[The following is a debate that took place between a friend, someone else, and myself on facebook. Because my part of the debate took so much effort in typing, and because many other people hold anti-gun opinions, I'm going to just post a copy here so I can just refer to this one as a summary of my opinions.]
[Below is the image the friend posted that started the debate]
[For the privacy of those involved in the debate, the names have been replaced.
My name will appear as "BlueScreen", the friend whose facebook page this took place on will be Bob, the other somebody will be Jack. No significance to these names at all. They are simple, generic labels to identify who is saying what. Yes, yes, I know they're unoriginal replacement names. Deal with it, ok? I'll try harder next time. Sheesh!]
============================================
Jack:
I own guns too, you know. It reflects badly on gun owners when you make such a terrible argument.
Jack:
I own guns too, you know. It reflects badly on gun owners when you make such a terrible argument.
=============================================
Bob:
Not really. It basically says to actually think actions out and not just jump on a bandwagon conclusion instead of sitting down and thinking out a proper solution. When people let emotion cloud their judgement as you are doing now, that is when we start digging holes too deep to get out of.
============================================
Jack:
What bandwagon are you talking about? Who is trying to make laws "banning all guns"? Nobody I know of, and certainly not me.
=============================================
Bob:
Executive orders signed just a few days ago are said laws .
Bob:
Not really. It basically says to actually think actions out and not just jump on a bandwagon conclusion instead of sitting down and thinking out a proper solution. When people let emotion cloud their judgement as you are doing now, that is when we start digging holes too deep to get out of.
============================================
Jack:
What bandwagon are you talking about? Who is trying to make laws "banning all guns"? Nobody I know of, and certainly not me.
=============================================
Bob:
Executive orders signed just a few days ago are said laws .
=============================================
Jack:
Jack:
Here's a list of the orders. I don't see any that says "all guns are banned." Which ones in particular do you have a problem with? They all sound pretty restrained and reasonable to me.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
=======================================
Bob:
You are seriously overreacting to my statements. Also, those are summaries and not the fully listed orders which means there is plenty of information missing. What I have been talking about is the fact that such large numbers of orders and laws focused around one single issue is going to just make everyone focus even more on those issues instead of more important ones, thereby demanding even more actions be taken because people seem to be losing their ability to think independently. Emotions are high on both sides of the fence, but they are higher on the side wanting removal of guns, which is clouding true reasoning on issue at hand.
Once again, if you didn't like my post, you were not required to read it, comment on it, or even keep it on your feed. All you seem to be doing is saying that you would rather attack my beliefs than move on with your life when my beliefs aren't hurting you.
==============================================
Jack:
Dude, I'm on your side. As I said before, I own guns too. A ban would be counterproductive and unenforceable. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs. I first pointed out the cognitive dissonance required for the image you posted to make sense, and then addressed the factual errors in subsequent posts.
Those are indeed summaries, but not a single one of those orders restricts gun rights for anyone in any way. None of them are the knee-jerk overreaction everyone seems to fear. You wanted everyone to "think actions out, sit down and think out a proper solution" instead of "just jumping on a bandwagon conclusion?" That's exactly what the president did. No one is taking anyone's guns. No one is even trying. In fact, the only heightened emotions I've witnessed in this whole debate are the unfounded fear and paranoia on the part of (some) gun owners and conspiracy theorists in response to even the mildest regulatory action.
=============================================
BlueScreen:
BlueScreen:
If it's alright for me to interject into this conversation briefly, I'd just like to point out that yes, there is indeed much fear on the part of gun owners, yes, paranoia, even. Myself included. However, it is not baseless; not entirely. If one digs in to the chain of events leading up to a dictator rising to power, they all follow similar procedures. One of the first things dictator wannabe's do is take the guns from the populace (among other things, but that goes beyond this discussion). A disarmed populace is easy to control because they cannot fight back, obviously. (The movie V is for Vendetta beautifully portrays this.) But you see, whilst each of these executive orders (which are supposed to be legislation coming from Congress, but the Constitution doesn't seem to matter anymore anyway) seem reasonable... no doubt buried in the details of those executive orders are little restrictions that make it harder and harder to exercise the right to own, possess, and use firearms. Operating under the incorrect paradigm that gun owning is a privilege allowed by the government, more and more restrictive laws are placed a little bit at a time. No automatic fire without an insanely expensive permit (federal law); no magazine larger than ten rounds (a law Congress was working on, I believe); no magazine larger than five rounds (New York law or something); no weapon that has a magazine (we're going there eventually); the weapon must be disassembled and placed into a safe while the ammunition must be placed in a different safe (California law if I remember correctly).
The point is: death by a thousand papercuts. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, none of them did a "all guns are banned. Hand 'em in right now or be shot." No, they did it with gradual, numerous small laws that ate away the people's number and size of weapons until they had almost none left. It's hader to argue against a regulation requiring "mental competence," whatever that is nowadays, than it is to argue against a "Turn in everything that throws stuff down a barrel to the local DMV office or be a fugitive from the law."
The entire purpose of the second amendment was not to allow the people to overthrow the gov't when they pleased, but to defend themselves from tyranny, be it from an invading army or their own gov't. I dislike mentioning religion when trying to perform a logical explication, but the foundation the second amendment was built on, is that it's a God-given right, not a gov't given right. How was it supposed to work? Every adult citizen of the Unites States is to be allowed to have whatever size or number of weapon they choose. Any. AR-15 with drum magazine? Yes. Bazookas? Yes. Nukes? Unlikely, but yes. No questions asked. Sound extreme? It's not; it was almost common sense among some of the founding fathers (notably Thomas Jefferson) that the people need to be as well armed, or more so, than their government. The moment the army outguns the populace, tyranny could easily ensue, and it eventually does. But what about mentally-ill people, or various killers we hear about in the news? Think back to the Wild West days. What happened then? Anyone committing murder was shot on sight by other armed people, hanged by a more-or-less functional justice system, or knew better than to kill with so many other guns around. Mentally ill people were sent to institutions where they ideally couldn't harm themselves or others (of course, back then, they were horrible places, but that's beyond this discussion).
Just as it's suicide to try to hold up a gun shop (some people have tried and failed), it would be also suicide to try to do a repeat of The Dark Knight Rises mass shooting if even one person in that theater had a gun. The fewer bureaucratic restrictions on gun ownership, the more guns in people's hands, the fewer mass shootings there are.
At the risk of being didactic, I'll go so far as to say: arm the people, they'll take care of themselves. They don't need an executive order to prevent "gun violence." In fact, such orders get in the way.
Apologies for oversimplification; much of this will come across as opinionated ramblings, but rest assured, I don't blindly spout rhetoric until I have logically and critically analyzed it for myself and made some personal observation regarding the topic.
The sad fact is guns ARE being taken, Jack. In the below video, it was at a "disaster" area. In the future, who's to say a peaceful protest could be declared "civil unrest" and then do exactly what happened in the video? (which has happened in other countries already).
And there are populaces in other countries that have been disarmed and are now suffering dearly for it. They serve as an example to us:
It IS gong to happen here and soon:
This comment is not meant to be contradictory for its own sake; I'm just trying to present a logical explanation behind the fear that many gun owners have concerning the gov'ts recent moves.
============================================
BlueScreen:
Holy swiss cheese, that was neither concise nor brief. -_-
Holy swiss cheese, that was neither concise nor brief. -_-
=========================================
Jack:
Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
About your implication that the orders violate the Constitution: the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law. When Congress creates a regulatory agency, for example the ATF, CDC, CPSC, and others mentioned in the orders, that agency is typically responsible for writing the regulations. That is within the purview of the executive branch. So if the president directs the CPSC to review standards for gun locks, for example, he is not usurping Congress' powers; he is using the agency's powers, provided by Congress, to achieve the agency's mission, in this case consumer product safety. None of those orders rise to the level of an act of Congress.
Jack:
Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
About your implication that the orders violate the Constitution: the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law. When Congress creates a regulatory agency, for example the ATF, CDC, CPSC, and others mentioned in the orders, that agency is typically responsible for writing the regulations. That is within the purview of the executive branch. So if the president directs the CPSC to review standards for gun locks, for example, he is not usurping Congress' powers; he is using the agency's powers, provided by Congress, to achieve the agency's mission, in this case consumer product safety. None of those orders rise to the level of an act of Congress.
=======================================
BlueScreen:
And in turn I thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm not exactly well-versed in that aspect on government workings, so I can't hold a solid opinion either way. I'll have to do some research before I agree with you, but from where I stand, it does sound like you know what you're talking about.
And in turn I thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm not exactly well-versed in that aspect on government workings, so I can't hold a solid opinion either way. I'll have to do some research before I agree with you, but from where I stand, it does sound like you know what you're talking about.
====================================
Jack:
Continued... about rights and the second amendment: according to the Supreme Court long ago, to curtail a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms, the government must have a "compelling interest" such as national security, preserving lives, preserving other rights, etc. and the restriction must be as narrow as possible to achieve that interest. In other words, no right is absolute, but you need a very good reason to restrict one. Consider the first amendment. We have freedom of speech, but you can still be prosecuted for libel, or for starting a riot, and you need permission from the FCC to broadcast your speech on certain frequencies. We have freedom of assembly, but police have powers to disperse a crowd that may become violent. We have freedom from warrantless searches, but if the police see a crime is in progress, they can kick in your door without a warrant. No one has a problem with some kind of reasonable restriction for the sake of public safety as long as it only goes as far as necessary. Why should it be any different for the second amendment? Background checks, limitations on the power and lethality of arms, licensing and registration of arms, and safety regulations like gun locks are not onerous restrictions, but they go a long way toward preserving public safety. None of them stop me from enjoying my hobby in peace.
===================================
BlueScreen:
BlueScreen:
Like I was getting at earlier, the second amendment is not about a hobby, or sporting. That's a byproduct and is NOT the issue under discussion. Guns are for protection from the government and criminals. Gun locks make it impossible to get to a firearm quick enough to defend your home; limiting the power and lethality of weapons chips away at the people's teeth against their own government which WILL turn on them (it's happened in other counties already); background checks, registration, and licensing, oh there's something to talk about. Yes, background checks to keep criminals from buying guns, licensing to keep incompetent fools from harming themselves, and registering guns to allow the cops to trace a weapon used in a crime: yes, these are all valuable crime-fighting tools. I don't know the statistics but even if those do help police solve crimes, they're not preventing the crimes from happening in the first place by a long shot (no pun intended).
What's really going on is:
Background checks allow the feds to know when and where the gun was purchased.
Licensing allows the feds to know who is purchasing them.
Registering firearms allows the feds to know what kind and how many guns are in someone's possession.
None of these make the streets safer at all; they just help cops mop up the aftermath of a crime. What the feds' true agenda behind the demonstrable "public safety" is to allow the government to have power... control of its people.
When you buy a gun, every Department of Justice bureaucrat knows what you're buying, where and when you bought it, on top of how many other and what kind of guns you have. When, not if, but when, the feds try to disarm America's people, you will eventually have to disassemble your 5-round magazine gun and keep it in a separate safe from the ammo, which is in another safe. What good is that when there's someone breaking into your house? You have only about ten seconds to respond to a criminal threat. Then, a few years after that, with a 500% ammo tax you won't be able to afford to defend yourself, and then what little pop-guns you've got left will have to be turned in or else. Registration and licensing tells the feds _exactly_ who to send a SWAT team after to take away the weapons. Then what? Dictatorship. Nazi Germany all over again.
I'm sorry Jack, but you completely missed the entire point of what I was trying to tell you. Every restriction on guns, no matter how small or reasonable sounding, results in less power the people have versus their government. The restrictions may not be onerous, but they are malicious, and it would seem not one American in a thousand, if that, can diagnose why their liberties are almost gone. What liberties can we have if we can't defend them?
This all sounds paranoid and conspiracy-ish, but students of history know it has happened before again and again. Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. We may be at a peaceful spot on the metaphorical river, but look ahead and you'll see the waterfall around the bend. Think of the first Jurassic Park movie, when the main characters were arguing amongst themselves, then one or two of them saw the ripples in a cup of water. Then they tell the others to stop and listen. They hear the booming footfalls of something massive approaching. Then, there's a T-Rex on top of them eating them whole before they can say "run". Government IS that T-Rex, and the American people have loosened its leash over the course of a few generations, foolishly thinking it was a tame house-pet. Soon, and within our lifetime, it's gonna break free and try to swallow us. There's no hiding from it, it can see your every movement with cameras and paper trail eyes; there's no outrunning it, it's the size of the Pentagon; there's no fighting it, it has teeth the size of tanks, jet planes, and humvees, whereas you and I only have cap guns.
Yes, if Americans don't want to end up like Soviet Russia, everyday people need... absolutely must have to have military-grade weapons. I mean, do you seriously expect to keep your freedom of political speech when all you have to back it up is a 5-round capacity 9mm disassembled in a safe? Who can have freedom of press when you're staring down a .50 cal full-auto barrel, tear gas, nightvision, UAVs?
Don't like what arbitrary taxes your congressmen are levying against you? What can you say about them when a tank demolishes your house with one shot? All basic human rights are given to us by God, but it's not free. We have to fight to keep them or pay for our apathy with not only our own freedoms, but the freedoms of future generations.
There is danger; it's not here yet, but it's galloping and we're vulnerable to being trampled under mighty hooves. Every single government that ever existed has and will turn on its people at some point. Our moment is nearly at hand when we choose freedom or slavery. The people need unfettered, unrestricted, unquestioned access to whatever the heck they want to buy. Every adult U.S. citizen has a God-given right to buy a grenade launcher. Or three. Anything less is moving towards tyrannical disarmament.
I'll quote Patrick Henry on this note:
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
==============================
BlueScreen:
Do not trade personal liberty for "public safety". The public is as safe as you and I make it. To rely upon the government to make the streets safe is when the streets will be safe only for the government.
============================
[End of debate. Or, at least, Bob and Jack stopped responding.]
Now, in hindsight, I had the opportunity to chat with a different person (not related to the above debate) about whether the second amendment applies to nukes or not, and after more careful thought I am not sure about it. So, don't quote me on that until I do some research and acquire a solid opinion either way. Until then, I'm not going to stand on the nuclear weapons extent too much, but I still solidly believe rocket launchers, machine guns, tanks, jet planes are all covered.
For your information.
_BlueScreen, 20120205
