Gun Control

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Controlistas

It's worked fine for Costa Rica.

Oh wow! I'm almost ready to move! : :

Relaxed gun possession laws, no military, not sure about crime yet....
I can handle it, but can I handle the more southern climate????

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...&client=safari for details.

It seems a Utopia; freedom of safetey, yet freedom from government. No unusual restrictions on firearm ownership or carry rights. No military, a good economy. Not sure about crime statistics... but I'll check.

http://www.adventure-inn.com/article...sta_rica_crime

Crime seems no worse, and likely less than the USA. Can't access comparitive statistics - yet.

I'm certain Matapule the GUN blamer will be happy to see me go.

They allow personal possession of firearms, but have outlawed the military! As a result, they have the freedom to own and carry firearms, but not the atrocities we have in the US. No mention of mass killings since the military was disbanded. I'm all for it!

Maybe instead of banning firearms, we should ban the military. I'm sure many of our opponents would be happy, I'd be happy, and the USA would step down from its stupid role as the "world's peacekeeper." Where did we ever go to keep peace anyway???? (Other than Germany in the 1940's).

Think of the lower taxes, not having to maintain a military force. Go back to the original ideal of a 'well-regulated militia' to defend us. Why not?

Let's become the world's peace model: allow personal possession for personal protection, and ban military firearms, and the military in general.

What do you think, Obama? Too scared?

Someone has to be first; why not US?

Don't give up our guns (our first wall of defense), give up our military - our antagonistic, arrogant firewall that makes killers out of humans.

Ban Military NOW!

OBAMA's MILITARY MIGHT!

Recruit youngsters from deliberately sub-economic districts.'
Include women as well as boys/men.'

Arm them with impressive weaponry to cloud their judgement.
Put them through hellish conditions to demonstrate we are "doing the right thing."

Kill some and maim others in an attempt to infuse in them a sense of righteousness against the "rag-heads."

Kill more of our own than have been killed in terrorist attacks on the mainland, but try to kill more of them.

KILL, KILL, KILL! Until... uh, until Americans, REAL Americans, say: "Too Much!" Then negotiate an 'honorable' withdrawal.

When they get home, after all the expensive and life-changing firearm training, tell them they are broken - they can no longer possess firearms. Take their personal guns away and ensure they can obtain no more. The ultimate insult.

Then figure out who is to succeed me in my shame.

Is there a Nixon descendent willing to step up to the plate? Or a Clinton blowhard?

[segue]

Who is the last president in office whom you respected?

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

What happens to the brain damaged vets who are dumped back into civilian society?

Very good question, though I hope by "brain damaged vets" you mean a hurt human being who deserves compassion, verses a defective creature who should be swept under the rug and forgotten. It's tough to gauge intention over the Internet.

Though soldiers and their family like the idea of being able to fly home within hours, the sudden change of environment is a bad idea. To go from war to civilian life, overnight, is a shock to the mind. I imagine it's very easy to lose it back home.

After World War II, vets didn't fly instantly home. They took months to sail back on ships. There were two benefits to this: 1) they had more time to transition back into civilian life, 2) they spent time with other soldiers who understood what they went through without the need to explain themselves with words. This was a form of therapy.

It also helped that they returned to a booming economy. I'm concerned about what will happen to our current vets, returning to an economy which will get worse (IMO).

Where's that? Well, he should be expert in gun handling, and I understand from the last postings above that that is what really counts. So, not to worry.

Bad guys are smart enough to get training too. Training can be used for good or bad. A doctor can use their knowledge to save a life or get away with murder.

Training also doesn't guarantee safety. Neither does owning a gun nor having a gun ban.

what are our choices???

1. We can lie down and be a willing victim. (Matapule, will YOU do that?)

2. We can defend ourselves - fight back, and probably save other lives in the meantime.

There are more choices between those two extremes. Though simplifying things can make for a useful thought exercise, be careful about gettin tunnel vision. Being able to see options is important for self defense.

I guess they were protecting themselves from "potential" assailants.

Most of the time it's just plain stupidity. Shooting guns in the air as a kind of fireworks. Shooting at random objects (plinking) without considering what will stop the bullet if it misses or goes through the target. Etc.

romantic scenario could go wrong, even if you're very brave and expert

I agree with you that many people fall into the trap of believing weapons or martial arts will magically protect them. MacYoung has an interesting article on what he calls Violence Geeks.

(I'm just commenting on Greg's statement and not Kaonohi himself)

pro-gun lobbyists and their human predator drones in Congress will not concede on anything

Funny thing is I was moderate on the gun control issue until the Hawaii legislature introduced SB219. Once I saw that, I felt there is no middle ground on this issue. It's all or nothing. I guess this is what they call a polarizing effect.



On a related note, This American Life has a good episode on politics. Wisconsin politics used to be polite and moderate; both sides working together to come up with a compromise. Then in a short time things got personally nasty and extreme. Rather interesting.

It is more complex than that. Military people are taught to dehumanize their "enemy." They are taught to kill while turning off their conscience. They become killing machines with no remorse. They become thoughtless robots with an addiction to guns and gun violence.

I agree that the military indoctrinates young men to make them more willing to kill. To some extent their actions do become robotic, but I hope you don't think they are inhuman without any sense of remorse. You seem to dislike military people, so I hope you don't fall into the same trap of dehumanizing your "enemy".

MacYoung has an interesting comment about violent people:

Why do you think so many criminals burn out? Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep those doors locked and barricaded with a constant supply of self-rationalization and self-justification for what they did? When you get tired of doing that, you dope yourself. You keep on stacking shit to numb it and give yourself freedom from the pressure. You don't allow yourself to see the source of the problem until you either fall into addiction, burn out or are shuffled off into the corner and viewed as some dangerous wierdo by normal society.

And, yes, there are true sociopaths /psychopaths who don't feel this stuff...but statistically speaking, they are incredibly rare

Another good person to read is Stan Goff. According to Wikipedia "He has been an anti-imperialist activist, feminist, socialist, and is now a Christian and a pacifist." Just as important is he used to be Army Special Forces, which means he has a unique perspective most of us lack. One of his books worth checking out is "Full Spectrum Disorder".

I talked with an Army Special Forces soldier who trained with Stan Goff. It seems he was disliked by most of his peers. He wasn't considered one of the boys. Not surprising, considering his views.

A retired female soldier wrote an interesting article on his blog:

When I was discharged from the army, one of the many things I was relieved about was that I would never again, as the lone female in my unit, have to share transportation with the rest of the guys when we were on travel. I would never again have to listen to Howard Stern on the way to work. I wouldn’t have to sit, leaning against the back window staring into space, while the men bonded over classic commentary like this:

'I just wanna take that piece of ass body, put tape over her mouth, and do things to her. . And then like, I reach in, I yank out her vocal cords and then she just orally satisfies me by the pool. Oh, she’s totally a mute Kim. And she’s totally nude. . And then I break her legs and position them in the back of her head so that she’s sitting, and they’re permanently fixed like that."

…

As a woman in the army, I learned not to complain about those things.

…

That last comment about my need to get gangbanged was from a left-leaning man I’d been friends with for years, and with whom I collaborated on for a small art project once. He advises me to read a book written by a “sex-positive” woman. I wonder why such a “sex-positive” man is so quick to equate sex with anger and retaliation. I view him as being “violent-porn-positive.” Perhaps it’s the same thing.

Whether "Left" or "Right" we are all violent creatures. If we can't admit that to ourselves, we'll never escape it.



On the topic of women being allowed to officially occupy combat roles, I don't think the delicate male ego can handle it. In Goff's book, Full Spectrum Disorder, he talks about traveling with a group of regular army soldiers. Among them was a female soldier who was liked by her male peers. During one incident they received enemy fire. Only Goff and the female soldier reacted appropriately by returning fire. The male soldiers were scared. After the incident, the male soldiers HATED her for being "more of a man" than they were. They started gossiping about how bad of a soldier she was.

There's a consequence to the male bravado fostered among immature men, to embolden them for war.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

SB932 deferred to 2/11 and 2/12, for two different committees.

SB69 passed with amendments in the Senate. Next step is the House, I believe?

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Very good question, though I hope by "brain damaged vets" you mean a hurt human being who deserves compassion, verses a defective creature who should be swept under the rug and forgotten. It's tough to gauge intention over the Internet.

It also helped that they returned to a booming economy. I'm concerned about what will happen to our current vets, returning to an economy which will get worse (IMO).

There are more choices between those two extremes. Though simplifying things can make for a useful thought exercise, be careful about gettin tunnel vision. Being able to see options is important for self defense.

Funny thing is I was moderate on the gun control issue until the Hawaii legislature introduced SB219. Once I saw that, I felt there is no middle ground on this issue. It's all or nothing. I guess this is what they call a polarizing effect.

On a related note, This American Life has a good episode on politics. Wisconsin politics used to be polite and moderate; both sides working together to come up with a compromise. Then in a short time things got personally nasty and extreme. Rather interesting.





I agree that the military indoctrinates young men to make them more willing to kill. To some extent their actions do become robotic, but I hope you don't think they are inhuman without any sense of remorse. You seem to dislike military people, so I hope you don't fall into the same trap of dehumanizing your "enemy".

MacYoung has an interesting comment about violent people:



Another good person to read is Stan Goff. According to Wikipedia "He has been an anti-imperialist activist, feminist, socialist, and is now a Christian and a pacifist." Just as important is he used to be Army Special Forces, which means he has a unique perspective most of us lack. One of his books worth checking out is "Full Spectrum Disorder".

I talked with an Army Special Forces soldier who trained with Stan Goff. It seems he was disliked by most of his peers. He wasn't considered one of the boys. Not surprising, considering his views.

Whether "Left" or "Right" we are all violent creatures. If we can't admit that to ourselves, we'll never escape it.

Gee, Joe. If that is Myopia, I wish I was nearsighted. I deleted a lot of important stuff, but your posting was... "Eye Opening."

Thank You.

K

[Amati]

Re: Gun Control

SB932 deferred to 2/11 and 2/12, for two different committees.

SB69 passed with amendments in the Senate. Next step is the House, I believe?

SB69: Appropriates $100,000 to the county police departments to initiate a gun buy-back program.

Passed out of Senate COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS. Next step is a hearing in Senate WAYS AND MEANS (no date set). Then it needs to go before the entire Senate, and if passed the Senate bill will go to the House. (There is no companion bill in the House, it it is NOT being worked on in both places at once.)

Read testimony here and here.

SB932: Prohibits any person who is a danger to self or danger to others from possessing, having custody or control of, receiving, purchasing, or attempting to receive or purchase firearms or other dangerous or deadly weapons. Creates a reporting system for persons who seriously threaten a readily identifiable person or persons to a mental health professional. Requires the department of public safety to create a database and list of persons prohibited from possessing, having custody or control of, receiving, purchasing, or attempting to receive or purchase firearms and other dangerous or deadly weapons, which will be accessible to law enforcement, mental health professionals, and sellers of firearms. Requires the department of public safety to make a list of persons whose license for firearms or other dangerous or deadly weapons has been revoked. Excepts any communication under the Act from applicable privileges.

Scheduled for hearings on 2/11 and 2/12. After that, there are still two more Senate hearing to be scheduled (via a double referral). If it makes it through all of those, then it needs to go before the entire Senate, and if passed the Senate bill will go to the House. (There is no companion bill in the House, it it is NOT being worked on in both places at once.)

Read testimony here.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

Gee, Joe. If that is Myopia, I wish I was nearsighted... "Eye Opening."

Heh, nice play on words. Invoking your inner poet?

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for sharing your experiences.

Next step is a hearing in Senate WAYS AND MEANS (no date set). Then it needs to go before the entire Senate, and if passed the Senate bill will go to the House. (There is no companion bill in the House, it it is NOT being worked on in both places at once.)

Ahhh, thanks for clearing up the process and supplying the links, Amati

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

image.jpg

Participating in a gun buyback is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

Do You Really Think Its A Gun Problem...well kind of. The nut cases are a problem but without guns they are a LOT less dangerous. Then we have to ask why the NRA is opposing background checks. Wouldn't everyone including the NRA & its members be better off with background checks to assure that guns were possessed by sane people? Granted right away that sometimes people go insane, sometimes an instant of rage provokes something, but the pathological planners would hopefully not have any, or anyway much less access to mass killing guns. Locally (SD) a 7th grade boy arrested for threatening to kill his teacher & 23 other students; the household guns were confiscated. And in Delaware a shooting at a courthouse. Seems it is only a matter of time until gun violence actually does impose itself on each of us. I have never had anything against hunting or hunting rifles or even hand guns for personal protection, if a person can pass a simple background check what would be the problem. We often hear cars compared to guns as instruments of death, even accepting that, we still have to get a license to operate a car, we have to demonstrate proficiency and knowledge to operate one and we are not supposed to be drunk or otherwise impaired when we do. Seems like the same reasonable limits should be placed on guns. And why does anybody really need an assault weapon? Seriously, why? Maybe there is some good reason but I sure can't think of one.

[GregLee]

Re: Gun Control

We often hear cars compared to guns as instruments of death, even accepting that, we still have to get a license to operate a car, we have to demonstrate proficiency and knowledge to operate one and we are not supposed to be drunk or otherwise impaired when we do. Seems like the same reasonable limits should be placed on guns.

Now that's a problem, when your sanity and sobriety becomes the state's business. I just don't want the cops monitoring my behavior if I happen to be driving or carrying a gun, with the threat of sending me to prison if they can produce evidence that a judge decides shows I am drunk or insane. Don't you see that this is a threat to civil liberties? Do you really want big brother watching you, ready to pounce if it appears you might do something bad?

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Now that's a problem, when your sanity and sobriety becomes the state's business. I just don't want the cops monitoring my behavior if I happen to be driving or carrying a gun, with the threat of sending me to prison if they can produce evidence that a judge decides shows I am drunk or insane. Don't you see that this is a threat to civil liberties? Do you really want big brother watching you, ready to pounce if it appears you might do something bad?

Yes, I want all of those things. Your sanity with an addiction to guns and your sobriety while driving IS my business! It is not big brother watching you, it is society setting minimum standards for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of the population.

You are espousing the typical libertarian/teapublican propaganda. That philosophy has no place in a civilized society and has been discredited in American politics and elections. Your philosophy is a threat to my civil liberties.

[matapule]

And the carnage proceeds unabated

Five people shot and three dead at a courthouse in Delaware.

"Authorities said that there are eight to 10 officers on the courthouse campus at any given time." So there goes the premise that more guns will stop a gun nut. Take away everyone's guns except law enforcement. We will put a stop to this!

Strict gun control now.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

The Dorner episode in Cal seems to be over, a cabin where he was hiding has burned, a body has been found and his ID. Maybe a ruse? If he is as clever as he said, it might be a ruse. Someone said Enron's Ken Lay also faked his death and is relaxing on a Fiji beach. That certainly seemed like a conveniently timed death. So too with Dorner. It seems like when the authorities want to utterly destroy a target they burn them. The Symbionese Liberation Army conflagration in LA comes to mind, some row house episode in Philly. Others too. I always wonder if its just coincidence the enemies of the state get burned up or if there is some deliberate terrifying message being sent to the subjects, I mean citizens.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Gun nut and NRA board member, Ted Nugent, was anything but a gun advocate when it came time for service in Viet Nam.

In my opinion he is a mentally disturbed individual and has no right to own a gun.

Strict gun control now!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

I hit the wrong button - excuse me.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

I have never had anything against hunting or hunting rifles or even hand guns for personal protection, if a person can pass a simple background check what would be the problem. (...) And why does anybody really need an assault weapon? Seriously, why? Maybe there is some good reason but I sure can't think of one.

I think the laws we have in Hawaii are adequate. We already have background checks before one can buy a firearm - even at gun shows, and we have full registration and LOCALLY held records. We have a limit on magazine capacity and require gun safety training before one is allowed to purchase firearms. The only thing I'd add here is a law to ensure firearms are LOCKED away when not in use - if you can afford a gun you can afford a secure safe. I think these are reasonable moves to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

The NRAs position is against national registration which would give the Feds the names, addresses and details on every gun owner, which they feel is a step toward global (national) confiscation. The way things are leaning in congress today, they may just be right. Harry Reid is blocking 2nd amendment rights bills and helping anti-gun laws along.

Assault weapons are only useful if the islands are being invaded, but the anti-gun nuts are very loose in their description of 'assault weapons,' so that all kinds of guns get miscategorized as assault weapons.

People like Mapule, Harry Reid, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Rosie O'Donnell, etc., want to eliminate gun ownership for honest, law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves against non-law-abiding criminals (those last five have armed guards to protect them - most of us can't afford them).

I'm all for reasonable restrictions, as mentioned above, but I'm against gutting any amendment from our Bill of Rights; it would be the beginning of the downfall of the USA as a free nation.