Originally Posted by Chas'88

Yes, we mustn't deprive Philosophy teachers of their niche in society. If we started to apply logic to situations then they'd be out of a job, well except for the Sophists...

~Chas'88

LOL, that post is hysterically funny!

Originally Posted by Copperfield

That depends David. You haven't even defined what you mean by "gun control" yet. What gun control laws would you like to see in place?

1. I don't think anyone should be able to buy rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons.

2. I think you should need a permit and a reason to carry a concealed weapon around with you.

3. I think the sale of weapons at gun shows, which is notoriously the way around the background check laws which we have, should be banned. We tightly regulate where you can buy liquor and I don't see why guns should be different.

None of those restrictions would get in the way of hunting.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

(or whatever hell you want to call it....)

Do you know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' (and between both as opposed to, I guess 'manual')?

Very simply, it's like this:

the technologically simplest firearms have a chamber (that's the place the bullet-gunpowder-primer-casing thing we call a "round" goes) that holds the round during firing. And no more. A person has to, using his hand, put the round into the chamber, close the chamber, then after firing, open the chamber, and take the remaining out. Very slow. Plus, for hunting, I at least tend to have rounds fall out of my pockets when I'm pushing through brush, no matter how well I secure them. Having to carry rounds separately from the gun means I lose rounds.

the next step up has a container of some sort adjacent to the chamber that holds several rounds. There's a spring in the container that does the 'putting the round in the chamber' thing for you. Then there's a spring in the chamber (usually) that pops the shell out for you. So a person using that kind has to do two things besides aiming and firing. He has to open the chamber to eject the shell, then close the chamber so the gun can be fired.

Both of those above types are 'manual'. That is, the person using the gun has to involve himself actively in the loading and clearing of the chamber.

The next-least-complicated is similar to the second type of 'manual' with the addition of a spring mechanism to close the chamber. It diverts part of the pressure of the exploding powder in a fired round from pushing the bullet forward to pushing the chamber-closing mechanism (and firing pin) backward. With this type of mechanism, once the first round has been fired, so long as it is free to move (usually when a pin on the trigger lever is held out of the way -- that is, while the trigger is held), it will fire, spring open, ejecting the shell, spring closed, loading a new round and firing it, then repeat until no more rounds are available. This is called an 'automatic'. Push and hold the trigger, and all the rounds in the gun will fire right in a row. Fast. Like 30 bullets in the time it takes to blink three times.

The most complicated type is like the 'automatic', but includes a pawl-type mechanism that 'catches' the firing pin while leaving the rest of the chamber-closing mechanism free to slide forward and back. This catch is released by a full cycling of the trigger, meaning that each round fired requires its own trigger-pull, and that each trigger-pull only fires a single round. This makes firing significantly slower than with an 'automatic'. This is called the 'semi-automatic'. It's quicker than a manual -- though not necessarily as much as you would expect. In the case of careful shooting, sighting takes so much more time than firing and cycling that semiauto and manual (at least the second type) can fire at about the same rate. In the alternate case of wild-spraying, a lever-action rifle or two-handed fanning of a revolver can burn through bullets pretty damn fast. This is a big part of the reason why automatics are considered to be a special case, and semis aren't.

What makes Jared Loughner so special then?

Nothing. He had a semi-automatic. Not a 'whatever you call it'.

-----

-edit-

I see Eric isn't the only clueless one here. Dave K. used an amusing phrase above: "rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons"

Of course, there's no such thing as 'rapid-fire' semiautomatics. There might be 'quick-squeezing' trigger fingers, I suppose. But those would make even a lever-action gun 'rapid-fire'. Rapid fire is a feature of automatics -- which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, are basically not available for people to buy or own.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

From my point of view, I guess I don't see why some rural people can't progress beyond an old fashioned culture. People want to destroy gun control, thinking gun ban, at the price of assassinations and murder, in order to protect their cultural heritage. It is nonsense of course.

If a culture might be roughly defined as a bunch of people who share similar values and world views, consider the difficulty in these forums of convincing anyone of any stripe of changing their world views and values.

Broadly, the red rural values work reasonably well in rural environments. There is no reason for them to change. Cultures have a tremendous amount of inertia. I would not expect values shifts in individuals unless their values have blatantly failed in an emotional way. If red values are 'old fashioned' the rural environment is also 'old fashioned.'

It makes sense that a condominium dweller in the middle of suburbia should want to use town water. It makes sense that a farmer owning lots of land in the middle of the plains will have a well. Different environments invite different life styles and values. Big government providing more services just makes more sense when a lot of folk are living close together. Self sufficiency makes more sense if one is out in the greater beyond.

This is reflected in voting patterns. Look at a political map of California, you will see it is mostly red. Thing is, places like Los Angels and San Francisco are blue, and an awful lot of voters live in the blue places. I would suggest that blue values work well and are appropriate in the blue areas of the map, and red values work well and are appropriate for the red areas of the map.

A rifle over the fireplace and a dog might be a perfectly reasonable security system in red areas of the map. Might not work as well in a condo complex.

The notion that one set of values is 'right' and the other old fashioned or wrong is thus problematic. The idea that one size fits all, that the government has a specific role to play that is identical in all places, is problematic.

Ahhh progress in the discussion.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

1. I don't think anyone should be able to buy rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons.

So you do want to ban some guns. Am I correct? If so, what constitutes "rapid fire?" How many rounds per second? A revolver is technically semi-automatic and with practice, can be fired "rapidly." Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do we ban those as well? How about shotguns? Are semi-automatic shotguns bad while pump actions are acceptable? I have a semi-automatic .22 rifle (certainly capable of rapid fire) in the safe here. Is that acceptable to own?

Speaking of ownership what do you do with owners who already have these weapons? Confiscate them? If not then what is the point of banning new purchases? These weapons are already in millions of American homes. What do you do about those?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

2. I think you should need a permit and a reason to carry a concealed weapon around with you.

Most states already require a permit to carry a concealed weapons. Only two (Alaska and Vermont) allow concealed carry without a license.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

3. I think the sale of weapons at gun shows, which is notoriously the way around the background check laws which we have, should be banned. We tightly regulate where you can buy liquor and I don't see why guns should be different..

How about me purchasing a gun from a friend? What about a father purchasing a firearm for his son? What will you do about these? Should they be regulated? Reported? Watched by state and federal officials?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It makes sense that a condominium dweller in the middle of suburbia should want to use town water. It makes sense that a farmer owning lots of land in the middle of the plains will have a well. Different environments invite different life styles and values. Big government providing more services just makes more sense when a lot of folk are living close together. Self sufficiency makes more sense if one is out in the greater beyond.

This is reflected in voting patterns. Look at a political map of California, you will see it is mostly red. Thing is, places like Los Angels and San Francisco are blue, and an awful lot of voters live in the blue places. I would suggest that blue values work well and are appropriate in the blue areas of the map, and red values work well and are appropriate for the red areas of the map.

A rifle over the fireplace and a dog might be a perfectly reasonable security system in red areas of the map. Might not work as well in a condo complex.

The notion that one set of values is 'right' and the other old fashioned or wrong is thus problematic. The idea that one size fits all, that the government has a specific role to play that is identical in all places, is problematic.

Careful Bob. You are dangerously close to making an argument for state or local rights over federal. To some here that might make you an "idiot," a "moron," or perhaps even a bit "irrational and crazy."

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Careful Bob. You are dangerously close to making an argument for state or local rights over federal. To some here that might make you an "idiot," a "moron," or perhaps even a bit "irrational and crazy."

Comes with the territory. For some, their own personal values are the One True Values, values which are True now, were True always, shall always be True, and are True whether one lives in urban centers, rural farms, or in a jungle hunter-gatherer tribal community. If one has absolute values along such a pattern, everyone who disagrees is an idiot, moron, irrational and/or crazy.

I see values evolving much as species do. They adjust to the environment. As environments are different, the values which tend to dominate vary. Values also don't change lightly. I'm more or less with S&H. It might take four score and seven years for problems to become visible, new values proposed, argued over, and implemented. As societies usually change more in urban areas than rural, the need to change often comes from the cities. Progressive parties are generally urban.

Not always. Around the cusp of the 19th and 20th century, as tractors were replacing animals for farm power, as the population shifted to the cities where the manufacturing jobs were, as the economic models were shifting with all else, rural areas were progressive. FDR's New Deal grew first out of the countryside.

But you have to expect that if the population doesn't see something as broke, it isn't going to get fixed. Anyone who wants to fix something that isn't broke would be an "idiot," a "moron," or perhaps even a bit "irrational and crazy." The same can be said if in another part of the country, that same something is obviously broken, that a refusal to fix would only come from an "idiot," a "moron," or perhaps even a bit "irrational and crazy."

The gun questions is only one issue among many where everyone seems nuts to everyone else.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

That depends David. You haven't even defined what you mean by "gun control" yet. What gun control laws would you like to see in place?

Just out of general interest, how many times does this question need to be answered before it's considered addressed? The two biggies are and have always been registration of firearms, possibly including some titling regime that follows the gun birth to death, and licensing of users, with some sort of background check and basics proof of competence required. In other words, something very much akin to the motor vehicle/driver paradigm.

Here's the reasoning. Guns are dangerous and should be controlled to the extent that we can identify who owns what. That pretty much addresses gun trafficking too. Second, the use of guns is dangerous by definition, so expecting those who own them to show basic competence in their use is no different than showing that a driver will not randomly kill people because he or she doesn't know how to drive.

Why is this so hard?

Originally Posted by Wes84

Some I know think that a ban on certain weapons will lead to stronger more extensive bans on other weapons.

Well. there already is a ban on WMDs. Is that part of their slippery-slope? How about fully automatic, high capacity weapons? Is a lower capacity automatic weapon less an issue? Is it OK to have a semi-automatic (still rapid fire) with high-capacity magazines? Is it that hard to see that we don't need automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines for any non-military/SWAT application, so banning them is no restriction on hunting or self defense or any other civilian application. We already stop hunters from blasting away with street sweeper shotguns, and I doubt you'll find a hunter that thinks this is bad.

For those not well informed, street sweeper is a generic name for high-capacity semi-automatic (full-automatic for the military) shotguns. They look military and have no tame and sensible use. They are designed for close combat.

But banning weapons intended strictly for military applications seems inconsequential to any civilian use of guns. We will not be banning basic hunting rifles or hand guns, now or any time I can foresee. Why is it that conservatives overwhelmingly fight everything that scares them based on unlikely future events not under discussion. We can address this step by step, and stop at the appropriate point. Note to the paranoids on the right (and the left, too): showing total intransigence may get you the results you actually fear. Failing to give any ground when common sense dictates, encourages a take-no-prisoners attitude among those who ask for little and are foiled at every step.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Amy, I want to ask you to think of this from a different perspective.

Why do those rural citizens think "gun ban" when they hear "gun control," since there is essentially no constituency, and never has been, that wants to ban guns for hunting? I really want to know.

That's a very good question, David. It goes along the same line as why do people believe Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in America? Perhaps it's paranoia or distrust in government. Or why do people think all Christians are like the extreme religious right who what ban abortion and are standing outside of abortion clinics picketing them. There are lots of people in this country that believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Look at the flack that went on about the mosque being built close to World Trade Center.

Part of it is that the Christians with their abortion signs or Muslim terrorists are the ones with the loudest voices. Same can be said for some the gun control advocates. People like Rosy O'Donnell who make news, do want to see a ban on all guns. So people assume all people who advocate gun control laws do want to see a ban on all guns. That's why people who are afraid of losing their guns sight the second amendment. They are afraid that amendment will be completely over turned. Eric, has said that even though he knows it probably won't ever happen, in his heart, he would like to see all guns banned. And it's people like Eric, that these hunters hear.

Again, people aren't listening to each other. There is no real dialog between the groups. Just people trying to see who can scream the loudest. If they actually sat down and talked to each other, they would find that both sides really aren't that far apart. But all we hear are the extremist. The voices in the middle (the ones that make up most of the population) are getting drowned out.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ahhh progress in the discussion.



So you do want to ban some guns. Am I correct? If so, what constitutes "rapid fire?" How many rounds per second? A revolver is technically semi-automatic and with practice, can be fired "rapidly." Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do we ban those as well? How about shotguns? Are semi-automatic shotguns bad while pump actions are acceptable? I have a semi-automatic .22 rifle (certainly capable of rapid fire) in the safe here. Is that acceptable to own?

Speaking of ownership what do you do with owners who already have these weapons? Confiscate them? If not then what is the point of banning new purchases? These weapons are already in millions of American homes. What do you do about those?



Most states already require a permit to carry a concealed weapons. Only two (Alaska and Vermont) allow concealed carry without a license.



How about me purchasing a gun from a friend? What about a father purchasing a firearm for his son? What will you do about these? Should they be regulated? Reported? Watched by state and federal officials?

These are essentially debating points, designed in effect to argue that since the implementation of my suggestions would require some complex decisions to be made, and would not in any case be perfectly effective, then they should all be dismissed. That's a totally illogical position. No regulation, including that of alcohol (a good example again), is perfectly effective. There are still teen-agers whose older brothers buy them booze--does that mean we should do away with all age restrictions for buying booze? I wouldn't object to having the government buy up weapons that had been declared illegal.

It is correct that only three states (including, interestingly enough, the People's Republic of Vermont) don't require a permit to carry at all, but many do not require any particular reason to carry one, which is part of my proposal too, which you, of course, chose to ignore.

You have learned your lines well. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just out of general interest, how many times does this question need to be answered before it's considered addressed? The two biggies are and have always been registration of firearms, possibly including some titling regime that follows the gun birth to death, and licensing of users, with some sort of background check and basics proof of competence required. In other words, something very much akin to the motor vehicle/driver paradigm.

Here's the reasoning. Guns are dangerous and should be controlled to the extent that we can identify who owns what. That pretty much addresses gun trafficking too. Second, the use of guns is dangerous by definition, so expecting those who own them to show basic competence in their use is no different than showing that a driver will not randomly kill people because he or she doesn't know how to drive.

Why is this so hard?

The main reason people have a hard time considering planned "gun control" policy now is that they don't trust the people who would create and enact that legislation. They know the past position these people have had on the subject and can tell the "we're only talking about controlling, not banning" message now is just that -- messaging strategy. Scripted right out of a DNC newsletter.

As you may remember, I'm all for strengthening regulations and treating guns just like we do automobiles -- registration, proof of a user's knowledge and ability to use safely, continual updates on skill and ownership, etc. But I have so little faith in Washington's ability to create wise regulation that I'm opposed to anything they attempt to do. Once they fix regulation of the financial sector, once they stop being bought out by corporations, once they start listening to the people they're sworn to represent, THEN I may trust them to put restrictions on our Constitutional rights.

But then, as I pointed out to a friend the other day, the reason our country hasn't reached the point of Egypt is that our government knows a majority of Americans are armed. They don't dare push us too far.

Originally Posted by Xer H

they don't trust the people who would create and enact that legislation.

I feel the same way. This is the crisis of leadership that David Kaiser has spoken about. Until we get over this and can trust our leaders, it will be hard to make progress on the big issues.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Until we get over this and can trust our leaders, it will be hard to make progress on the big issues.

James50

The amazing thing is, they have the basic building blocks at their fingertips -- yet they keep appointing the very people who created the problem.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just out of general interest, how many times does this question need to be answered before it's considered addressed? The two biggies are and have always been registration of firearms, possibly including some titling regime that follows the gun birth to death, and licensing of users, with some sort of background check and basics proof of competence required. In other words, something very much akin to the motor vehicle/driver paradigm.

Here's the reasoning. Guns are dangerous and should be controlled to the extent that we can identify who owns what. That pretty much addresses gun trafficking too. Second, the use of guns is dangerous by definition, so expecting those who own them to show basic competence in their use is no different than showing that a driver will not randomly kill people because he or she doesn't know how to drive.

Why is this so hard?

One problem is that the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms fundamental, and it is so written into the Constitution.

Still, they gave Congress the right to regulate the militia. If the gender and age restrictions are altered so that all adults are in the militia, Congress has the power to specify what training the militia must undergo.

This approach is generally not considered as it is the liberals who want trained, licensed and limited arms and use of arms, and their legal tactics for the last century or so has been to pretend that the Militia is the National Guard rather than being The People. If they use Congressional authority to regulate the Militia as a basis for gun control, they are admitting that the People have a Right to Bear Arms.

Meanwhile, the conservatives want gun rights but are resisting gun responsibilities. They are calling for a right to bear arms, but resisting many limitations that might be placed on gun ownership.

I cannot say that the founding fathers considered the Militia to be the People. I would say they intended the Militia to be the adult, male, white People. Today, I would assert that the People are the adults. If so, I can also say the Militia is supposed to be well regulated, and Congress has the authority to well regulate them. They can create a training program. It is the state's responsibility to appoint officers implement the training program.

And that, I believe, would match the spirit of what the founders intended as adopted to a world where one doesn't need to worry about raids by aborigines or British marines. I don't think the founding fathers were all that wrong or all that off. One doesn't need a change to the constitution to find a reasonable compromise that would keep more people happy.

But it wouldn't keep all people happy. Some don't believe in a right to bear arms, but in fact believe the people ought to be disarmed. One cannot get there legitimately without changing the constitution. We are far too divided to change the constitution.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I cannot say that the founding fathers considered the Militia to be the People. I would say they intended the Militia to be the adult, male, white People.

Correction. Nowhere in the Constitution is there the slightest distinction between black and white. The Constitution does recognize free people, people held to service for a term of years, Indians, and "all other persons," which is a euphemism for slaves. The founding fathers, great men that they were, did not write a constitution specifying any kind of caste system, even though they knew one existed in some of their territory. Nor did they distinguish between men and women: restrictions on women's suffrage were state restrictions, and some were lifted well before the passage of the 19th amendment. The founding fathers considered the militia to consist of all free people, not all adult, male white people.

And regarding the militia issue, which BB and I have been over repeatedly, even Justice Scalia, in his decision in Heller overturning the DC gun ban, admitted that the weapons he was protecting would be useless in a modern military context.

Originally Posted by Xer H

The main reason people have a hard time considering planned "gun control" policy now is that they don't trust the people who would create and enact that legislation. They know the past position these people have had on the subject and can tell the "we're only talking about controlling, not banning" message now is just that -- messaging strategy. Scripted right out of a DNC newsletter.

As you may remember, I'm all for strengthening regulations and treating guns just like we do automobiles -- registration, proof of a user's knowledge and ability to use safely, continual updates on skill and ownership, etc. But I have so little faith in Washington's ability to create wise regulation that I'm opposed to anything they attempt to do. Once they fix regulation of the financial sector, once they stop being bought out by corporations, once they start listening to the people they're sworn to represent, THEN I may trust them to put restrictions on our Constitutional rights.

But then, as I pointed out to a friend the other day, the reason our country hasn't reached the point of Egypt is that our government knows a majority of Americans are armed. They don't dare push us too far.

"It's not the things you don't know that get you into trouble," said Artemis Ward, "it's the things you know that ain't so." The first paragraph above is out of an RNC newsletter, not a DNC newsletter, and has nothing to with what Democrats, much less Democratic legislators, think. There is no big organized conspiracy to ban weapons in the United States. Our own Mr. Meece does not represent an important segment of opinion.

The second paragraph, above, strikes me. . frankly, there's no other word I can think of. . .as childish. "I don't trust them to do the right thing, therefore, they should do nothing," is not a responsible position for the citizen of a democracy to take. (This is part of what I meant when I said that many of our Xers don't trust democracy or law.) A citizen, in my view, says, I think you should do A, and I will support you if you do A. I don't think you should do B and will oppose you if I do B. And meanwhile, I must accept that no representative is likely to agree with me about everything.

The third paragraph is, frankly, a right-wing fantasy. The difference between us and Egypt isn't guns, it's that we have elections every two years and they have never had a meaningful election. When people get angry at the government here they throw them out at the ballot box. I really would like to hear about the nefarious things the US government would be doing were it not living in terror of armed rebellion. Even I don't claim that all our Congressmen vote with the NRA out of fear of their weapons. They vote with them for the same reason they vote with AIPAC--because of their fear of their power at the ballot box. Which, in a democracy, is as it should be.

People who really believe guns protect their liberty might try living in Russia, for instance. I'll trust our imperfect laws, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sport hunters don't need fully-automatic arms or 30-round clips.

You don't need to own to a radio station to convey ideas, but wouldn't you be furious (or scared) if the government banned private ownership of them? The key here is not the ownership of specific tools but whether those tools are stored and wielded in a responsible manner. Banning frequency overlap and having libel laws would be radio "control" -- creating a maximum station wattage for private owners would be a ban. Many gun control proposals are more like capping wattage than preventing frequency interference.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Why do those rural citizens think "gun ban" when they hear "gun control," since there is essentially no constituency, and never has been, that wants to ban guns for hunting? I really want to know.

Look at pbrower's statement above and you'll see why. Gun control proposals frequently go well beyond defining negligent storage or requiring training and begin defining what kinds of weapons can be owned. Combine that with an encounter with the occasional liberal with Eric's views on the matter, and it's not at all hard to understand why rural Americans live in fear of a total gun ban.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The second paragraph, above, strikes me. . frankly, there's no other word I can think of. . .as childish. "I don't trust them to do the right thing, therefore, they should do nothing," is not a responsible position for the citizen of a democracy to take. (This is part of what I meant when I said that many of our Xers don't trust democracy or law.) A citizen, in my view, says, I think you should do A, and I will support you if you do A. I don't think you should do B and will oppose you if I do B. And meanwhile, I must accept that no representative is likely to agree with me about everything.

Typical Boomer... misquote someone you disagree with, then call the poster a name. Yet offer nothing of substance.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You don't need to own to a radio station to convey ideas, but wouldn't you be furious (or scared) if the government banned private ownership of them? The key here is not the ownership of specific tools but whether those tools are stored and wielded in a responsible manner. Banning frequency overlap and having libel laws would be radio "control" -- creating a maximum station wattage for private owners would be a ban. Many gun control proposals are more like capping wattage than preventing frequency interference.

Look at pbrower's statement above and you'll see why. Gun control proposals frequently go well beyond defining negligent storage or requiring training and begin defining what kinds of weapons can be owned. Combine that with an encounter with the occasional liberal with Eric's views on the matter, and it's not at all hard to understand why rural Americans live in fear of a total gun ban.

Exactly Kurt. This occurance is what I call the "Rat in a Cage" Freedom. The Regulation and Control that you speak of is "The Cage", and when there is a possibility that the Cage is being diminished, the Rat is questioned and criticized: "Why are you complaining? What Freedoms do you currently not have? You're just being illogical and paranoid!"

PoC67

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

People who really believe guns protect their liberty might try living in Russia, for instance.

Yah, I did just that. Very good time. And let me tell you, a ruling class that has a living memory of the guns being turned against it is one that treads very lightly against the day-to-day lives of its subjects. That's a hell of a fact-based argument in favor of private guns protecting liberty.

BTW, interestingly enough, firearms ownership in the RF is very tightly controlled, de jure. De facto on the other hand, pretty much anybody can get pretty much whatever they want, so long as they're willing to pay what a seller is asking. And what's more, unless the person does something stupid, like murdering people or attracting personal attention from the ruling organs, even 'getting caught' with an illegal firearm isn't such a big deal.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Exactly Kurt. This occurance is what I call the "Rat in a Cage" Freedom. The Regulation and Control that you speak of is "The Cage", and when there is a possibility that the Cage is being diminished, the Rat is questioned and criticized: "Why are you complaining? What Freedoms do you currently not have? You're just being illogical and paranoid!"

PoC67

Exactly! Great post, Tybalt!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Exactly Kurt. This occurance is what I call the "Rat in a Cage" Freedom. The Regulation and Control that you speak of is "The Cage",

You can take that too far. The crucial distinction is whether you're regulating interactions between people or the conduct of individual people in isolation. The former is necessary for civil society, the latter is a "cage."

There's another example of "gun control" meaning two different things on this thread. Not to pick on M&L but, Marx & Lennon's posts 2402 and 2403 above show two entirely different types of gun restrictions. To see the difference one need only extend the driver's license analogy from the first post to the second. Do we prevent people from owning cars larger or fancier than what they "need"?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You can take that too far. The crucial distinction is whether you're regulating interactions between people or the conduct of individual people in isolation. The former is necessary for civil society, the latter is a "cage."

There's another example of "gun control" meaning two different things on this thread. Not to pick on M&L but, Marx & Lennon's posts 2402 and 2403 above show two entirely different types of gun restrictions. To see the difference one need only extend the driver's license analogy from the first post to the second. Do we prevent people from owning cars larger or fancier than what they "need"?

I wasn't commenting on Gun-Stuff; Not my thing. Only that, Regulation can be it's own form of Control and that to discount the POVs/Emotions of Individuals fails to recognize that possible Occurance.

I do see what you're getting-at here; I see the difference.

I suppose Regulation and Policy being "controlling" is relative to one's POV. Personally, I would answer your question with....Maybe. Depends on "why" and "how" they enacted it IMO. The idea of making certain actions Cost-Prohibitive b/c of Taxation and Regulating(incl:de facto) Behavior is all very sickening/disturbing/frustrating IMO.

PoC67

PS: Maybe the question to ask is:

How do we feel about a Govt that tries to: prevent people from owning cars that are larger and fancier than they "need"?!

Originally Posted by Xer H

Typical Boomer... misquote someone you disagree with, then call the poster a name. Yet offer nothing of substance.

I didn't misquote you, and I didn't call you a name. I paraphrased your position perfectly accurately and used an adjective to characterize that position. And I'll leave the responsibility for what you said on you, not your whole generation.