Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm a gun control guy, but this prevention of smelting weaponry into scrap material is simply nothing more to me than a way to "stick it" to those dirty red gun-hating Commies. At absolutely no point did it look like it had any purpose beyond getting hoorahs from the NRA, which is why the point of concern that is historical weaponry never came to mind.

Just as your preference for default melting is just another way for you to "stick it" to those dirty Republican gun toting, bible-thumping rednecks. This is really petty stuff. That way of thinking will only lead to greater hostility and tension between the gun owners and anti-gun activists and generally prohibit any kind of meaningful gun control being passed in the future.

The only reason why the British government was able to force such stringent gun legislation through was because our gun-owning "establishment" openly stated that we didn't need stuff like semi automatic weapons and so on. It has to come both ways, or at least it comes easiest both ways, and if you are still stuck in a childish "sticking it" session then it is very unlikely that any good will come of it.

[lue]

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm a gun control guy, but this prevention of smelting weaponry into scrap material is simply nothing more to me than a way to "stick it" to those dirty red gun-hating Commies. At absolutely no point did it look like it had any purpose beyond getting hoorahs from the NRA, which is why the point of concern that is historical weaponry never came to mind.

Just as your preference for default melting is just another way for you to "stick it" to those dirty Republican gun toting, bible-thumping rednecks. This is really petty stuff.

That's not entirely fair (though there is some of that in my arguing, sure). My concern with the law is specifically this:

"What's the point in forbidding the rending of these guns into scrap metal except as a way to gain favor in the eyes of the gun-rights advocates and to deliver another defeat to the gun-control advocates?"

That is, I simply don't see anything other than politics as being worth the trouble to go through the entire legislative process to prevent one method of dealing with confiscated/bought-back guns.

I'm not trying to lead a crusade to smelt all guns, though arguing for that option can easily make you look that way. I'm simply not seeing any good reason for a blanket ban on all gun destruction.

[Owlbread]

That's not entirely fair (though there is some of that in my arguing, sure). My concern with the law is specifically this:

"What's the point in forbidding the rending of these guns into scrap metal except as a way to gain favor in the eyes of the gun-rights advocates and to deliver another defeat to the gun-control advocates?"

That is, I simply don't see anything other than politics as being worth the trouble to go through the entire legislative process to prevent one method of dealing with confiscated/bought-back guns.

But there's no reason to rend them into scrap metal when they can be sold elsewhere or stripped down for spare parts, even sent back to their respective companies. The only reason why you would choose to melt the guns, provided that they aren't taking up too much space or costing lots of money to store or being bothersome, is because you're guilty of having the same unhealthy, spiteful attitude as you accuse gun nuts of having. And they do, in my opinion.

I'm not trying to lead a crusade to smelt all guns, though arguing for that option can easily make you look that way. I'm simply not seeing any good reason for a blanket ban on all gun destruction.

No, you aren't. You said to me that you preferred the default to be melting the guns. That isn't the same as just being against a blanket ban on all gun destruction because I'm also against a blanket ban on all gun destruction.

[lue]

That's not entirely fair (though there is some of that in my arguing, sure). My concern with the law is specifically this:

"What's the point in forbidding the rending of these guns into scrap metal except as a way to gain favor in the eyes of the gun-rights advocates and to deliver another defeat to the gun-control advocates?"

That is, I simply don't see anything other than politics as being worth the trouble to go through the entire legislative process to prevent one method of dealing with confiscated/bought-back guns.

But there's no reason to rend them into scrap metal when they can be sold elsewhere or stripped down for spare parts, even sent back to their respective companies. The only reason why you would choose to melt the guns, provided that they aren't taking up too much space or costing lots of money to store or being bothersome, is because you're guilty of having the same unhealthy, spiteful attitude as you accuse gun nuts of having. And they do, in my opinion.

The previous state of affairs in NC and the current state of affairs in ≈49 other states is that turning the guns into raw materials is OK. My issue is that there's not enough reason to change this status. I'm not arguing it's the best option, as I've said before in my description of more nuanced forms of the law I'd be fine with.

I'm not trying to lead a crusade to smelt all guns, though arguing for that option can easily make you look that way. I'm simply not seeing any good reason for a blanket ban on all gun destruction.

No, you aren't. You said to me that you preferred the default to be melting the guns. That isn't the same as just being against a blanket ban on all gun destruction because I'm also against a blanket ban on all gun destruction.

That was not my description of my opinion, but my description of how I want the nuanced law to work. See:

For what it's worth I've been saying I'd be OK with a "protect historical guns" law. Where you and I differ is that I would go for default melting OK, exceptions to prevent it. You would instead go for default melting not OK, exceptions to allow it.

It was me describing the differences between an opt-out vs. opt-in program (default-smelt vs. default-no-smelt). My preference takes the status quo in a majority of the US and adds "but don't smelt these" exceptions. Alternatively, your preference changes the status quo on the topic and then adds "but you can smelt these" exceptions. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough on what I was describing there earlier.

And finally, maybe I do have a spiteful attitude towards gun-rights nuts. I'm zarking sick and tired of the blind idiocy with which the leadership of the NRA fights to give every man, woman, and child a handgun, because after all "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Oh and by the way background checks in particular and gun control laws in general are useless because bad guys would find ways to get around the law (well no duh). So of course some of my objection is caused by a wish that the NRA dies in a collapse of their own cache of M16s. But not all of it.

None of that last paragraph directed at you of course, Owlbread, because you're certainly not one of those nuts .

And just to get it out of the way, when I said

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm a gun control guy, but this prevention of smelting weaponry into scrap material is simply nothing more to me than a way to "stick it" to those dirty red gun-hating Commies. At absolutely no point did it look like it had any purpose beyond getting hoorahs from the NRA, which is why the point of concern that is historical weaponry never came to mind.

The only reason why I said it like that was because I couldn't figure out a way to express this view without going too far into my beliefs on the matter. And I put a "maybe it's because I'm gun-control" warning in front to alert everyone to more-biased-than-average writing in the paragraph ahead. Again, apologies if I should've made this more clear. In reality there are of course legitimate non-political reasons for the law. It's just that my opinion on the motivation behind its inception was a bit more biased than usual.

[Owlbread]

I understand now Lue. Thank you for your well-martialed, reasonable answer.

[lue]

I understand now Lue. Thank you for your well-martialed, reasonable answer.

You're welcome, Owlbread. I was quite frankly worried we were reaching the Personal Insult Event Horizon, so I'm overjoyed we didn't.

[PTTG??]

[Raving angry nonsense involving Rush Limbaugh]

[scriver]

But there's no reason to rend them into scrap metal when they can be sold elsewhere or stripped down for spare parts, even sent back to their respective companies. The only reason why you would choose to melt the guns, provided that they aren't taking up too much space or costing lots of money to store or being bothersome, is because you're guilty of having the same unhealthy, spiteful attitude as you accuse gun nuts of having. And they do, in my opinion..

Quite frankly, Owlbread, there's no more reason to not melt guns down than there is to not burn plastic smurf figures either. "But historical examples might get destroyed!" isn't an argument for guns any more than it is for other objects. And as been said before, you won't be finding any exemplars of historical interest here (among the guns confiscated from criminals) either, because regardless of what gun it is I'd bet you my hat that they could find better maintained exemplars otherwhere.

As for what you said about selling the guns... I don't hold to knowing any details of the life cycle of guns and their criminal use, but doesn't this strike you as a great way for those guns to end up back into the hands of new criminals?

[Darvi]

Not exactly right. Melting guns results in reusable metal. Burning plastic smurfs results in pollution. (Melting them down, however, does result in recyclable plastic, but that's a different thing than burning. Not exactly relevant to the point you're making, but still a nitpick since I'm a pedant like that)

[misko27]

damn you people for introducing me to right wing watch

Yes, that’s right, she cited the Crusades as an example of anti-Christian persecution.

That's a neato party trick, I'll have to remember it.

To be fair, it did persecute Christians, just "heretic" Christians. Orthodox, for example, the people they were sent to protect, they did a lot of looting of their cities.



In other news a 80 yr-old House republican died, Obama cut all non-military aid to Egypt, NBC is sending a gay reporter to cover the Olympics, apparently members of Congress made themselves useful during the shutdown and conducted tours instead of the regular tour guides, Democrats are mobilizing in the wake of the shutdown for a Immigration push, and the Virginia Governor's race draws closer to election day with McAuliffe leading by 7.6%.

[Darvi]

apparently members of Congress made themselves useful during the shutdown and conducted tours instead of the regular tour guides,

They actually did work?

Shit, the world actually ended and we all just haven't realised it, hasn't it?

[scriver]

damn you people for introducing me to right wing watch

Yes, that’s right, she cited the Crusades as an example of anti-Christian persecution.

That's a neato party trick, I'll have to remember it.

To be fair, it did persecute Christians, just "heretic" Christians. Orthodox, for example, the people they were sent to protect, they did a lot of looting of their cities.

Well, taken out if context, that quote really doesn't mirror what she (or whatRRW commented) said at all. What she said was that the Crusades came to be to defend Christians against anti-christian persecution from Muslims. Which isn't exactly true either, of course.

[Dutchling]

They were (originally) supposed to protect Orthodox Christians.

I am, of course, ignoring that the crusaders almost managed to single-handedly destroy Orthodox Christianity

[Descan]

Sometimes I'm sad we don't still have the (Eastern) Roman Empire around...

It'd be cool, even if they liberalized in the 1900s and turned into a republic (again).

Greece would be called Romania!

[Lagslayer]

damn you people for introducing me to right wing watch

Yes, that’s right, she cited the Crusades as an example of anti-Christian persecution.

That's a neato party trick, I'll have to remember it.

To be fair, it did persecute Christians, just "heretic" Christians. Orthodox, for example, the people they were sent to protect, they did a lot of looting of their cities.

Well, taken out if context, that quote really doesn't mirror what she (or whatRRW commented) said at all. What she said was that the Crusades came to be to defend Christians against anti-christian persecution from Muslims. Which isn't exactly true either, of course.

The way I learned it was something like this:
For a long time, everyone got along well enough. The Christians would make pilgrimages to the holy land (specifically Jerusalem) for religious reasons. The Arabs benefited from the revenue generated by the pilgrims spending money on their journey, and the Christians got to visit the holiest places of their religion. Then at some point, the Arabs would no longer allow these pilgrimages. Naturally, these pilgrimages being very important to the Christians, this led to the crusades. From this point, it slowly spiraled into a free-for-all, and everyone was fighting everyone.

I've read some sources that suggest there were some Arab invasions of Christian territory, and that was basically the final straw.