Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

1
https://medium.com/@akajulene/sensible- ... beef856b5b
Instead of challenging them to do so, why not inspire rational, reasonable gun owners — who are, despite all pro/anti-gun lobby marketing, sensible people — to help shape legislation that keeps fewer untrained and otherwise dangerous yoo-hoos from sullying their good name? Among even the most hardcore #2A-philes, the subject of “sensible” gun control comes up more often than their opponents would like to believe.
Really wonderful essay.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

2
Eh. His 'facts' are slanted; despite making the point that we're obsessed with details he still makes the same 'mistakes', like calling semiautos 'automatic weapons' (I don't think it's on mistake); he's dismissive of pro-gun arguments; he perpetuates anti-gun myths; and his whole tone is very anti-gun and hyperbolic. It reads more as if he's trying to 'educate' other antis in details so they can sound more informed when debating.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

5
Evo1 wrote:Eh. His 'facts' are slanted; despite making the point that we're obsessed with details he still makes the same 'mistakes', like calling semiautos 'automatic weapons' (I don't think it's on mistake); he's dismissive of pro-gun arguments; he perpetuates anti-gun myths; and his whole tone is very anti-gun and hyperbolic. It reads more as if he's trying to 'educate' other antis in details so they can sound more informed when debating.
Agreed. The author's suggestion gun prohibitionists should "inspire reasonable gun owners" to support restrictions appears to belie what "Julens" is really trying to convey in the piece. It's a repackaging of the tired, old be reasonable argument.

I reject this week's talking point words/definitions don't matter and offering corrections amounts to "gunsplaining." The author deliberately suggesting semi-automatic firearms are automatic weapons to be more dramatic is a prime example of why words matter.

Along with the deliberate misuse of the term "assault rifle," much of the essay is a walk through common gun prohibitionist talking points: who needs? / why do you need? / you don't need, "ghost guns," whinging about bump stocks, and framing gun prohibition as "gun reform."
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

6
Besides gunsplaining and playing antigun lingo bingo with the article, does anybody have specific refutations?
Pragmatically, we must rule out the desire to push for outright bans. While the next generation seems poised to fight that battle, in the interest of saving lives now, concessions must be made. To get both sides on board, we must protect the rights of all citizens–including the right to bear arms
The article is pitched at antis. The author successfully clarify bump stocks, ghost guns, the futility of bans on style, and defuses some debate about “need” which is a common entry point for anti rhetoric. I learned a few things in reading it and hoped the LGC could learn some things from it too.

As for reasonable restrictions on rights, we accept that the first amendment does not permit us to make death threats, scream fire in a theater, or slander one another. Reasonable restrictions advance the security of our society and nation.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

7
"Reasonable" depends on where you start and where you live. Wyoming would define it differently than NYC. A person with a reasonable collection and a life time of use defines it differently than someone who has never held a gun and tends to wet their pants when the word "gun" is used. An anti sees reasonable as stored in an armory, allowed to visit once a year and view behind bullet proof glass. A militia member views reasonable as open carry of as many as possible with lots of mags and wearing camo.
"Sensible"and "reasonable" would seem to require some data to measure against beyond chanting "sensible and reasonable' until you get your way.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

8
Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely, remove the prohibition against recreational smoking at the Federal level, release those convicted of possession with full expungement and give them tax free licenses to grow and sell. Also, Medicare for All and Universal basic Income.

Shame the Democratic Party is not at all interested in doing more than simply passing (or trying to pass) feel-good do-nothing laws that will only really impact the bottom of society, the ones who could not afford to park at the hotel the Vegas Shooter had a suite at.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

9
ErikO wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:03 am Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely, remove the prohibition against recreational smoking at the Federal level, release those convicted of possession with full expungement and give them tax free licenses to grow and sell. Also, Medicare for All and Universal basic Income.

Shame the Democratic Party is not at all interested in doing more than simply passing (or trying to pass) feel-good do-nothing laws that will only really impact the bottom of society, the ones who could not afford to park at the hotel the Vegas Shooter had a suite at.
your truth is right up my alley I tell ya.

Also to add, as far as schools go, we need to look more into bullying and how kids manage their issues and their problems. we may not be able to stop bullying altogether, but we can encourage more healthy outlets for it. We could even encourage support groups at school for kids who feel they are picked on, to get together to share their stories, more outlets on social media where kids can speak and get support, so their only solution isn't to "show the world what they wraught"

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

10
ErikO wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:03 am Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely...
Yeah, I agree completely (with UBI too). There were 30 years of apologies and excuses for the failure of alcohol Prohibition, but the violent crime wave (esp. with firearms) that started and ended with Prohibition seems totally lost on people when we're discussing guns and/or drug policy. Decriminalize (and perhaps tax sales of) reasonable consumer quantities of drugs for a tangible drop in gun crime/homicides and reduce prison populations: two birds with one stone.
Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

11
ErikO wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:03 am Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely, remove the prohibition against recreational smoking at the Federal level, release those convicted of possession with full expungement and give them tax free licenses to grow and sell. Also, Medicare for All and Universal basic Income.

Shame the Democratic Party is not at all interested in doing more than simply passing (or trying to pass) feel-good do-nothing laws that will only really impact the bottom of society, the ones who could not afford to park at the hotel the Vegas Shooter had a suite at.
Well said.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

12
featureless wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:40 pm
ErikO wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:03 am Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely, remove the prohibition against recreational smoking at the Federal level, release those convicted of possession with full expungement and give them tax free licenses to grow and sell. Also, Medicare for All and Universal basic Income.

Shame the Democratic Party is not at all interested in doing more than simply passing (or trying to pass) feel-good do-nothing laws that will only really impact the bottom of society, the ones who could not afford to park at the hotel the Vegas Shooter had a suite at.
Well said.
Seconded!
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

13
ErikO wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:03 am Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely, remove the prohibition against recreational smoking at the Federal level, release those convicted of possession with full expungement and give them tax free licenses to grow and sell. Also, Medicare for All and Universal basic Income.

Shame the Democratic Party is not at all interested in doing more than simply passing (or trying to pass) feel-good do-nothing laws that will only really impact the bottom of society, the ones who could not afford to park at the hotel the Vegas Shooter had a suite at.
I agree with you Erik 100%. But you are only addressing the ordinary run of the mill problems that confront the urban poor which leads to ordinary gun crime. Thats so last year. Neither party gives a shit about them.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

14
eelj wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:12 pm
ErikO wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:03 am Real solutions to societal violence has nothing to do with guns. End the drug war, remove cannabis from the narcotics schedule entirely, remove the prohibition against recreational smoking at the Federal level, release those convicted of possession with full expungement and give them tax free licenses to grow and sell. Also, Medicare for All and Universal basic Income.

Shame the Democratic Party is not at all interested in doing more than simply passing (or trying to pass) feel-good do-nothing laws that will only really impact the bottom of society, the ones who could not afford to park at the hotel the Vegas Shooter had a suite at.
I agree with you Erik 100%. But you are only addressing the ordinary run of the mill problems that confront the urban poor which leads to ordinary gun crime. Thats so last year. Neither party gives a shit about them.
Right?! I mean, really. This would only address like 90% of gun homicides. We need to get real with our incrementalism. Defiantly need to ban black guns. :no:

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

15
methodmissing wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:29 am Besides gunsplaining and playing antigun lingo bingo with the article, does anybody have specific refutations?
Pragmatically, we must rule out the desire to push for outright bans. While the next generation seems poised to fight that battle, in the interest of saving lives now, concessions must be made. To get both sides on board, we must protect the rights of all citizens–including the right to bear arms
The article is pitched at antis. The author successfully clarify bump stocks, ghost guns, the futility of bans on style, and defuses some debate about “need” which is a common entry point for anti rhetoric. I learned a few things in reading it and hoped the LGC could learn some things from it too.

As for reasonable restrictions on rights, we accept that the first amendment does not permit us to make death threats, scream fire in a theater, or slander one another. Reasonable restrictions advance the security of our society and nation.
Okay, I'm going to shock a few people here; I admit that I was wrong. The first time I tried to read the article I only got about 2/3 of the way through before I got interrupted, and when I went back it wanted me to open an account, so I didn't finish it. Up to that point all I saw was mostly a very anti-gun rant filled with a lot of hyperbolic and inaccurate statements made to scare people.

However, today I was able to go back in without an account, and I was able to read his actual suggestions about what he thinks needs to be done. And, at least generally speaking, I think he's on the right track. At least, if I were a pro-gun legislator and he was my anti counterpart sitting across the table, I believe we could come up with a mutually acceptable compromise that would actually save lives while protecting the RKBA.

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

16
methodmissing wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:29 am Besides gunsplaining and playing antigun lingo bingo with the article, does anybody have specific refutations?
Pragmatically, we must rule out the desire to push for outright bans. While the next generation seems poised to fight that battle, in the interest of saving lives now, concessions must be made. To get both sides on board, we must protect the rights of all citizens–including the right to bear arms
The article is pitched at antis. The author successfully clarify bump stocks, ghost guns, the futility of bans on style, and defuses some debate about “need” which is a common entry point for anti rhetoric. I learned a few things in reading it and hoped the LGC could learn some things from it too.

As for reasonable restrictions on rights, we accept that the first amendment does not permit us to make death threats, scream fire in a theater, or slander one another. Reasonable restrictions advance the security of our society and nation.
There have been plenty of restrictions, yet more are being demanded. Some of the federal restrictions added so far are listed among the following regulations:
ATF Ruling 41F (2016)
  • Required NFA trustees to undergo background checks and include fingerprints and photographs on Form FD-268 along with Form 5320.23 when a Form 1, 4, or 5 is submitted to the ATF and also submit a copy of Form 5320.23 to local law enforcement.
Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) (1994)
  • Required expulsion for at least one year for any student who brings a weapon to a federally-funded school as part of "zero tolerance."
Federal Assault Weapon Ban (1994-2004)
  • Prohibited the manufacture, sale transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons" and the sale and possession of standard-capacity magazines.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
  • Required anyone transferring a firearm from an FFL go through a background check conducted by the local law enforcement, a requirement struck down in Printz v. United States as a 10A violation.
  • Established NICS, which came online in 1998, to conduct background checks.
  • Updated the definition of prohibited persons.
Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) / Crime Control Act of 1990
  • Prohibited any unauthorized individual from possessing a firearm at a school.
Ban on imported semi-automatic carbines (1989)
  • Banned the import of firearms deemed not to conform to "sporting purposes" definition, pending review.
FOPA (GCA of 1986)
  • Banned post-86 machine guns (Hughes Amendment).
  • Centralized storage for out-of-business FFL records.
  • Updated the definition of prohibited persons.
ATF Ruling 81-4 (1981)
  • Declared a drop-in auto-sear (DIAS) made after November 1, 1981 is itself a machine gun, then declared any DIAS is itself a machine gun.*
GCA of 1968
  • Mandated licensing of those the business of selling firearms under the FFA FFL regime.
  • Updated the definition of prohibited persons.
  • Banned interstate private purchases.
  • Banned transfer of handguns out of state without initiating an FFL-to-FFL transfer. Together these two effectively ended the acquisition of firearms via direct mail-order.
  • Established "sporting purposes" standard.
  • Banned sale of long guns and ammunition to anyone under 18.
  • Compelled manufacturers to include serial numbers on all new firearms.
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
  • Banned interstate trade in handguns.
  • Banned sales of handguns to those under 21.
  • Added destructive devices to the NFA.
Federal Firearms Act of 1938
  • Established FFL system.
  • Established the definition of prohibited persons.
National Firearms Act of 1934
  • Created definitions for Title II firearms for machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and AOWs.
  • Banned manufacture and transfer of Title II firearms without prior payment of a $200 statutory excise tax. Tax for AOWs was changed to $5 in 1960.
  • Required mandatory registration of Title II firearms.
  • Required mandatory reporting of permanent transportation of Title II firearms across state lines.
*The ATF has written several letters declaring parts of NFA items to be regulated, including a few written between 1980 and 1996 about what the agency claims are machine gun parts.
I don't know at what point someone else's idea of "reasonable" is reached.

Which "reasonable restrictions" proposed by gun prohibitionists are proven solutions to effectively "advance the security of our society and nation"?

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

17
methodmissing wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:29 am... scream fire in a theater ...
Let us not forget that that line comes from a case upholding what was a clearly unconstitutional law aimed at suppressing opposition to entering WWI (which if we had stayed out of, quite arguably a much more equitable peace deal would have emerged and the seeds of WWII would not have been planted).

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... te/264449/
First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

Re: Sensible Gun Control: Between Semantics & Non-Starter “Solutions”

18
methodmissing wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:29 am As for reasonable restrictions on rights, we accept that the first amendment does not permit us to make death threats, scream fire in a theater, or slander one another. Reasonable restrictions advance the security of our society and nation.
And I agree that the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment should be of the same nature as those on the 1st. You can't make death threats, without cause, because they intentionally place people in fear of their safety. Likewise, you cannot intentionally use a firearm to place people in of their safety without cause. That's already illegal in all states.

You actually can scream 'fire' in a theater, as long as there is a fire, or you reasonably believe there is one. It's only disallowed if you intentionally do it knowing there isn't a fire to cause an unjustified panic. Likewise, you can't use a gun to intentionally cause a panic in a public place. Again, already illegal.

And you can't slander or libel someone, because you would be harming someone without just cause. And it's also illegal to harm someone with a gun without just cause.

The types of gun laws being proposed by the vast majority of the people claiming their proposals are 'reasonable' would be of the nature of cutting out everyone's tongues, gagging them in public, or limiting them to 3-letter words, because of the risk that a few might commit one of the prohibited acts of speech above. Somehow I doubt anyone would think any of those would be 'reasonable' or acceptable limits on speech, or even close to it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests