words".

 

I don't believe that Ranger is biased against African Americans. He takes a thoughtful platform typically on cultural reform. Most conservatives don't, because they forget that among poor republican voters there are many of the same issues.

[napfirst]

It seems that if you have a legal right and some people are on the fence about whether you they should change the law perhaps you shouldn't try to educate them.

 

 

And since they had failed to pass a gun ban for the capital last time, it might have backfired.

Yeah the gun ban worked so well in the Wash. Navy Yard!

[RangerM]

Beware. You'll be accused of being a racist for using "code words".

I'm more afraid of ignoring the problem, than being accused of racism.

 

There is a culture problem in America on a grander scale than just among African Americans. It is based on a rather violent past and the puritan penchant to allow violence but limit sexuality. You see it when conservatives advocate solely for abstinence in regards to sex but not for guns. It's funny how conservatives want to reduce it to just the problems in African American communities.

The "culture of thuggery" is not limited to blacks, but it is more prevalent.

 

Conservatives do not pass out guns like party favors every time they get together.

 

And if you're looking for inconsistency look in the mirror. You'd require an ID (and a whole lot more) to buy a gun, but not to vote.

[RangerM]

There is a culture problem in America on a grander scale than just among African Americans. It is based on a rather violent past and the puritan penchant to allow violence but limit sexuality. You see it when conservatives advocate solely for abstinence in regards to sex but not for guns. It's funny how conservatives want to reduce it to just the problems in African American communities.

I'll go back to my earlier postulate.....

 

Where am I more likely to want to own a gun......

 

......in one of the mostly-black middle/upper-middle class areas of Atlanta?

 

......or Compton?

 

I'll give you two guesses.

Edited September 29, 2013 by RangerM

[Langston Hughes]

I'm more afraid of ignoring the problem, than being accused of racism.

 

The "culture of thuggery" is not limited to blacks, but it is more prevalent.

 

Conservatives do not pass out guns like party favors every time they get together.

 

And if you're looking for inconsistency look in the mirror. You'd require an ID (and a whole lot more) to buy a gun, but not to vote.

 

I don't oppose voter ID. I oppose the restricted forms of voter ID. Someone with multiple forms of non-picture ID that is registered should be able to vote. The problem comes in when someone who has registered to vote using picture ID, like i did at Michigan Secretary of State and years later doesn't have a photo ID due to circumstances should be able to cast a ballot with a couple forms of non picture ID. At minimum they could consider it a provisional ballot and if there is no discrepancies, such as two ballots by the same person then that ballot would count. I also not that many of those who have proposed this are doing it not for the cause of limiting voter fraud but to limit the votes for Democrats and win elections. There are notable studies showing it's effect on minorities and elections.

 

As for the culture of African American's, it is similar to that of other poor, limited mobility ethnic groups in American history. As the number of these groups increases per square mile the crime rate and general cultural malaise goes up. Given that we are only just into the second generation outside of the civil rights era i think it's premature to expect that that malaise should have run it's course, especially given the history of anti-assimilation towards African Americans that has been common place among conservative organizations such as Bob Jones (which restrcited inter-racial dating well into the late 90's -early 2000's.)I do believe that at a relative point in the not so distant future that this cultural norm will have run it's course among African American communities.

 

We could discuss how the 2 great migrations of African Americans has created an urbanized cultural and created tension given the proximity. Or we could discuss what it is exactly about rural areas and limited interaction with wide swaths of the populace that decreases crime. Myself, living in the country and working in the city i find that the increased amount of people in a given area does increase tension and the feeling of oppression.

[Langston Hughes]

I'm more afraid of ignoring the problem, than being accused of racism.

 

The "culture of thuggery" is not limited to blacks, but it is more prevalent.

 

Conservatives do not pass out guns like party favors every time they get together.

 

And if you're looking for inconsistency look in the mirror. You'd require an ID (and a whole lot more) to buy a gun, but not to vote.

 

I realize that they don't, but like with my discussions with TomServo about Germany, some of their gun regulations lead to limited crime. Better background checks with much better mental health reporting.

[Langston Hughes]

Yeah the gun ban worked so well in the Wash. Navy Yard!

 

A lousy background check system didn't work so well either, nor did privatizing the security clearance system, but your not opposing privatization or advocating for increased and better background checks.

[Langston Hughes]

I'll go back to my earlier postulate.....

 

Where am I more likely to want to own a gun......

 

......in one of the mostly-black middle/upper-middle class areas of Atlanta?

 

......or Compton?

 

I'll give you two guesses.

 

I wouldn't move to Compton. LOL.

 

I don't carry a gun when i'm in Detroit.

[FiredMotorCompany]

There is a culture problem in America on a grander scale than just among African Americans. It is based on a rather violent past and the puritan penchant to allow violence but limit sexuality. You see it when conservatives advocate solely for abstinence in regards to sex but not for guns. It's funny how conservatives want to reduce it to just the problems in African American communities.

 

Specifically...

You see it when conservatives advocate solely for abstinence in regards to sex but not for guns.

You may possess sexual organs without any restrictions. But, there are, and should be, consequences for their use, especially inappropriately or without regard for the outcome.

Violent use against innocents included.

 

See how it works?

[RangerM]

I wouldn't move to Compton. LOL.

 

I don't carry a gun when i'm in Detroit.

And I don't even own a gun, even though (in all probability) all but one other house in my neighborhood has at least one. I don't worry because I know the people, and my neighborhood is well hidden from most anyone who doesn't live here.

 

But, if I still lived in my old neighborhood in Cary, NC (!), I'd probably own one. Many of the homes were becoming rentals, and the neighborhood was going downhill.

 

You touched on it earlier when you said, "Myself, living in the country and working in the city i find that the increased amount of people in a given area does increase tension and the feeling of oppression".

 

The cause is two-fold. First, envy. People see others get ahead and rather than self-examination, they look outside themselves. Politicians use this to their advantage (often called, "identity politics") Second, a lack of community. But as part of a vicious cycle, noone is going to help a neighbor whose disposition is one of envy and covetousness.

[Langston Hughes]

And I don't even own a gun, even though (in all probability) all but one other house in my neighborhood has at least one. I don't worry because I know the people, and my neighborhood is well hidden from most anyone who doesn't live here.

 

But, if I still lived in my old neighborhood in Cary, NC (!), I'd probably own one. Many of the homes were becoming rentals, and the neighborhood was going downhill.

 

You touched on it earlier when you said, "Myself, living in the country and working in the city i find that the increased amount of people in a given area does increase tension and the feeling of oppression".

 

The cause is two-fold. First, envy. People see others get ahead and rather than self-examination, they look outside themselves. Politicians use this to their advantage (often called, "identity politics") Second, a lack of community. But as part of a vicious cycle, noone is going to help a neighbor whose disposition is one of envy and covetousness.

 

I'm disappointed that you went there. Do you honestly feel that the problems of black culture are just that of envy and entitlement? And if you were referring to all poor people, even then I don't believe it.

[RangerM]

Do you honestly feel that the problems of black culture are just that of envy and entitlement? And if you were referring to all poor people, even then I don't believe it.

Of course not, But I don't automatically assume that poverty is honorable any more than wealth is evil.

 

How many people do you know who buy lottery tickets? How many of them are really in a position to afford it? How about those who prey on their fellow man by dealing drugs? How many live beyond their means? How many "put on airs", and how does it differ from the culture of thuggery?

 

I have a hard time believing that everyone who does those things (along with countless other ways of acting pretentious or trying to short cut the system), is motivated by anything other than envy (and/or greed).

 

And many blame the corporations for tempting people to keep up with the Jones'. I blame those who succumb to temptation more.

[BB390fe]

I don't oppose voter ID. I oppose the restricted forms of voter ID. Someone with multiple forms of non-picture ID that is registered should be able to vote. The problem comes in when someone who has registered to vote using picture ID, like i did at Michigan Secretary of State and years later doesn't have a photo ID due to circumstances should be able to cast a ballot with a couple forms of non picture ID. At minimum they could consider it a provisional ballot and if there is no discrepancies, such as two ballots by the same person then that ballot would count. I also not that many of those who have proposed this are doing it not for the cause of limiting voter fraud but to limit the votes for Democrats and win elections. There are notable studies showing it's effect on minorities and elections.

 

As for the culture of African American's, it is similar to that of other poor, limited mobility ethnic groups in American history. As the number of these groups increases per square mile the crime rate and general cultural malaise goes up. Given that we are only just into the second generation outside of the civil rights era i think it's premature to expect that that malaise should have run it's course, especially given the history of anti-assimilation towards African Americans that has been common place among conservative organizations such as Bob Jones (which restrcited inter-racial dating well into the late 90's -early 2000's.)I do believe that at a relative point in the not so distant future that this cultural norm will have run it's course among African American communities.

 

We could discuss how the 2 great migrations of African Americans has created an urbanized cultural and created tension given the proximity. Or we could discuss what it is exactly about rural areas and limited interaction with wide swaths of the populace that decreases crime. Myself, living in the country and working in the city i find that the increased amount of people in a given area does increase tension and the feeling of oppression.

 

Sorry, but I don't see the issue with a photo id... if someone can potentially find several 'non-picture' forms of ID... why can't they obtain a govt picture id? I don't mean to sound harsh, but if someone is too stupid or lazy to bother getting the correct id... do you really want them to be able to cast a vote? Dem. Republican, or whatever... I think I'd prefer someone who can do a bit more than hear thunder and see lightning to cast a ballot.

[Trimdingman]

The majority of blacks are mixed into the general population and are no more criminally active than anyone else; probably less so. It is the same as Aboriginals. The media looks at reservations and judges Aboriginals by what it sees there. Reservations are for poor Indians; so that is what you find there. Big surprise. The other ninety odd percent are mixed in with the general population. The minority of poor blacks who live in a poor black neighbourhood will naturally turn to crime in above average numbers because they are constantly being told by the left that white people are their enemy, and are the reason why they are poor. The left is always stirring them up and instilling them with hate. Obama is the worst; exaggerating and magnifying every incident of racial prejudice he can find or make up. Many are led to believe that violence is their only recourse, especially the poor who have little or nothing to lose.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Trimdingman