Why? I should still be able to defend myself regardless of who I live next to.Sometimes it makes sense to restrict firearms in areas where people from many different cultures and backgrounds are all trying to live within the same (relatively small) area.
Urban areas have higher crime rates, so we should focus on the ability to defend oneself, and how guns lower crime rates.For the first time in history, more people live in urban centers than in rural areas
marijuana-smoking,
That's usually a bad thing.fully-automatic SMG
I never mentioned the complete banning of firearms, there is no situation that I can think of where that would be a positive thing. Controls on who can buy and what they can own is mostly what I was referring to, and these things DO make sense in certain circumstances, in certain areas, from a specific perspective, until a more reasonable and permanent solution can be implemented.Why? I should still be able to defend myself regardless of who I live next to.
The person in question is a particularly responsible individual, and MJ is no exception with him. He's been admitted to the best (not exaggerating) graduate school for his field of study in the nation, which is absolutely no easy task, especially considering that he is in engineering. I was trying to drive the point home that liberals can like guns too, they just need someone to go shooting with, and a hard lining conservative isn't about to invite them to the range sometime. This is why I'm suggesting to you people that you de-politicize the issue as much as you possibly can, that is if you want to gain support across party lines.That's usually a bad thing.
+1. Way too many people in my 30 & under age bracket only watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report for "news". This may be a useful venue to push, highlight the utter lack of logic behind 'sensible' gun laws.Humor is the foot in the door of the mind.
So naturally authorities would be suspicious of individuals buying much more than handguns and shotguns in areas where there's nowhere to recreationally shoot such firearms - especially in areas where there is high anonymity.
All I want is for someone to answer me this: are you better equipped to convince a man of something after having walked a mile in his shoes than you would be if you never even considered the removal of your own as a possibility?
Kludge, I like that one.
But I'd never heard of the baby-talking cat website before, nor do I think that I (or most people) will ever encounter it again, so it's gonna be of really limited usefulness to the mainstream non-baby-talking public.
I beg to differ.and a hard lining conservative isn't about to invite them to the range sometime.
An AR-15 is a good home defense weapon for the weak and elderly in particular, since it is light, and fires a low-recoil round, and has high capacity.in this situation, a representative of the "enemy" would tell you that you don't need an AR-15 (or insert your particular dream firearm here which has little practical use in a home self-defense scenario
Controls on who can buy and what they can own is mostly what I was referring to, and these things DO make sense in certain circumstances, in certain areas, from a specific perspective, until a more reasonable and permanent solution can be implemented
Actually, I beg to differ. The slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and does not hold water within the context of a formal debate (which this is not, but I attempt, at least, to hold myself to high standards when discussing something that is at least somewhat important to me). Here's an easy explanation of what is sometimes known as the "Camel's Nose" fallacy:You were doing okay until about the fifth paragraph, when your credibility began being stretched. Then you totally derailed yourself with this:
This mindset gives rise to the so-called "reasonable" gun restrictions that antis are so fond of. It is so easy to start down that slippery slope that you don't even notice how fast you're accelerating...until you go off the cliff.
That is because you are a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has the proper respect for firearms. But the police would not know that until they talked to you first, and if anyone knows a policeman (or woman), then they know that in that line of work you must ALWAYS assume the worst, otherwise you get killed. So, to that cop, you're just another potential shooter (since it makes little sense for you to own such a firearm for recreational purposes in that area, and the cop will go through this same line of reasoning I guarantee it) until you can prove otherwise.Fact is, I owned three bolt-action Remington M-700s in different calibers until recently, and I had not fired any of them in nearly 10 years. Add a Mini-14 to that list. Those rifles lived in my safe through three moves to/from three large metro areas in three states (two of which are frequently referred to as Socialist Republiks).
However, none of them has ever killed anything but paper (or perhaps a deer in the hands of their new owners) and there is no reason why I should not be able to replace them in the future, should I so desire, authorities "natural suspicions" notwithstanding.
Pick a website with some outlet for discussion of your choice, and a basic premise to argue and I will bet you that none of those things will happen to me. If any of them do, I will make a thread formally apologizing for my ignorance.I'll answer it. You know, that's a great line, but how can I "walk a mile in the shoes" of someone (and I'm not talking about you, but you knew that) who uses rhetoric over logic, emotion over reason, vitriol over legitimate argument? I can't. Try going over to DU or HuffPo or DailyKos and discussing this issue, or anything RKBA-related. You will not get a reasoned reply--you will get shouted down, cussed out, threatened anonymously, and banned from the forums. BTDT.
I beg to differ.
Better?and a hard lining conservative isn't *likely* to invite them to the range sometime.
A) While those are all valid points about the AR, the argument can EASILY be made that a simple handgun or shotgun is plenty for a home defense situation. Have you ever bought an AR-15 for the explicit purpose of defending your home? Your home in this case would be a small 1-2 bedroom apartment in the city, or perhaps even a studio.An AR-15 is a good home defense weapon for the weak and elderly in particular, since it is light, and fires a low-recoil round, and has high capacity.
And what about rifles for hunting?
I completely, completely agree. The rest of your post was pretty much spot-on as well, I'm not really trying to champion one thing or the other, I'm merely trying to make people consider perspectives that they potentially never have before, thus (hopefully) making them better capable at convincing those that would normally oppose their views on firearms to embrace them.I can see your point to a certain degree, but where this argument falls apart is in the implementation
That is precisely, 100% what I am saying. Thank you for this eloquent and poignant summary.I think what nrgetik is saying is that understanding the terrain as well as the motivation and capabilities of the opposition is important if you want to win. A law from an urban center that makes no sense to a third of the state's population living in semi-rural areas isn't going to be effectively opposed without understanding the cultural/social context that the folks in the urban areas share that allows them to be convinced to support the law. Understand the target market, shape the message for them, sell them on the idea. You can't sell them on the idea if the message is shaped to a different demographic. IOW, you can't sell nearly as many working pickup trucks, overalls and mud boots in the city as you can in the country regardless of how many ads you run if they're focused on your traditional market.
We're very guilty of being insular and self-righteous when we need to be shaping our message for the people doing the voting.
Have you ever bought an AR-15 for the explicit purpose of defending your home?
nrgetik said:If you can provide me of an example where you can show that some seemingly benign or reasonable legislation A was enacted that led to an undesirable social result Z later in history
nrgetik said:Pick a website with some outlet for discussion of your choice, and a basic premise to argue and I will bet you that none of those things will happen to me. If any of them do, I will make a thread formally apologizing for my ignorance.
Neither of these examples really apply IMO; I'll explain.How about:
Patriot act -> warrantless wiretaps
Legislation giving the gov't extended surveillance powers led to the gov't taking it further and illegally and unconstitutionally surveiling US citizens.
And what about the legislation removing accountability for tleecom companies for illegally providing the gov't information on customers? That was an ex post facto law, and as such 100% unconstitutional.
Definitely seems like a slippery-slope situation to me. Now that more people are aware of what the government has been doing hopefully the slide will be halted and turned back.
I've only been concerned about gun rights starting within, say, the last 5 years, so I am mostly ignorant regarding the history of the issue in the United States, but can you tell me in good confidence that 2nd Amendment rights have slowly eroded since, say, the NFA in 34? There was the GCA in 68 which seemed partially unfair, but it seems the FOPA in 86 fixed most of that. Then we had the AWB in 94, which was allowed to expire in 04.Now as for gun rights, certainly everyone agrees that somewhere between single-shot hunting rifle and tactical nuke there is a line, beyond which individual arms ownership should not be allowed. The more restrictive gun control becomes, the more the norm moves toward smaller and fewer (or no) guns. As the norm moves, the extreme becomes less "extreme", and it becomes feasible to ban more innocuous guns.
Don't get me wrong. At a high level I very much agree with you and think its a mistake to mis-understand and mis-characterize the opposition (and I've spent AL LOT of time talking about gun control with antis). Though while I don't think restrictions on some weapons will lead to some sort of total ban, I do think there is a real slippery slope effect.
Both of these are just examples of our Government's abuse of power that were either not fully comprehended by the public and/or congress, or largely went undetected by the public until later.
At best you're proving that the slippery slope prophecy is not something that can be observed within society; at worst you're comparing apples to oranges.
If you or anybody else is willing to take the stance that 2nd Amendment rights have indeed significantly eroded since 34
but can you tell me in good confidence that 2nd Amendment rights have slowly eroded since, say, the NFA in 34?
That's California, and since it was a city council the law can only apply within the city limits of Sacramento.a few years back passed some nonsense gun bill (7 day wait or 1 gun/month or the like), even after the chairwomen said that the law would not do any good. There was testimony from at least 2 LEOs agreeing with her. An anti stood up and said "but if we pass this, it will be easier to pass more restrictive laws!" So they passed it. California is now awaiting step N I think, maybe it's step P, I lost count awhile back.
I'll go see if I can find the Youtube clip and be back. Don't look now, but your on the slope you say doesn't exist.
Oh, I remember, it was 24 hours to tell the cops your gun was stolen, (pretty sure).
And my contention is that since it was not something that they were ultimately able to "get away with" (thus furthering the slip on the slope), then it isn't really a slippery slope. They're coming back into check as we speak. Govt abuse is a fact of life, but that doesn't mean it can only travel in one direction.My contention is that it is the passage of accordant legislation which emboldened further rights violations. I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges, though I understand where you're coming from.
Me either, but I'd like to hear from someone who is because I think we might be making some progress here.I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter to pick up this argument.
If you could concentrate on one example, preferably the one you consider to be the most egregious, and give or direct me to:Yes.
Federally, import bans removing firearms from the public market. These are as effective as bans. Reclassification of evil looking shotguns as destructive devices.
Individual states and localities restricting or outright banning possession of whole classes (Cali AWB, Chicago handgun) of firearms. Or "guns per month" legislation that hinders collectors and enthusiasts. None of which actually address the basic causes of crime, but uses regulation of firearms as a substitute.
Then the whole hodgepodge of state carry laws where a permit holder in KY can sit down in a tavern with a buddy in IN while both carry, but the guy from IN can't visit his friend in KY and the two of them sit in a tavern on the KY side of the border (or a guy from TN can join them in IN, but not in KY).