Second Amendment Reinstated in Washington

[evenwolf]

Nonsense.

The point is that 911 ignored me & the police took several hours to arrive.   

[DGMacphee]

So, you're saying law enforcement is inefficient and as a result people should enforce the law themselves? I can see why that should happen in some cases, but other countries are able to do this without a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Like I said, a constitutional amendment for gun rights isn't a necessity anymore, because owning a gun nowdays is more a choice than a necessity.

Also: if you were too young to call 911, what makes you think a minor can legally posses firearms to protect himself?

[evenwolf]

I've made no statement  that I should have been allowed to carry a gun as a 14 year old.   And I was legally old enough to dial 911.    The operator made some bogus shit up about finding an adult.   Because she was too lazy to deal with a potential prank.   ( the actual policy asserts that even prank calls must be checked out by an officer )

Imagine I was a 45 year old man going through the same bureaucratic bullshit while sitting in a darkened basement with my family.    Yes, I'll just pray my jujitsu keeps the multiple ransackers dazzled and amazed while the police are on their way.

Part of the argument for gun control is how organized is modern society guns have become unnecessary, what with the military, the FBI, and the police.  But my whole point, USING MY SITUATION AS AN EXAMPLE, is that those marvels of modern government are NEVER THERE WHEN YOU NEED THEM.

If you go on about this or that how *was I too young to pick up a hammer?* etc, I will go absolutely nuts.   Its absurd.   The point is that the security of the police is only credible WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT.    And they never are.  Lets take one argument at a time.   Forget jujistsu.   I'm talking about the unreliability of law enforcement in times of peril.

I was blocks and blocks away from home.   In a multistory house that I was house-sitting.   I had never been upstairs to know which way to look through doorways-  didn't know the layout.   No adults I knew were anywhere in the area.   As a kid I didn't carry around lead pipes with me.   I was all alone and felt helpless.    My best chance was to run away but I took the leap of faith in calling the police from the downstairs line.

And I was told not to call again.  Unless I found an adult.

All I'm saying is never count on the police unless you just want that scene in Big Lebowski where they ask you about your Creedance tapes.   That's honestly how it is.   I was terrified and there was nothing comforting about the system.   The system that everyone goes on about as if it's fail proof.   Its not.... its completely fail-ful.    Cops just show up and ask what happened.   They don't leap through windows and pull you from harm's way.  Unless you're extremely lucky.

U.S. gun control is a plausible argument... but don't tell me the reason is because I can count on the police.  It's not true.

[DGMacphee]

I'm not saying that you can solely rely on police. I said that they're one of the safeguards as a reason why guns aren't a necessity. And there are more safeguards that aren't the civilian right to bear arms.

Lets take one argument at a time.   Forget jujistsu.   I'm talking about the unreliability of law enforcement in times of peril.

You still haven't given me a concrete answer on this: if you can't rely on law enforcement in times of peril, do you think that validates the necessity of guns to deter criminals?

I don't think it's justified because Brazil has a very open gun market and large public support for guns and that doesn't seem to deter criminals at all because Brazil has four times the amount of gun-related murders the US has and the Brazilian crime rate is one of the highest in the world.

In Australia, we've enforced various gun restrictions over the last decade and the number of firearm homicides and overall crime rates have declined over the last decade.

I'm not saying that crime rates are dependent on banning guns, but I am saying criminals seem to be deterred from crime in very pro-gun countries.

[evenwolf]

You still haven't given me a concrete answer on this: if you can't rely on law enforcement in times of peril, do you think that validates the necessity of guns to deter criminals?

So now we get into the argument of "do legal guns supply the offenders as well as the defenders"?  Absolutely.    I don't argue that this country should be swimming in guns.    But the argument is simple on an individual basis.   This is what almost everybody I talk to says:   "I don't like that the criminals have guns, but here is what I DO know.   When they show up, I want MY gun."

So yes, the inadequacies of law enforcement validates the necessity of individual gun ownership.

In Australia, we've enforced various gun restrictions over the last decade and the number of firearm homicides and overall crime rates have declined over the last decade.

I'm sure gun control has been fantastic in other countries.  The USA is a country that has been oversaturated with guns since before the old west.   Many families have their grandfather's pistol from the war etc.     Antiques and also there are hobbyists who collect hundreds of guns like the dumbfucks they are (these people should be shot and its a wonder they haven't been already).   The guns get stolen, bought legally, bought illegally and end up in the wrong hands.    How long do you think it would take for the current supply of guns in the U.S. to fade away.

Most people would just hide them away anyways.  To be stolen, sold illegally etc.     So that guy hiding in his basement won't feel any safer.  Not for years and years after the policy has been in place.   He's going to want his own gun.

Not to mention,  what we've established about "militias" potentially overthrowing the government should gun rights be infringed. Its just not going to happen any time soon.

I'm not saying that crime rates are dependent on banning guns, but I am saying criminals seem to be deterred from crime in very pro-gun countries.

Am I reading this wrong or did you forget a "not"?   Anyways, I'd be interested to research how many Brazilian murders occur in domestic settings, or to civilians.  Because I imagine there's alot of criminals killing criminals in Brazil, what with all the south american dealings.

[DGMacphee]

So now we get into the argument of "do legal guns supply the offenders as well as the defenders"?  Absolutely.    I don't argue that this country should be swimming in guns.    But the argument is simple on an individual basis.   This is what almost everybody I talk to says:   "I don't like that the criminals have guns, but here is what I DO know.   When they show up, I want MY gun."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that criminals don't seem to care if you have your gun. They'll just keep on committing crimes, according to the evidence.

I'm sure gun control has been fantastic in other countries.  The USA is a country that has been oversaturated with guns since the old west.   Many families have their grandfather's gun from the war etc.     Antiques and what not.   The guns get stolen, bought legally, bought illegally and end up in the wrong hands.    How long do you think it would take for the current supply of guns in the U.S. to fade away.

Most people would just hide them away anyways.  To be stolen, sold illegally etc.     So that guy hiding in his basement won't feel any safer.  Not for years and years after the policy has been in place.   He's going to want his own gun.

But if guns are banned then the cost illegally traded weapons increases which also deters criminals, so that helps too.

Am I reading this wrong or did you forget a "not"?

Yes, I forgot a "not".

[evenwolf]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that criminals don't seem to care if you have your gun. They'll just keep on committing crimes, according to the evidence.

OK I'm not so sure I agree with you but maybe I'm not looking at the same evidence you are.   If I was a criminal selecting a target at random I would NOT rob the redneck with a hand in his jacket.    I'd probably go for the college professor with dreads.   All I know is that the citizens of the district of columbia were sitting ducks before the Supreme Court overturned this law.    Let's look at this as an opportunity to observe the crimerate in D.C. and see if it actually does increase or decrease in the upcoming years.    Should be pretty solid evidence for or against gun control.

But if guns are banned then the cost illegally traded weapons increases which also deters criminals, so that helps too.

Yeah that makes sense.  But the hobbyists want their guns and shame on them.   I hate that gun rights has been exploited to the point of individuals collecting a hundred guns.   Its fucking nuts to think how many murders they'd be responsible for should their collection get raided.   I hate those people how irresponsible they are.   

I concede that constitutional rights are not the driving issue, but merely an excuse, for people too selfish to admit to themselves they just like to play with guns.   I'm a liberal who has come to talk to many of these people, understand their position, and come halfway towards realizing the complexity of the issue.  This issue is never fully realized by the extreme left or extreme right, and I'm not sure it ever will be.

[DGMacphee]

I concede that constitutional rights are not the driving issue, but merely an excuse, for people too selfish to admit to themselves they just like to play with guns.

Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying get across.

I do take your point that criminals selectively target, but I was more comparing overall crime rate averages from countries with variable gun control as my evidence.

[evenwolf]

There was a piece on TV today that I felt was a perfect example of what I'm talking about.    Yes, we have loads of law enforcement in this country.   Their job is to uphold the law, but all too often law enforcement is simply removing the citizen's rights with no jurisdiction:

Lousiana Gun Seizures after Katrina    7:49

Lock and Load!  Let's Help These Victims!  2:06

Some of you will say "The police did the right thing.   The safety of the community is more important than individual rights."    First, Martial Law was never declared.  Second, think about how the constitution is written at this very moment.  This situation DID infringe upon these people's rights.   It doesn't matter if the move was logical or "the right thing to do".   It was plain illegal. Unconstitutional.    Consider that these officers offered no receipts and in some cases destroyed these guns on the spot.     This is after these people were neglected by FEMA and their government overall.    Looters were running rampant in these communities as if it was the apocalypse  -- and its the government's fault.    There was no police or military presence for days and days and days.  The looters were getting away with murder.     So many people had only the guns in their hands protecting themselves and their property.    Then when the government finally arrives they kick the shit out of the innocent civilians and steal their guns away.

I watch this video and all I can think is that I'm just a couple feet away from living in a police state.  This shit is crazy.    People can't trust the police for their personal safety.   It's really just not a factor.