Originally Posted by Odin

That is the typical Boomer for you. Eric has made up his mind, all us rural folks are ignorant hicks that need to have a "Good Society" imposed on us by our betters.

I've quit trying to argue with him over the point, it's like talking to the wall. He doesn't want a discussion, he wants a pulpit to rant from in order to spout damnation and hellfire at his "hicks". His bashing of hunters was the last straw.

Yeah, but I thought we agreed, Mr. INFJ Millennial, that gun control is OK and my proposed ban isn't going anywhere in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Xer H

I'm afraid we're going to hear more about the "great unwashed masses" being the problem before it's all over. The Ruling Elite are firmly entrenched and they're not giving up unless (1) all hell breaks loose (e.g., Egypt) or, (2) they trash the economy so badly that self-imposed exile overseas becomes their best option.

I think the country is divided over just who is the ruling elite.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

What you say might seem obviously true to some city slickers.

Whoa there, pardner. Not all of us city slickers are a-feared of them thar new-fangled shootin' irons! (After all, if Ned Beatty was packin', he wouldn't have had to squeal like a pig in that great documentary Deliverance.)

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Whoa there, pardner. Not all of us city slickers are a-feared of them thar new-fangled shootin' irons! (After all, if Ned Beatty was packin', he wouldn't have had to squeal like a pig in that great documentary Deliverance.)

As I recall, a well placed arrow put an end to him having to squeal like a pig. BTW, I don't know many suburbans who'd agree with Eric on banning guns.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ahem ... !!!

Ahem; did you read what I supposed to be interested in reading?

Why should I be interested in the details of this or that destructive weapon? I'm not planning a war anytime soon, and in any case I am not in charge of weaponry for my contingent.

Do what? You want to ban ALL guns???

Evidently you read even less of Justin's post than I did. It was not about all guns, or about what I want. It was a discussion of the details about various automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

As I recall, a well placed arrow put an end to him having to squeal like a pig. BTW, I don't know many suburbans who'd agree with Eric on banning guns.

I know! I was just riffing on the whole "city slickers" thing and basking in my hickaphobia, that's all.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now YOU aren't making any sense.
People who vote aren't against ALL politicians. Otherwise they wouldn't vote.

Yeah, but that's what Xer H said.

No it's not, but no one really expects you to "get it," Eric.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

And yet, at times when men brought their fire arms to church so they could drill the militia after the religious ceremonies, the militia was white and male. In the South, especially, a primary purpose of the militia was to suppress slave revolt.

The founding fathers knew full well of their caste system, though they tiptoed around it in writing the Constitution. I couldn't be bothered tiptoeing around it at this point. I'd as soon speak plainly. I'd tell it like is is rather than emphasize an area where the founding fathers were avoiding speaking clearly.

Do you have any evidence suggesting the militia was not biased to an absurd degree towards male only? I was under the impression that as a professional historian you would value fact. I've heard a lot of wild distortions as part of the gun debate, but the notion of a 19th Century militia in skirts is a new one to me.

First of all, in reply to Ryan, looking at that list, which I had looked at myself just a few days ago, there seems to be a high correlation between urbanization and gun violence. Vermont and North Dakota have nothing in common except that they have no cities, and that's the only way I could possibly explain their low gun violence rate. Forty years ago, the professor I referred to did tell us that southern states had higher homicide rates than northern states with the same degree of urbanization. Whether that's still true I haven't tried to figure out.

Now going back to the colonial era, no, I doubt there were many women in the militia. But it drives me crazy when people--especially self-righteous Boomers--paint the Constitution as a racist, sexist document, when in fact the framers obviously took great pains to use the most neutral language they could. The were, in principle, universalists. Unlike so many Boomers, they could accept contradictions between their existing reality and their beliefs. That's the only way they could achieve what they did. The constitution refers to slavery only when absolutely necessary and never by name. I think that is partly because many of the founders were indeed looking forward to a world without slavery. It was in that period that many northern states abolished it, and, of course, even some of the southern founders, like Washington and Jefferson, freed their slaves at their death. Society may have been racist and, by our standards, sexist. The Constitution is not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Evidently you read even less of Justin's post than I did. It was not about all guns, or about what I want. It was a discussion of the details about various automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Wow... no, it totally wasn't. What I attempted to do was explain to you what those words you are using mean. If you're going to use words, you should really know what those words you are using signify, shouldn't you?

In the real world, 'semiautomatic' means certain things... and by extension does not mean other things. Ditto for 'automatic'. If you haven't the slightest clue what those things are, what business do you have using those words at all? And more important, what sense would there be in any person paying attention to you when you use them?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

First of all, in reply to Ryan, looking at that list, which I had looked at myself just a few days ago, there seems to be a high correlation between urbanization and gun violence. Vermont and North Dakota have nothing in common except that they have no cities, and that's the only way I could possibly explain their low gun violence rate.

Duh! the relationship isn't between urbanization and "gun" violence. It's between urbanization and violent crime of all types. The "gun" modifier is meaningless here at best -- outright manipulative at worst.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Now going back to the colonial era, no, I doubt there were many women in the militia. But it drives me crazy when people--especially self-righteous Boomers--paint the Constitution as a racist, sexist document, when in fact the framers obviously took great pains to use the most neutral language they could. The were, in principle, universalists. Unlike so many Boomers, they could accept contradictions between their existing reality and their beliefs. That's the only way they could achieve what they did. The constitution refers to slavery only when absolutely necessary and never by name. I think that is partly because many of the founders were indeed looking forward to a world without slavery. It was in that period that many northern states abolished it, and, of course, even some of the southern founders, like Washington and Jefferson, freed their slaves at their death. Society may have been racist and, by our standards, sexist. The Constitution is not.

Jefferson actually had proposed the gradual abolition of slavery in the Virginia state constitution of 1776. Sadly, it did not have enough support and so the plan was not implemented. It is also worth noting that it was the northern states that were importing slaves into the colonies and so are hardly blameless themselves.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wow... no, it totally wasn't. What I attempted to do was explain to you what those words you are using mean. If you're going to use words, you should really know what those words you are using signify, shouldn't you?

In the real world, 'semiautomatic' means certain things... and by extension does not mean other things. Ditto for 'automatic'. If you haven't the slightest clue what those things are, what business do you have using those words at all? And more important, what sense would there be in any person paying attention to you when you use them?

Why should I be in the least interested in the difference between semi-automatic and automatic? They are both weapons that people should not be allowed to have. What more is there to know about them, unless I want to be an expert on those weapons? You don't need them to hunt, or for any purpose except to fight a war. They are used by civilians only for mass murder.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And you said this:


Perhaps you should define "these weapons."

Uh, the ones Justin discussed in his post.

Originally Posted by Xer H

No it's not, but no one really expects you to "get it," Eric.

You said

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.....

That's what you said.

The point is for Washington to do the right thing. You can't wait until someday they do; you and all of us need to insist that they do it. If you can't even trust the government to administer a mild and moderate gun control law (which is all we're gonna get, and not even that for a while), then you can't trust them to administer traffic laws and car licenses or anything else.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The post you didn't read.
If you had actually read it, you would know that he did pretty much cover all types of guns:

It doesn't matter. Justin admits Loughner had one of the ones he's discussing. They are too dangerous for anyone to have, unless you are fighting a war.

No, Eric. Read the whole post, not just what snippet you want to twist.

I said that people have little trust in the government right now, and that it would go a long way to restoring trust if Washington would actually regulate the issues of the day that people care most about -- financial regulation, corporate control and responsiveness to the people who elected them. Until then, no one (least of all me) will trust the government to do the right thing when putting restrictions on Constitutional rights, whether it's freedom of speech, the right to bear arms or anything else.

No where in that did I say that people who vote are against all politicians.

Thanks, Rani... left out that last part.

As for inane comments that my statement said the government should do nothing, well, this should clear that up, too. If anything, I want them to do MORE, not less. But what do I know?

Originally Posted by The Rani

No it's not. You left out the end:





As far as I know, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car.
EDIT: Or a horse and buggy, for that matter.

Leave it to you to miss the point.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Thanks, Rani... left out that last part.

As for inane comments that my statement said the government should do nothing, well, this should clear that up, too. If anything, I want them to do MORE, not less. But what do I know?

You don't seem to know when it will be that you can trust the government. You won't trust them to regulate guns, or anything else apparently (according to your statement), until they start doing the right things. But they won't do the right things, until we the people a)put the right people in office (which we don't) and b)once they are in, keep active to make sure they do the right things (which we don't). So it seems you will wait forever.

Ugh... again, you don't get it. But that's okay.

Originally Posted by The Rani

First you didn't read Justin's post.
Then you supported banning the guns that he discussed, without having any idea which guns those were.
Now you still don't have a clue what kind of gun Loughner had ... but somehow you know that it's too dangerous for anyone to have.
Seriously?

Why do you think Loughner should have access to semi-automatic weapons?

If you don't think so, why are you discussing it with me?

Originally Posted by Xer H

Ugh... again, you don't get it. But that's okay.

Uh, if you're referring to "constitutional rights," I had already given my view on that one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It doesn't matter. Justin admits Loughner had one of the ones he's discussing. They are too dangerous for anyone to have, unless you are fighting a war.

Loughner used a Glock-19, a semi-automatic pistol that is no different from the sidearms that police carry. It is also no different from the pistols that millions of people carry, concealed or otherwise, every day. Although weapons like the Glock-19 are issued to soldiers in every modern army, they see little use because they are backup weapons.

That's what Justin and The Rani are both getting at. You're painting semi-automatic pistols as these mysterious weapons of unbelievable death and destruction that see legitimate use only in the hands of soldiers. In reality, they are the most common type of handgun in the United States.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Loughner used a Glock-19, a semi-automatic pistol that is no different from the sidearms that police carry. It is also no different from the pistols that millions of people carry, concealed or otherwise, every day. Although weapons like the Glock-19 are issued to soldiers in every modern army, they see little use because they are backup weapons.

That's what Justin and The Rani are both getting at. You're painting semi-automatic pistols as these mysterious weapons of unbelievable death and destruction that see legitimate use only in the hands of soldiers. In reality, they are the most common type of handgun in the United States.

Obviously then, way too common. It was semi-automatic, and he was able to kill or hurt 19 people before anyone could stop him.

I have little sympathy for excuses about one automatic or another. Dangerous weapons of war should be restricted to soldiers. For the rest, only licensed people with their backgrounds checked should have them.

Yes, I see he discussed "manual" guns too.

Of course, I AM for banning all guns, but that's another issue. I am just far ahead of my time on that one.