simple question

[gejohnston]

or maybe not so simple, but it is a question for both sides. What would cause you to change your own view on guns and what gun laws should be, or change your opinion of what the party platform should read?

[hack89]

1. If rates of gun violence increase steadily over a 10 year period. nt

[Pyrzqxgl]

2. It seems to me that one doesn't need automatic or semi automatic weapons to go hunting

or even to shoot at a target. It seems like that would take all the sport out of it. I've never owned a gun and
never wanted to. I use to throw rocks and knock beer cans off a fence when I was a kid & thats as close as I ever came. I always thought that owning a gun was kind of childish unless you planned to do harm with it. I sure as hell don't want one and I'd be a lot more comfortable if no one had one.

[gejohnston]

3. automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since the 1930s

I don't know of any place that allows you to hunt with a machine gun, which is what an automatic weapon is. I do know that in Wyoming, you can't possess one in any "game field or forest". If you ever have been to that part of the country, you would know that pretty well means anyplace outside of your safe or an established range.

I guess that puts you in this 75 percent and nothing is likely to change your opinion. Thank you for your honesty.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

[MercutioATC]

6. Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930's.

"Semiautomatic" means one shot per pull of the trigger. Most modern firearms are semiautomatic.

That said, the 2nd Amendment doesn't reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms to people can hunt and shoot at targets. It does so to ensure the right of the populace to arm themselves against tyranny. That may seem like a silly...or scary...right to some, but the Founders felt it advantageous, even necessary, to guarantee freedom.

[bad sofa king]

14. The second amendment is not, has never been, and will never be about hunting.

sorry if you don't like guns. you don't have to own one. That's your right just like it's my right to own one. tell you what, I'll get used to you exercising your right to not own a firearm and you can get used to me exercising my right to own one. How's that sound to you? and btw, hunting with automatic weapons has never been legal afaik.

[4th law of robotics]

17. It seems to me that the word "hunting" or any variation thereof is not mentioned

at all in the 2nd amendment.

/I don't want an SUV. I think it would make sense for 90% of SUV owners to get a different vehicle. I wouldn't force the choice on them though.

[Clames]

23. The word "need" isn't mentioned anywhere in the BoR either.

Yet some seem to think it does.

[digonswine]

4. Any gun laws-

tend to be bad politics for our side. Any attempt at regulation brings about an out-of-proportion reaction from pro-gunners. Thus, our platform should steer away from the topic for purely political reasons, until a progressive mindset regains sway in this country(probably never).
I want our side in power way more than I want gun regs.

[gejohnston]

7. that really didn't answer my question

the question is what would it take for someone on either side to have an epiphany.

[digonswine]

21. Nothing much would change my mind as I am-

firmly seated on the fence. I am gray on the subject.
For me to be firmly anti-gun, I would need to disregard the realities of modern day America where guns are everywhere and both bad and good possess. I would have to say to people that they cannot defend themselves in a way that is adequate for what they may be up against.
For me to be pro-gun, I would need to actively support and relish the proliferation and ubiquity of guns in American life and see them as a necessary evil. That is my opinion.
I would like to live in a world where guns were not everywhere, but as of right now and the foreseeable future, that ain't agonna happen.
If I could wave a wand and make it so guns were actually controllable, I would do so, and happily disallow gun ownership.
But since these conditions are what they are, I feel people should have guns if they feel they need them.

[X_Digger]

5. I can't imagine anything.

If your principles change with conditions, they're not principles.

[gejohnston]

11. I'm looking for that very rare epiphany

[bongbong]

8. If we had massacre & homicide rates

like countries with more Liberal gun control laws (AKA, nearly all the 1st & 2nd world nations with the exception of Gun Paradise USA)

[gejohnston]

10. so if Wyoming and Vermont were separate countries

you would be cool with their current gun laws? OK. Umm FWIW, I understand you are using liberal in the same sense as liberal/conservative. In this case, it is more liberal/restrictive.

[pipoman]

13. Funny how you ascribe

restrictions on freedom as being "Liberal"..What other restrictions on freedom are, in your opinion, "Liberal"?

[bongbong]

20. Freedom

I want the freedom to go 200 MPH in my car if I want to. I want the freedom to dump pollution wherever I want to to save money.

Want some more "freedoms" that are "Liberal"?

[MercutioATC]

22. You're free to OWN a car that goes 200mph.

If your actions in that car put others at risk or injure them, that action is usually illegal.

You're also free to OWN a firearm. If your actions with that firearm put others at risk or injure them, that action is usually illegal.


You keep confusing OBJECTS with ACTIONS and trying to equate the two.

[bongbong]

24. LOL

> You're free to OWN a car that goes 200mph.

You aren't listening to me. I want the FREEDOM to go 200 MPH. According to the gun-relgionist I responded to, an infringement on my "freedom" is not Liberal.

If you're so scared that you need guns, you need something more.

My pity.



BTW, classes in logic & reading comprehension are also needed (as evidenced by your reply), but that is beyond the scope of Internet posts.

[pipoman]

25. You do have the freedom to go 200 mph

completely legal...no special licenses..or a license at all for that matter..what's your point? "Gun-religionist" what does that make you? A gun-atheist? LOL No, I am a civil libertarian, I believe in a liberal interpretation of all civil liberties. There is a reason the the second amendment is second, written by people who had been disarmed by their government. Pretend it isn't so if you please.

[bongbong]

29. LOLLLLOL

> You do have the freedom to go 200 mph completely legal

Where?

And how about my point about my "freedom" to dump pollution wherever I want? Where can I do that?

I think the wheels are coming off your Talking Point Toy Car.

[pipoman]

32. Never been to drag races? Every weekend in (almost) every state...

You can't where ever you wish, you can at the landfill..again how is this even relevant to a conversation about a civil liberty specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights? What is it now? Name calling and assorted insults with zero substance, eh?

[bongbong]

30. Endless, endless laughs

> There is a reason the the second amendment is second, written by people who had been disarmed by their government. Pretend it isn't so if you please.

You're kidding, right? THAT'S one of your Talking Points? The order of the Amendments?



And how's about that "well-regulated militia" part?

[pipoman]

34. Only someone with no knowledge of the origins of

the Bill of Rights would believe there is no significance to the order of the first 10 amendments. Defined by case law not to be changed in either of our lifetimes is how I would describe the "well regulated militia", and that definition has nothing to do with what you wish it meant.

[bongbong]

35. Even more laughs!

> Defined by case law not to be changed in either of our lifetimes is how I would describe the "well regulated militia", and that definition has nothing to do with what you wish it mean

First of all you don't know what I "wished it meant", and secondly of all you're wrong, and thirdly of all you've just made a bunch of assertions without any proof at all.

Your NRA Talking Points booklet should have more background info in it.

[pipoman]

36. Just more schlap with no sting

everyone reading this knows what you wish "well regulated militia" means in the context which you asked about it. As for the rest of your nanny-nanny-boo-boo, it's just that..completely without substance, something else virtually everyone reading this can see...

[bongbong]

37. Laughs

> everyone reading this knows what you wish "well regulated militia" means in the context which you asked about it

Where'd you get your Mind Reading Degree at?

[spin]

40. I suspect that you are hurting the gun control side of the debate far more than you are helping it.

But I could be wrong.

[bongbong]

41. Yes

> But I could be wrong.

Yeah, you are.

[MercutioATC]

31. Actually, you didn't answer the question asked in the post to which you responded.

...and your posts both in this thread and in other threads make it apparent that you confuse objects and actions.

To be clear, I don't own guns because I'm "scared" any more than I have insurance because I'm "scared". Being prepared is something I value. It seems to me that those displaying actual fear are the people who say that others owning guns makes them uncomfortable (or those who can't even discuss the issue without resorting to name-calling or cutesy monikers like "gun-religionist".

[4th law of robotics]

19. So Vermont should strive to be more like DC?

[Downwinder]

9. I actually have no position.

I don't see the weapon as the problem. I see the operator as the problem. So, better education and training, better and more acceptable mental health care, periodic re-evaluations of ones competency to use a weapon would all be positive steps. Much as we have done with automobiles.

[Kolesar]

12. If bullets aimed at my neighbors didn't actually penetrate them, ever

It would be magic.

[gejohnston]

15. who did your neighbors piss off?

[Kolesar]

18. Some kid brought a gun into the school cafeteria and just started shooting ... eom

[4th law of robotics]

16. Empirical evidence that after controlling for all other factors guns

cause crimes and are useless for self-defense.

[kelly1mm]

26. A ratified constitutional amendment. nt

[gejohnston]

27. how would that cause you to question your views?

[kelly1mm]

33. You asked a compound question. Specifically it had 3 parts:

1) what would change my views on guns?
2) what would change my views on what gun laws should be?
3) what would change my opinion on what the party platform should read?

As to 1), My personal views are that guns are tools. I live in a rural area so maybe I have a different perspective than someone in a more urban area. While I don't really hunt (I do shoot skeet and rabbits in the garden) lot of people around me do. However, I am basically a civil rights absolutist so even if I personally did not want a weapon, I would not presume to try and impose that view on others, just like I don't want a copy of Mien Kaumpf, but would not presume to tell you you could not have one. If a constitutional amendment was ratified stating that the right to keep and bare arms was no longer an individual civil right, I may change my position.

As to 2) the laws of this country have to follow the constitution so if the constitution was changed, gun laws could change.

As to 3) the party platform should also strive to be in conformity with the constitution. However, I suppose one could argue that the party platform could call for a constitutional amendment to modify the 2nd amendment. I would not be in favor of such an amendment as I would not want the Democratic Party to a suffer massive defeat. I cannot imagine a scenario where this would change in my lifetime (I am 42). However, if the constitution were amended, then the party platform could address any new policies in conformity with the new language.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. I have my opinion...

...of what the laws regarding personal rights (including personal and collective defense) ought to be won't be changing based on news, crime, statistics or public opinion.

[rrneck]

38. I'll change my opinion

when the cops learn how to jump through a rip in the fabric of time.

[jody]

39. If an omnipotent, omniscience entity guaranteed my safety from those who would harm me and mine. nt