Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[Ghost]

The dangers of gay marriage being accepted are totally on par with the dangers of someone who isn't qualified to handle a gun having a concealed carry permit.

[Indy]

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?

It is easy and it isn't illegal.

[Ghost]

Dan, when you refer to your 2nd Amendment rights, why do you always neglect to mention the "well regulated" part of the nation's law? And given that you are a state's rights guy, why does it bother you that different states regulate firearms in different ways (when the Constitution itself directs them to regulate those firearms, and to do it well)?

Or was I right before, and this was a click bait post to just rip on Obama for a very minor gaffe? If you just post these for cheap giggles, let me know and I'll know to ignore them. I would have done it to Bush, so that's fine. But I'm less argumentative these days, so I'd rather just know.

[Dan H]

Dan, when you refer to your 2nd Amendment rights, why do you always neglect to mention the "well regulated" part of the nation's law? And given that you are a state's rights guy, why does it bother you that different states regulate firearms in different ways (when the Constitution itself directs them to regulate those firearms, and to do it well)?

In regard to well-regulated, the context is different from the time of founding. The militia acts and various other writings of the day defined the well-regulated part. The Maryland convention, for example, found that:

That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the gentlemen, freeholders, and other freemen, is the natural strength and only stable security of a free Government; and that such Militia will relieve our mother country from any expense in our protection and defence; will obviate the pretence of a necessity for taxing us on that account, and render it unnecessary to keep any Standing Army, (ever dangerous to liberty,) in this Province; and therefore it is recommended to such of the said inhabitants of this Province as are from sixteen to fifty years of age, to form themselves into Companies of sixty-eight men; to choose a Captain, two Lieutenants, an Ensign, four Sergeants, four Corporals, and one Drummer, for each Company, and use their utmost endeavours to make themselves masters of the military exercise; that each man be provided with a good Firelock, and Bayonet fitted thereon, half a pound of Powder, two pounds of Lead, and a Cartouch-Box or Powder-Horn, and Bag for Ball, and be in readiness to act on any emergency.

James Madison:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

Richard Henry Lee:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

In regard to state's rights and the 2nd Amendment, post-14th Amendment, all aspects of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to as to be in effect for each of the states as well as the federal government. It would be like, oh, I don't know, Alaska putting constraints on free speech. The two most recent Supreme Court cases in regard to the 2nd Amendment align with this perspective, with Chicago and DC previously having onerous restrictions on personal protection.

Insofar as the trolling comment, I edited the inflammatory title of the post. Sorry if my disagreeing with you as far as the actual content of the posts makes you feel as though I'm trolling.

[Dan H]

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?

It is easy and it isn't illegal.

The weird thing is, every time I've gone to a gun show I've been more interested in the stuff the exhibitors are offering. They've usually got business cards, websites, so they're more of a known quantity in terms of service . . . you have to figure if they're paying the cash for a table they're not going to be going around trying to rip people off. Random guy walking around with a 'for sale' sign taped to a rifle on his shoulder, who knows what the thing has gone through. The more commercial shows it's not very common just because there's so many other things to look at. It'd be kind of like a taco truck parking outside of the buffet at a casino; it's kind of extraneous.

[Dan H]

[OE32]

Far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who prize the second amendment to such absurd degrees that any regulation of guns whatsoever is thought to be violation own guns principally for recreational purposes. Think it's worth acknowledging that.

Which brings me to -- the fourth amendment. Don't hear a lot of people crowing about that amendment being thrown out the window. People think of the constitution in exceedingly strange ways - like thinking it's some holy document, written by holy men. Let's be real, it was written by rich slave owners, only some of whom are looked upon as virtuous by history. But among the bill of rights are other very important amendments having much less to do with recreation and much more to do with actual protections against unreasonable force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... rug-raids/

Absurd, tragic, and OUTRAGEOUS.

[Dan H]

Far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who prize the second amendment to such absurd degrees that any regulation of guns whatsoever is thought to be violation own guns principally for recreational purposes. Think it's worth acknowledging that.

Which brings me to -- the fourth amendment. Don't hear a lot of people crowing about that amendment being thrown out the window. People think of the constitution in exceedingly strange ways - like thinking it's some holy document, written by holy men. Let's be real, it was written by rich slave owners, only some of whom are looked upon as virtuous by history. But among the bill of rights are other very important amendments having much less to do with recreation and much more to do with actual protections against unreasonable force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... rug-raids/

Absurd, tragic, and OUTRAGEOUS.

I think you've missed a few of the posts I've made on the same subject. Believe they were in the Ferguson thread.

This is the one that sticks in my craw more than anything else:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/04/h ... by-burners

Of course all too often in cases like this police are exempted from consequences of their actions, which would seem to fly in the face of the 14th Amendment. I pointed that out to a Facebook friend who's an aspiring policeman when he posted an article about charging people with murder when they killed police dogs. I asked him if he supported police being charged with murder when they kill dogs, and posted several articles detailing excessive force by police toward same, and was told that I somehow hate animals, now.

Of course, when my state takes legal steps to strengthen citizen's protections under that same 4th amendment umbrella we get hysterical stories like this:

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/In ... 612347.php

Far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who prize the second amendment to such absurd degrees that any regulation of guns whatsoever is thought to be violation own guns principally for recreational purposes. Think it's worth acknowledging that.

Nope. Not even close.

The 2nd Amendment is not for recreational, target shooting, or hunting purposes. It is intended to allow sovereign citizens to defend self and property against criminals, miscreants, and yes, the government if and when it becomes necessary.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... st_tyranny

I believe 65% is just shy of a "super-majority", no?

But don't take my word for it, read Federalist 46. It's by James Madison, who also wrote the 2nd Amendment, and expands quite well on his thinking on the subject.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[OE32]

Far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who prize the second amendment to such absurd degrees that any regulation of guns whatsoever is thought to be violation own guns principally for recreational purposes. Think it's worth acknowledging that.

Nope. Not even close.

The 2nd Amendment is not for recreational, target shooting, or hunting purposes. It is intended to allow sovereign citizens to defend self and property against criminals, miscreants, and yes, the government if and when it becomes necessary.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... st_tyranny

I believe 65% is just shy of a "super-majority", no?

But don't take my word for it, read Federalist 46. It's by James Madison, who also wrote the 2nd Amendment, and expands quite well on his thinking on the subject.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

I wasn't talking about the second amendment. I was talking about the gun nuts. Anything you cite in relation to that amendment does not bear on my statement.

So you really think gun shows are anti-tyranny private militia conventions? Well, if that is the case, don't you begin to remind yourself of the confederacy (you know, that great, evil villain of American history)? I guess both explanations are consistent with people owning not one or two guns but whole collections and obsessing about them like they're star wars figurines. I'm willing to be corrected in this way, but I don't think it's a particularly flattering conclusion.

I've heard the hypothetical posed - what if the government turns against the people, and the people need guns to protect themselves? This scenario makes me think of a second civil war. And I ask, does no one genuinely wonder which side of that war they'd be on? My guess is, I'd be on the side of the federal government! They were the good guys in the last one, after all, or do I hear otherwise? And I always wonder what kind of tyranny these people are imagining... the EPA? That's tyranny? The Department of Education? The IRS? The gay communist Muslim atheist conspiracy?

What I'm hearing you say is, no, we're not gun-lovers, we're just paranoid.

And I know who the authors of the Federalist are. They're not bible verses. They're not even law. And there's been a couple hundred years of law written since then (but that didn't stop you from citing the basically-defunct 10th Amendment). So no, I won't take James Madison's word for something I wasn't even implying.

Tangentially - I've never been a fan of rights talk. The rights of one tend to impede the rights of others. The right to bear arms runs right up against the right of anyone else to be free of arms. (And what's a 'right' anyway?) You never answered my question: if it could be shown that a law would impose minimal impediments on gun ownership but would save lives, would you be in favor of it? I already said that if loosening restrictions would save lives, I'd favor it. Are we on equal footing, or are we too busy being vigilant against the tyranny of federal this and federal that to care about actually dead people? I just wish we could have an open, fact-based debate about it - not resting on some increasingly-ancient principles authored by holy (poor-hating, slave-owning, misogynist) men. Someone said earlier they hated people who have an irrational hatred of guns. I think people who have an irrational love for guns are equally worthy of scorn. The second amendment does not settle this question - indeed, the Court has argued for hundreds of years about what the amendment even means. But that does not stop some people from concluding that the amendment is a holy verse subject to one inarguable conclusion.

I think you've missed a few of the posts I've made on the same subject.

Believe it or not, not everything I post is in response to something YOU said.

[Dan H]

You never answered my question: if it could be shown that a law would impose minimal impediments on gun ownership but would save lives, would you be in favor of it? I already said that if loosening restrictions would save lives, I'd favor it. Are we on equal footing, or are we too busy being vigilant against the tyranny of federal this and federal that to care about actually dead people?

That's rather amorphous, isn't it? What specific policy do you have in mind that isn't already in place? If you want to get more specific then it's certainly a legitimate debate, but obviously of course given those parameters it would be logical. Without further details it's a straw-man proposal.

I think people who have an irrational love for guns are equally worthy of scorn.

A gun isn't something meriting love or affection; it's a tool, like a hammer or a chainsaw. Do I like, the 16 oz framing hammer my grandfather gave me? Absolutely, it's a nice hammer and it has sentimental value because of where it came from. The same holds true with the rifle he gave me. And I would probably react just as poorly if you wanted to take my hammer away.

"Now that's nonsense, no one wants to take your hammer."

Well, if we could impose minimal restrictions on hammer ownership and save lives, isn't it worth it?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... th-rifles/

The rights of one tend to impede the rights of others.

When it comes down to it when we talk about 'rights' we're talking about rights of property and self. Medieval peasants lived at the whim of the king or whoever owned the land they lived on. If the king wanted to have relations with your wife before you do on your wedding night, too bad, peasant, I have men in armor with swords who I pay quite nicely to back up my desires to do so. It's a bit more difficult to enact such things from the peasantry when they have a longbow, crossbow, and in more modern times a firearm. Interestingly enough certain European nations tried to ban the longbow and crossbow. Guess they didn't appreciate mud-encrusted peasants having the capability of quite literally knocking them off of their high horse.

http://mises.org/library/human-rights-property-rights

I've heard the hypothetical posed - what if the government turns against the people, and the people need guns to protect themselves? This scenario makes me think of a second civil war. And I ask, does no one genuinely wonder which side of that war they'd be on? My guess is, I'd be on the side of the federal government! They were the good guys in the last one, after all, or do I hear otherwise?

So, if, oh, a future President Santorum decides to use an executive order to criminalize homosexuality and starts a civil war over it, you'd side with the Federal government?

After 9/11 I will admit, I was in favor of actions like the Patriot Act. Looking back now, someone said something to me that strikes as pretty profound - "Don't give your best friend power over you that you wouldn't give your worst enemy." W was hardly my best friend, and Obama is hardly my worst enemy, but I think we've seen these last few years with NSA monitoring, drone strikes, etc. that technology presents some pretty spooky consequences. If nothing else, private gun ownership is a nice deterrent for any would-be President Santorum. Pour encourager les autres, in a sense.

If you don't like the racist, slave-owning misogynists that wrote the Constitution, perhaps the originator of this quote will be more palatable to you:

"The liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country..."

- Frederick Douglass

[OE32]

People tend to overuse the phrase "straw man," and you're using it incorrectly in this case. It's ironic because your Santorum scenario strongly resembles a straw man but is more likely just a misreading of my statement. I'm glad that you agree with the principle I outlined (which is not anything close to a conclusion, mind you - it's just a proposition). It's quite clear that the majority of - what did you call them? "2A supporters"? - don't. Theirs a hard line position, seems to me.

A lot of your views, even those I disagree with, are worthy of legitimate debate. There's reason to be afraid of government monitoring of internet activity and drone strikes, though I tend to think there's more reason, on balance, to be in favor of these things than against - although that would seem to make me right-wing relative to the vast majority on those matters, even the actual right wing of the country. But there's a ton of detail to be filled on there, and it's just not my area of law.

I like Frederick Douglass plenty. But all of these are appeals to authority, not arguments in favor or against anything. It's just not the type of reasoning that sophisticated arguments are made of, in my view. And notice, I've never made any statements against gun ownership. It's almost like your posts are designed to beat up on a - wait for it - straw man.

Sorry to be as impolite as I've been in these remarks. Wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers... I guess what I've been trying to say is, this really isn't a very important issue. It gets elevated to this unreasonably high level on the national stage, and I wish we could just move on and talk about things that make a real difference in people's lives.

[Indy]

private gun ownership is a nice deterrent for any would-be President Santorum.

I don't believe for a second that private gun ownership could deter any branch of our military from starting a war with the citizens.

[Dan H]

private gun ownership is a nice deterrent for any would-be President Santorum.

I don't believe for a second that private gun ownership could deter any branch of our military from starting a war with the citizens.

Tens of millions of Russians, German gypsies and Jews, Ugandans, Armenians, Cambodians, and Chinese might tend to disagree. Until such a time that we in the US are forced to find out it's an entirely philosophical exercise.

OE32, my sense in dubbing it a straw man is that without an explicit proposal of legislation, we're just spitballing. I'm glad you say that it's not an important issue, I myself think money-printing, debt and deficits, for one aspect, are probably the most pressing issues of ours and the next generation, but neither party seems intent on doing much about it. And while you may feel it's not an important issue, we see with continued proposals to ban types of ammunition for dubious reason or in whole, there are indeed certain parties currently in power that do regard it as an important issue.

This is a bit long, and I hope it shows up correctly, but it points out some of the reasons why 2nd Amendment supporters tend to seem paranoid. Because every time a compromise is made it suddenly becomes insufficient at some future point down the road. That, if for no other reason, is why so many are dubious of any efforts that come down the pike - because it's been an ongoing story for over 80 years.

[OE32]

I myself think money-printing, debt and deficits, for one aspect, are probably the most pressing issues of ours and the next generation, but neither party seems intent on doing much about it.

Edit: I think the most terrifying problem for the country is just how ******* unreasonable the voters are. The issues get more and more complicated, and the voters get more and more opinionated but never more informed. It's scary. It's the reason I'm having nothing to do with government - at least in the private sphere, it doesn't matter how strongly grandpa feels about all the stuff he thinks he understands.

[Ghost]

The cake comic is absolutely the most absurd argument you can make here, Dan. Appeal to Cake -- that's my new favorite logical fallacy.

[Dan H]

I myself think money-printing, debt and deficits, for one aspect, are probably the most pressing issues of ours and the next generation, but neither party seems intent on doing much about it.

Edit: I think the most terrifying problem for the country is just how ******* unreasonable the voters are. The issues get more and more complicated, and the voters get more and more opinionated but never more informed. It's scary. It's the reason I'm having nothing to do with government - at least in the private sphere, it doesn't matter how strongly grandpa feels about all the stuff he thinks he understands.

Why the eye-roll? Do you consider borrow-and-spend sustainable? ZIRP can't last forever, and when it ends interest payments are going to consume more and more of the budget.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/ ... -skyrocket

[OE32]

I myself think money-printing, debt and deficits, for one aspect, are probably the most pressing issues of ours and the next generation, but neither party seems intent on doing much about it.

Edit: I think the most terrifying problem for the country is just how ******* unreasonable the voters are. The issues get more and more complicated, and the voters get more and more opinionated but never more informed. It's scary. It's the reason I'm having nothing to do with government - at least in the private sphere, it doesn't matter how strongly grandpa feels about all the stuff he thinks he understands.

Why the eye-roll? Do you consider borrow-and-spend sustainable? ZIRP can't last forever, and when it ends interest payments are going to consume more and more of the budget.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/ ... -skyrocket

The evolving consensus among social scientists is that when people are confronted with facts that undermine their worldview, it paradoxically serves to strengthen their controverted belief. Which is to say, this conversation is not worth my time. There is simply too much to explain, and no discernible profit to be made from it. I'm not disagreeing that interest rates will eventually increase. I will simply say that your focus is misplaced. (And anyways, the party I'm supposing you support is actively interested in increasing deficits so they can - how do they put it? - shrink the government to a size so small it can be drowned in the bath?)

Much of the time, "common sense" would be more appropriately termed, "popular nonsense."

Edit: it strikes me that I'm being excessively condescending. All I can say is sorry. I'm sure you're a nice guy, and I wouldn't be such an asshole in person. Thanks for the talk.

The cake comic is absolutely the most absurd argument you can make here, Dan. Appeal to Cake -- that's my new favorite logical fallacy.

What's more - the Supreme Court interprets the second amendment. The right to bear arms actually cannot be compromised by any law unless the amendment itself is altered, so that comic should really be about an imaginary cake getting ever more closer in size to the actual cake. But don't let that spoil your sense of oppression.

[Dan H]

The evolving consensus among social scientists is that when people are confronted with facts that undermine their worldview, it paradoxically serves to strengthen their controverted belief. Which is to say, this conversation is not worth my time. There is simply too much to explain, and no discernible profit to be made from it.

Funny, I was just thinking much the same about gun rights.

(And anyways, the party I'm supposing you support is actively interested in increasing deficits so they can - how do they put it? - shrink the government to a size so small it can be drowned in the bath?)

Don't feel the need to shrink it to that extent, but it would be nice to be spending less than we take in and not living off of credit. At some point that bubble has to burst.

Deficit spending has its place in downturns, but even when Keynes argued for that he didn't think that you should do it indefinitely. Deficit spend when you have to, pay it off when times are better.

[OE32]

The evolving consensus among social scientists is that when people are confronted with facts that undermine their worldview, it paradoxically serves to strengthen their controverted belief. Which is to say, this conversation is not worth my time. There is simply too much to explain, and no discernible profit to be made from it.

Funny, I was just thinking much the same about gun rights.

(And anyways, the party I'm supposing you support is actively interested in increasing deficits so they can - how do they put it? - shrink the government to a size so small it can be drowned in the bath?)

Don't feel the need to shrink it to that extent, but it would be nice to be spending less than we take in and not living off of credit. At some point that bubble has to burst.

Deficit spending has its place in downturns, but even when Keynes argued for that he didn't think that you should do it indefinitely. Deficit spend when you have to, pay it off when times are better.

I'm glad you appreciate that deficit spending has its place - you must have been on Krugman's side in his fight against the entire Republican party since 2008. Kudos.

As for the bubble bursting, I'll just give you a little bid of food for thought. Of the world's developed industrial economies, how many of them, do you think, have national debt currently? How about in 2008?

"To that extent." Great. Well, thanks for the low taxes, I guess. It'll afford me a nice gun collection to protect me from the riotous poor.

[Dan H]

At current tax rates, we had more than 3 trillion in revenue last year. A budget of, oh, 2.5-2.8 to allow for accelerated debt payments would be so draconian as to create riotous poor?