Gun control in the U.S. is probably a lost cause

[virginia mountainman]

Interesting read from a gun control advocate

Here is a brief excerpt, highlights are mine;

"No," I told him. "I've given up on gun control. That battle is over. We've lost. I no longer think it's an achievable goal and if I were a politician I wouldn't lose an election over it."

The audience, a liberal group, was properly aghast. That answer was so unlike me.

I've been writing a newspaper column for nigh on to 45 years now and in that time I have written something on the order of 75 columns calling for more stringent gun control. Every time some misbegotten teenager dragged a duffel bag full of automatic weapons to school in order to punish classmates for laughing at him, every time a postal worker has gone postal, every time an innocent child has taken a stray bullet in the head, I have been there. With a column.

A fat lot of good it has done me or anyone else.......

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/OPINIONS/807130304

[damntexdem]

1. It's too important to be dead.

We must keep it alive.

[grantcart]

2. no I agree its completely futile and the reason is there are too many

people that will make this a one issue barometer.


On the other side we may want better controls but we are not willing to become one issue voters for it.


And the NRA does have one point and that is that they are not doing enough to enforce the laws on the books already.


What is the point of adding more laws if they aren't going to enforce the ones that are already there?

[tburnsten]

7. Concurrent sentencing is a bitch

really nullifies the whole idea of harsher sentences for people who use a gun in commission of a crime. If the sentences can all be served at once, what's the point of even sentencing them? People who commit crimes and use a firearm are not white-collar criminals, they don't have a career that they might be able to get back into with lesser sentences, they just care about how long they are in prison for. So giving them eighty years in various sentences that they only have to serve six of isn't real productive.

[Raskolnik]

3. What do you think should be done? n/t

[virginia mountainman]

4. Are you joking??

I am sick of loosing elections, and besides, WE, are Democrats, we stand for the bill of rights...It is Republican's that take away rights...

Now, excuse me for a while, I need to clean my wife's pistol. She just got done teaching another one of her Friends from work, an RN, how to shoot!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I seriously doubt that she taught a Friend to shoot -

since when capitalized, Friend refers to a Quaker.

[SteveM]

12. I can't vouch for another's spelling, but you should reconsider...

your over-all outlook on Quakers/Friends:

http://quakerthink.blogspot.com/2008/06/im-quaker-i-own-gun.html

[iverglas]

13. or maybe you should try reading the article you cite

And to claim that the Peace Testimony requires me to give up the gun I use to protect my beehives from a marauding raccoon is a connection that I don’t understand. Were I using my weapon on people, or even storing it to keep that option available, then of course it would be a different matter. But I don't, ...

Huh. That Quaker doesn't seem to be a dupe of the racist misogynist right wing.

Now, if only he'd thought about what his Peace Testimony might have to say about people who keep handguns to use on marauding raccoons when said handguns get stolen and used on sleeping children shot through open windows ...

His position on whether personal convictions should be argued to influence public policy is really just a tad too sanguine.

Would he really argue there should be no laws against homicide, because he should not impose his religious beliefs on others?

Pshaw.

[SteveM]

20. I did. You are logically way off base. See comment preceding mine (nt)

[kevin roberts]

48. stolen guns? personal conviction? religion?

hello iverglas

was your interest in my opinion on gun control primarily related to the theft issue, the personal conviction issue, or imposition of religious beliefs?

i'd be happy to explain my opinion on each, if you have an interest. all three together cover a lot of area.

kevin

[iverglas]

49. how fascinating

I actually didn't express much interest in much of anything, I thought.

I was responding to someone using your website to make some sort of point. I'd have thought you might first be interested in what point he was using it to make. Given as how he's the one who dragged your website into the discussion and then just left it sitting there.

Maybe, while you're at it, you could ask him what he meant when he told me I was "logically way off base". Made not a stitch of sense to me, that.

Of course, I'm assuming you are who you say you are. Doesn't matter one way or another, really.

[kevin roberts]

51. continuing conversation

iverglas, my name is kevin roberts, i'm a friend, and i write an occasional blog which i call quakerthink.

i'm afraid i don't have enough time to back up to the beginning of a long, long conversation, but you asked several questions as to what i thought about guns, and you have an opportunity now to discuss the issue, if you're interested.

i'm afraid the conversation will be slow, as i'm doing too many things at once to keep connected.

kevin

[iverglas]

53. I'm sorry to disappoint

But I'm really not at all interested in your positions on much of anything.

Someone here dredged up your blog in an attempt to make some point.

The "questions" in my original post were pretty much what you'd call rhetorical.

I think the views expressed on that page of your blog, not just about firearms control, are quite well covered by the term "conservative" as it is used in the United States.

I don't see you as representative of broader Quaker thought, and I don't find you views on anything any more interesting than I find the views of any other stranger with the overall political ideology you seem to espouse.

I do hope that you keep your firearms well secured against unauthorized use and misuse. I think your comments about religion and the public discourse are simplistic (and I'm an atheist). But no, not having any need for elaboration on any of it.

[iverglas]

54. mind you, what I do find interesting

is how you came to light on my post here. If it was some kind of track-back thing, it's the post to which I replied that would presumably have showed up.

I'm vaguely curious why you aren't curious about what point your blog entry was being used in aid of, but that's about the extent of it.

[kevin roberts]

55. a little too busy right now, i'm afraid

have a nice day, iverglas.

come by and visit anytime you have an interest.

http://quakerthink.blogspot.com/

[iverglas]

56. well hey, welcome to DU

I'll add your name to my fan club roster.

[iverglas]

50. and btw

http://snowcamp.org/shocf/shocf.html

Anyone reading should understand that your Conservative Friends are not necessarily the Quakers that the person who made the first reference to Friends here had in mind.

My Canadian Quaker friends likely have many differences as well.

http://www.quaker.ca/
http://quaker.ca/intro.html

[kevin roberts]

52. friends

it would be very unlikely. the conservative branch of the religious society of friends has diminished greatly in the last 150 years or so.

kevin

[Recursion]

22. Smedley Butler was a Friend

There are "fighting Quakers"; Butler managed to earn 2 medals of honor and stop a coup against FDR.

[tburnsten]

17. Why wouldn't a Quaker shoot?

I'm pretty sure he said she was teaching her friend to shoot,how would that conflict with a Quaker's beliefs? Shooting is not a violent act, unless you happen to be shooting at people. It requires much concentration and discipline



Sort of like yoga with a "BOOM".

[virginia mountainman]

18. LOL...

It was a "friend" I don't know why I capitalized that..

Good catch!

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Thanks.

I made a very little joke because of the 'Friends' and people jumped all over me for it. Glad to see you have a sense of humor.

I know full well there is no prohibition against hunting among the Friends, but as most the gun postings here are about personal protection I saw an incongruity that set up for a little ribbing - not to mention that most RNs are not going to get shooting lessons for going hunting (though no doubt there are a few out there).

Everybody has got to be soooo serious.

:toast:

[benEzra]

19. That strategy certainly worked well in 1994, 2000, and 2004...

The Dems'll-take-yer-guns meme is finally dead. Let it STAY dead, please.

[kudzu22]

32. Now it's the court

Now the meme will be "the Dems'll pack the court with liberals to reverse Heller." It'd be nice if Obama came out and said he'd veto any new assault-weapon ban. That'd put it to bed forever.

[hogwyld]

38. That is my last hope for this country

If we can pack the courts for the next decade, maybe we'll have a chance at a civil society. If not, then all hope for this once great country is lost.

[SteveM]

5. The next step for this reporter is to open his ears...

He sees the "practical" failure of gun control-as-social policy, he must now study the philosophical, legal and behavioral reasons why the policy has failed. Perhaps then will he see that the militia did not disappear with Scalia's wand; only that he and the Court finally made it clear that there is an ADDITIONAL individual right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps he will also see that the ruling resonates with others regarding the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law, but localities may regulate only in accordance with the 14th Amendment. Perhaps he should get to the range and talk to people. Nevertheless, he has broken away from the static prohibitionist mentality which afflicts much of MSM, esp. with regards both guns and drugs.

[iverglas]

14. can you open my eyes?

Or just lend me those funny specs I can never find.


He sees the "practical" failure of gun control-as-social policy

Can you copy and paste that bit for me? I'm not seeing anything that remotely resembles that in the article. Not ree-motely.

"No," I told him. "I've given up on gun control. That battle is over. We've lost. I no longer think it's an achievable goal and if I were a politician I wouldn't lose an election over it."

I can name a lot of things that are not achievable goals in the US right now. Universal single public payer health care. Same-sex marriage rights. Removal of all restrictions on women's fundamental human right to control their bodies.

Anyone who said they were not achievable goals would in all likelihood be speaking truth.

And that fact would be 100% independent of whether any of those things, if implemented, would be failures as social policy.

And I find your representation of what this writer said to be 100% inaccurate.

Here's how he closed:

Second Amendment, schmecond amendment. This country is nuts on the subject of guns.

That would explain why he views gun control as a failure as electoral policy. Nothing to do with what you said.


Nevertheless, he has broken away from the static prohibitionist mentality which afflicts much of MSM, esp. with regards both guns and drugs.

And you're spouting false bullshit, and you really cannot help but know it if you read two lines of that article.

[SteveM]

21. Picking around droppings again? Reminds me of this...

"But no man ever lived who could lift logic to a lofty strain: a guide to correct reasoning is as elevating as a manual of etiquette; we may use it, but it hardly spurs us to nobility... One always feels towards logic as Virgil bade Dante feel towards those who have been damned because of their colorless neutrality: Non ragionam di lor, ma guarda e passa -- 'Let us think no more about them, but look once and pass on.'" -- Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy.

[iverglas]

23. actually, I'm once again reminded of this

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain.

[SteveM]

26. "Fly me to the moon and let me dance among the starts." (nt)

[gorfle]

24. I don't care.

I don't care why he gave up on gun control, I'm just glad he gave up!

[Hydra]

6. I like what 1 DUer said about this

"You either fight for all of the Bill of Rights, or none of it. This is not cafe style"

I have no clue who decided that gun control and tolerance for illegal immigration were important Democratic issues, since both violate the law.

There are people dying for want of work and health care, and our kids are dying in Iraq to fill Bush and Cheney's pockets...you'd think we could focus on that.

[aspergris]

8. That was me (takes a bow) n/t

[Hydra]

9. Congrats!

And a belated Welcome to DU. You don't mind me quoting, do you?

[aspergris]

10. nope. I'd be honoured n/t

[iverglas]

15. you might want to find the actual originator of the concept

The standard line is I support the Bill of Rights -- all of it.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22bill+of+rights+all+of+it%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Oh look. No à la carte Bill of Rights for some of them.

There are other permutations.

None of which makes more sense than another, or is any more worthy of being treated as if it were some sort of deep thought. Really, it isn't. It's just an expression of an authoritarian bent on the part of the person spouting it.

[TPaine7]

16. The Bill of Rights is Anti-Authoritarian

It is a list of explicit constraints on the authorities. Initially, it was debatably only a constraint on the federal government; after the 14th Amendment, the first eight Amendments were intended to be constraints on state governments as well.

The Bill of Rights is authoritarian in roughly the same way that the Declaration of Independence is royalist.

[iverglas]

25. bully for the Bill of Rights

Of course, I wasn't talking about the Bill of Rights. What I said was:

It's just an expression of an authoritarian bent on the part of the person spouting it.

A person who claims undying allegiance to an immutable anything is of an authoritarian bent.

The 10 Commandments are a reasonably good guide for living.

But if someone were to tell me that I could not reject the bit about the god in question being the lord my god and still have a perfectly decent moral code and live by it, I'd say that the person was worshipping a stone tablet, and was not actually concerned about moral codes at all.

And that's just what I say about anybody who thinks, or pretends to think, that what's in your Bill of Rights is a complete -- unalterable, inseverable -- code of rights.

People are born with reason and an instinct to what is "right". I really prefer to use mine, and not appeal to the authority of a bunch of old dead white guys when deciding what rights a society should recognize and how it should guarantee and protect their exercise.

If you prefer to worship parchment, you feel free. That is your choice, and that's all it is.

[Hydra]

27. It's called rule of law

And it's the best way we currently have for consensus.

The bill of rights is THE LAW. Just as people can't pick and choose about whether they think murder should be considered a crime without a logical consequence, neither can codified rights be ignored because someone doesn't like them.

Your statement of authoritarian falls flat, because consider the people who play selectively with the Bill of rights the most- the Fundies.

"Freedom of MY speech"
"Freedom of MY religion"
"MY right to gather and protest"
"Protection under the law for me and mine"

I like the idea of an impartial system. Your vaunted reason should support such a thing unless it's tilted in favor of your emotions and wishes.

The piece of paper is worthless, as the Decider has stated. The power comes from THE IDEA.

The IDEA is a government constrained. Is that a problem, somehow?

[iverglas]

29. well, no, actually

Just as people can't pick and choose about whether they think murder should be considered a crime without a logical consequence

Yes, actually, they can.

They have the freedom to think what they want (as if anyone could stop them), and where we live they have the freedom to say what they want. If they want to say that murder should not be considered a crime, they can go right ahead and do so.

A better example might be whether attempted suicide should be a crime, or whether possession of cannabis should be a crime. Both are, most places in the US, at present, and reasonable people of goodwill can perfectly well have differing opinions on both.

Reasonable people of goodwill can also perfectly well have differing opinions on what should be considered to be rights and which should be enshrined in a constitution. The evidence of this is fairly obvious. My constitution enshrines the right to security of the person and the right to equality under the law; yours doesn't. Your constitution enshrines some form of right to possess a firearm, mine doesn't expressly but does enshrine the right to liberty, which is interpreted must more broadly in my case than in yours and would easily encompass the right to possess something.

Constitutions really did not descend from heaven on stone tablets in a cloud of dust.


Your statement of authoritarian falls flat, because consider the people who play selectively with the Bill of rights the most- the Fundies.
"Freedom of MY speech"
"Freedom of MY religion"
"MY right to gather and protest"
"Protection under the law for me and mine"

Sorry, but that makes no sense. You are talking about a disingenuous interpretation of a constitution, not about somebody proposing that something is not in a constitution that should be, or is in a constitution that should not be.

All you're saying is that some people are happy to see other people's recognized rights violated, but not there own. Completely irrelevant.


I like the idea of an impartial system. Your vaunted reason should support such a thing unless it's tilted in favor of your emotions and wishes.

If only you were as fond of using your own. Again, you have made not a stitch of sense.

"Emotions and wishes" are actually a significant component of what most people draw on when they propose public policies. What did you imagine? People propose public policies they don't like and don't want?

I have absolutely no clue where "an impartial system" comes into this. There is nothing "impartial" about the process of identifying the fundamental values of a society and embodying them in a constitution. There may be consensus, compromise, balancing, bargaining ... . "Impartial" just isn't a relevant word.


The IDEA is a government constrained. Is that a problem, somehow?

I dunno. Did something I said make you think it was? If not, why do you ask?

It's an idea, anyhow. It isn't the only or best idea in the world. There are lots of other ideas I like too, and millions of people who have adopted and lived by constitutional instruments other than yours, both before and after yours, including yourselves, have liked other ideas too. You, yourself, like the idea of constraining government. Me, I also like the idea of requiring that government perform functions. You argue for yours, I'll argue for mine.

[Hydra]

31. SAGE

I have no idea why I'm doing this, but I suppose I have a passion for clarification:

>>
Just as people can't pick and choose about whether they think murder should be considered a crime without a logical consequence

Yes, actually, they can.
>>

Actually, no. The Constitution is the overriding law- that would be why SCOTUS strikes laws down for being "unconstitutional." Non-Negotiable outside of a new Constitutional Convention, which I have actually advocated for.

I suppose I should have phrased it better. Choosing to see a law as being incorrect and acting on that belief carries logical consequences. Those are not evadable. Ask Bush about that.

>>
Sorry, but that makes no sense. You are talking about a disingenuous interpretation of a constitution, not about somebody proposing that something is not in a constitution that should be, or is in a constitution that should not be.

All you're saying is that some people are happy to see other people's recognized rights violated, but not there own. Completely irrelevant.
>>

Your assessment is incorrect- The Fundies would like it codified that their religions and their leaders be the only ones allowed the rights I stated. Ever hear of the "Christian Nation" thing?

That's why your assertion of "Authoritarian" is incorrect- we are not asserting changes to the system to our advantage. We are asserting the agreed upon terms of the contract.

>>
I like the idea of an impartial system. Your vaunted reason should support such a thing unless it's tilted in favor of your emotions and wishes.

If only you were as fond of using your own. Again, you have made not a stitch of sense.

"Emotions and wishes" are actually a significant component of what most people draw on when they propose public policies. What did you imagine? People propose public policies they don't like and don't want?

I have absolutely no clue where "an impartial system" comes into this. There is nothing "impartial" about the process of identifying the fundamental values of a society and embodying them in a constitution. There may be consensus, compromise, balancing, bargaining ... . "Impartial" just isn't a relevant word.
>>

You don't seem to understand the thinking that created the first ten amendments to our Constitution, aka "The Bill of Rights,"- these were not "values," they were counters to the power of the new government. Nobody said "Gee, I'd really like it to be like this...," It all came about because the Federalist Alexander Hamilton's draft of the Constitution was based on an imperial model, and frankly it scared many of the members of the convention. Those amendments were the required compromise, and each one was deadly important both in allowing the Constitution to be ratified and to provide more checks and balances to Gov't power(like the press).

This was all as impartial as you can expect, and when followed, works rather well.

As to what you prefer, you have hinted that you are not here in the US. Your needs are currently different than mine, although they may become rather similar if my country ever invades yours and you might suddenly wish that people like me who don't support such an action could do something about it.

Currently, my gov't is neither performing the required functions, nor is constrained(And the first problem is being caused by the second). Given the circumstances, I find my best course to be urging the return to the basic laws of our country, and to that end I must do what I can to help people recognize what's important...and restricting gun use doesn't exactly count right now.

[iverglas]

33. hopeless task

I'm giving up on talking about things with people who (a) don't have a basic understanding of what they're talking about, and (b) have such idées fixes about what they want me to say that they pay no attention to what I actually say.


I have never hinted that I am not in the US.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. I have never hinted that I am not in the US. HUH?

You have on many occasions. You have also said you wouldn't return on vacation any time soon.

David

[iverglas]

39. why the fuck would I hint that I am not in the US

when I have SAID that I am not in the US, approximately 723 brazillion times, on this board?

As for the rest though, it seems I may have to eat my words. I may indeed be returning on vacation before too long ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. We'd love to have you back.

It will be far safer for you thanks to the Heller decision.

David

[iverglas]

43. who "we", white man?

You're still on the wait list, if you recall.

Funny how Supreme Court decisions kinda work like magic, isn't it? Wherever I may be in the US, I just need to tuck a copy of Scalia's reasons in my underwear, and I'll be safe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. I know : - (

Large stack of paper do a pretty good job of stopping bullets so it may help.

David

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

46. could you get a grip?

If you actually don't know the quite famous AFRICAN-AMERICAN comedian Redd Foxx, and aren't familiar with his Tonto / Lone Ranger / Indians routine, do you imagine that this is my problem?


Could you please tone down your racism?
Please?

Cou you please read the rules of this forum? Thank you.


Meanwhile, since it's for the common good, I'll educate you.

(I had originally thought it was Lenny Bruce. I discovered it was Redd Foxx. Now all I can find is uncredited references:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22tonto%22+indians+%22lone+ranger%22+%22who+we+white+man%22&btnG=Search&meta= )


And after that, I'll just laugh my ass off at this whole demonstration of the woes of the white menz ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. One needs to parse your posts very carefully

I'm giving up on talking about things with people who (a) don't have a basic understanding of what they're talking about, and (b) have such idées fixes about what they want me to say that they pay no attention to what I actually say.

Misleading, as this doesn't actually refer to anyone or any posts in the thread . The statement is only a declaration of your intent to avoid conversation with unnamed clueless persons. Content-free verbiage.

I have never hinted that I am not in the US.

Absolutely true. You have, in fact, never hinted that you are not in the US.

However, you have explicitly stated in multiple posts that you live in the GTA bit of Ontario.

How very...Jesuitical, if I may say so.

[iverglas]

40. well, no

However, you have explicitly stated in multiple posts that you live in the GTA bit of Ontario.

I have in fact said in multiple posts, in this forum and several others at DU, that I live in Ontario.

You actually have no idea *where* in Ontario I live, and you are likely to die in that state.

Die in that state. Haha. Dam, I'm funny when I'm not even trying.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. That was some pretty epic bait.

Nice.

[TPaine7]

30. Immutability?

From post 6:

"You either fight for all of the Bill of Rights, or none of it. This is not cafe style"

Since there is nothing about immutability in this statement, I see that as a straw man argument. Iverglas is gratuitously adding a convenient factor to make her opponents' position appear weaker.

The Constitution itself, of which the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments, provides for the non-immutability of its provisions. Elements may be added, subtracted, and modified at the sovereign will of the people.

The fact that the anti-rights crowd has not taken an honest, principled approach to removing the Second Amendment is one of their problems.

[TPaine7]

47. So in addition to iverglas' straw man (see post 30), we have this weak attempted dodge:

"It's just an expression of an authoritarian bent on the part of the person spouting it."

We are supposed to believe that reliance on an anti-authoritarian document is "an expression of an authoritarian bent on the part of the person spouting it."

That's like saying

"I could tell the guy was an evangelical Christian and a creationist because he was alway quoting Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion."

The reason people support the entire Bill of Rights is that they want the authorities restricted--the same reason the anti-authoritarian work was written. To eliminate an Amendment is to eliminate a restriction. So logically, modern Americans who respect the full Bill of Rights are anti-authoritarian just like the document they quote.

If you prefer to worship parchment, you feel free.

:rofl:

I don't worship parchment, but I do revere logic. Apparently some don't.

[Joe Holmes]

34. Gun control is alive and well.

I hit the target every time I tried to last weekend. Thats pretty good control, isn't it?

[JMackT]

35. I agree

I practice gun control everytime I go to the range.

I have very good gun control with both hands.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

57. It depends on how you define "gun control"

If you mean that guns cannot be regulated so they all have workable safety locks and that they can't be bought by ten-year-olds, then you're dead wrong. But any effort to effectively disarm the citizenry, now that kind of gun control is as dead as the rotting bones in a graveyard.

[Xenotime]

58. I disagree. This "movement" is the only thing the right has left.

All it will take is one mass shooting under Obama and gun can and should be regulated more.

[benEzra]

59. You mean like in 1994? Oh, wait...

All it will take is one mass shooting under Obama and gun can and should be regulated more.

You mean like in 1994? Oh, wait---that didn't turn out so well, did it?

The Dems'll-take-yer-guns meme is now, FINALLY, pretty much dead. It needs to STAY dead.

Where would we be now on civil rights, the environment, international relations, health care, and social issues if the corporatists hadn't thrown away Congress in '94 over the silly Feinstein non-ban?

I doubt we'd be in Iraq...