Bill Frists thoughts on Gun Control

[aubiefifty 18,439]

On 5/12/2023 at 4:58 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Do what you think is right and what you want everybody else to do.  Step up and be a leader.

i do.i call you out all the time. you do the same thing just on different topics. see how that works? the only problem is you are seldom right. i mean come on. you get on me for insults but YOU do it. it is a very dishonest look.

[homersapien 12,302]

6 minutes ago, GoAU said:

So, you’re saying we have a marketing problem??

Aside from being a a gun grabber, you also appear to be a misogynist….  I guess I’m your world women aren’t allowed to enjoy shooting, or to the right to defend herself?   Or, are you implying the marketing behind ARs is so good, that she may have been transitioning?  

Not just a marketing problem, but the mass marketing of assault rifles is certainly part of the problem. It's key to the proliferation of these weapons in our society.

And apparently - judging from the last paragraph - you are sensing you are losing this "debate" and thus reverting to poo-flinging and insults. 

I think you got my point:  Hey, want an assault rifle for your planned mass murder?  Just grab one from your mom's closet!   (She ought to be held liable for that.)  Prevaricate all you want, but that's a good illustration of problem we have with proliferation.

Still waiting on your response to the Timothy McVeigh questions.   

 

[GoAU 1,696]

48 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I have some relevant questions for you GoAU:  

You've made the point several times that, (I paraphrase) the second amendment was intended to act as a counter or remedy for "the people" to respond to government "tyranny",  and you fully endorse that conceptually and historically.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people- mostly federal employees - including many of their children. Their motivation was reported as follows:

"They expressed anger at the federal government's handling of the 1992 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standoff with Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, as well as the Waco siege, a 51-day standoff in 1993 between the FBI and Branch Davidian members that began with a botched Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempt to execute a search warrant. There was a firefight and ultimately a siege of the compound, resulting in the burning and shooting deaths of David Koresh and 75 others.^[21] In March 1993, McVeigh visited the Waco site during the standoff, and again after the siege ended.^[22] He later decided to bomb a federal building as a response to the raids and to protest what he believed to be US government efforts to restrict rights of private citizens, in particular those under the Second Amendment.^{[10][23][24][25][26]} McVeigh believed that federal agents were acting like soldiers, thus making an attack on a federal building an attack on their command centers.^[27]"

1) Was their motivation for this incident consistent with your endorsement of violence as a valid option to counter government misbehavior or tyranny? 

2) If not, why?

3) Can you provide a hypothetical scenario or situation in which a "2nd Amendment response" would be appropriate?

4) Can you provide speculation on how that "response" would be organized and carried out practically speaking?

 

(I posted this yesterday GoAU. Perhaps you overlooked it?)

1) Absolutely not.  
 

2) Being displeased is a far cry from being justified.   

3) An example - Packing of the Supreme Court in conjunction with suspension of free elections, suspension or revocation of constitutional rights?   The government thinking the Constitution isn’t as important as what they want to do?  Most likely, just the presence of arms would be enough to deter a government (our or someone else’s) from doing something stupid.  

4) Not sure what you’re asking here - perhaps how a revolution or Civil War breaks out?   There’s lots of history for you to look at there.

 

Now, for clarity, I have stated that was the reason behind the 2A and not that I find that likely.  I just enjoy shooting (recreational and competitively).   If I had to pick a situation where it might be necessary to use an AR for defense (hypothetically) would be a loss of order following a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina where law enforcement is overwhelmed, mass rioting, etc.   

 

[GoAU 1,696]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

One can legally all of the guns I mentioned in both the UK and Australia.

Would you mind adding the word I think you left out here?   I don’t want to try and out words in your mouth.  

[GoAU 1,696]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

BS.

I suggest you brush up on Russian and Chinese history also.

Gun registration was not a central cause to what happened in either country.  An armed populace would not have prevented it.  That's fantasy.  Armed civilians generally don't match up well against organized armies. 

(Again, I would have assumed you already knew that.) 

On the other hand, civil war did play a major role. 

So you are saying both of those countries did not require people to register arms before they were confiscated?   I am not asking about how the government that required the registration got into power?

[wdefromtx 3,712]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

My argument is there is no reason for assault rifles to be legal. They represent a unique threat to our society.  Saving lives is corollary to that.

Oh, and you need to do your homework before making statements like the last sentence, which are false.

One can legally all of the guns I mentioned in both the UK and Australia.

What caliber revolver do you have? 

Edited May 13, 2023 by wdefromtx

[homersapien 12,302]

5 minutes ago, GoAU said:

1) Absolutely not.  
 

2) Being displeased is a far cry from being justified.   

3) An example - Packing of the Supreme Court in conjunction with suspension of free elections, suspension or revocation of constitutional rights?   The government thinking the Constitution isn’t as important as what they want to do?  Most likely, just the presence of arms would be enough to deter a government (our or someone else’s) from doing something stupid.  

4) Not sure what you’re asking here - perhaps how a revolution or Civil War breaks out?   There’s lots of history for you to look at there.

 

Now, for clarity, I have stated that was the reason behind the 2A and not that I find that likely.  I just enjoy shooting (recreational and competitively).   If I had to pick a situation where it might be necessary to use an AR for defense (hypothetically) would be a loss of order following a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina where law enforcement is overwhelmed, mass rioting, etc.   

 

You left out the zombie apocalypse which is about as feasible as what you describe.

You seem contemptuous of our country's ability to abide by rule of law. 

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

1) Absolutely not. 

2) Being displeased is a far cry from being justified.  

Who makes the call on "being justified" if not the legal system?

If we have an armed rebellion, doesn't the legal system cease to exist by definition?

[homersapien 12,302]

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Would you mind adding the word I think you left out here?   I don’t want to try and out words in your mouth.  

"own" 

 

[GoAU 1,696]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not just a marketing problem, but the mass marketing of assault rifles is certainly part of the problem. It's key to the proliferation of these weapons in our society.

And apparently - judging from the last paragraph - you are sensing you are losing this "debate" and thus reverting to poo-flinging and insults. 

I think you got my point:  Hey, want an assault rifle for your planned mass murder?  Just grab one from your mom's closet!   (She ought to be held liable for that.)  Prevaricate all you want, but that's a good illustration of problem we have with proliferation. 

There is no marketing that insinuates shooting up a school - none.  If you are suggesting that someone showing a military or SWAT “look” causes people to leap all the way to committing murder - those problems were there long before an ad.  Or I assume the US military is to blame as well.  
 

I don’t feel at all at risk of “losing” the debate - if do no other reason that there is zero chance of either of us changing our minds - nor am I getting upset by debating with people I don’t know on a Internet forum.  For me it’s really nothing more than mental exercise, and perhaps trying to understand opposing viewpoints.  
 

Regarding at what you took as a personal “dig” it just seemed to me that you were implying there was something wrong about a woman possessing a rifle or shooting.   Personally I don’t see any problem with that.  Should a woman have to defend herself, I want them to have the best chance possible.  
 

As to the shooter mom being held liable, I don’t think there’s any chance of that, as she was the first person he killed.  At the risk of sounding callous, she absolutely have addressed his known mental health issues much sooner, and either removed him or the firearms from the situation.  

[homersapien 12,302]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

What caliber revolver do you have? 

.38 S&W chief's special, circa 1974

I took a concealed carry course and shot WAY, WAY better then everyone else in the class, who were using various automatics.

If fact, their inept marksmanship was frightening. Most didn't even get all their rounds in a silhouette target, while I had a 5 inch grouping with a freaking snub nose.  I certainly hope they weren't representative of most people who carry.

 

[GoAU 1,696]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You left out the zombie apocalypse which is about as feasible as what you describe.

You seem contemptuous of our country's ability to abide by rule of law. 

Who makes the call on "being justified" if not the legal system?

If we have an armed rebellion, doesn't the legal system cease to exist by definition?

Although The Walking Dead was mildly entertaining for the first few seasons, I think we both understand the difference between reality and fantasy.  
 

I do understand the rule of law in our country is only able to be held in place when the number of people intent on breaking the law is less than the number of people intent on enforcing it.  It’s really just a simple math exercise.  
 

As to “who makes the call” - the standard is there, it’s the Constitution.  

[homersapien 12,302]

25 minutes ago, GoAU said:

4) Not sure what you’re asking here - perhaps how a revolution or Civil War breaks out?   There’s lots of history for you to look at there.

Well, here's a couple of questions to illustrate my point:

Who organizes it?  How?

What do they do about the U.S. military?

 

[GoAU 1,696]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"own" 

 

Technically they can be legally owned, but not practically - at least not by the average citizen.  

[homersapien 12,302]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Although The Walking Dead was mildly entertaining for the first few seasons, I think we both understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

 

Congratulations!  You are starting to understand my point.

I think the idea that we can redeem our democracy with an armed rebellion is fantasy.

 

[homersapien 12,302]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Technically they can be legally owned, but not practically - at least not by the average citizen.  

Please explain.

[homersapien 12,302]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

As to “who makes the call” - the standard is there, it’s the Constitution.  

And who is responsible for enforcing the Constitution in the absence of government?

[GoAU 1,696]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, here's a couple of questions to illustrate my point:

Who organizes it?  How?

What do they do about the U.S. military?

 

By this logic, the Revolution would have never occurred, as it was even harder to communicate over distance back then.  
 

The Balkans would be a more modern example.  Not saying I think it’s a good idea at all, and it’d be a complete “sh!t show”.  God forbid, if things ever get that bad here, I see it more as “Balkanization” more than a “North and South” type thing. 
 

As for the military, I would expect it would likely splinter if things ever would fall that far apart.  

[homersapien 12,302]

8 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I do understand the rule of law in our country is only able to be held in place when the number of people intent on breaking the law is less than the number of people intent on enforcing it.  It’s really just a simple math exercise. 

 

To my point, that is fantasy. 

The rule of law can be enforced only by government having the support of the people through our democratic institutions.

If the people commit armed rebellion against the government, rule of law no longer exists by definition.  Guns cannot restore or save our democracy. 

Our democracy can be maintained - or redeemed - only via democratic political participation / process.  To think otherwise is fantasy, nihilistic fantasy.

[homersapien 12,302]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

By this logic, the Revolution would have never occurred, as it was even harder to communicate over distance back then.

 

Our revolution was not founded on armed anarchy.

It evolved from the existing (colonial) governments. In that respect, it was actually set up by England.  It had (existing) political form. 

It was essentially a war between two governments (countries).

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,696]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Please explain.

You can Google the process for yourself.  Check it out and tell me it is something available to the masses.  

[GoAU 1,696]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Our revolution was not founded on armed anarchy.

It evolved from the existing (colonial) governments. In that respect, it was actually set up by England.  It had form.  It was essentially a war between two governments (countries).

 

No one said armed anarchy.  

[GoAU 1,696]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

To my point, that is fantasy. 

The rule of law can be enforced only by government having the support of the people through our democratic institutions.

If the people commit armed rebellion against the government, rule of law no longer exists by definition.  Guns cannot restore or save our democracy. 

Our democracy can be maintained - or redeemed - only via democratic political participation / process.  To think otherwise is fantasy, nihilistic fantasy.

I hope you are right, but to say that any government is above the possibility or corruption or perversion of power is not a statement I’d be willing to say with absolute certainty on an infinite timeline.  

[wdefromtx 3,712]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

.38 S&W chief's special, circa 1974

I took a concealed carry course and shot WAY, WAY better then everyone else in the class, who were using various automatics.

If fact, their inept marksmanship was frightening. Most didn't even get all their rounds in a silhouette target, while I had a 5 inch grouping with a freaking snub nose.  I certainly hope they weren't representative of most people who carry.

 

That’s great. I’ve seen some scary folks at the shooting range. 
 

But to circle back, a .38 snub nose isn’t legal in the UK from everything I have found. 
 

BTW I am fine with AR’s being regulated. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by wdefromtx

[I_M4_AU 9,038]

Just for reference:

The Lessons of Athens 
     Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.
     The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad. 
     Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm only a handful of people, but  governments can brutalize thousands or millions.
     Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control." They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

http://www.prohibitionists.org/background/party_platform/battle_of_athens.html

This *battle* was in Athens, Tennessee in 1946 over election fraud (imagine that). There was 3000 or so ex-GIs that had returned to Athens and fought for free and fair elections.  They got the keys to the local armory and armed themselves.  It is an interesting story and an example of how the 2nd Amendment can be used to fight tyranny.

The Governor was about to send in the Tennessee National Guard, but was afraid the NG would not fire on fellow ex-GIs.

Notice that this article was written in 1955.

[Leftfield 3,415]

46 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I hope you are right, but to say that any government is above the possibility or corruption or perversion of power is not a statement I’d be willing to say with absolute certainty on an infinite timeline.  

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you on this. Certainly a government is capable of becoming corrupt, as many in our government likely are, but there are enough checks and balances in place that we've so far been able to stay intact, if only barely. 

What I'm saying, and I believe homer is, too, is that even if an individual is able to have similar weaponry as the military, it makes no difference due to sheer numbers. If that individual is joined by a large number of others (enough to actually threaten the military - I'm talking thousands), then it's almost certain there would also be a large split in opinion among the populace in general, including the military itself, which would mean civil war. At that point, what would it all matter?

But I'd also like to address something you said in an earlier post:

"...and he took advantage of human nature and the need to "blame" people and "hate" and rode that wave."

This is exactly what Trump did, and he did it so well we had January 6. As I asked before, how would things have turned out if the people in that crowd had been allowed to be armed? Pretty much everyone there saw themselves as patriots fighting tyranny. That was also my point about the logical failure of allowing the populace to be able to ignore any law they saw as unjust - yes, governments can be corrupt, but there are far more safeguards in place to constrain it without violence than there are evil, misguided, or misinformed people with powerful weapons.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's opinion here and now, but I do hope this discussion gives at least some understanding about why others have an opposing view so that you don't think any who disagree with you automatically want to ban everything. 

By the way, Happy Birthday!