I'm coming out of the closet for Milo Yiannopoulos....

[DeathRay]

Deathray, to put it frankly, I do not care what non owners think or believe or appreciate because I understand this is a Republic, the 2nd amendment is incorporated, and it is not up to voters or politicians to decide my rights. I also understand freedom isn't free. If you are to have a free society there will be a price to society for said freedoms. Furthermore, I firmly believe the further you try to restrict these freedoms the more you see the side effects of doing so. If you analyze your logic and my question, I think you will indeed find the intersection of the logic. But I digress, I believe Josh asked you for full disclosure. I too would prefer that information before discussing further.

With respect, it is only up to voters and politicians to decide your rights. The Constitution is, after all, fungible, as is all law everywhere.

As to your other point, if the suggestion is that I am writing from some politician's office, I resent the....

(hold on...text from Hillary. Bitch wants her donut. BRB!)

[nycnoob]

If you would like to argue, then, that the 2nd Amendment should be attended by a law enforcing its function as a means for keeping the mass of the people trained and ready for combat so that we don't need a large standing army, but also so that we do not allow the public to own any kind of weapon without reason, then this would be the shape of a compromise I might support.

I think you are too focused on this notion of centralized control of the militia. It never worked that way.
It was about preventing the government from forcing its will on the populous. Remember the Army used
to be used as a police force and riot control as well.

Who gave the order at the north bridge to start the revolution? What were Paul Revere's orders from the militia for Lexington an Concord?

[DeathRay]

Citing the article I linked earlier gives an interesting angle (15,000 police officer survey):

What do you believe is the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States:

While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.

I wouldn't dare play sociologist, although I find the video game/D&D/Pokemon/Death Metal arguments to grow more hilarious with each generation.

I would, however, plant my flag on the "violence breeds violence" hill.

[warpedcamshaft]

I would, however, plant my flag on the "violence breeds violence" hill.

I will agree with you there...

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ender_2013.xls

[Chris Rhines]

That does not follow at all from what I said. I am asking for gun owners to assume a more complete picture of what the gun culture actually is, rather than only the parts they enjoy. Non-owners are, after all, expected to appreciate the hunting/sports/self defense aspect as if that is all there is to guns.

You can ask. I'm going to decline. I don't play the pomo guilt-by-group-membership games.

[DeathRay]

But the logic of the left is that outlawing buses, trucks, RV's or any really large vehicle makes sense so that if a drunk driver disobeys the law then at least it would be in a small vehicle....

If you want to determine if your gun bias is an issue, consider the happyland club killing where the implement used to kill 87 people was gasoline and chains. If you remained focused on the perpetrator that commited the crime and not the gas, then I suggest that if you then focus on the weapon used in Orlando, then it is nothing more than an anti gun bias.

Really what I'm saying is that Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, Adma Lanza... these guys were gun owners too. They owned the guns they used as completely as anyone who keeps a in a glass case and never touches it. Guns are weapons, weapons are built to kill (not drive), and they used their weapons for their intended purpose.

You can kill people with pipe bombs, fire, bricks, and yes, people use all these things and more. But guns are the things built to kill and are sold with reckless abandon and used just the same (IMHO). If you want people to stop pointing fingers at you, then by all means get your house in order, because it looks like you have a problem there, and the neighbors are calling the cops.

[Josh Runkle]

The drunk driving comparison keeps coming up. People loaded on booze are practically the definition of "insane", as they are not in their right minds. This is why disallowing them to operate vehicles is a no-brainer. But are you suggesting that the mass murderers are not acting out of some sort of insanity?

Well, here is why I brought up the drunk driving argument:

The drunk driver is considered to be a normal individual before he/she/they are drunk. Only after "becoming" "insane" (using your word for sake of argument) are they a threat. When it comes to guns, you want to preemptively prevent the threat from "insane" people by removing cars. Like: we don't know who's gonna get drunk and drive, so, no more cars. Or: similarly, let's limit the type of car that someone has, so they can't kill people.

Some other people would say, let's focus on the alcohol, or the "root cause" of the "insanity", which in the case of mass murder would be "actual insanity"/psychiatric problems.

Then, there's a third type of person, which would be me. That person says: drunk drivers are the price of having the freedom for individuals to go out and make their own choices in regards to drinking. So, I choose not to drive at midnight near the bar scene, and I avoid driving as much as possible during holidays and long weekends. Similarly, I avoid going to places where crime happens as much as possible, and I avoid gun free zones, because they are target areas. I chalk up the occasional mass murder within society to be a similar tragedy to drunk driving deaths (which far, far, far outnumber gun deaths). And, I choose to accept them both, equally as the price for freedom.

[Josh Runkle]

As to your other point, if the suggestion is that I am writing from some politician's office, I resent the....

(hold on...text from Hillary. Bitch wants her donut. BRB!)

I wasn't asking if you were writing from their office. I was asking a simple question about whether you were employed by or volunteering for a specific candidate. A simple yes (and details of so) or no will suffice.

I'm not accusing you of anything. Just asking for disclosure, if that is the case, but you seem to be avoiding...

[JAD]

I would, however, plant my flag on the "violence breeds violence" hill.

It is my earnest endeavor to see that it does.

{jfc}

[Chris Rhines]

Really what I'm saying is that Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, Adma Lanza... these guys were gun owners too. They owned the guns they used as completely as anyone who keeps a in a glass case and never touches it. Guns are weapons, weapons are built to kill (not drive), and they used their weapons for their intended purpose.

You keep saying this like it is some kind of profound insight. It's not.

Of course guns are designed to kill. That's why I own them. I suspect that everyone on this board owns at least one gun for the express purpose of killing those who might attempt to harm them.

You can kill people with pipe bombs, fire, bricks, and yes, people use all these things and more. But guns are the things built to kill and are sold with reckless abandon and used just the same (IMHO). If you want people to stop pointing fingers at you, then by all means get your house in order, because it looks like you have a problem there, and the neighbors are calling the cops.

If you truly believe that guns are "sold with reckless abandon," in the United States, then I'm going to charitably believe that you are just misinformed (as opposed to willfully dishonest.) Guns are heavily regulated at both the federal and state level.