So, I've got this friend. . .

7,384 Views | 83 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by concordtom
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

I have no problems in principle, but it depends who makes these judgements. They should be made by communities not in DC or by the courts.


How do you deal with the problem of adjacent communities wanting vastly different standards? The gun-restricted area doesn't really get what they want if the gun-freedom area is just a short drive away (see: Chicago being bordered by Indiana).
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As I said earlier I have no problem if Chicago banned hand guns- assuming it was put to a vote and passed overwhelmingly. Of course this could never happen because of our allegiance to the Delphic interpretation of an 18th century document but assuming it did than I would posit that anyone bearing, using or selling a gun in Chicago would be liable to prosecution. It would be up to Illinois and Indiana to resolve this via mutual cooperation- it should be noted that Gary Indiana has similar problems
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

I have no problems in principle, but it depends who makes these judgements. They should be made by communities not in DC or by the courts.
I don't understand how that makes any sense, from a logic or logistical stand point.

So town to town my machine gun might be legal, or illegal?

If the federal government is going to have any national law or regulation or supervision over some cohesive American experience, wouldn't the safety of its citizens be exactly the type of thing you would want them to do? Isn't that the most logical role for them?

You know who I don't want analyzing public safety data and putting my well being at risk? Not good old boy city councilman John Doe, but the Congress I elect with the resources of national studies and scientific research.

If the corruption and influence of money is removed from Congress and their accountability is solely to the public, than they are the most qualified and the ones Constitutionally charged with this type of governance.

I also don't want my councilman deciding what is pornography, or rape, or theft, or what religion I should practice. They can decide where the cars park at the library.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You must live in a very dangerous place and have a pretty low opinion of yourself, your fellow citizens and government if you feel they have no idea what rape is, the welfare of their constituents or what gun safety measures make sense in your community and that they are going to make you practice a religion against your will. Where do you live?. The reverse is true. The federal government has very little interest in your welfare.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

You must live in a very dangerous place and have a pretty low opinion of yourself, your fellow citizens and government if you feel they have no idea what rape is, the welfare of their constituents or what gun safety measures make sense in your community and that they are going to make you practice a religion against your will. Where do you live?. The reverse is true. The federal government has very little interest in your welfare.
I was of course being facetious to make a point, but you knew that.

I live in one of the most educated affluent cities in the country, and I still don't want local policy to determine issues that should be fundamental to all citizens. Public safety is one of those. I do trust myself and my local government. They do a fantastic job on issues of city planning and local ordinances that are particular to our town.

I don't expect the federal government to have interest in MY welfare, but I do expect them in their capacity as national lawmakers to wrestle with universal issues that determine our rights as citizens and OUR welfare.

I could ask if you live in a dangerous country and have a low opinion of yourself and fellow citizens if you do not trust your national electorally-appointed federal government. I don't think your qualms are with a federal government per se, it is with what the federal government has become. The solution is to fix the federal government, not empower the less qualified and create a hodgepodge American experience without a cohesive set of rights and policies.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't believe we live in a participatory democracy and I'm not the only one. 40% no longer bother to vote; 60% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. The one thing both left and right agree on is the system is rigged because it's true. And this polling has been true for decades.No change of government is going to fix that unless our economic system is overhauled

Empowering people to control their own environment and welfare and economy by participatiory democracy without authoritarian control shouldn't be a scary prospect. A recent example is the insurrection against Amazon in NYC where Daddy Knows Best was rejected.

This also goes to what a community is. Your thinking of township is too limiting.

And we should be aiming for a hodge podge of experiences which is the basis for this country
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

As I said earlier I have no problem if Chicago banned hand guns- assuming it was put to a vote and passed overwhelmingly. Of course this could never happen because of our allegiance to the Delphic interpretation of an 18th century document but assuming it did than I would posit that anyone bearing, using or selling a gun in Chicago would be liable to prosecution. It would be up to Illinois and Indiana to resolve this via mutual cooperation- it should be noted that Gary Indiana has similar problems


The problem is that CHICAGO has tough gun laws, but other nearby areas have much more lax gun laws, so guns make it into Chicago anyway. America doesn't have militarized borders between states, so how do the people of Chicago (and Illinois) gain the strict gun control they want when the people of Indiana do not comply? Who resolves this dispute between state laws?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chicago's gun laws may be tougher than Indiana but they aren't that tough. You don't have to register a gun in Chicago and penalties are lax.

Chicago Police have said for years that Chicago needs tougher gun control laws and sentences to decrease crime. Guglielmi, the department's spokesman, has said the department has identified and arrested people who are responsible for the city's violence, but there's more work to be done.

"The largest obstacle remains the lack of serious repercussions for those we arrest for repeated gun crimes," Guglielmi said in an emailed statement. "As we move forward, in addition to continued targeted enforcement of gang members, Superintendent [Eddie] Johnson will continue calling for policymakers and others to join the fight against crime by creating a stronger culture of accountability for repeat gun offenders."

How do you know what would have happened if hand guns were banned with strict punishment ? What would have happened if that law wasn't struck down? We don't have that comparison.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Chicago's gun laws may be tougher than Indiana but they aren't that tough. You don't have to register a gun in Chicago and penalties are lax.

Chicago Police have said for years that Chicago needs tougher gun control laws and sentences to decrease crime. Guglielmi, the department's spokesman, has said the department has identified and arrested people who are responsible for the city's violence, but there's more work to be done.

"The largest obstacle remains the lack of serious repercussions for those we arrest for repeated gun crimes," Guglielmi said in an emailed statement. "As we move forward, in addition to continued targeted enforcement of gang members, Superintendent [Eddie] Johnson will continue calling for policymakers and others to join the fight against crime by creating a stronger culture of accountability for repeat gun offenders."

How do you know what would have happened if hand guns were banned with strict punishment ? What would have happened if that law wasn't struck down? We don't have that comparison.

I think my larger argument still holds up, regardless of the current specifics: different localities will enact different laws, and at some point it will be up to the federal government to impose a standard.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

I don't believe we live in a participatory democracy and I'm not the only one. 40% no longer bother to vote; 60% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. The one thing both left and right agree on is the system is rigged because it's true. And this polling has been true for decades.No change of government is going to fix that unless our economic system is overhauled

Empowering people to control their own environment and welfare and economy by participatiory democracy without authoritarian control shouldn't be a scary prospect. A recent example is the insurrection against Amazon in NYC where Daddy Knows Best was rejected.

This also goes to what a community is. Your thinking of township is too limiting.

And we should be aiming for a hodge podge of experiences which is the basis for this country
I hear your frustration, but I think you are conflating issues that are separate.

We can work to solve participatory democracy and fix a corrupt federal government (remove the money) AND empower "communities" to make parochial local laws that fit with community values. These local statutes touch us on a more day to day level and define the "flavor" that differentiates the various parts of America.

What that doesn't mean though is that local communities should decide issues of state. We have a Constitution that sets forth terms of citizenship and the fundamental rights of our country. We can't have community law override that which defines us as a nation. Sorry, you're a smart guy, but that's just dumb.

Southern Alabama determines what is marriage so that if a married same sex couple from California is visiting and one gets sick and is in the hospital, the other spouse is not recognized as having rights under community values? Nope that's dumb.

Arkansas has one treaty with NATO while Tennessee has another?

Louisiana recognizes itself as a separate nation.

Blacks can vote in Florida but not in Georgia. Women can work in Ohio but not in Illinois. Men can have sex with children in Alabama but not in Oregon.

Certain decisions are not the rights of community. And I put who gets to shoot whom and with what they get to shoot as a federal decision and one of basic American public safety. It should be up to Congressional law and Supreme Court Constitutional interpretation.

I don't want mine or your community determining rights of American citizenship...and that Mr. Joe McOpenCarry is perfectly capable of using a machine gun to put down a shooter in a crowded mall, shooting as he goes to sort through who is an active shooter, who is a bystander, who is a cop, who is an undercover cop, and who is another Joe McOpenCarry, and how much collateral damage of innocent life is acceptable in his spray of bullets as the "good guy with a gun." That's dumb and crazy.

You are taking the idea of federation and state/community rights too far. We should demand a local AND federal government that works for the public good, and if it is not, then THAT is the problem, and not one of jurisdiction.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Your arguments are logical but the passivity and subservience of these type of arguments is shocking to me. Chicago has young men being slaughtered by other young men. Nobody will deal with the underlying causes. Chicago tries the remedial approach of banning hand guns. The Federal government declares it unconstitutional because the court is a bogus arm of politics. Rather than question and challenge the authoritarian and unilateral judgments by the federal government against Chicago and it's autonomy we quibble about interstate commerce and turn to the Federal government for a solution. The federal government doesn't care about the deaths of these young men
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We've gone from participatory democracy to Arkansas going to the UN. These are reductio ad absurdum arguments. What I am talking about is shifting power from federalism to local communities where people can control and have a voice in their future.

The good thing about Trump is that he has precipitated some of this . Raising of the minimum wage in red states, teacher strikes in red states, LA and Oakland. Defeat of fossilized Democrats in New York and Boston. Acceptance of universal health care. Push back against climate delayers, etc. Push back against predatory capitalists- Amazon

Our only hope is to continue to revitalize and change our communities and create new democracies, new affiliations and build a new future. The Bill of Rights can still exist. We can still exists as sovereign units in compact with a United States but the current United States is a corrupt enterprise responsible for the exploitation, murder and marginalization of millions.

blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:



Your arguments are logical but the passivity and subservience of these type of arguments is shocking to me. Chicago has young men being slaughtered by other young men. Nobody will deal with the underlying causes. Chicago tries the remedial approach of banning hand guns. The Federal government declares it unconstitutional because the court is a bogus arm of politics. Rather than question and challenge the authoritarian and unilateral judgments by the federal government against Chicago and it's autonomy we quibble about interstate commerce and turn to the Federal government for a solution. The federal government doesn't care about the deaths of these young men
That goes back to money in government. If the NRA money was not in the pocket of the GOP we would have the measures and controls you are advocating. Again, that is an issue of corruption, not jurisdiction.

You note the underlying causes, and those are serious...and frankly also owing to GOP positions on race, education, and income inequality.

So we are getting it from all angles on issues like gun violence from the GOP: their economic policies first create the financial stresses that lead to violence; their systemic support of police hegemony, incarceration and privatization of prisons, the criminalization of narcotics, and a judicial system biased against minorities lead to more arrests; their education policy leads to lower paying employment and hopelessness in minority neighborhoods; and then their gun policy puts weapons in the hands into a violent and angry and poor demographic. It's just a full circle cluster***.

One can make all the arguments one wants, but I'd sure like to see what happens to the number of gun deaths in this country if we increased tax on wealth in all forms (corporate, inheritance, capital gains, net worth, and income); invested in infrastructure and green technology and health care and education; and restricted weapons and ammo that make mass shootings possible (without quibbling over words, just what the weapon is capable of) and instituted mandatory background checks on ALL gun ownership with a renewable test and license.

Who knows, maybe that makes no difference...but how much you want to bet it makes a ton of difference and that's why the GOP doesn't want to try it. We've tried it the other way, how about we at least find out?

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:



Your arguments are logical but the passivity and subservience of these type of arguments is shocking to me. Chicago has young men being slaughtered by other young men. Nobody will deal with the underlying causes. Chicago tries the remedial approach of banning hand guns. The Federal government declares it unconstitutional because the court is a bogus arm of politics. Rather than question and challenge the authoritarian and unilateral judgments by the federal government against Chicago and it's autonomy we quibble about interstate commerce and turn to the Federal government for a solution. The federal government doesn't care about the deaths of these young men
I'll say this: if the argument is that the current environment in D.C. means that passing nationwide reform is impossible (and indeed it probably is right now), therefore the best strategic and tactical approach is for states and cities with majority support for gun control to be aggressive and pass their own laws now, so as to force the issue somewhere down the line, then I can agree with that. It's basically what happened with gay marriage (faster than anyone would have thought).

If the argument is that it should ALWAYS be left up to local communities and never taken up on the federal level, I don't think that's sustainable. Eventually the U.S. government will have to do something.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

dajo9 said:

Our beer is delayed until Wednesday because he got held up at work.
Our beer continued to be delayed because of his work. Thursday I told him I couldn't make it because I was taking my 10 year old son to the local high school musical. I asked if he and his son wanted to join us. Haven't heard back from him after that. haha.
May your beer go as successfully as this thread.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.