Debates from the Files of The Society . . .
From the archives of The Society for Freedom Enforced Through Massive Destructive Fire Power we are going to bring you a series of debates on the nature of gun control, the death penalty and the priest confessional sacrament.
Please note that these are the views of members of The Society for Freedom Enforced Through Massive Destructive Fire Power but do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of The Society for Freedom Enforced Through Massive Destructive Fire Power.
The debate was started based on an article regarding a New Hampshire proposed law requiring Priests to break the priest confessional sacrament to report child molesters and a Mother Jones article about a former Marine who served in Iraq who ran for office on the Democratic ticket. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html
From GD
To ML
I agree the bill is fundamentally flawed for reasons B (false belief that child molesters are free because they are being protected by priests) and C (false belief that priest would violate the sacrament rather than go to jail) as stated.
I disagree with reason A. With true separation of church and state the legislators should not be granting the priest-penitent privilege. So you cannot say it is an unconstitutional encroachment on religion when earlier in the article you state that the privilege is granted by legislators.
Again I think the bill, as stated in this article by the Catholic League, is flawed and I also strongly believe in the priest-penitent relationship.
On the other hand, as a parent, anyone who stands between the law and a child molester should go to jail for aiding and abetting, I don't care who they are or their reasons.
From ML
To GD
Bill Donahue is far from a legal scholar so I won't split hairs over his choice of words; it's his underlying meaning that I point to as relevant. I have no doubt that you regard the confessional as inviolate. I certainly do of course. It is a matter of religion that is rooted in the Seven Sacraments established by Christ while He was here present in the Flesh upon the Earth. For Catholics the belief in the sanctity of the confessional is fundamental. Priest are at least tacitly expected to, and have many times, died rather than violate the seal.
BTW, I've forwarded these bulletins to you because of your recent inquiry regarding the colorform Jesus item and other assorted kitsch that was available for purchase. In that inquiry you asked my take as a Catholic and with your current explorations of the political I thought these bulletins might be of interest to you.
From GD
To ML
Please know that I find these bulletins very interesting, and since we have differing viewpoints on religion and I have such respect for your intellect, I find theses emails very interesting and informative.
Please take no offense to what may be at times poor wording, I do not seek to offend, only to provide a different point of view. That is one of the big problems with email - much of the subtly of language is lost.
You are correct that I regard the confessional as inviolate, and his underlying meaning/theme is spot on. As for his choice of words, you know me I have a real problem when people make statements that contradict something they say later. So regardless of the first point we both agree on the other two.
Believe it or not I have a great deal of respect for anyone, particularly the clergy, that not only talks the talk but walks the walk of religion. Any Priest who is willing to be jailed or killed, depending on the country, to protect the confessional or any of the sacraments is to be commended. In another email you stated that discussions of gun laws with people who have never handled guns is in some ways useless. And though you are a god parent to several children - including my own son - there is a different feeling about this issue when you are a parent. Not to imply that people who are not parents are pro-child molestation. I just take a very dim view on anyone who does not do everything within their power to protect a child.
While I hold the main basic beliefs of most religions (since most religions seems to hold certain basic ideas as true - love, honor, respect, etc) in my heart and particularly the details of the basic Christian faith (along with a couple of ideas from voodoo - but that is another story) I have not found a church where I agree with the details. As you know the devil is in the details.
I have been reading a bit about Baptists lately that I find interesting. Some sects of Baptists believe that the scriptures are open to interpretation by all through reading/prayer and your personal relation to God. The clergy serves as a teacher/guide/administrator/figurehead as you walk on your own personal journey. President Carter recently left the Baptist church that he and his family had always been a member of because they changes the rules stating that only the church can interpret the scriptures. He feels that by this, along with other changes, that the clergy is trying to come between him and his relationship with God.
From ML
To GD
No offense taken George and none meant.
I believe in responsible gun ownership. When people ask what kind of gun they should buy I tell them to buy the safe first. If you don't have a means to securely store the weapon you have no business owning one. It is because of children and family that I think guns are a needed tool for protection. Example: Tuna was in SI and his family is upstate. A noise occurs outside and his two giant shepherds go on the alert. His wife retrieves a pistol ( he trained her) and she sends the dogs out. The dogs are there to buy her time to get a shot and take a bullet for her. What/who ever it was split. The dogs ran it off the property. Now a wife, 4 daughters and a young boy are a pretty easy target. Perhaps tempting even, to some of the sick predators in this world. By applying proper precautions and instilling the correct training the family remained safe.
Now I do not argue that every family must be armed. I do contend that every family has the right to be armed. That being armed comes with great responsibility and that training is needed. If the training starts in pre-key or first grade all the better. At those age levels the training is STOP, DON'T TOUCH GET AN ADULT! That is the essence of the Eddie Eagle program developed by the NRA and it has saved lives. Every kid should take it. You may not have guns but are you sure about the house where the next kids birthday party is held? If you ask, are you sure they aren't lying? Best to train kids early.
When they are old enough, say 4th grade, allow them to participate in Air Rifle competitions under range rules. It instills discipline, develops hand/eye coordination, breath control, and confidence. When they hit 7th grade they can try .22 rifles. I did in the boy scouts. It was great. I also shot shotgun. They should have given us 20 gauge though we shot 12 gauge. I won a prize anyway. In Junior year of HS battle rifles or long distance may useful. Some guys will be going into battle at 18. Colleges also offer all kinds of ballistic clubs and there are some great scholarship opportunities involved with it.
I fully support anyone who doesn't want to have anything to do with firearms. But I refuse to compromise the security I have because of firearms to placate the irrational fears of others. My owning a gun doesn't equate to some guy shooting a place up. Taking my gun means I can't stop him and that costs lives. guns are here to stay. People must learn to deal with them.
As far as child molesters and those that cover their tracks: lock 'em up. It's a crime. That will nail it down and clear the air. The policy that was in place ( a policy common at most religious institutions during the time period in question) was horribly wrong, at least for today and today's standards. In the past it may have been worse for the stigma that attached to the victim. I wasn't there but maybe that is how the policy evolved over time.Pure speculation.
If you want a religion and can't find a religion that fits start your own sect. Of course I'll call you Koresh. Its just too easy. :-)
The Universal Church still has its deal on the web. Instant Minister. You already have the remote location and they can't use guns as an excuse to shut you down. A little Sylva mind control, a dash of hypnosis, some viral image art pieces, and you could be doing big numbers, and a lot of good work. hmmmmm...
From GD
To ML
I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. It is the assholes that worry me. Consider the damage they can do with a frozen turkey. These are the people that most people opposed to guns want to make sure do not have guns.
There was a great report on NPR several months ago about hot topic issues such as guns, abortions, gays etc. A group conducted several surveys (left wing, right wing and neutral) and they found that when they went with neutral more than 60% of the time people agreed. It was when the question was put in a polarizing context that things went weird. Most of the noise you hear in any media is to their core and unfortunately they speak to their core in that polarizing manner. That way they get the most media attention.
A lost of this preaching to the converted I went over in my blog - if you are interested in reading it - so I will not rehash it here.
I always find it interesting how two reasonable people with fairly opposite views can realize that on a lot of stuff they agree on. If the stuff we do not agree on we can agree not to force on the other, which we have done, then how the fuck come none of the dick heads in Washington can do it on a daily basis?
From ML
To GD
Car crashes kill more people in this country every year than guns by orders of magnitude. A car is far more dangerous than a gun. It used every day and people are killed by them every day. No we could outlaw cars but what about getting anywhere? Need to rush to the doctor? have to call 911. And Wait. Sometimes there is no substitute for an item. I can think of no readily available item that can substitute for a gun. I carry a gun for the same reason the police do. It's the most efficient means currently available to protect myself and others. Give a Dr. Doom force field and I'll consider a swap. Of course then people would complain about force fields being used to explode people. You can't win with some people.
Well George the problem with dickheads is that they are, well dickheads. No respect for anyone but themselves. Unable to entertain the thought that they are wrong much less someone else might be right. No effort whatsoever to understand the other guy's POV. And the true agenda is never what is being discussed. What is being discussed is actually a stepping stone for someone to accomplish a goal. There are no decent politicians. Image is virus and big business knows it. They leverage that knowledge with vast money and get their guy in every time. Nader would have been President if he ever had the money. So would Buchanan. It's a money game. Unless the voting age is raised to a level where people are hip to the buttons they have and when such are pressed things aren't likely to change.
Now a religion, or heyyyy, a movement that is religious in character, may have a chance in educating people to these buttons at an early age. I hear tell of a new Minister in the XXXXXX area preaching such things but you know how rumors are. Hehehe
From GD
To ML
Sorry comparing guns and cars does not cut it in my book. The universal need for a car vs the universal need for a gun. Gun looses. Besides hunting and protection how many active positive things do guns do. Cars transport the sick, fire trucks, the police, transport food, people to work, carry medicine, transport ammunition to gun stores, etc. Cars can be used to hurt (run over people), heal (carry people to medical facilities) and protect (bring police or get a victim away). Guns hurt and protect. 3 out of 3 beats 2 out of 3.
If you want to get into the sport of guns - cars provide sport as well. Both provide a sense of self esteem, pride and independence.
Have a great visit with your dad and give him my best.
The problem with starting a religion is that I am too lazy. Just running an illuminati lodge 2 days a month for a year was a pain. A religion 365. Have you seen the guys in the religion department, seriously over worked. I don't know. There would have to be a lot of willing teenage girls. All hail Bob Dobbs!
From ML
To GD
Guns heal too. Ask a terrified rape victim if having a gun is helping heal her psyche and ease her terror. We could go back and forth on this all day. I don't think the comparison unfair between guns and cars. It addresses the point that just because something can be used to cause the death of another does not necessarily mean that its use or existence should be forbidden. Cars kill more civilians by orders of magnitude. Add to it that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right and a lot of any umph in death numbers dues to firearms dissipates. Also, how about the numbers reflecting the lives saved due to the use of firearms? That isn't mentioned much but it is important.
I no longer contribute to the NRA. I find them to be to chicken-shit. I am a member of Gun Owners of America. The only no compromise gun lobby on the hill. They are very informative and they back up their position with real data. Not skewered manufactured crap that much of the anti-gun lobby seems to spew. You can view their site at http://www.gunowners.org/ .
The insanity of Australia and the chaos that has ensued due to their draconian gun confiscation is not something I would consider tolerating. The easiest, most expedient solution to the wrongful use of firearms by some jagoff is to shoot back. That would have solved Columbine. I see Columbine as an excellent example of why one carries a gun. If a few teachers had a gun and knew how to use such they would have ended that spree pretty early on.
You can never get rid of guns. They are too prolific; too wide spread. All that can happen is that law abiding people will be rendered defenseless. And it isn't some inert steel that is the problem. It's the pathology of maniacs that's problematic. Why do some see crime as the only solution they have? Why is crime the only solution some have? Why are some so angry and upset that they will take a gun to express such? What leads them to this point? It is often a perceived callous society that has abandoned and worked against the person that has snapped. No one wants to discuss the real reasons behind the problems we face and help solve them.
I'll pass your regards onto my Dad.
B-b-b-b-b-b-bob! B-b-b-b-b-bob! B-b-b-b-bob! :-) Any revivals in your area? ;-)
Misc back and forth
GD - Can a gun put out a fire?
ML - Yes. Shoot a hole in a water tower.
GD -Not a lot of water towers in NYC. Most of the fire hydrants are at ground level - which means you have to bring in hoses and pumpers - need at car/truck to do that. Again
GD - Can a single gun bring in large quantities of food in a short period of time the way a tracker trailer can?
ML - Yes. Put it to the head of a guy driving large quantities of food in a tractor trailer. Furthermore it can ensure thatthe delivery does not get diverted or stolen.
GD- You are relying on a car to bring in the food, and using the gun to get it where you want. Try again without using the car/truck.
GD- Can a gun get you away from bad weather or a natural disaster?
ML- Yes. See answer above.
GD - Try again using the gun without a vehicle- you are stuck.
GD - If we are going to compare the number of lives taken by cars vs guns, I wonder about the number of lives saved by guns vs the number of lives saved by cars (ambulances, fire engines, polices, etc.)?
ML - They issue every cop a gun. Not every cop gets a car. Ponder that.
GD - True, but that does not answer the question. Plus subway cops really do not need a car, do they.
GD - Ok I will grant that guns can have a possible healing affect on a psyche basis for victims of violent crimes. But when my son was having problems breathing last December I was glad for a car and a gun would have been of no use. We have both had various medical problems over the years and as we age we can only expect them to increase. The next time I have a gall stone attack so bad that I have to go back to the hospital I am going to want a car not a gun. If a family member of yours is having an immediate medical emergency are you going to give them a gun or call an ambulance?
ML - Fire the gun and the smell of cordite opens the lungs. There is something about shooting at the range that is like using an inhaler for me. If facing medical problems I will go to the front of the line at the ER. No one will question it. (Actually, trongue in cheek aside, something like that happened with Eddie V. He was suffering from CO poisoning. He was taken to the ER and they triaged him incorrectly. It wasn't until Mikey F. pulled a piece and said you'll see this man now that they took him right away. Doctor said it saved his life. - True story.)
GD - Sure you will go to the front line - but how are you going to get there without a car?
GD - I say that the comparison is unfair because cars are so much more versatile than guns. The much broader range of applications for a car vs. the broad range of applications for a gun, for me, makes the comparison unworkable, again for me, as an argument.
ML - Well, you seem to be comparing the which is better, cars or guns? That was never my intent as I see them as apple and oranges. My point in regard to autos was to illustrated how faulty many anti-gun arguements are. And btw, a gun can always get you a car, but a car won't always get you a gun.
GD - Sorry, it seemed as your intent to compare guns to cars. Since your point was to show how faulty some anti-gun arguments are - I totally agree.
GD - For me, and many of the non-fringe, the issue of gun control has never been about taking away the rights of law abiding citizens. It has been about making it harder for the maniacs and nuts to get guns. To try and keep things like the shootings that just happened in at the Post office from happening. Sure you can argue if the other people had guns they could have defended themselves.
ML - I'd also argue that if the other people were known to have guns the incident might not have ever been attempted. But I would also ask in that case what the fuck did they do to this woman day in and day out that she was driven to do that??? How much abuse did they pile on her.
GD - OK, lets work on this scenario and let me know when people are allowed to fire back:
Person A walks into a facility carrying a hand gun intending on hurting people.
Person B spots A and the gun, and suspects that A plans on hurting people. When can B open fire - before or after A has shot? If B shoots first and there is no evidence (i.e. note or such) to prove that A planned on hurting people, plus the fact that A had the legal right to carry, does that mean B is guilty of murder?
ML - B blew it. Murder or manslaughter. The test (at least in FL) is would a reasonable man consider this a life threatening situation. If you can't sell it to a jury you are cooked. Trying to explain how your Jedi prescience foretold the danger ain't gonna float in a court of law.
GD - Lets assume B fires first. What if B misses A (in the excitement and all, never having actually shot a person before) and hits C. D who was standing next to C, does not see the hand gun A has and only the gun B has used. Can D open fire on B?
ML - The criteria is fear for your life. So having the guy next to you fall over dead would qualify in my book as fear for your life. If D believed that B is the source of the shot that killed C than yes. He must believe the target is a threat to his life. I believe in the circumstance you describe, it would be reasonable for D to fire on B. I would. And I wouldn't miss. Now if B was a careful to aim correctly this wouldn't necessarily be needed.
GD - The greater potential of escalation exists in a situation where there are multiple guns in a high stress situation. You never hear about some nut crashing into a building and then other people getting in their cars and ramming into him or other people in self defense.
ML - What? I'm not following your train of thought clearly. Flesh that out a bit, please. Thanks. There is the case of the guy in Texas who drove his pick-up truck into a dinner in (clap-clap-clap-clap) TEXAS (where I too can carry a gun) and got out of the truck and started capping people. Diners killed him in a hail of bullets. I love TEXAS. It's one of my favorite countries. Yes, I consider Texas it's own country. ;-)
GD - What about the case about 5-7 years ago. Some students got lost on their way to a weekend party at a friends house/cabin in the country. The pulled over in front of another and one went up to the door to ask directions. The owner of the house opened the door and shot and killed him. He felt he was in danger - strange kids outside and he lived in the woods, he figured he was in danger. If you remember he was found innocent at trial. But let's say the kids, all over 21 also had guns. To them they are in danger, some crazy guy just came out and shot and killed one of their group. Can they shoot at the owner of the house in self defense? Under the idea of no retreat can they shoot or do they have to drive away? In the real case they used a car to escape.
ML - I don't recollect the case. Sounds like an old boy network got that guy off or there is more to the story. We had a case here in Boca recently where a kid who was having his 16th b-day party ran across the street and rang the neighbor's bell. Apparently this guy didn't like kids and they were breaking his balls etc. etc. This time he answers the door with a gun and kills the kid. he says he saw something shiny. The kid was shot in the back. he was convicted and is doing time. Fuckin' tragic.
As to the other people returning fire an Crazy Coot: I would. Fuckin' guy just killed my friend for knocking on his door. I have a real fear for my life here. For all I know this is Ed Gaines' house revisited. Before the law in FL was recently changed the others would be obliged to attempt retreat if possible. This could of course jeopardize their lives further by giving Crazy Coot multiple targets to shoot at a rather leisurely rate. The law here was changed because of that. It is foolish to attempt to run away when faced with incoming fire, You can't outrun a bullet. Dive for cover sure. But run down the street while the guy takes a long hard bead on your silhouette will probably get you killed. So they changed the law.
GD - Ultimately we agree that the right to bear arms is very important. What we disagree with is to what extend, if any, does the right to be safe from nuts with guns interfere with the right to bear arms.
For me I think you should be required to go through something similar to drivers ed to get a gun. Take a safety class, and maybe a class on conflict resolution, pass a test, maybe even a marksmanship test along with a criminal background check. After that you get rifles. Behave for a probation period then you can get hand guns. etc. I also agree that before you can get a gun you have to purchase a gun safe. That should be legally required in my book.
ML - I am all for having to pass a competency course. i believe that the bar is too low. Right now one just has to demonstrate a physical ability to pull the trigger and hit a man sized target at 10 feet. I would prefer a higher level of accuracy.
GD - I also think guns should be registered. We register cars and need licenses for dogs in some states. This is not to keep tabs on who has the guns so we can come get them, but to try and keep assholes from selling their legally obtained guns to people who may have a criminal background. Yes criminals will always have guns, but this simple act will just make it a little bit more difficult for them to get them.
ML - Historically, gun registration has always led to gun confiscation. Always. I can't agree with it. After JFK was hit by the mob/cia/ufos/dillenger/jams/cuba/anyone-but-oswald conspiracy it came to pass that all firearm transaction would be recorded at the dealer level and that all such dealer records would be kept by the dealer. That there would never be a centralized database of gun ownership records. That if a history regarding a gun transaction was needed it would require a request/order to a dealer for the record in question. This only passed because assurances were given that there never would be a centralization of gun records. The movement to create a centralized database is solely to conduct seizure of weapons. All large transactions in weapons are reported as it is anyway. Background checks are run every time one purchases a weapon at an FFL or gun show. There is no need for a centralized database. Especially of long arms. How often are long arms used for crime? The only reason to register long arms is to confiscate them.
GD - I see your point, but fundamentally disagree with it. Registration is also about know what is out there and where. Without registration how to you keep tabs to make sure no one sells to a felon? Should we tattoo felons with the words "DO Not Sell Him A Gun" on his forehead?
ML - The whole point of avoiding registration is to prevent the government knowing what is out there and where. We apparently are opposed on this point at a fundamental level.
Keeping tabs on felons is done through the background checks. The people are tracked, not the guns. The system also has a lot of false positives. That is it indicates not to sell to someone who is fine to sell to. If you have a common (i.e. John Smith, and live in the same zip code as say any John Smith who happens to be a felon you will be denied and must appeal to purchase. Once they investigate and confirm your not the felon the purchase will be allowed. Sucks if your name is say Bundy or Dahmer, eh?
Living in a free society has risks associated with it. I prefer the free society to the dictatorships (unless I'm the dictator - but even then...). There is no way to completely prevent criminals from acquiring guns. Can't be done. Even if gun confiscation went into effect and all gun transactions were outlawed it wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns. But it would render the population defenseless.
Also, the whole "ballistic fingerprint" idea is nonsense to anyone with a smidgen of gunsmith knowledge. That whole Pataki thing with the spent casings is bullshit. Change the extractor, or run a file over the current extractor (often done to tune the extractor legitimately) and the whole profile changes. Frangible ammo usually eliminates barrel ballistics. This is nothing more than another way to harass gun owners and another step toward gun confiscation.
The fear of felons or others who are of ill intent in acquiring firearms should not be the basis of judgment of my Right to Bear Arms. The fear that someone might say something offensive shouldn't limit free speech. This also goes to my problem with hate crime/hate speech legislation. The intent, character, or meaning of speech or thought cannot be legislated. Actions can be criminal, not thoughts or the exchange of ideas. One cannot penalize people for a potential. Rights are Rights, not revocable privileges.
I oppose the government tattooing, implanting chips, or otherwise physically cataloging people. I believe in a basic human right to privacy an such cataloging and control efforts are not acceptable to me. I know your a bit tongue in cheek about the tattooing but it does raise the point. The nazis tattooed the prisoners in the death camps. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of government cataloging because of the potential for abuse. I trust the government to abuse every inch it gets.
GD - I like the idea of insurance for gun owners. There is a basic level of insurance you need to carry in NY if you own a car. This is to financially protect the victims should there be an accident. I toy with the idea that gun owners should be required to carry similar insurance. There was a case in AZ or NM where at a party an asshole fired his pistol into the air. The bullet came down and struck and killed a child. No amount of insurance would ever cover that, but at least it would cover things like the burial. What if the child had lived and been crippled, the insurance would have helped throughout their life.
ML - I can't countenance the idea of insurance. By legislating high minimums or such people could effectively be disarmed because they are poor. Economic dicrimination. The worst kind of discrimination. poor people can't afford body guards. If they buy a gun that is their primary defense. By having any kind of financial requirement one is impeading the Right. Here in Florida quite the oposite holds true. People who use firearms to defend themselves and are found to have justly done so are indemnified from being sued.
GD - What about people who do not use a gun justly but lack the financial means to compensate their victims? So a person can bear arms but is not required to be able to compensate a victim in the case of an accident. "Sorry I forgot to lock the safe and my kid crippled your kid, but I'm broke so piss off." If a person can pull together the money to take the classes (which we both agree should be a requirement of gun ownership), can pull together the money for a gun safe and then for a gun, but oops can't afford to cover insurance in case of an accident. Sorry that does not cut it in my book. It is not only a right but also a responsibility. People are required to carry car insurance because accidents, honest mistakes happen. So what the poor will not be financially responsible for gun accidents?
ML - Smacks of oligarchy. The only Rights you have are the ones you can afford. As far as accountability for improper usage there are criminal penalties on the books. Potential civil liabilities exist when it was a bad shoot as well. You can always get a judgment against a poor person but will unlikely collect. Driving is a privilege. There is a criteria to be met to be extended that privilege. Arms are a Right. The ownership thereof is implicit. The lack of funding for hurt people is more of an issue with the problematic health care system. You get the medicine you can afford and there needs to be improvement on that.
My support of education in firearms is through the schools. It should be part of the curriculum. Safes (Gun Vault is only $200) should be part of the mandatory building code. I believe a higher competency should be the criteria for concealed carry but not for household use. In the general public arena the variables rise. In your house it's pretty cut and dry. Either they are an intruder or they are not. Either you are reasonably in fear for your life or your not.The castle (as in a man's home is his castle) laws exempted people in their homes (or car) from having to retreat prior to the changes in law that now no longer require retreat.
GD - I also think that if you do something stupid with a gun, your right to bear arms goes away. End of discussion, want to be an ass with a gun then you are not enough of an adult to carry a gun.
ML - Usually anything involving being an ass with a gun is a felony. Felons have no right to bear arms. An actual example: A woman goes to the mechanic to pick up her car so she can get her kids. The mahanic tells it will cost more meoney and she can't have the car until she pays. She pulls an uloaded gun out of her bag, points it at the mechanic and says give me the car. She wanted to pick her kids up. The mechanic disarmed her and called the police. She was sentenced to a mandatory 3 years.
GD - I really do not see why anybody needs an Uzi. Things like heavy duty assault weapons and machine guns if people are going to be able to have them would require additional education, background checks and insurance.
ML - Uzis, .50 cals, and other heavy weaponry insure American freedom. It provides that the capacity to overthrow the government by force lies resident in the populace. I am for repealing many of the laws prohibiting machine guns. There are justified fears of governmental abuse. Germans are not innately evil. yet Nazism rose in Germany. What happened there can happen anywhere. But because the people were disarmed they could not defend themselves and were taken by the boxcar to slaughter like cattle. I will not abide the disarming of the people. The power to ensure freedom lies in the Right to bear arms. If not for that Right there is no absolute guarantee that ensures the others.
GD - If things in the country ever get so weird that people seriously need to over through the government, long before that my ass will be on the moon so fast it will make your head spin.
ML - The poor don't have that option and many that love The American Dream will stay and fight to make it Right again. They should be armed to allow them the capacity to do it. I trust in the people over the government. Particularly a government that seems hell bent on using foreign troops against its own people.
GD - Gun Registration
You stated that "Felons have no right to bear arms." So does that mean that if you as a private citizen wanted to sell someone a gun, you would perform a background check to make sure he is not a felon?
ML - At present I'm only required to do so at a gun show as far as I know. If I sell any guns it's through my local mdealer on consignment. Saves me trouble and gets me buyers.
GD - What resources would a private citizen have to make this check?
ML - The FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) sets up at every gun show with a table that everyone uses to do the instant check. At the dealer they call a special number. It's a $25 fee as i recall.
GD - If it is legally required to do a background check, but there is no gun registration how do we know that a check was done?
ML - With dealers there is an audit done or could be done on their books by the BATF&E.
GD - What legal ramifications are there to the seller if he failed to do, or did a poor background check?
ML - Revocation of license, big fines, possible prison.
GD - If the felon then goes and commits a crime after no background check, or a clearly inadequate one, is the seller liable for the crime in any way?
ML - Not for the crime that the perp committed. For any crime involving an illegal transfer, yes.
GD - By registering guns we inhibit the ability to transfer the guns to those that even you admit have no right to bear arms. How do we do this without registration?
ML - There is no way to do this with 100% certitude. The best that can be done is background checks and that only appiles when a transfer involves a dealer or takes place at a gun show. Private transfers have a less strict criteria. I'd have to look it up but I think you have to confirm the person is an in state resident and of age. There may be a requirment that they have a ccw for a pistol transfer. The details may be at packing.org
GD - Come up with a viable solution and I will back it. You are right, criminals, if they really want to, will always find a way to get a gun. But that does not mean we should just make it easy for them.
ML - There is no viable solution that can meet your concerns as far I can see that I would find acceptable. You want total centralized accounting of all weapons and the transfer thereof. I fundamentally oppose this and accept any fallout as part of the price of freedom. The best thing to do when shot at is shoot back.
GD - You stated "I trust the government to abuse every inch it gets." The government is made up of people, and people are inherently greedy, regardless of if they are in politics. Personally I find the statement "I trust everyone to abuse every inch they get." This includes gun owners and those who do not own guns.
ML - I disagree. I point to Ruby Ridge and Waco. What happened there is a prime example of governmental abuse. They were as bad as the SS. Generally, people are live and lt live. When the Hun is at your gate you want a gun. The government commits abuses and atrocities all the time. They account to no one. Who was tried for the murder of the Weavers? For the assault and murder at Waco? These thugs are out of control. I trust the people over the government everyday.
GD - What about if gun groups and the government funded a autonomous group whose responsibility was to track the sale of guns to ensure guns were not transferred to felons. There is legislation coming up for vote regarding DNA evidence. If a suspect is picked up and upon DNA testing it turns out that the person is innocent, the DNA materials are returned and the records destroyed. What about something like that. If you want to sell a gun you have to submit paper work to this group. Once it is confirmed that the buyer is OK, whatever paperwork can be destroyed is. Should you choose to sell without filing you get into a lot of trouble. Just an idea and I know there are a lot oh holes in it. Just trying to come up with a solution to make it difficult for private citizens to sell to felons.
ML - No accountabilty. How do I know they are doing it right? I see no way to prevent illegal gun sales by adding more systems and tracking. There are harse laws on the books as it is regarding firearms trafficking penalties. Illegal gun sales always will happen. I knew where to get guns in NYC and there was nothing legal about that. As long as there is a market the product will appear. I've never seen a coco plant in NYC but I've seen a lot of blow there. It's shipped from another continent to get there. Same would happen with guns if they shut 'em done.
GD - Gun Insurance
We both know that gun safes as building codes and school taught gun safety are not going to happen. So again we are left with people having to come up with funds to exercise their right.
ML - I disagree. I think this could actually be achieved. Eddie Eagle already lectures in many schools by invite. I just want to make it mandatory and at the very least offer ballistic sports in schools. They are great sports that instill pride, teach discipline, and develop character.
GD - Insurance rates based on background checks, gun safety test scores, marksmanship scores, gun safe specs, house hold/ target shooting use vs. carry permit, etc do not need to be excessive. For household use it could be a simple rider onto a homeowners or rental insurance policy.
ML - Get people affordable medical insurance. I'll back that. No on the insurance req.to have a gun. it's a Right, not a privilege. I see this as equivalent to literacy tests to vote. We know how that ended up.
GD - The Right to bear arms is specifically stated in relation to self preservation and over throw of the government should it be necessary. The insurance is to protect those injured during an accident during any other activity.
ML - Healthcare issue in my view. Has no bearing on the exercise of a Right.
I think we've pretty much boiled it down to the areas we disagree on and why. What do you think?
GD - Yea we have pretty much flogged this one. Except on one point:
We both know that gun safes as building codes and school taught gun safety are not going to happen. So again we are left with people having to come up with funds to exercise their right.
ML - I disagree. I think this could actually be achieved. Eddie Eagle already lectures in many schools by invite. I just want to make it mandatory and at the very least offer ballistic sports in schools. They are great sports that instill pride, teach discipline, and develop character.
GD - Considering that sports funding at schools is rapidly declining in the US for traditional school sports such as football, baseball, hockey, etc. the amount of funding that would have to be pumped into the school system before schools would go ahead and add something like ballistics sports again make gun safety at school unrealistic.
ML - I think the money could come out of the defense budget. They'd get better soldiers; we'd all get better, more responsible citizens.
GD - Before we fund shooting let's get the math and science grades back up where they shoot be.
ML - Department of Defense again. Ballistic sciences need good mathmeticians. The president is calling for an increase in math and science teachers. this could all tie together.
GD - So you are again up against the question of having to expend money to exercise your right - even if it just to purchase the gun. Very simple to add a basic insurance policy into the purchase price. This would also eliminate the need for registration as the insurance companies would be ones making sure felons do end up with guns. Two birds with one shot.
ML - This reminds me of Moynihan's idea to tax ammo so that it was like a $1000 a bullet. No thanks. I'll pass. Added costs serve to impede the Right. I can't abide that. It's a healthcare or burial issue.
GD - On the other hand I would have no problem with the elimination of registration if there was a total overhaul of the educational system so that American children received the full educational advantage that the US could provide. Then I would feel comfortable with people having the background to help make informed decisions. Funny that guns are a right but education is not.
ML - That's a great point. I've considered for some time that the general population is intentionally kept undereducated. I too would like to see a much improved school system.
GD- No qualms from me about taking money from the defense budget to improve education.
So the two points we are stuck with:
I am for registration for the sole reason of trying to keep private citizens from selling guns to people we both agree have given up their right to bear arms.
I think that there should be some system to ensure that victims of accidents are compensated for their loss.
Just out of curiosity -
You feel that felons do not have the right to bear arms and yet to my knowledge that restriction is not in the bill of rights. Please explain.
ML - I'm glad you asked for clarification on this point. The current law is such that felons loose many Rights even after they have fulfilled their sentence. This includes the Right to Vote and the Right to Bear Arms. I actually oppose this but it is the current law. I believe once you have paid the debt that you should get a clean slate. As it is a felon can pay a fee for restoration of his Rights in this State. It's about 5k last I looked. I believe this to be ridiculous and the type of thing that keeps recidivism high. I don't know if that restoration is moot in regard to guns because of a federal preemption of State law or if State law still precludes the gun issue by another defacto power (i.e. an automatic non-approval on all purchases). I'll ask the next time I'm at the gun dealers. Or I'll send an email to the BATF&E. As for my personal take on this: it depends on what the crime was and the circumstances. There should at least be some viable means to petition for the restoration of the Right to Bear Arms. I don't think that a guy who stole a car as a kid and has now cleaned up his act and wants to live in the country is a real threat if he hunts deer on his land. Ted Bundy is a different animal.
GD - Ok let me just make sure I am clear on this. You agree that the State has the right to remove the right to bear arms depending on the nature of their previous conviction. Something seriously violent enough or possibly a crime involving gun use or misuse?
Please note that these are the views of members of The Society for Freedom Enforced Through Massive Destructive Fire Power but do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of The Society for Freedom Enforced Through Massive Destructive Fire Power.
The debate was started based on an article regarding a New Hampshire proposed law requiring Priests to break the priest confessional sacrament to report child molesters and a Mother Jones article about a former Marine who served in Iraq who ran for office on the Democratic ticket. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html
From GD
To ML
I agree the bill is fundamentally flawed for reasons B (false belief that child molesters are free because they are being protected by priests) and C (false belief that priest would violate the sacrament rather than go to jail) as stated.
I disagree with reason A. With true separation of church and state the legislators should not be granting the priest-penitent privilege. So you cannot say it is an unconstitutional encroachment on religion when earlier in the article you state that the privilege is granted by legislators.
Again I think the bill, as stated in this article by the Catholic League, is flawed and I also strongly believe in the priest-penitent relationship.
On the other hand, as a parent, anyone who stands between the law and a child molester should go to jail for aiding and abetting, I don't care who they are or their reasons.
From ML
To GD
Bill Donahue is far from a legal scholar so I won't split hairs over his choice of words; it's his underlying meaning that I point to as relevant. I have no doubt that you regard the confessional as inviolate. I certainly do of course. It is a matter of religion that is rooted in the Seven Sacraments established by Christ while He was here present in the Flesh upon the Earth. For Catholics the belief in the sanctity of the confessional is fundamental. Priest are at least tacitly expected to, and have many times, died rather than violate the seal.
BTW, I've forwarded these bulletins to you because of your recent inquiry regarding the colorform Jesus item and other assorted kitsch that was available for purchase. In that inquiry you asked my take as a Catholic and with your current explorations of the political I thought these bulletins might be of interest to you.
From GD
To ML
Please know that I find these bulletins very interesting, and since we have differing viewpoints on religion and I have such respect for your intellect, I find theses emails very interesting and informative.
Please take no offense to what may be at times poor wording, I do not seek to offend, only to provide a different point of view. That is one of the big problems with email - much of the subtly of language is lost.
You are correct that I regard the confessional as inviolate, and his underlying meaning/theme is spot on. As for his choice of words, you know me I have a real problem when people make statements that contradict something they say later. So regardless of the first point we both agree on the other two.
Believe it or not I have a great deal of respect for anyone, particularly the clergy, that not only talks the talk but walks the walk of religion. Any Priest who is willing to be jailed or killed, depending on the country, to protect the confessional or any of the sacraments is to be commended. In another email you stated that discussions of gun laws with people who have never handled guns is in some ways useless. And though you are a god parent to several children - including my own son - there is a different feeling about this issue when you are a parent. Not to imply that people who are not parents are pro-child molestation. I just take a very dim view on anyone who does not do everything within their power to protect a child.
While I hold the main basic beliefs of most religions (since most religions seems to hold certain basic ideas as true - love, honor, respect, etc) in my heart and particularly the details of the basic Christian faith (along with a couple of ideas from voodoo - but that is another story) I have not found a church where I agree with the details. As you know the devil is in the details.
I have been reading a bit about Baptists lately that I find interesting. Some sects of Baptists believe that the scriptures are open to interpretation by all through reading/prayer and your personal relation to God. The clergy serves as a teacher/guide/administrator/figurehead as you walk on your own personal journey. President Carter recently left the Baptist church that he and his family had always been a member of because they changes the rules stating that only the church can interpret the scriptures. He feels that by this, along with other changes, that the clergy is trying to come between him and his relationship with God.
From ML
To GD
No offense taken George and none meant.
I believe in responsible gun ownership. When people ask what kind of gun they should buy I tell them to buy the safe first. If you don't have a means to securely store the weapon you have no business owning one. It is because of children and family that I think guns are a needed tool for protection. Example: Tuna was in SI and his family is upstate. A noise occurs outside and his two giant shepherds go on the alert. His wife retrieves a pistol ( he trained her) and she sends the dogs out. The dogs are there to buy her time to get a shot and take a bullet for her. What/who ever it was split. The dogs ran it off the property. Now a wife, 4 daughters and a young boy are a pretty easy target. Perhaps tempting even, to some of the sick predators in this world. By applying proper precautions and instilling the correct training the family remained safe.
Now I do not argue that every family must be armed. I do contend that every family has the right to be armed. That being armed comes with great responsibility and that training is needed. If the training starts in pre-key or first grade all the better. At those age levels the training is STOP, DON'T TOUCH GET AN ADULT! That is the essence of the Eddie Eagle program developed by the NRA and it has saved lives. Every kid should take it. You may not have guns but are you sure about the house where the next kids birthday party is held? If you ask, are you sure they aren't lying? Best to train kids early.
When they are old enough, say 4th grade, allow them to participate in Air Rifle competitions under range rules. It instills discipline, develops hand/eye coordination, breath control, and confidence. When they hit 7th grade they can try .22 rifles. I did in the boy scouts. It was great. I also shot shotgun. They should have given us 20 gauge though we shot 12 gauge. I won a prize anyway. In Junior year of HS battle rifles or long distance may useful. Some guys will be going into battle at 18. Colleges also offer all kinds of ballistic clubs and there are some great scholarship opportunities involved with it.
I fully support anyone who doesn't want to have anything to do with firearms. But I refuse to compromise the security I have because of firearms to placate the irrational fears of others. My owning a gun doesn't equate to some guy shooting a place up. Taking my gun means I can't stop him and that costs lives. guns are here to stay. People must learn to deal with them.
As far as child molesters and those that cover their tracks: lock 'em up. It's a crime. That will nail it down and clear the air. The policy that was in place ( a policy common at most religious institutions during the time period in question) was horribly wrong, at least for today and today's standards. In the past it may have been worse for the stigma that attached to the victim. I wasn't there but maybe that is how the policy evolved over time.Pure speculation.
If you want a religion and can't find a religion that fits start your own sect. Of course I'll call you Koresh. Its just too easy. :-)
The Universal Church still has its deal on the web. Instant Minister. You already have the remote location and they can't use guns as an excuse to shut you down. A little Sylva mind control, a dash of hypnosis, some viral image art pieces, and you could be doing big numbers, and a lot of good work. hmmmmm...
From GD
To ML
I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. It is the assholes that worry me. Consider the damage they can do with a frozen turkey. These are the people that most people opposed to guns want to make sure do not have guns.
There was a great report on NPR several months ago about hot topic issues such as guns, abortions, gays etc. A group conducted several surveys (left wing, right wing and neutral) and they found that when they went with neutral more than 60% of the time people agreed. It was when the question was put in a polarizing context that things went weird. Most of the noise you hear in any media is to their core and unfortunately they speak to their core in that polarizing manner. That way they get the most media attention.
A lost of this preaching to the converted I went over in my blog - if you are interested in reading it - so I will not rehash it here.
I always find it interesting how two reasonable people with fairly opposite views can realize that on a lot of stuff they agree on. If the stuff we do not agree on we can agree not to force on the other, which we have done, then how the fuck come none of the dick heads in Washington can do it on a daily basis?
From ML
To GD
Car crashes kill more people in this country every year than guns by orders of magnitude. A car is far more dangerous than a gun. It used every day and people are killed by them every day. No we could outlaw cars but what about getting anywhere? Need to rush to the doctor? have to call 911. And Wait. Sometimes there is no substitute for an item. I can think of no readily available item that can substitute for a gun. I carry a gun for the same reason the police do. It's the most efficient means currently available to protect myself and others. Give a Dr. Doom force field and I'll consider a swap. Of course then people would complain about force fields being used to explode people. You can't win with some people.
Well George the problem with dickheads is that they are, well dickheads. No respect for anyone but themselves. Unable to entertain the thought that they are wrong much less someone else might be right. No effort whatsoever to understand the other guy's POV. And the true agenda is never what is being discussed. What is being discussed is actually a stepping stone for someone to accomplish a goal. There are no decent politicians. Image is virus and big business knows it. They leverage that knowledge with vast money and get their guy in every time. Nader would have been President if he ever had the money. So would Buchanan. It's a money game. Unless the voting age is raised to a level where people are hip to the buttons they have and when such are pressed things aren't likely to change.
Now a religion, or heyyyy, a movement that is religious in character, may have a chance in educating people to these buttons at an early age. I hear tell of a new Minister in the XXXXXX area preaching such things but you know how rumors are. Hehehe
From GD
To ML
Sorry comparing guns and cars does not cut it in my book. The universal need for a car vs the universal need for a gun. Gun looses. Besides hunting and protection how many active positive things do guns do. Cars transport the sick, fire trucks, the police, transport food, people to work, carry medicine, transport ammunition to gun stores, etc. Cars can be used to hurt (run over people), heal (carry people to medical facilities) and protect (bring police or get a victim away). Guns hurt and protect. 3 out of 3 beats 2 out of 3.
If you want to get into the sport of guns - cars provide sport as well. Both provide a sense of self esteem, pride and independence.
Have a great visit with your dad and give him my best.
The problem with starting a religion is that I am too lazy. Just running an illuminati lodge 2 days a month for a year was a pain. A religion 365. Have you seen the guys in the religion department, seriously over worked. I don't know. There would have to be a lot of willing teenage girls. All hail Bob Dobbs!
From ML
To GD
Guns heal too. Ask a terrified rape victim if having a gun is helping heal her psyche and ease her terror. We could go back and forth on this all day. I don't think the comparison unfair between guns and cars. It addresses the point that just because something can be used to cause the death of another does not necessarily mean that its use or existence should be forbidden. Cars kill more civilians by orders of magnitude. Add to it that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right and a lot of any umph in death numbers dues to firearms dissipates. Also, how about the numbers reflecting the lives saved due to the use of firearms? That isn't mentioned much but it is important.
I no longer contribute to the NRA. I find them to be to chicken-shit. I am a member of Gun Owners of America. The only no compromise gun lobby on the hill. They are very informative and they back up their position with real data. Not skewered manufactured crap that much of the anti-gun lobby seems to spew. You can view their site at http://www.gunowners.org/ .
The insanity of Australia and the chaos that has ensued due to their draconian gun confiscation is not something I would consider tolerating. The easiest, most expedient solution to the wrongful use of firearms by some jagoff is to shoot back. That would have solved Columbine. I see Columbine as an excellent example of why one carries a gun. If a few teachers had a gun and knew how to use such they would have ended that spree pretty early on.
You can never get rid of guns. They are too prolific; too wide spread. All that can happen is that law abiding people will be rendered defenseless. And it isn't some inert steel that is the problem. It's the pathology of maniacs that's problematic. Why do some see crime as the only solution they have? Why is crime the only solution some have? Why are some so angry and upset that they will take a gun to express such? What leads them to this point? It is often a perceived callous society that has abandoned and worked against the person that has snapped. No one wants to discuss the real reasons behind the problems we face and help solve them.
I'll pass your regards onto my Dad.
B-b-b-b-b-b-bob! B-b-b-b-b-bob! B-b-b-b-bob! :-) Any revivals in your area? ;-)
Misc back and forth
GD - Can a gun put out a fire?
ML - Yes. Shoot a hole in a water tower.
GD -Not a lot of water towers in NYC. Most of the fire hydrants are at ground level - which means you have to bring in hoses and pumpers - need at car/truck to do that. Again
GD - Can a single gun bring in large quantities of food in a short period of time the way a tracker trailer can?
ML - Yes. Put it to the head of a guy driving large quantities of food in a tractor trailer. Furthermore it can ensure thatthe delivery does not get diverted or stolen.
GD- You are relying on a car to bring in the food, and using the gun to get it where you want. Try again without using the car/truck.
GD- Can a gun get you away from bad weather or a natural disaster?
ML- Yes. See answer above.
GD - Try again using the gun without a vehicle- you are stuck.
GD - If we are going to compare the number of lives taken by cars vs guns, I wonder about the number of lives saved by guns vs the number of lives saved by cars (ambulances, fire engines, polices, etc.)?
ML - They issue every cop a gun. Not every cop gets a car. Ponder that.
GD - True, but that does not answer the question. Plus subway cops really do not need a car, do they.
GD - Ok I will grant that guns can have a possible healing affect on a psyche basis for victims of violent crimes. But when my son was having problems breathing last December I was glad for a car and a gun would have been of no use. We have both had various medical problems over the years and as we age we can only expect them to increase. The next time I have a gall stone attack so bad that I have to go back to the hospital I am going to want a car not a gun. If a family member of yours is having an immediate medical emergency are you going to give them a gun or call an ambulance?
ML - Fire the gun and the smell of cordite opens the lungs. There is something about shooting at the range that is like using an inhaler for me. If facing medical problems I will go to the front of the line at the ER. No one will question it. (Actually, trongue in cheek aside, something like that happened with Eddie V. He was suffering from CO poisoning. He was taken to the ER and they triaged him incorrectly. It wasn't until Mikey F. pulled a piece and said you'll see this man now that they took him right away. Doctor said it saved his life. - True story.)
GD - Sure you will go to the front line - but how are you going to get there without a car?
GD - I say that the comparison is unfair because cars are so much more versatile than guns. The much broader range of applications for a car vs. the broad range of applications for a gun, for me, makes the comparison unworkable, again for me, as an argument.
ML - Well, you seem to be comparing the which is better, cars or guns? That was never my intent as I see them as apple and oranges. My point in regard to autos was to illustrated how faulty many anti-gun arguements are. And btw, a gun can always get you a car, but a car won't always get you a gun.
GD - Sorry, it seemed as your intent to compare guns to cars. Since your point was to show how faulty some anti-gun arguments are - I totally agree.
GD - For me, and many of the non-fringe, the issue of gun control has never been about taking away the rights of law abiding citizens. It has been about making it harder for the maniacs and nuts to get guns. To try and keep things like the shootings that just happened in at the Post office from happening. Sure you can argue if the other people had guns they could have defended themselves.
ML - I'd also argue that if the other people were known to have guns the incident might not have ever been attempted. But I would also ask in that case what the fuck did they do to this woman day in and day out that she was driven to do that??? How much abuse did they pile on her.
GD - OK, lets work on this scenario and let me know when people are allowed to fire back:
Person A walks into a facility carrying a hand gun intending on hurting people.
Person B spots A and the gun, and suspects that A plans on hurting people. When can B open fire - before or after A has shot? If B shoots first and there is no evidence (i.e. note or such) to prove that A planned on hurting people, plus the fact that A had the legal right to carry, does that mean B is guilty of murder?
ML - B blew it. Murder or manslaughter. The test (at least in FL) is would a reasonable man consider this a life threatening situation. If you can't sell it to a jury you are cooked. Trying to explain how your Jedi prescience foretold the danger ain't gonna float in a court of law.
GD - Lets assume B fires first. What if B misses A (in the excitement and all, never having actually shot a person before) and hits C. D who was standing next to C, does not see the hand gun A has and only the gun B has used. Can D open fire on B?
ML - The criteria is fear for your life. So having the guy next to you fall over dead would qualify in my book as fear for your life. If D believed that B is the source of the shot that killed C than yes. He must believe the target is a threat to his life. I believe in the circumstance you describe, it would be reasonable for D to fire on B. I would. And I wouldn't miss. Now if B was a careful to aim correctly this wouldn't necessarily be needed.
GD - The greater potential of escalation exists in a situation where there are multiple guns in a high stress situation. You never hear about some nut crashing into a building and then other people getting in their cars and ramming into him or other people in self defense.
ML - What? I'm not following your train of thought clearly. Flesh that out a bit, please. Thanks. There is the case of the guy in Texas who drove his pick-up truck into a dinner in (clap-clap-clap-clap) TEXAS (where I too can carry a gun) and got out of the truck and started capping people. Diners killed him in a hail of bullets. I love TEXAS. It's one of my favorite countries. Yes, I consider Texas it's own country. ;-)
GD - What about the case about 5-7 years ago. Some students got lost on their way to a weekend party at a friends house/cabin in the country. The pulled over in front of another and one went up to the door to ask directions. The owner of the house opened the door and shot and killed him. He felt he was in danger - strange kids outside and he lived in the woods, he figured he was in danger. If you remember he was found innocent at trial. But let's say the kids, all over 21 also had guns. To them they are in danger, some crazy guy just came out and shot and killed one of their group. Can they shoot at the owner of the house in self defense? Under the idea of no retreat can they shoot or do they have to drive away? In the real case they used a car to escape.
ML - I don't recollect the case. Sounds like an old boy network got that guy off or there is more to the story. We had a case here in Boca recently where a kid who was having his 16th b-day party ran across the street and rang the neighbor's bell. Apparently this guy didn't like kids and they were breaking his balls etc. etc. This time he answers the door with a gun and kills the kid. he says he saw something shiny. The kid was shot in the back. he was convicted and is doing time. Fuckin' tragic.
As to the other people returning fire an Crazy Coot: I would. Fuckin' guy just killed my friend for knocking on his door. I have a real fear for my life here. For all I know this is Ed Gaines' house revisited. Before the law in FL was recently changed the others would be obliged to attempt retreat if possible. This could of course jeopardize their lives further by giving Crazy Coot multiple targets to shoot at a rather leisurely rate. The law here was changed because of that. It is foolish to attempt to run away when faced with incoming fire, You can't outrun a bullet. Dive for cover sure. But run down the street while the guy takes a long hard bead on your silhouette will probably get you killed. So they changed the law.
GD - Ultimately we agree that the right to bear arms is very important. What we disagree with is to what extend, if any, does the right to be safe from nuts with guns interfere with the right to bear arms.
For me I think you should be required to go through something similar to drivers ed to get a gun. Take a safety class, and maybe a class on conflict resolution, pass a test, maybe even a marksmanship test along with a criminal background check. After that you get rifles. Behave for a probation period then you can get hand guns. etc. I also agree that before you can get a gun you have to purchase a gun safe. That should be legally required in my book.
ML - I am all for having to pass a competency course. i believe that the bar is too low. Right now one just has to demonstrate a physical ability to pull the trigger and hit a man sized target at 10 feet. I would prefer a higher level of accuracy.
GD - I also think guns should be registered. We register cars and need licenses for dogs in some states. This is not to keep tabs on who has the guns so we can come get them, but to try and keep assholes from selling their legally obtained guns to people who may have a criminal background. Yes criminals will always have guns, but this simple act will just make it a little bit more difficult for them to get them.
ML - Historically, gun registration has always led to gun confiscation. Always. I can't agree with it. After JFK was hit by the mob/cia/ufos/dillenger/jams/cuba/anyone-but-oswald conspiracy it came to pass that all firearm transaction would be recorded at the dealer level and that all such dealer records would be kept by the dealer. That there would never be a centralized database of gun ownership records. That if a history regarding a gun transaction was needed it would require a request/order to a dealer for the record in question. This only passed because assurances were given that there never would be a centralization of gun records. The movement to create a centralized database is solely to conduct seizure of weapons. All large transactions in weapons are reported as it is anyway. Background checks are run every time one purchases a weapon at an FFL or gun show. There is no need for a centralized database. Especially of long arms. How often are long arms used for crime? The only reason to register long arms is to confiscate them.
GD - I see your point, but fundamentally disagree with it. Registration is also about know what is out there and where. Without registration how to you keep tabs to make sure no one sells to a felon? Should we tattoo felons with the words "DO Not Sell Him A Gun" on his forehead?
ML - The whole point of avoiding registration is to prevent the government knowing what is out there and where. We apparently are opposed on this point at a fundamental level.
Keeping tabs on felons is done through the background checks. The people are tracked, not the guns. The system also has a lot of false positives. That is it indicates not to sell to someone who is fine to sell to. If you have a common (i.e. John Smith, and live in the same zip code as say any John Smith who happens to be a felon you will be denied and must appeal to purchase. Once they investigate and confirm your not the felon the purchase will be allowed. Sucks if your name is say Bundy or Dahmer, eh?
Living in a free society has risks associated with it. I prefer the free society to the dictatorships (unless I'm the dictator - but even then...). There is no way to completely prevent criminals from acquiring guns. Can't be done. Even if gun confiscation went into effect and all gun transactions were outlawed it wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns. But it would render the population defenseless.
Also, the whole "ballistic fingerprint" idea is nonsense to anyone with a smidgen of gunsmith knowledge. That whole Pataki thing with the spent casings is bullshit. Change the extractor, or run a file over the current extractor (often done to tune the extractor legitimately) and the whole profile changes. Frangible ammo usually eliminates barrel ballistics. This is nothing more than another way to harass gun owners and another step toward gun confiscation.
The fear of felons or others who are of ill intent in acquiring firearms should not be the basis of judgment of my Right to Bear Arms. The fear that someone might say something offensive shouldn't limit free speech. This also goes to my problem with hate crime/hate speech legislation. The intent, character, or meaning of speech or thought cannot be legislated. Actions can be criminal, not thoughts or the exchange of ideas. One cannot penalize people for a potential. Rights are Rights, not revocable privileges.
I oppose the government tattooing, implanting chips, or otherwise physically cataloging people. I believe in a basic human right to privacy an such cataloging and control efforts are not acceptable to me. I know your a bit tongue in cheek about the tattooing but it does raise the point. The nazis tattooed the prisoners in the death camps. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of government cataloging because of the potential for abuse. I trust the government to abuse every inch it gets.
GD - I like the idea of insurance for gun owners. There is a basic level of insurance you need to carry in NY if you own a car. This is to financially protect the victims should there be an accident. I toy with the idea that gun owners should be required to carry similar insurance. There was a case in AZ or NM where at a party an asshole fired his pistol into the air. The bullet came down and struck and killed a child. No amount of insurance would ever cover that, but at least it would cover things like the burial. What if the child had lived and been crippled, the insurance would have helped throughout their life.
ML - I can't countenance the idea of insurance. By legislating high minimums or such people could effectively be disarmed because they are poor. Economic dicrimination. The worst kind of discrimination. poor people can't afford body guards. If they buy a gun that is their primary defense. By having any kind of financial requirement one is impeading the Right. Here in Florida quite the oposite holds true. People who use firearms to defend themselves and are found to have justly done so are indemnified from being sued.
GD - What about people who do not use a gun justly but lack the financial means to compensate their victims? So a person can bear arms but is not required to be able to compensate a victim in the case of an accident. "Sorry I forgot to lock the safe and my kid crippled your kid, but I'm broke so piss off." If a person can pull together the money to take the classes (which we both agree should be a requirement of gun ownership), can pull together the money for a gun safe and then for a gun, but oops can't afford to cover insurance in case of an accident. Sorry that does not cut it in my book. It is not only a right but also a responsibility. People are required to carry car insurance because accidents, honest mistakes happen. So what the poor will not be financially responsible for gun accidents?
ML - Smacks of oligarchy. The only Rights you have are the ones you can afford. As far as accountability for improper usage there are criminal penalties on the books. Potential civil liabilities exist when it was a bad shoot as well. You can always get a judgment against a poor person but will unlikely collect. Driving is a privilege. There is a criteria to be met to be extended that privilege. Arms are a Right. The ownership thereof is implicit. The lack of funding for hurt people is more of an issue with the problematic health care system. You get the medicine you can afford and there needs to be improvement on that.
My support of education in firearms is through the schools. It should be part of the curriculum. Safes (Gun Vault is only $200) should be part of the mandatory building code. I believe a higher competency should be the criteria for concealed carry but not for household use. In the general public arena the variables rise. In your house it's pretty cut and dry. Either they are an intruder or they are not. Either you are reasonably in fear for your life or your not.The castle (as in a man's home is his castle) laws exempted people in their homes (or car) from having to retreat prior to the changes in law that now no longer require retreat.
GD - I also think that if you do something stupid with a gun, your right to bear arms goes away. End of discussion, want to be an ass with a gun then you are not enough of an adult to carry a gun.
ML - Usually anything involving being an ass with a gun is a felony. Felons have no right to bear arms. An actual example: A woman goes to the mechanic to pick up her car so she can get her kids. The mahanic tells it will cost more meoney and she can't have the car until she pays. She pulls an uloaded gun out of her bag, points it at the mechanic and says give me the car. She wanted to pick her kids up. The mechanic disarmed her and called the police. She was sentenced to a mandatory 3 years.
GD - I really do not see why anybody needs an Uzi. Things like heavy duty assault weapons and machine guns if people are going to be able to have them would require additional education, background checks and insurance.
ML - Uzis, .50 cals, and other heavy weaponry insure American freedom. It provides that the capacity to overthrow the government by force lies resident in the populace. I am for repealing many of the laws prohibiting machine guns. There are justified fears of governmental abuse. Germans are not innately evil. yet Nazism rose in Germany. What happened there can happen anywhere. But because the people were disarmed they could not defend themselves and were taken by the boxcar to slaughter like cattle. I will not abide the disarming of the people. The power to ensure freedom lies in the Right to bear arms. If not for that Right there is no absolute guarantee that ensures the others.
GD - If things in the country ever get so weird that people seriously need to over through the government, long before that my ass will be on the moon so fast it will make your head spin.
ML - The poor don't have that option and many that love The American Dream will stay and fight to make it Right again. They should be armed to allow them the capacity to do it. I trust in the people over the government. Particularly a government that seems hell bent on using foreign troops against its own people.
GD - Gun Registration
You stated that "Felons have no right to bear arms." So does that mean that if you as a private citizen wanted to sell someone a gun, you would perform a background check to make sure he is not a felon?
ML - At present I'm only required to do so at a gun show as far as I know. If I sell any guns it's through my local mdealer on consignment. Saves me trouble and gets me buyers.
GD - What resources would a private citizen have to make this check?
ML - The FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) sets up at every gun show with a table that everyone uses to do the instant check. At the dealer they call a special number. It's a $25 fee as i recall.
GD - If it is legally required to do a background check, but there is no gun registration how do we know that a check was done?
ML - With dealers there is an audit done or could be done on their books by the BATF&E.
GD - What legal ramifications are there to the seller if he failed to do, or did a poor background check?
ML - Revocation of license, big fines, possible prison.
GD - If the felon then goes and commits a crime after no background check, or a clearly inadequate one, is the seller liable for the crime in any way?
ML - Not for the crime that the perp committed. For any crime involving an illegal transfer, yes.
GD - By registering guns we inhibit the ability to transfer the guns to those that even you admit have no right to bear arms. How do we do this without registration?
ML - There is no way to do this with 100% certitude. The best that can be done is background checks and that only appiles when a transfer involves a dealer or takes place at a gun show. Private transfers have a less strict criteria. I'd have to look it up but I think you have to confirm the person is an in state resident and of age. There may be a requirment that they have a ccw for a pistol transfer. The details may be at packing.org
GD - Come up with a viable solution and I will back it. You are right, criminals, if they really want to, will always find a way to get a gun. But that does not mean we should just make it easy for them.
ML - There is no viable solution that can meet your concerns as far I can see that I would find acceptable. You want total centralized accounting of all weapons and the transfer thereof. I fundamentally oppose this and accept any fallout as part of the price of freedom. The best thing to do when shot at is shoot back.
GD - You stated "I trust the government to abuse every inch it gets." The government is made up of people, and people are inherently greedy, regardless of if they are in politics. Personally I find the statement "I trust everyone to abuse every inch they get." This includes gun owners and those who do not own guns.
ML - I disagree. I point to Ruby Ridge and Waco. What happened there is a prime example of governmental abuse. They were as bad as the SS. Generally, people are live and lt live. When the Hun is at your gate you want a gun. The government commits abuses and atrocities all the time. They account to no one. Who was tried for the murder of the Weavers? For the assault and murder at Waco? These thugs are out of control. I trust the people over the government everyday.
GD - What about if gun groups and the government funded a autonomous group whose responsibility was to track the sale of guns to ensure guns were not transferred to felons. There is legislation coming up for vote regarding DNA evidence. If a suspect is picked up and upon DNA testing it turns out that the person is innocent, the DNA materials are returned and the records destroyed. What about something like that. If you want to sell a gun you have to submit paper work to this group. Once it is confirmed that the buyer is OK, whatever paperwork can be destroyed is. Should you choose to sell without filing you get into a lot of trouble. Just an idea and I know there are a lot oh holes in it. Just trying to come up with a solution to make it difficult for private citizens to sell to felons.
ML - No accountabilty. How do I know they are doing it right? I see no way to prevent illegal gun sales by adding more systems and tracking. There are harse laws on the books as it is regarding firearms trafficking penalties. Illegal gun sales always will happen. I knew where to get guns in NYC and there was nothing legal about that. As long as there is a market the product will appear. I've never seen a coco plant in NYC but I've seen a lot of blow there. It's shipped from another continent to get there. Same would happen with guns if they shut 'em done.
GD - Gun Insurance
We both know that gun safes as building codes and school taught gun safety are not going to happen. So again we are left with people having to come up with funds to exercise their right.
ML - I disagree. I think this could actually be achieved. Eddie Eagle already lectures in many schools by invite. I just want to make it mandatory and at the very least offer ballistic sports in schools. They are great sports that instill pride, teach discipline, and develop character.
GD - Insurance rates based on background checks, gun safety test scores, marksmanship scores, gun safe specs, house hold/ target shooting use vs. carry permit, etc do not need to be excessive. For household use it could be a simple rider onto a homeowners or rental insurance policy.
ML - Get people affordable medical insurance. I'll back that. No on the insurance req.to have a gun. it's a Right, not a privilege. I see this as equivalent to literacy tests to vote. We know how that ended up.
GD - The Right to bear arms is specifically stated in relation to self preservation and over throw of the government should it be necessary. The insurance is to protect those injured during an accident during any other activity.
ML - Healthcare issue in my view. Has no bearing on the exercise of a Right.
I think we've pretty much boiled it down to the areas we disagree on and why. What do you think?
GD - Yea we have pretty much flogged this one. Except on one point:
We both know that gun safes as building codes and school taught gun safety are not going to happen. So again we are left with people having to come up with funds to exercise their right.
ML - I disagree. I think this could actually be achieved. Eddie Eagle already lectures in many schools by invite. I just want to make it mandatory and at the very least offer ballistic sports in schools. They are great sports that instill pride, teach discipline, and develop character.
GD - Considering that sports funding at schools is rapidly declining in the US for traditional school sports such as football, baseball, hockey, etc. the amount of funding that would have to be pumped into the school system before schools would go ahead and add something like ballistics sports again make gun safety at school unrealistic.
ML - I think the money could come out of the defense budget. They'd get better soldiers; we'd all get better, more responsible citizens.
GD - Before we fund shooting let's get the math and science grades back up where they shoot be.
ML - Department of Defense again. Ballistic sciences need good mathmeticians. The president is calling for an increase in math and science teachers. this could all tie together.
GD - So you are again up against the question of having to expend money to exercise your right - even if it just to purchase the gun. Very simple to add a basic insurance policy into the purchase price. This would also eliminate the need for registration as the insurance companies would be ones making sure felons do end up with guns. Two birds with one shot.
ML - This reminds me of Moynihan's idea to tax ammo so that it was like a $1000 a bullet. No thanks. I'll pass. Added costs serve to impede the Right. I can't abide that. It's a healthcare or burial issue.
GD - On the other hand I would have no problem with the elimination of registration if there was a total overhaul of the educational system so that American children received the full educational advantage that the US could provide. Then I would feel comfortable with people having the background to help make informed decisions. Funny that guns are a right but education is not.
ML - That's a great point. I've considered for some time that the general population is intentionally kept undereducated. I too would like to see a much improved school system.
GD- No qualms from me about taking money from the defense budget to improve education.
So the two points we are stuck with:
I am for registration for the sole reason of trying to keep private citizens from selling guns to people we both agree have given up their right to bear arms.
I think that there should be some system to ensure that victims of accidents are compensated for their loss.
Just out of curiosity -
You feel that felons do not have the right to bear arms and yet to my knowledge that restriction is not in the bill of rights. Please explain.
ML - I'm glad you asked for clarification on this point. The current law is such that felons loose many Rights even after they have fulfilled their sentence. This includes the Right to Vote and the Right to Bear Arms. I actually oppose this but it is the current law. I believe once you have paid the debt that you should get a clean slate. As it is a felon can pay a fee for restoration of his Rights in this State. It's about 5k last I looked. I believe this to be ridiculous and the type of thing that keeps recidivism high. I don't know if that restoration is moot in regard to guns because of a federal preemption of State law or if State law still precludes the gun issue by another defacto power (i.e. an automatic non-approval on all purchases). I'll ask the next time I'm at the gun dealers. Or I'll send an email to the BATF&E. As for my personal take on this: it depends on what the crime was and the circumstances. There should at least be some viable means to petition for the restoration of the Right to Bear Arms. I don't think that a guy who stole a car as a kid and has now cleaned up his act and wants to live in the country is a real threat if he hunts deer on his land. Ted Bundy is a different animal.
GD - Ok let me just make sure I am clear on this. You agree that the State has the right to remove the right to bear arms depending on the nature of their previous conviction. Something seriously violent enough or possibly a crime involving gun use or misuse?
posted by GD at 3:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home