End Game: "It’s Time For Gun Abolition. We Need To Ban All Civilian Guns."

[Fishrrman]

Invar wrote:
"Actually I enjoyed 'Unintended Consequences' a lot more"

Actually, so did I.
But "Turner" is still an important volume on the reading list.

[GtHawk]

I'm beginning to think "riding shotgun" doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

You mean it has nothing to do with this?

[RoosGirl]

You mean it has nothing to do with this?

I honestly have no idea what that is.

[Sanguine]

I honestly have no idea what that is.

Me either.  But, @GtHawk does have some interesting taste in art.

[GtHawk]

Me either.  But, @GtHawk does have some interesting taste in art.

Riding Shotgun is something I remember my son having around,  You should've seen what I read as a kid.

     

Superheroes were just too boring and the artwork in these, much more interesting.
@Sanguine

[Sanguine]

I hear ya, @GtHawk.  I'm still a Frazetta fan. 

[GtHawk]

I hear ya, @GtHawk.  I'm still a Frazetta fan.

He does nice work, I always admired the illustrators for Sci Fi and Fantasy, bringing the Authors words to life.

[LauraTXNM]

@Jazzhead   @Cyber Liberty
The intent of the 2A is clearly supported by the writings of the people that wrote it.   They stated their intent and belief that an armed populace was necessary for a free populace.

The Constitution doesn't give us the right, it protects it from Government interference.

Once again, I'm way behind.  But if we're strict Constitutionalists, we are to look ONLY to the Constitution as our base?

[LauraTXNM]

The question isn't how many restraining orders were disobeyed, but how many were obeyed.  Folks on this thread get wood at the idea of being outlaws,  but most of us are willing to obey a lawful court order because of the potential consequences.

I can look up the report if anyone's interested.  It went county by county and included the numbers of cases where people got their weapons back at a later hearing, etc.

To clarify -- this is the mental health restraining orders I'm talking about -- families requesting a mentally ill family member be restricted from arms while under treatment, etc.  I'm not talking about traditional domestic violence restraining orders.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[thackney]

The question isn't how many restraining orders were disobeyed, but how many were obeyed.

@Jazzhead

According to the The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, some studies show ~20% obeyed, and ~80 broken; others have better results.  Remember, this is a lawful order to someone who already decided to break the law.  The person is the problem in these cases, not the pipe, club, knife, gun, etc...

Do Protection Orders Protect?
http://jaapl.org/content/38/3/376

[goatprairie]

Riding Shotgun is something I remember my son having around,  You should've seen what I read as a kid.

     

Superheroes were just too boring and the artwork in these, much more interesting.
@Sanguine

I had several uncles who were about ten years older than me.  They had some Tales From The Crypt comics from the early fifties they gave me and older brother.
I was about ten or twelve at the time.  Scared the fecal matter out of me.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

According to the The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, some studies show ~20% obeyed, and ~80 broken; others have better results.  Remember, this is a lawful order to someone who already decided to break the law.  The person is the problem in these cases, not the pipe, club, knife, gun, etc...

Do Protection Orders Protect?
http://jaapl.org/content/38/3/376

Keep in mind that there are two types of protection orders -  the study you cite appears to focus on personal protection orders, where, for example, an abusive spouse is ordered to stay away from the family home.    It doesn't surprise me that a lot of those types of orders get disobeyed - as some have suggested perhaps the abused spouse should get a gun and serve as her own deputy. 

A gun violence restraining order affects the property of the abuser,  removing the guns that he can use to facilitate mayhem.   Sure, he can cause mayhem by other means,  but a gun is likely the most efficient and deadly.    So long as due process is followed,  I see no real downside to a GVRO.   It is certainly efficacious in accomplishing its intended purpose - separating a dangerous nut from his guns.   

[INVAR]

A gun violence restraining order affects the property of the abuser,  removing the guns that he can use to facilitate mayhem.   Sure, he can cause mayhem by other means,  but a gun is likely the most efficient and deadly.    So long as due process is followed,  I see no real downside to a GVRO.   It is certainly efficacious in accomplishing its intended purpose - separating a dangerous nut from his guns.

We don't trust the government or people like you to follow due process when engaged in punishing thought crime.

It doesn't matter what stupid, moronic, imbecilic and Orwellian ideas you attempt to suggest is the best way to achieve defacto gun confiscation and disarmament.

The most efficacious way of dealing with a nut job with a gun, is another with a gun to put them down when they attempt mayhem.  Works every time it is tried.  Most of the time just the threat of return fire is enough to be a preventative to gun violence. 

We say NO, to all your stupid arguments.

[Jazzhead]

So the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness?   That may be the way it's done in a Tennessee holler, but I suspect that most Americans prefer - and respect - the rule of law.

[driftdiver]

So the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness?   That may be the way it's done in a Tennessee holler, but I suspect that most Americans prefer - and respect - the rule of law.

@Jazzhead
Laws don't make peace and they don't make for safety.  Likewise a bunch of armed police on every corner don't make peace.

Morality, integrity, and honesty among good people make the peace.

Your wet dream of a 'safe' world held at the point of a cops gun is the epitome of a totalitarian state.

[INVAR]

So the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness?   That may be the way it's done in a Tennessee holler, but I suspect that most Americans prefer - and respect - the rule of law.

The solution to nut jobs, criminals and tyrants is the exercise of our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.

What you advocate here is NOT the rule of law, but the rule of tyranny.

And we are not having it.

It is precisely why we have guns in the first place: to prevent police-state morons like you from imposing your utopia with more 'laws'.

[INVAR]

Your wet dream of a 'safe' world held at the point of a cops gun is the epitome of a totalitarian state.

That is what he wants when you digest nearly everything he posts to this board.  His sick, perverted version of Animal Farm being imposed with a voluminous deluge of newspeak towards a dystopian version of Ingsoc.

[HoustonSam]

The law says you can purchase a rifle at 18; it doesn't forbid a seller from imposing a more stringent age requirement.   Age in this context isn't a protected characteristic like race, gender and (in some places) sexual orientation.   Walmart could lawfully, believe it or not, refuse to sell guns to liberals.  Political ideology likewise isn't a protected characteristic.

The question you are being asked is not what the law says, it is what does @Jazzhead say.

You argue consistently that a baker "gave his word" when he advertised that he sold wedding cakes, and should be required to keep his word, without regard for his values.  Did WalMart "give its word" when it advertised selling rifles?  By what logic do you, Jazzhead, not the law, distinguish the case of compelling the baker to sell with no restrictions because he "gave his word" by advertising and operating a public accommodation, but allowing WalMart to maintain restrictions on what it sells, even though it "gave its word" by advertising and operating a public accommodation?

Now you can fairly respond "because it's the law", but then you'll be forced logically to defend bad laws and you will lose any defensible ground for ever arguing to change any existing law.

You are being asked what you think *should be*.  You evade when you respond with what *is*.

[INVAR]

The question you are being asked is not what the law says, it is what does @Jazzhead say.

You argue consistently that a baker "gave his word" when he advertised that he sold wedding cakes, and should be required to keep his word, without regard for his values.  Did WalMart "give its word" when it advertised selling rifles?  By what logic do you, Jazzhead, not the law, distinguish the case of compelling the baker to sell with no restrictions because he "gave his word" by advertising and operating a public accommodation, but allowing WalMart to maintain restrictions on what it sells, even though it "gave its word" by advertising and operating a public accommodation?

Now you can fairly respond "because it's the law", but then you'll be forced logically to defend bad laws and you will lose any defensible ground for ever arguing to change any existing law.

You are being asked what you think *should be*.  You evade when you respond with what *is*.

Our resident Tyranny-Advocate will tell you the the difference between the state forcing someone to bake a cake for homosexuals against their will, and a retailer selling a gun they advertise - is 'equal protection under the law' bullshit.

[HoustonSam]

Come on, ML.  I've said time and again that I believe abortion is morally wrong.  But I haven't the right or the authority, and neither does the government, to impose my morality on another.

Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer. 

Why are you so insecure in your beliefs to think that persuasion can't work?   

And yet @Jazzhead you argue precisely that your morality should be imposed on the baker, by force of law.  Now in fairness you have also argued that the civil penalty should have been one dollar, not a ruinous fine, but the fact of government coercion remains, whether imposed by a velvet glove or a mailed fist, since the former threatens the latter.

Are you so insecure in your beliefs to think persuasion can't work to influence the baker to operate as you believe he should?  (You see, shaming and intellectually dishonest positions don't behoove me any more than they do you.)

What is the basis for distinguishing cases where your beliefs can be imposed on another by coercion, and where they cannot?  To put a finer point on it, is the right to buy a wedding cake from a particular baker actually more deserving of government protection than the right to life in utero?  And remember, I'm asking you a subjunctive question, not an indicative one; citing the actual law is not a valid answer.

[jpsb]

I did that on another thread, I'm not doing it again, and I'm not going to look it up for you.  It's not my fault you chose to ignore it, Mr. Judicial Supremacist.

@Cyber Liberty @RoosGirl

As usual @Jazzhead does not know what he is talking about from Wiki

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme
Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an
individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful
purposes, such as self-defense

[Cyber Liberty]

So the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness?   That may be the way it's done in a Tennessee holler, but I suspect that most Americans prefer - and respect - the rule of law.

"Tennessee holler?"  So we have @Jazzhead version "Snob" today?

Talking about a "holler" is a lot like calling people of a certain race a "N***."  A person of that race can do that, but I can't because I'm white.  Unless you live in the holler I would suggest you just erase the term from your vocabulary.

[HoustonSam]

The Constitution is very relevant.  But the 2A, facially, doesn't protect the individual right.  How do you explain away the predicate clause, Mr. Strict Constructionist?   

Because the subject clause doesn't say "the right of the militia", it says "the right of the people."

The Constitution *should be* relevant, but as long as the legal profession succeeds in arguing that the Constitution *doesn't mean* what it *does say* (for example about the RKBA), and it *does mean* what it *doesn't say* (for example about "choice"), then appeals to court interpretation will be regarded as sophistry.  This is the exact reason that many in the land, including frequent posters on this board, routinely invoke the specter of gun seizures and allude to armed resistance.

[jpsb]

So the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness?   That may be the way it's done in a Tennessee holler, but I suspect that most Americans prefer - and respect - the rule of law.

A moral people, something you know nothing about (again) have a moral duty to disobey an immoral
law.

[Sanguine]

And, remember, the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right which means that it is a right that exists as a condition of one's being a person and citizen of this country, and was so important that the FF's thought it necessary to enumerate it in the Bill of Rights.