100+ dead in France

[see4]

How exactly do you 'work' with other gun owners? What is this psychobabble?

GardenGnome was wrong in every assumption he made about me.

You have a 9mm because your wrist is limp. We don't know the causation of such physical deformity, we just know you carry a girl gun.

In the state of AZ you have to be in fear of your life to fire a weapon at someone. I cant see that happening anywhere other than my home and a rifle is not very manuverable in close quarters.

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

 

[Fogdog]

You really are a small person to suggest that someone kill themselves for disagreeing with you. Not surprising given the poster however.

Just saying that you can use your gun to improve your mind.

So, what about the totally bonkers idea that gun owners can't work together? Examples are the NRA and hunter associations. I know you don't know anybody but really, even a social loser like you would know that there is strength in numbers.

The super majority of non gun owners will eventually work together to fix problems gun owners are causing in this country . The time is now for gun owners to take ownership. Once we lose patience gun owners will be steamrolled and I don't think we will do a good job of being fair to all of your kind. When you cry, I will laugh.

 

[cannabineer]

Maybe you should ask Gnome for his/her definition of "extremist or a gangster".

My personal opinion of the matter is that guns should be legal for people to own just as long as they are not former violent criminals, have psychotic issues, not US citizens or on a no fly list. I also think that the 2nd Amendment was not meant for automatic rifles capable of leveling up to 100 people in less than 5 seconds. ( 100 round drum magazines are fun ) -- Just as I think the Wright Brothers are likely rolling in their graves knowing that their invention is used to cause massive acts of terror, rather not for its intended purpose.

Your line of questioning advances the notion that you think that ALL people should have the right to a deadly firearm. As if anarchy were the answer. You're sounding a bit like Rob, if my interpretation of your premise is accurate.

Yes. I do believe that the right to own and operate a firearm (in this nation) is the default. If you wish to deny someone that codified right, I believe you need to have a clear, articulable and lawyer-tested rationale.

I believe the damage potential from "anarchy" is less than that inflicted by nominally well-meaning but controlling people.

As for the Wright Brothers, their first big customer was the U. S. Army. I believe that they saw clearly the potential of their new weapon/platform.

The principal difference between Rob Roy and me is that I do not think that reducing the argument to coercion/not-coercion doesn't do much to advance the discussion. Like extremist, coercion is one of those uselessly soft terms. In my opinion.

 

[cannabineer]

I agree with your assertions to this point, particularly a lack of metric for events prevented. However, I see your analysis of human nature as deeply flawed. The simple version is that it is ridiculous to assert that guns make us more civilized. Guns just make you feel safer in an uncivilized society, nothing more.

Firstly, it is the result of your environment. You apparently assume that because you have seen inequality, that only inequality is possible and do not address, let's say Switzerland. Here is a society that has avoided wars for centuries and where the citizens on the lowest strata are not so far below those at the top. Gun ownership is very high. It occurs to me we need to make sure we agree on the definition of "civilized" for the sake of this exchange at the very least. However, I think that what we both mean would include Switzerland as being very high in a list of most civilized nations. Some would argue this is due to gun ownership, but as can be shown, there is also very high equality and equal opportunities for people to advance.

Also, you assert that man is an apex predator with a massive capacity for malice, as if this is intrinsic and not a product of environment. You then point to the very inequality I allude to, taking my own premise into your argument. So we agree there is a correlation between inequality and and what we both seem to regard as a lack of "civilization". However, I posit that you have causation backwards. It is the inequality causing the environment which guides the behavior. As surely as there are some with an innate tendency for malice, it is in the nature of every human and demonstrable in most other species the capacity for compassion. The descent into the madness of our uncivilization, in its abundant malice, has been a gradual one.

At the core, what I suggest is that "survival of the fittest" is an inapt description of natural selection. Mutual aid is a factor of evolution and we fare better as a species, in cooperation. Furthermore, whatever in our nature that makes us apex predators is not applicable to our treatment to each other, at least not evolutionarily, but only to our ecological niche. In conclusion, I do not suggest any change or even focus on gun laws, keep your guns, get more guns, sell guns and make guns, idgaf. The debate about civilization is not one that guns can address. Killing does not come naturally to all or even most. Violence does not come naturally to all or even most. The traumatized are the violent. Killing and violence are aberrations, but we have gradually slipped into a society wherein they are increasingly commonplace. I know this from experience and believe it, this is the core of my argument.

Guns don't make a society more civilized, equality does, cooperation does. Guns also do not impede equality or cooperation. These are two separate arguments for two separate debates.

I think that nature trumps (a dangerous verb in this forum) nurture. I believe that our predator-nature is more primal than any education, indoctrination, acculturation. Perhaps this puts our differences of opinion in perspective.

I believe that the various utopians (easily discerned; they are the ones who say that if only people played NICE) are the ones with the flawed concept of our human nature.

Until the baddest of the bad is willing to play nice, I'll champion universal gun rights. I believe in my right to survive an encounter with a bigger predator than I am. That, forsooth, is a civilizing idea. It punishes our most selfish fellow residents.

 

[cannabineer]

That's a curious position to take when in the same breathe you profess the unjustness of a governing body over who shall and shall not be permitted to own firearms.

As soon as that governing body submits to the rule of [the very] law [it imposed on the rest of us], i'll change my song; until then, no. In the immortal words of Joe Stalin: "trust but verify". The gun in my hand is the ultimate arbiter of fairness. If it isn't, I will be exposed to the full force of the law. I expect the same criterion to be applied to all the OTHER armed idiots.

 

[abandonconflict]

I think that nature trumps (a dangerous verb in this forum) nurture. I believe that our predator-nature is more primal than any education, indoctrination, acculturation. Perhaps this puts our differences of opinion in perspective.

Neither trumps the other. Behavior however, can only be explained by nature to a certain extent. What a person is capable of and what a person has a tendency toward are not the same. In any case, the statement you originally made, to which I responded in depth was a patently ridiculous one. Guns do not civilize, they simply make violence more efficient.

Your belief in predatory nature does not in any way address social behavior since there is no evolutionary benefit to the species to commit predatory acts, one human against another. Such acts are only explained evolutionarily (by nature) in the context of ecological niche, in other words when such acts are committed one species against another. This is not opinion, sorry to inform you, but well known to biologists. Nurture therefore, is the only way remaining to account for it.

believe that the various utopians (easily discerned; they are the ones who say that if only people played NICE) are the ones with the flawed concept of our human nature.

Xenophobia is a flawed concept. The capability to commit aberrant violent behavior may be intrinsic, but the tendency is a product of environment. It is the traumatized and desperate who commit violence.

Until the baddest of the bad is willing to play nice, I'll champion universal gun rights. I believe in my right to survive an encounter with a bigger predator than I am. That, forsooth, is a civilizing idea. It punishes our most selfish fellow residents.

Champion them to your heart's content. It is only when you make ridiculous arguments based on a deeply flawed grasp of human nature such as, "guns make us more civilized", that I will come in and wield logic so forcefully.

Guns will never bring peace.

 

[cannabineer]

Neither trumps the other. Behavior however, can only be explained by nature to a certain extent. What a person is capable of and what a person has a tendency toward are not the same. In any case, the statement you originally made, to which I responded in depth was a patently ridiculous one. Guns do not civilize, they simply make violence more efficient.

Your belief in predatory nature does not in any way address social behavior since there is no evolutionary benefit to the species to commit predatory acts, one human against another. Such acts are only explained evolutionarily (by nature) in the context of ecological niche, in other words when such acts are committed one species against another. This is not opinion, sorry to inform you, but well known to biologists. Nurture therefore, is the only way remaining to account for it.

Xenophobia is a flawed concept. The capability to commit aberrant violent behavior may be intrinsic, but the tendency is a product of environment. It is the traumatized and desperate who commit violence.

Champion them to your heart's content. It is only when you make ridiculous arguments based on a deeply flawed grasp of human nature such as, "guns make us more civilized", that I will come in and wield logic so forcefully.

Guns will never bring peace.

We are both wielding mutually incompatible logic. Logic is only as good as its premises, and on those we disagree.

It is an article of faith with me that the strongest principle of this nation is "What you say offends me most powerfully, however I will fight to the death for your right to speak your horsepoop." History will decide which of us two is more correct.

 

[abandonconflict]

We are both wielding mutually incompatible logic. Logic is only as good as its premises, and on those we disagree.

It is an article of faith with me that the strongest principle of this nation is "What you say offends me most powerfully, however I will fight to the death for your right to speak your horsepoop." History will decide which of us two is more correct.

To be clear, I am not opposed to your right to own any gun, nor your right to champion said right. Articles of your faith notwithstanding, when you make a ridiculous remark which uses xenophobia to express a political view, no matter how eloquently you do so, you should expect swift contradiction. This is particularly true when you express said xenophobia as being intrinsic to human nature. With this as your premise, I need only point out that our very mutual incompatibility lie in the difference in which we were nurtured but nature can be studied by scientists.

 

[see4]

Yes. I do believe that the right to own and operate a firearm (in this nation) is the default. If you wish to deny someone that codified right, I believe you need to have a clear, articulable and lawyer-tested rationale.

I believe the damage potential from "anarchy" is less than that inflicted by nominally well-meaning but controlling people.

As for the Wright Brothers, their first big customer was the U. S. Army. I believe that they saw clearly the potential of their new weapon/platform.

The principal difference between Rob Roy and me is that I do not think that reducing the argument to coercion/not-coercion doesn't do much to advance the discussion. Like extremist, coercion is one of those uselessly soft terms. In my opinion.

Fundamentally we agree on most points you make. Though I still argue the 2nd Amendment was not meant to put automatic rifles capable of mass death in a very short period of time into anyones' hands, namely as the thought probably did not cross the authors' mind's.

 

[see4]

As soon as that governing body submits to the rule of [the very] law [it imposed on the rest of us], i'll change my song; until then, no. In the immortal words of Joe Stalin: "trust but verify". The gun in my hand is the ultimate arbiter of fairness. If it isn't, I will be exposed to the full force of the law. I expect the same criterion to be applied to all the OTHER armed idiots.

That's where I disagree. We have a government, a democracy, so that we may appoint those who represent individual beliefs in the best way possible while said representative is representing others' as best they can, as well. Putting justice and by extension, law, into your own hands is not good for a society. Society requires rules that govern the outliers, the criminals, not to govern those who already play by the rules.

Society = social construct ( in above )

 

[bundee1]

I think that nature trumps (a dangerous verb in this forum) nurture. I believe that our predator-nature is more primal than any education, indoctrination, acculturation. Perhaps this puts our differences of opinion in perspective.

I believe that the various utopians (easily discerned; they are the ones who say that if only people played NICE) are the ones with the flawed concept of our human nature.

Until the baddest of the bad is willing to play nice, I'll champion universal gun rights. I believe in my right to survive an encounter with a bigger predator than I am. That, forsooth, is a civilizing idea. It punishes our most selfish fellow residents.

Or justifies their paranoia that the other guy is bigger.

 

[cannabineer]

That's where I disagree. We have a government, a democracy, so that we may appoint those who represent individual beliefs in the best way possible while said representative is representing others' as best they can, as well. Putting justice and by extension, law, into your own hands is not good for a society. Society requires rules that govern the outliers, the criminals, not to govern those who already play by the rules.

Society = social construct ( in above )

Putting justice entirely into the hands of the citizen leads to frank anarchy.
Putting it entirely into the hands of the collective has reliably led to tyranny.
I like neither extreme.

I agree that the law should deal principally with the outliers. However nowadays - so much law is written that works to constrain the otherwise unremarkable resident. How do you propose we address that issue that is so much more serious now that the Republic has run off the rails? The image you present of a democratic government effectively establishing (and negotiating with the citizens) our array of laws, it is sacred to Americans ... which helps obscure the fact that it isn't working well any more. I'd like to know how to work a corrupt system from within to un-corrupt it ... ideally without all the pain and grief a revolution brings.

 

[cannabineer]

Fundamentally we agree on most points you make. Though I still argue the 2nd Amendment was not meant to put automatic rifles capable of mass death in a very short period of time into anyones' hands, namely as the thought probably did not cross the authors' mind's.

As long as such weapons exist, I cannot countenance their selective prohibition. If a civilian has access to a gun, ALL civilians, unless they have been specifically excluded e.g. medically, should have that access. I see bad government every time I see a SWAT guy (a civilian in uniform) carry mil-spec stuff I am forbidden to buy, own, operate.

But I believe at this time that the Second was written with an even stricter criterion in mind: this is civic parity with the military. That is what the well-regulated militia is all about: free citizens who train with weapons that can stay and rout a formation of soldiers. You will likely disagree with me about that, but until someone can show me something from a more honest, less shockingly illiberal judicial thinker than Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor ... I'll hold to this belief, and count anyone opposing it to either be not paying attention ... or having an undisclosed dog in the hunt.

 

[cannabineer]

To be clear, I am not opposed to your right to own any gun, nor your right to champion said right. Articles of your faith notwithstanding, when you make a ridiculous remark which uses xenophobia to express a political view, no matter how eloquently you do so, you should expect swift contradiction. This is particularly true when you express said xenophobia as being intrinsic to human nature. With this as your premise, I need only point out that our very mutual incompatibility lie in the difference in which we were nurtured but nature can be studied by scientists.

I otoh think that my thoughts on the matter are heavily predicated by my genetics. Yes, I do believe humans are essentially xenophobes of the tribal variety. That is one of the duties of a civilized individual: to know the animal he is, and to control the impulses that arise from that animal nature. (Like bashing the weirdo.) You don't need to be a scientist to acknowledge the impulse ... and the moderating counterimpulse provided by our upbringing in family and society.

 

[see4]

Putting justice entirely into the hands of the citizen leads to frank anarchy.
Putting it entirely into the hands of the collective has reliably led to tyranny.
I like neither extreme.

We agree.

I agree that the law should deal principally with the outliers. However nowadays - so much law is written that works to constrain the otherwise unremarkable resident. How do you propose we address that issue that is so much more serious now that the Republic has run off the rails? The image you present of a democratic government effectively establishing (and negotiating with the citizens) our array of laws, it is sacred to Americans ... which helps obscure the fact that it isn't working well any more. I'd like to know how to work a corrupt system from within to un-corrupt it ... ideally without all the pain and grief a revolution brings.

I also agree that our current form of government and its laws isn't work as well as it should. I propose we elect representatives who represent progressive ideas allowing for a more free and tolerant society, rather than a constrained and tyrannical one. Why are we still (as a nation) still arguing about whether a woman should have the right to choose abortion or not? Why is marijuana, a substance less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, still federally illegal? Why are we (as a nation) on the brink of electing someone (Trump) who wants to give us more government and more tyranny? Why don't we simply start by getting religion and money out of politics? Why don't we stop electing Republicans who think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars on endless investigations that lead to nowhere. Or perhaps stop electing Republican judges who think its a good idea to pass laws like "Citizens United". Religion and money have no place in politics.

How is the system corrupt? We (the people) elected the representatives. We (the people) allowed them to pass the laws they did. Let's start by identifying what laws are adversely affecting our nation and try to fix them.

 

[Fogdog]

I think that nature trumps (a dangerous verb in this forum) nurture. I believe that our predator-nature is more primal than any education, indoctrination, acculturation. Perhaps this puts our differences of opinion in perspective.

I believe that the various utopians (easily discerned; they are the ones who say that if only people played NICE) are the ones with the flawed concept of our human nature.

Until the baddest of the bad is willing to play nice, I'll champion universal gun rights. I believe in my right to survive an encounter with a bigger predator than I am. That, forsooth, is a civilizing idea. It punishes our most selfish fellow residents.

You keep spouting this faux scientific concept that people are "apex predators" and predatory nature of human kind. Yet this is not the distinguishing characteristic of humanity. From your false premise, you go on and on about how weapons "make us civilized" and survival of the fittest as if life in the US is some sort of urban jungle where to live until the next day is a victory over evil doers and other humans who want to take your life.

While it's a fun fantasy to imagine us as some form of Kzin you completely miss what science and physical and social anthropology actually tell us about ourselves. The most successful species on this planet have one thing in common, a social gene for cooperation and the willingness to sacrifice for the group. This genetic predisposition for cooperation has been studied extensively in honey bees but is also present in the most successful animals on the planet, ants. Behavioral science-based mathematical models for behavior have shown quite clearly that animals who live cooperatively in communities that will rally to defend the community at the cost of individual lives are much more successful than analogous animals with the same abilities but do not cooperate. What other successful animals have this gene? Quite a few, but one of them are human.

I'm not going to argue your philosophy, which is based on some lone wolf model of behavior because it is based upon a false premise. The reality is that people do best when they cooperate with each other while having the freedom to act independently. And, actually, wolves don't survive well outside of a pack. When we cannot trust our neighbor, whether it be due to a form of threat or simply because they don't live by the same social mores as others, our ability to perform the two contradictory functions of cooperation and independence breaks down.

And so, your argument about guns as a civilizing force is ridiculous. Threatening people or performing acts that cause fear only drive people into tighter knit and smaller groups. These groups may act against others out of fear, whether imagined or real. Civilized societies that successfully operate on large scales have well understood rules of behavior where people know what to expect from each other in specific situations. They also don't kill each other out of fear. People cooperate to produce more than they can by themselves. Cooperative behavior is fundamental to pre-industrial agriculture, which is the true foundation of civilization, not the gun.

Whether we own guns or not, therefore is not relevant to civilization. Removing guns in a fragmented and fraught social situation won't make us more civilized, nor will seeding society with enough firepower to slaughter all members many times over. Removing fear and it's causes are the answers. Such as eliminate food and shelter insecurity. Remove barriers to social mobility -- let those with the most ability rise up and provide those with less ability a safety net where their dignity and security are maintained.

The reality is that, as outlined in the link below, the US and the people of world on the whole are living in some of the safest and most peaceful times in history. It feels otherwise but that's just fake fear. So again, your perceived need to arm yourself in preparation for battle with other apex predators -- this testosterone driven rhetoric is too funny to me -- is due to cowardice and fearfulness.

"forsooth" LOL, who uses that word in everyday conversation? How funny

The World Is Not Falling Apart
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html

 

[cannabineer]

We agree.



I also agree that our current form of government and its laws isn't work as well as it should. I propose we elect representatives who represent progressive ideas allowing for a more free and tolerant society, rather than a constrained and tyrannical one. Why are we still (as a nation) still arguing about whether a woman should have the right to choose abortion or not? Why is marijuana, a substance less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, still federally illegal? Why are we (as a nation) on the brink of electing someone (Trump) who wants to give us more government and more tyranny? Why don't we simply start by getting religion and money out of politics? Why don't we stop electing Republicans who think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars on endless investigations that lead to nowhere. Or perhaps stop electing Republican judges who think its a good idea to pass laws like "Citizens United". Religion and money have no place in politics.

How is the system corrupt? We (the people) elected the representatives. We (the people) allowed them to pass the laws they did. Let's start by identifying what laws are adversely affecting our nation and try to fix them.

Did you see that documentary about how the bankers pulled a fast one on us in '09? I'd suggest starting there and also looking at the insurers. I admit my knowledge of law is almost nil. But I contend that there is a "corporatocracy" that is very successfully bending the legislative apparatus to its will.

I look at the voting material and I cannot identify a candidate, from dogcatcher to president, who will talk about the real underlying issues of legislative and judicial transparency. Or promise not to endorse a Sotomayor. I welcome your specific and detailed advice on how I can do that within the system.

I am not the only person who perceives/believes this. If the others like me are not represented by the system, I see the nation headed towards painful, messy revolution ... and most of those end much worse than the bad that bred them.

I do have one suggestion, one that is technically feasible. It is Annie's idea (@curious2garden) and I have found no fatal flaw with it. Obviate the representatives. Vote all by direct plebiscite. The price of buying a rep and keeping him bought will have just become unmanageable. Remove the corruptible bottleneck. We have the technology now to make "representative government is SOOO 2nd millennium" a reality.

It'll be messy and scary but much less so than revolution. It will also force the corporations to lobby the people directly, and that can only make them "more honest". I'm curious what you think of the idea.

 

[see4]

As long as such weapons exist, I cannot countenance their selective prohibition. If a civilian has access to a gun, ALL civilians, unless they have been specifically excluded e.g. medically, should have that access. I see bad government every time I see a SWAT guy (a civilian in uniform) carry mil-spec stuff I am forbidden to buy, own, operate.

But I believe at this time that the Second was written with an even stricter criterion in mind: this is civic parity with the military. That is what the well-regulated militia is all about: free citizens who train with weapons that can stay and rout a formation of soldiers. You will likely disagree with me about that, but until someone can show me something from a more honest, less shockingly illiberal judicial thinker than Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor ... I'll hold to this belief, and count anyone opposing it to either be not paying attention ... or having an undisclosed dog in the hunt.

I agree, if a civilian, non-military or law enforcement, can have a gun, ALL citizens, non-military or law enforcement, unless specifically excluded should have access. I've never debated that point. However, we've created laws and departments, mostly by conservatives, that create a clear distinction between a "citizen" and a "military or law enforcement" person. I think we don't need to debate the differences between "citizens" and military/law enforcement personnel. If we do, I think our discussion is moot, as I think the premise would be lost on you.

We do have a well-regulated militia, it's called the United States Armed Services. And that militia and some of its operatives have trained and should be allowed to use weapons of mass destruction. Bob down the street, should not. In this we do disagree.

 

[abandonconflict]

I otoh think that my thoughts on the matter are heavily predicated by my genetics. Yes, I do believe humans are essentially xenophobes of the tribal variety.

So you're drawing a line in the sand in order to say that the known paradigm is wrong because it doesn't pertain to you and that for me to disagree is to challenge that I know you better than you do. Mention of the word genetics does not serve to give the authority of verifiable science in this case, it only narrows your argument to phenotype. What you believe is of no consequence even if you're only talking about those of your tribal phenotype (race) because we're talking about the species and not just you or those of your phenotype. This is no less accurate even if you meant that you think everyone is xenophobic against those who do not share phenotypical traits and not only your phenotype. However, your premise, that your belief is based on what you believe regarding yourself, would suggest you're arguing according to your phenotype.

That is one of the duties of a civilized individual: to know the animal he is, and to control the impulses that arise from that animal nature. (Like bashing the weirdo.)

This is not only incorrect, but it is just an old fashioned appeal to culture. You speak of duties (behavior) in regard to controlling one's self (behavior) based on how one understands one's self (behavior) and yet call it nature. It is in our nature to seek sex. It is in our nature to seek food and water. The shatterpoint of this assertion is that you consider it to be a part of our nature to "bash the weirdo", but this has never been normal behavior until modern times when societies had already become extremely unequal. In any indigenous or tribal culture, "weirdos" were treasured individuals. From transgenders to the deformed and even autistic, tribal groups throughout history have been well known to revere unique individuals with one exception.

White folks.

You don't need to be a scientist to acknowledge the impulse ... and the moderating counterimpulse provided by our upbringing in family and society.

The fact is, only one human phenotype is known to behave the way you describe. Who are the people that don't act like they're from this planet? Who are the people that believe they own the earth instead of the other way around? Who are the people that have used nuclear weapons to end a war that was already won? Who are the people that have committed genocide? Just because some people are evil doesn't mean all people are. A few other empires have sprung up after the European phenotype spread its influence which have to some extent copied those behaviors but not before and never on such a scale.

edit* added quotation marks to the word weirdo, since I did not introduce the word to the discussion.

 

[b4ds33d]

the example of what the 2nd amendment SHOULD look like- Switzerland.