Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[OE32]

OE: When it comes to laws in general, I am quasi-libertarian. Meaning, either enforce the laws you have, or sunset them and pass a (hopefully) better comprehensive law to replace ineffective ones. For example, when people push for better immigration laws, I question if the ones already in place have been enforced effectively. Too many times Congress and state legislatures enact measures without fully regarding historical context as well as a current socio-demographic trends. When it comes to lawmaking, it's unfortunately more a matter of grandstanding for constituents ("see what I did for you") instead of serving the greater good. But I'm probably too idealistic in that regard.

"if a series of studies came out showing that lives would very likely be saved by the passage of a new law, while having only a minimal impact on the vast majority of gun owners, would you be inclined to pass such a law?"

In principle, I would be open to that. Again, I would either like to see the law as an update or amendment to existing law, or that similar statutes be sunsetted once the new one is enacted.

"It seems what you're expressing is more of a feeling than anything else."

Probably right. My quibble is with people who get hysterical, i.e. irrational when it comes to the subject of guns. They tend to take a broad-brush approach to gun legislation -- all guns are bad. The same has been true, in general, about drugs, although some states are starting to differentiate how to control/treat certain drugs (marijuana).

Cool, man. Sounds legit.

I would describe my political self as utilitarian. Whatever gets the best results. I'm generally suspicious of principles. In my view, they're substitutes for good reasoning. Principles should be relied only where you don't have good information on the subject. You seem pretty thoughtful. Given that you're a libertarian, I bet we'll eventually run into disagreements when it come to economics, but that can wait for another day. Cheers.

[LazarusLong]

"Libertarian" to me favors a state-rights and local approach, but, unfortunately, it's applied to the Tea-Party nut jobs that have polluted the political landscape. I thought Barry Goldwater was more libertarian than conservative; evidence came in his approach to social issues (he was very egalitarian when it came to gay rights and he also supported Planned Parenthood).

I think both parties have lost their way, but especially the Republican Party. While many state that Reagan was the best Republican president the country has had since T. Roosevelt, I would argue that Eisenhower had a much better record of achievement. He's terrifically underrated.

[Indy]

"Libertarian" to me favors a state-rights and local approach, but, unfortunately, it's applied to the Tea-Party nut jobs that have polluted the political landscape.

Couldn't agree more. When I tell people I lean more towards Libertarian than anything else, there always comes that comparison. It is so ridiculous.

[Dan H]

OE: When it comes to laws in general, I am quasi-libertarian. Meaning, either enforce the laws you have, or sunset them and pass a (hopefully) better comprehensive law to replace ineffective ones. For example, when people push for better immigration laws, I question if the ones already in place have been enforced effectively. Too many times Congress and state legislatures enact measures without fully regarding historical context as well as a current socio-demographic trends. When it comes to lawmaking, it's unfortunately more a matter of grandstanding for constituents ("see what I did for you") instead of serving the greater good. But I'm probably too idealistic in that regard.

"if a series of studies came out showing that lives would very likely be saved by the passage of a new law, while having only a minimal impact on the vast majority of gun owners, would you be inclined to pass such a law?"

In principle, I would be open to that. Again, I would either like to see the law as an update or amendment to existing law, or that similar statutes be sunsetted once the new one is enacted.

"It seems what you're expressing is more of a feeling than anything else."

Probably right. My quibble is with people who get hysterical, i.e. irrational when it comes to the subject of guns. They tend to take a broad-brush approach to gun legislation -- all guns are bad. The same has been true, in general, about drugs, although some states are starting to differentiate how to control/treat certain drugs (marijuana).

I agree with pretty much everything you said here . . . stop doing that.

[Ghost]

See, if all of us could get together and remake the Libertarian Party, I think we'd make a pretty good one. Granted, some of us might get stabbed a few times while in session, but we'll deal with that when it happens. I am obviously quite liberal, but IN THEORY I agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy.

As the first Phx-Suns.net triumvirate, I would like to nominate myself (of course), Laz, and...Dan. As much as we fight, I think Laz would prevent any stabbings.

After our nomination, Indy, Nodack, and, I don't know, AIG go to the stocks right away, just to send a message.

[Indy]

See, if all of us could get together and remake the Libertarian Party, I think we'd make a pretty good one. Granted, some of us might get stabbed a few times while in session, but we'll deal with that when it happens. I am obviously quite liberal, but IN THEORY I agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy.

As the first Phx-Suns.net triumvirate, I would like to nominate myself (of course), Laz, and...Dan. As much as we fight, I think Laz would prevent any stabbings.

After our nomination, Indy, Nodack, and, I don't know, AIG go to the stocks right away, just to send a message.

I think that actually makes a lot of sense. Damnit.

[LazarusLong]

I'd be the group's Obi-Wan Kenobi.

"For over a thousand generations, the Jedi knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the old Republic... before the dark times... before TMZ and virtual reality TV programs ..."

[Indy]

And the Tea Party.

[Shabazz]

On average, 33,000 Americans die each year in traffic accidents. 11,000 die as a result of gun violence (said number also includes suicides, but that's not germane to the point). Thus, on a per device basis you're more than 4 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are to be shot. Are you calling for the same sensible solutions for vehicles as well as firearms? Considering that firearms are, as we're so often told, 'designed to kill', it seems odd to me that cars, which are not, are far more lethal. Perhaps our guns aren't being designed very well.

This argument is flawed on a number of levels and I think you know it is.

[Dan H]

Of course it's not a serious argument, it's an illustration of the absurdity of acting as if guns are the greatest threat to life in our nation. They aren't by a significant long shot.

[Indy]

Of course it's not a serious argument, it's an illustration of the absurdity of acting as if guns are the greatest threat to life in our nation. They aren't by a significant long shot.

Did anyone ever say that?

[Dan H]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... un-claims/

Like a mile higher than other nations?

[OE32]

"Libertarian" to me favors a state-rights and local approach, but, unfortunately, it's applied to the Tea-Party nut jobs that have polluted the political landscape.

Couldn't agree more. When I tell people I lean more towards Libertarian than anything else, there always comes that comparison. It is so ridiculous.

Re: states rights. I think it's worth remembering that the original states rights issue was slavery. Jefferson and Madison originally wanted the bill of rights to apply to the states rather than just the federal government, because they feared that the states would engage in tyranny against their own citizens. Well, they were tragically correct. Now, the bill of rights does apply to the states, but it took a civil war to get the fourteenth amendment passed (Dan: can I call states' rights people "Anti-14th" people?).

I think it's important to be equally suspicious of the tyranny of states and municipalities as we are of the federal government. I'm not saying that states aren't important as laboratories of democracy, but I don't have a preference for either state solutions or federal solutions. Just solutions. Myriad ways to skin a cat. Look at all these voter ID laws, for instance. Clear examples of states trying to disenfranchise their own citizens.

... uh oh. I just said something about an issue that talk radio has weighed in on. Anyone here with a radio strapped to their brain? Easy to detect, when someone has nothing to say about the history of the constitution or the regulatory state etc but all sorts of things to say about particular issues which get way too much attention in certain broadcast communities. How does one know one thinks about the things worth thinking about? How does one know that one is really thinking for oneself?

I shouldn't antagonize. I have real work to do, and these conversations will only distract and upset me.

[Dan H]

Re: states rights. I think it's worth remembering that the original states rights issue was slavery. Jefferson and Madison originally wanted the bill of rights to apply to the states rather than just the federal government, because they feared that the states would engage in tyranny against their own citizens. Well, they were tragically correct. Now, the bill of rights does apply to the states, but it took a civil war to get the fourteenth amendment passed (Dan: can I call states' rights people "Anti-14th" people?).

You can call it whatever you like, but it's really the Federalist v. anti-Federalist position. Who's easier to talk to, your city council or a member of Congress? Some activities of government are simply more effective and efficient at the local level. I certainly wouldn't want the US Congress being in charge of road repairs; our county council does a lousy enough job at it already.

I think it's important to be equally suspicious of the tyranny of states and municipalities as we are of the federal government. I'm not saying that states aren't important as laboratories of democracy, but I don't have a preference for either state solutions or federal solutions. Just solutions. Myriad ways to skin a cat. Look at all these voter ID laws, for instance. Clear examples of states trying to disenfranchise their own citizens.

Sorry, that's a trigger warning for me, especially considering I live in a state that both a) passed voter ID requirements and b) had said requirements pass muster at the Supreme Court. How does giving out a free ID card equal disenfranchisement? Our participation rates have been statistically the same since passing the law. And for those who are home-bound, we also offer vote by mail.

Of course, yes, on the one hand, voting is a Constitutional right, so perhaps it's a bit heavy handed to require ID to exercise a right. If you'd like to have that debate I'm all for it . . . especially since I need to fill out paperwork and show an ID to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

Another aspect that I like to point is gay marriage. Marriage has long been a licensing issue, administered by the states as there's no mention of it in the Constitution. All well and good, passes 10th Amendment muster IMO. (DOMA was un-Constitutional under this logic; there's no Federal authority over marriage short of a Constitutional amendment.)

And generally speaking, states recognize the licensing of other states . . . IE, when I moved from IN to CO, and CO to AZ, and AZ to IN over the last decade, each accepted my prior state of residence's driver license as ID in issuing a new license. I had to pass a written driver's exam in Indiana when I moved back, which I found particularly stupid, but oh well. It's not like I forgot to drive . . . but anyhoo, so it's often been pointed out that states without gay marriage should be required to recognize the licensure from other states should couples move. All well and good, we've got existing precedent with other licensure. Of course when I point out that, oh, New York, for example, won't recognize my Indiana concealed carry permit, so why should Indiana recognize New York licensure or permits, hmm? Guess they just don't believe in self-defense of certain parties . . .

http://www.pinkpistols.org/about-the-pink-pistols/ :p

[OE32]

Of course, yes, on the one hand, voting is a Constitutional right, so perhaps it's a bit heavy handed to require ID to exercise a right. If you'd like to have that debate I'm all for it . . . especially since I need to fill out paperwork and show an ID to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

Hey, that's a good point. I'm not going to offer a full-throated response to the voting rights issue, but that's a good point. One could argue that some gun ID laws may be intended to keep guns out of the hands of black folks, much the same way that voter ID laws are intended to keep blacks and young people from voting.

[Indy]

especially since I need to fill out paperwork and show an ID to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

But you don't. Only in certain situations do you have to do that. I don't need to show ID to go buy a firearm from a person down the street.

[Mori Chu]

What about at a gun show? I hear it's easy to buy a gun at one. Does ID need to be shown? Is there any delay, or can the gun be bought immediately? How does it differ from the usual gun buying experience?

[Dan H]

Yes, Mori, you have to pass a background check at a gun show or online. Depending on if the show is out of state you may have to transfer it to an out of state dealer, who will then charge you extra And do the background check. Private party sales are different, but ATF will strongly encourage anyone who's doing a lot of buying and selling to become a licensed dealer, which requires them to perform background checks.

OE32, as a matter of fact the first gun control laws were aimed at disarming freed slaves.

[Mori Chu]

Dan:Thanks. But I keep hearing about the "gun show loophole". What is that? Is it easy to privately sell a gun from one dude to another without such checks?

[Dan H]

That's what they mean when they say gun show loophole, you can buy something from an individual, just like you can a car, etc. However knowingly buying for someone who's not qualified is known as a straw-purchase and they go after that sort of thing HARD. But buying from a dealer at a table, no, there's no loophole, you're going to fill out paperwork and need ID.

How hard do they go after it? Throwing cops in jail hard.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ing-uncle/