Thread: Bloomberg Pushes Gun Control

Originally Posted by Ricardo Valdi

Let's deconstruct the nonsense you're arguing here:



Precisely the point he didn't have a gun so he couldn't shoot anybody, he didn't have a gun. The guy he was chasing could run a lot faster. You may be able to outrun a guy with an ax, you can't outrun a bullet.



More opinion you're trying to pass off as fact.



I'll reserve me insulting you for making such an ignorant statement. Guns were effective at Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and countless other incidents. If you were for car bombs and flying planes into buildings you would be telling me those are ineffective methods of massacre since there are more effective ways of killing people such as nuclear bombs.



Oh, I don't live in fear of guns, only when they are pointed at me with someone threatening to shoot me. You can refuse all you want but when you're at the wrong end of the barrel you'll will experience fear and by the way you talk about the issue I guaranty it.



Delusional bluster, you can't guarantee nothing. So don't be such a braggart. Colorado has concealed weapons permit law. So you can carry. So where were all the wanna-be heroes like you.

I guess you missed the fact that the theatre was posted "no guns", so law-abiding concealed carry licensees could not have carried there.

You might note, though, that the "no guns" signage did the square root of nothing to deter the killer....

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

When you don’t won’t even acknowledge the point I made and continue posting as though I never made it, that’s dismissing it out-of-hand.

I am not sure what point you are referring to.

As for the “overwhelmingly popular” gun control legislation, support for such laws is at an historic low. According to Gallup, not only is there a majority opposed to an assault weapons ban, but support for such a ban and for gun control laws in general has steadily diminished since the questions were first asked in 1996 and 1990 respectively. It would have been political suicide for Obama to pursue a gun control agenda in his first term.

I had linked you to a poll that backed up my contention, but let's go with your poll instead, because it points to an interesting contradiction in your thinking. Because you have been arguing that it was perfectly rational and not at all hysterical for gun owners to assume that Obama would destroy the 2nd Amendment in his first term. But now you are also arguing that of course Obama didn't implement gun control in his first term, because that would be political suicide. So you are now in the very strange position of claiming that it was perfectly rational to believe that Obama would go after guns even though it would be political suicide to do so.

But let us remember that the original argument wasn't that Obama would lay low for his first term and then spring into action in his second term; no, it was that Obama would lay waste to gun rights in his first term. Of course, that proved to be completely false, so we now have the convenient, if utterly contradictory, rationalization.

“Destroying the second amendment” means different things to different people. In your opinion, what would it take to “destroy” the second amendment? Obviously, you don’t think the stringent requirements for transfer of fully-automatic weapons set in 1934 destroyed the second amendment; nor the 1986 ban on new transfers of class 3 weapons to anyone other than military or police. You’ve already stated you didn’t think the Clinton ban affected it. What other gun control laws do you, personally, believe could be passed without “destroying the second amendment”? How about a ban on .50 cal rifles, would that do it? How about a ban on extremely powerful rifles, or handguns? How about a handgun ban, would that do it for you? How about a ban on any magazine-fed firearm? Gun registration? How about confiscation of civilian-owned class 3 weapons? Or a new Clinton ban with confiscation of those weapons that have already been sold? Where do you draw the line and why?

I would draw it arbitrarily, like everybody else. My thought is essentially this: I want to strike a balance between what is reasonably necessary for self-defense and what has unnecessarily excessive capabilities that make it no more useful in a self-defense scenario, but much more useful if you are interested in endangering the public. In principle, I am fine with the Clinton AWB... except that many times it allowed guns with capabilities not all that different than those it banned. So on a practical level, I have issues with it, but that's what I'm thinking.

Of course the HF article was highly speculative; everything that’s being written about the UN ATT is highly speculative, including anything that say it’ll have no effect on US gun ownership. They’ve been keeping details of the damn thing secret, so no one outside the UN really knows what’s in it.

That's true, but that doesn't make the analysis any more useful, especially since the Heritage Foundation is, according to its own mission statement, an agenda-driven partisan organization.

As for how likely I believe it is that it could be ratified by the Senate, I think it’s more likely than Congress passing a law forcing all citizens to buy a product from a private company and being found constitutional by SCOTUS.

Look at it this way: The ACA received exactly zero Republican votes. To be ratified in the current Senate, fourteen Republican votes would be required. That strikes me as fantastically unlikely.

And, as usual, you completely dismissed the point I made by posting the HF article in the first place. I guess I have to repost it, again, so you’ll comment on it rather than dismissing inconvenient information out-of-hand;

Thus, a further risk of accepting an IHL standard is that IHL will—as is already happening—evolve by U.N. declaration into an open rejection of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, understood not simply as protecting the right to keep and bear arms, but as being based on the inherent right to self-defense. This evolution could directly affect rights protected under the Second Amendment by influencing the decisions of U.S. judges, by shaping the opinions offered by lawyers in the executive branch, or both.

No Senate ratification needed, yet there’s the potential it could be another avenue for the persistent erosion of the second amendment.

If I understand correctly, you are backing the argument that even if it isn't ratified (which is what I assume you mean by "No Senate ratification needed") the small arms treaty "could" at some indeterminate point in the future "evolve" into a dire threat to the Second Amendment by "influencing... judges" and "lawyers in the executive branch."

Look, anybody can sit around conjuring up vague, distant theoretical scenarios, and I have no idea why you find this one compelling or likely. But when you find yourself wide awake in the dead of night worrying that an unratified treaty could... somehow... at some point in time... lead to the overturning of the 2nd Amendment... you should take some deep breaths, drink some Scotch and go back to sleep.

I see you’re not one to take suggestions. So far, you’ve proven nothing but a considerable ability to ignore anything that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived ideas, even when contradictory information is pointed out to you. What was that term, conformation bias? Your claim that hysteria rather than pragmatism drove gun sales is pure and complete speculation.

It is true that my contention that the run on guns was driven more by hysteria than pragmatism is, of course, unprovable (and, as I previously stated, your rationale was plausible... which is not to say it was correct, but it was a reasonable argument). It is equally true that your contention that Obama intends to destroy the rights of gun owners in his first... er, I mean, second term is not disprovable. Even if Obama does not implement a single gun control law, you can always argue that he intended to, but he couldn't, because [your rationalization here].

Originally Posted by MattInFla

I guess you missed the fact that the theatre was posted "no guns", so law-abiding concealed carry licensees could not have carried there.

You might note, though, that the "no guns" signage did the square root of nothing to deter the killer....

Not that I don't believe you neighbor, I would conclude what you just said is true. But then again what is the source of your information or affirmation? or is it just an assumption?

Originally Posted by MattInFla

But you ignore the projection in your own. Curious.

Double projection neighbor, I don't think I judged you, yet you judged me making ambigous references to prejudices and comfort zones that may very well be your own. So projection is coming from you, not me.

Here is what you posted:

Originally Posted by MattInFla

He's referring you to sources which don't kowtow to your pre-determined viewpoint. If you looked past your prejudice, you'd find that what he was referring to is a column in those publications which lists news reports of lawfully armed citizens defending themselves and others, with citations to the news articles.

But by all means, avoid thinking outside your comfort zone and exposing yourself to anything that conflicts with your viewpoint.

That is projection neighbor, in case you don't know what it is. I never assumed or expressed anything about you or your motives or your prejudices or your comfort zone for having the views you have.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings".

So you are projecting in order to minimize my argument and elevate yours by using projection in the form of subtle ad-hominem.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Ricardo Valdi

Not that I don't believe you neighbor, I would conclude what you just said is true. But then again what is the source of your information or affirmation? or is it just an assumption?

It has been pretty widely reported. Here is one such report: 'Gun-free zones' never gun free

Google "Cinemark No Guns", and you'll find many reports of posted theaters. It is apparently Cinemark's corporate policy.

Originally Posted by Ricardo Valdi

Double projection neighbor, I don't think I judged you, yet you judged me making ambigous references to prejudices and comfort zones that may very well be your own. So projection is coming from you, not me.

Here is what you posted:



That is projection neighbor, in case you don't know what it is. I never assumed or expressed anything about you or your motives or your prejudices or your comfort zone for having the views you have.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings".

So you are projecting in order to minimize my argument and elevate yours by using projection in the form of subtle ad-hominem.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

You've certainly put a great deal of effort into avoiding examining the sources the other poster provided. Well done.

Originally Posted by Ricardo Valdi

Double projection neighbor, I don't think I judged you, yet you judged me making ambigous references to prejudices and comfort zones that may very well be your own. So projection is coming from you, not me.

Here is what you posted:



That is projection neighbor, in case you don't know what it is. I never assumed or expressed anything about you or your motives or your prejudices or your comfort zone for having the views you have.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings".

So you are projecting in order to minimize my argument and elevate yours by using projection in the form of subtle ad-hominem.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

You need to admit that you have lost your emotional battle to logic, take a long draw on that pipe and cut the insults and psychology lessons.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

You've certainly put a great deal of effort into avoiding examining the sources the other poster provided. Well done.

Projection again, can't argue facts can you?

Turning the debate into personal ad-hominems challeging my credibility does not make you right nor does it win the debate for you. Neither is having the last post make you the winner. So go ahead have your last word.

Experience tells me that after this it's going to be all insults anyway and I got better things to do than waste my time.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

You need to admit that you have lost your emotional battle to logic, take a long draw on that pipe and cut the insults and psychology lessons.

Same thing goes for you projection Dan. You've lost this round buddy until the next one.

Projection again, can't argue facts can you?

Turning the debate into personal ad-hominems challeging my credibility does not make you right nor does it win the debate for you. Neither is having the last post make you the winner. So go ahead have your last word.

Experience tells me that after this it's going to be all insults anyway and I got better things to do than waste my time.

Originally Posted by Ricardo Valdi

Projection again, can't argue facts can you?

Turning the debate into personal ad-hominems challeging my credibility does not make you right nor does it win the debate for you. Neither is having the last post make you the winner. So go ahead have your last word.

Experience tells me that after this it's going to be all insults anyway and I got better things to do than waste my time.

- - - Updated - - -



Same thing goes for you projection Dan. You've lost this round buddy until the next one.

Projection again, can't argue facts can you?

Turning the debate into personal ad-hominems challeging my credibility does not make you right nor does it win the debate for you. Neither is having the last post make you the winner. So go ahead have your last word.

Experience tells me that after this it's going to be all insults anyway and I got better things to do than waste my time.

I made no insulting or ad hominem comments toward you. You seem to be imagining them as an excuse to avoid actual discussion, so I am happy to accept your withdrawal. Good day.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

I am not sure what point you are referring to.

Start with the points that I had to recopy and repaste an earlier comment along with a complaint about you dismissing my point out-of-hand.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

I had linked you to a poll that backed up my contention, but let's go with your poll instead, because it points to an interesting contradiction in your thinking. Because you have been arguing that it was perfectly rational and not at all hysterical for gun owners to assume that Obama would destroy the 2nd Amendment in his first term. But now you are also arguing that of course Obama didn't implement gun control in his first term, because that would be political suicide. So you are now in the very strange position of claiming that it was perfectly rational to believe that Obama would go after guns even though it would be political suicide to do so.

But let us remember that the original argument wasn't that Obama would lay low for his first term and then spring into action in his second term; no, it was that Obama would lay waste to gun rights in his first term. Of course, that proved to be completely false, so we now have the convenient, if utterly contradictory, rationalization.

The concern that he’d pursue his objectives regardless of the costs during the election and while Dems had control of the government was quite rational. That he would commit political suicide forcing Obamacare thru Congress rather than immediately pursuing his stated anti-gun agenda was unknown at that time.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

I would draw it arbitrarily, like everybody else. My thought is essentially this: I want to strike a balance between what is reasonably necessary for self-defense and what has unnecessarily excessive capabilities that make it no more useful in a self-defense scenario, but much more useful if you are interested in endangering the public. In principle, I am fine with the Clinton AWB... except that many times it allowed guns with capabilities not all that different than those it banned. So on a practical level, I have issues with it, but that's what I'm thinking.

This is the only part of our exchanges I’m honestly curious about, so I’d like to flesh it out a bit further. Would you be opposed to gun registration? Would you be against confiscation of assault weapons? You made no mention of the legitimacy of hunting; was it as oversight, or is it not covered by the second amendment? Would you be opposed to a ban on ammo that’s made for long range hunting?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

That's true, but that doesn't make the analysis any more useful, especially since the Heritage Foundation is, according to its own mission statement, an agenda-driven partisan organization.

IRT your comment about not knowing when you’re dismissing a point out-of-hand, this is a perfect example.

Media Matters is at least as partisan and agenda-driven as Heritage, yet they said of the article “Ted Bromund … has earned grudging respect from treaty advocates for his textured and measured critique of the treaty”. You’re even more partisan and dismissive than Media Matters on this issue. There’s not a lot of room there.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

If I understand correctly, you are backing the argument that even if it isn't ratified (which is what I assume you mean by "No Senate ratification needed") the small arms treaty "could" at some indeterminate point in the future "evolve" into a dire threat to the Second Amendment by "influencing... judges" and "lawyers in the executive branch."

Look, anybody can sit around conjuring up vague, distant theoretical scenarios, and I have no idea why you find this one compelling or likely. But when you find yourself wide awake in the dead of night worrying that an unratified treaty could... somehow... at some point in time... lead to the overturning of the 2nd Amendment... you should take some deep breaths, drink some Scotch and go back to sleep.

You got part of it correct, evolving gun prohibitions in the ATT could influence attorneys and judges decisions regardless of ratification. Justice Breyer has already publically acknowledged he allows foreign laws to influence his SCOTUS decisions. But what I was really referring to was that the ATT could be ratified by the Senate as a treaty that has no immediate effect on the second amendment, but which could evolve over time into a serious challenge to our rights.

Thomas Jefferson once said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. Maybe you can sleep easy believing the second amendment will always be there, but not everyone is so trusting of our government or politicians, let alone foreign ones. If you want to go back to sleep and dream of benevolent governments, go right ahead. Not everyone will follow your example.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Yeah, the 6000 rounds confuses me. It seems like for that past couple of years everybody has been out of stock whenever I needed more.

Ever since Obama has been in office, ammunition suppliers have been making huge amounts of money. It's almost as if all the talk about Obama banning guns is fueled by lies to increase paranoia and generate sales...

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

The concern that he’d pursue his objectives regardless of the costs during the election and while Dems had control of the government was quite rational. That he would commit political suicide forcing Obamacare thru Congress rather than immediately pursuing his stated anti-gun agenda was unknown at that time.

Let's stipulate that you are correct, that Obama committed political suicide forcing Obamacare through Congress. What you don't seem to realize is that this completely undermines your argument that Obama didn't pass gun control legislation because it would be political suicide. After all, you just said that political suicide wasn't a deterrent for Obama when pursuing legislation.

It also creates another problem: If Obama is willing to destroy his prospects for a second term, as you now claim he was, why on earth would he wait until his second term to pass gun control legislation (or at least issue some executive orders)?

But the bottom line here remains that you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

This is the only part of our exchanges I’m honestly curious about, so I’d like to flesh it out a bit further.

Well, far be it from me to turn my back on your honest curiosity.

Would you be opposed to gun registration? Would you be against confiscation of assault weapons? You made no mention of the legitimacy of hunting; was it as oversight, or is it not covered by the second amendment? Would you be opposed to a ban on ammo that’s made for long range hunting?

I live in California where we have pretty strict gun control, including handgun registration, and while I think it is probably Constitutional, I do not see what purpose it serves. I cannot imagine it has any meaningful effect on crime... if any effect at all (although I am open to evidence to the contrary)... so what would be the point? Likewise, I think the waiting period for firearms here (10 days) is excessive. On the other hand, criminal background checks, etc., make sense to me.

As a general principle, I am uncomfortable with the confiscation of personal guns by the government (as we saw in New Orleans during Katrina) without some compelling reason, like they were used in the commission of a crime or in an unsafe manner that could endanger others.

I have no problem with hunting. I didn't mention it because we hadn't been discussing it.

I don't know enough about what constitutes "long range hunting" to say if the ammo should be banned or not. Although given that murder-by-sniper is extraordinarily rare, it doesn't seem like a high priority.

IRT your comment about not knowing when you’re dismissing a point out-of-hand, this is a perfect example.

Media Matters is at least as partisan and agenda-driven as Heritage, yet they said of the article “Ted Bromund … has earned grudging respect from treaty advocates for his textured and measured critique of the treaty”. You’re even more partisan and dismissive than Media Matters on this issue. There’s not a lot of room there.

Yes, Media Matters are just as partisan... which is why I generally don't consider them reliable, either.

But I appreciate your link, especially because of this quote from Ted Bromund:

"It's not useful to turn it up to eleven, to start talking about black helicopters, as if this [U.N. Treaty] were a frontal attack on the Second Amendment, because it isn't."

That's right, Ted Bromund agrees with me about the hysteria of gun owners on this issue. He even, like me, referred to "black helicopters" in describing their paranoia. And he must be correct about this because, as you just got finished explaining to me, he is a tremendously credible and authoritative source.

So, if nothing else, we settled that.

You got part of it correct, evolving gun prohibitions in the ATT could influence attorneys and judges decisions regardless of ratification. Justice Breyer has already publically acknowledged he allows foreign laws to influence his SCOTUS decisions. But what I was really referring to was that the ATT could be ratified by the Senate as a treaty that has no immediate effect on the second amendment, but which could evolve over time into a serious challenge to our rights.

I think this is pretty much what I said. And I stand by my previous points. But I'd also add that his concern, in addition to being distant and amorphous, doesn't reflect the much more typical, and overwrought, rhetoric of the NRA et al.

Thomas Jefferson once said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. Maybe you can sleep easy believing the second amendment will always be there, but not everyone is so trusting of our government or politicians, let alone foreign ones. If you want to go back to sleep and dream of benevolent governments, go right ahead. Not everyone will follow your example.

I believe in vigilance, too; what I don't believe in is jumping at shadows.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Let's stipulate that you are correct, that Obama committed political suicide forcing Obamacare through Congress. What you don't seem to realize is that this completely undermines your argument that Obama didn't pass gun control legislation because it would be political suicide. After all, you just said that political suicide wasn't a deterrent for Obama when pursuing legislation.

It also creates another problem: If Obama is willing to destroy his prospects for a second term, as you now claim he was, why on earth would he wait until his second term to pass gun control legislation (or at least issue some executive orders)?

But the bottom line here remains that you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

No; if you recall, we were discussing the pre-inaugural run on guns, as you put it. My position has been that it was reasonable to believe Obama would pursue an anti-gun agenda during this pre-inaugural period. It was that, just before the election, he appeared to be such an ideologue and so inexperienced in politics, that he’d pursue his goals regardless of the costs to him and his party. At the time, there was no way of knowing that he and Congress would be so enmeshed in health-care debates, stimulus spending, banking bailouts, auto company bailouts, dealing with the EU economy, etc. that gun control legislation would be allowed to simmer on the back burner. It was also unknown at the time that Obama’s responses to these issues would be so unpopular that it would cost his party their House majority, and very nearly their majority in the Senate. That said, he did still float some trial balloons.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News
Joint Press Conference With President Barack Obama And President Felipe Calderon Of Mexico, 4/16/2009 | The White House

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Yes, Media Matters are just as partisan... which is why I generally don't consider them reliable, either.

But I appreciate your link, especially because of this quote from Ted Bromund:


"It's not useful to turn it up to eleven, to start talking about black helicopters, as if this [U.N. Treaty] were a frontal attack on the Second Amendment, because it isn't."

That's right, Ted Bromund agrees with me about the hysteria of gun owners on this issue. He even, like me, referred to "black helicopters" in describing their paranoia. And he must be correct about this because, as you just got finished explaining to me, he is a tremendously credible and authoritative source.

So, if nothing else, we settled that.

I didn’t include that portion of his quote because it has no relevance to this debate. Dr. Bromund believes there are much larger problems with the ATT, and he’s probably right, but that’s not the focus of this thread. He said the ATT could develop into an open rejection of the second amendment, the very same thing Wayne LaPierre warned of. If that was your position, I seriously misunderstood you. I apologize for that, and I’m also glad we got that settled.