Guns, Laws and Extremism of All Sorts.

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
(Rant was chosen for the combative nature of the overall topic right now)

Hello All. I hope this Sunday leading into the New Year finds everyone well. I have a few thoughts to share today and it won't make anyone happy on either side. Truth rarely does. In my view and from my perspective, this is the truth I share here. Others won't see it that way, but that's fine too. For now, this is still a free nation where everyone can have their say on anything short of violent action or incitement to cause violence.


Extremism is an ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with an authoritarian regime are usually considered to be extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite typically applies.
(Source: Wiki Definition)

Extremism is a simple enough thing to define in technical language while being very challenging to define in practical reality. Is Obama Extreme? Is Boehner or the Gun Rights Lobby Extreme on positions? Whatever the answer there or where in the middle it may lay, the problem isn't with those elements right now. The problem is with the citizens being capable of finding solutions to this which are not extreme to either side.

About a week before the Nov. Election, my tone changed on the partisan politics. Slowly at first, then to where I'm at today. At this point, I've got virtually no use OR tolerance for blindly partisan people on either side. My tone changed because I began to realize in growing horror ....this wasn't the knock down, drag out slap fests of every other election this nation has ever had. This one carried a level of ugly, deep and dark hatred that I've honestly never seen in the United States before on a large scale.

I'm 39 years old and I've never seen hate like we have now. Right. Left. Hate doesn't care or discriminate now. It flows like overflowing sewage from both sides. You might say, the politics we have now is similar to going shooting with this:



...and like that, it works well enough on technical specs but the outcome just isn't was intended.


C i v i l - W a r

_________________________________________



THIS is what some on one side now are freely and openly talking about. Some talk about starting one. Some, about fearing it and some simply believe Obama is attempting to cause it by deliberate design.

This Defines Pro-Gun Rights Extremism


* * * *


F u n c t i o n a l - B a n - o f - F i r e a r m s

_________________________________________



THIS is what some on the other side freely advocate in result, if not spelling out process to achieve it. It's not suggesting an outright ban, as in guns are illegal across the board. That's impossible. However, it works just as well if Ammunition is priced or taxed beyond reach, the choice of firearms is limited to leave only choices unsuitable for defense or other core uses of them, or permitting and licensing is put into place which is difficult enough to make it impractical for all but the most determined.

This Defines Anti-Gun Rights Extremism


* * * *



Now lets look at a practical example of each. First, a color example of where Pro-Gun positions go too far, At present, Heavy Machine Guns *ARE* Legal for a civilian to purchase, own and shoot in the United States. This is among the examples recently available to buy on a well known national auction site:



That is a 100% fully functional and full automatic fire off-name version of the venerable 'Ma-Deuce' or Browning M-2 .50 Caliber Heavy Machine Gun. To purchase it, one needs a Class III special weapons permit from the BATFE and each weapon of that type requires it's own individual tax stamp. The permit process isn't magic or mysterious. It's lengthy to be sure, but anyone without a conviction or bad history elsewhere in mental stability shouldn't have a serious issue in most U.S. States. (States can restrict ALL on a class of those but not get picky. I.E... Silencers weren't legal in Missouri until recently, while full automatic machine guns have been. Both are Class III items.)

As a class III permitted weapon? I see absolutely no problem with that. It's BEEN the law and the case for as long as I've been alive and I've yet to see a criminal commit a major felony with a Class III weapon they owned. (Storage and security requirements for Class III firearms are also dictated to a degree by BATFE and they can inspect your location to verify the weapon is there and stored securely, as I understand it...at will. That's the trade off for having firearms the 100% equal to military choices)

Some, however, would argue NO LICENSING should exist or be required for ANYTHING. So, the above machine gun, by that logic, should be available for anyone to buy over the counter when they turn 18.

The Above Example Defines Pro-Gun Rights Extremism


* * * *



Next example we have is from England ..and it's the nearest location because the laws of the United Kingdom on firearms in general are pretty much what some dream to have here as the Law of the Land. It brings things like this:


Following the havoc wreaked by the London riots, a 20-year-old man from Colchester, England, was arrested for allegedly organizing a giant water gun fight via the BlackBerry Messenger service and Facebook.

Water gun fights are nothing new in England; according to the Guardian, summertime H2O shootouts -- organized online -- were a popular pastime in 2008. But the man in question chose a poor time and tool to plan his aqua attack. The UK is on high alert after the riots that broke out following the police shooting of Mark Duggan, a resident of the Tottenham area of north London. BBM was the communication method of choice during the riots.
Source

and even worse, this:


A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
Source

Don't mistake that for the recent case of the British Vet who came HOME with a weapon. This is different entirely. This gentleman simply saw an odd package in his garden, opened it inside his home to discover a shotgun and then dutifully turned it in at the police station the following morning. He was immediately arrested for illegal possession of a firearm and escorted to a holding cell.

This Defines Anti-Gun Rights Extremism



We can solve problems by dialog...or we can create far worse ones with extremism. Which shall it be for America?




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I guess the lack of much to say means extremism would be the preferred choice.


Err... The coming months ought to be a period the history books cover in the future, would be my guess.
(buckles up)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I believe my recently created thread touches a bit on your topic here. I am trying to foster a discission on alternatives to either extreme.

Can we force an evolution in gun manufacturing to enable a more safe weapon

If it aligns with your thoughts here, all are welcome to participate (in a positive brainstorming fashion) to that thread as well.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


A nice thread, friend wrabbit, but one I must disagree with. We are not talking extremism here. We are talking about rights.

The gun argument boils down to this.

Do we keep the 2nd Amendment, or do we trash it.

Any, and I mean any, conditions placed on the 2nd Amendment nullifies it being a right. It becomes a conditional allowance granted by the government.

Currently there is no asterisk attached to the 2nd Amendment. It reads simply;


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


Under our current government, they'd want to add, based on pre-approval by the government and determined by size, caliber, load capacity


Is it extremist to want to have freedom of speech?

Is it extremist to have given women the right to vote?

Is it extremist to have given minorities equal, civil rights?

I am for the 2nd Amendment staying the way it is. Does that make me an extremist because I am not willing to give up a right?

Many argue that there is no need for some types of weapons.

In my thinking, that's like saying that free speech is okay, just as long as you stay away from these topics.

I don't agree with OWS. But I'll fight with then when their speech is denied.
I abhor Westboro Baptist Church. But I will fight so that they are free to spew their filth.

Is that extremist of me to want to adhere, to keep our rights?

I've argued with some mighty fine people about whether or not we still need a 2nd Amendment. No quarter has been drawn. The fight is only just beginning.

Is it extremist to want to keep a right?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Well, those are fair points. You're always welcome of course and those rare occasions of disagreement make things interesting, eh? Folks can't agree 100%.. lol

It's absolutely not extremism to want to keep a right. You know me by posts as a gun owner...I'm not giving up what I haven't already sold. (Hey... Profits at the moment can pay bills for a month or two! I think we all have a couple that are expendable ..or were, in my case lol)

What I'd simply note here is something that I think is lost in much of this debate. That is a difference between Federal Law and State Law. I don't see where there is a problem with current federal laws as they stand now. If you get into a state like mine, you find very quickly that what is the law elsewhere IS actually state and has nothing to do with Federal prior to now.

In specific example, Missouri has the background check required with the NICS system of course. That's federal. Missouri has the Class III restrictions to permitted weapons under Federal laws. There are things banned ..like Howitzers or Main Battle Tanks. Although, honestly, after Silencers were allowed under the Class III system in the past year or so, I can't think of anything but the HIGH level military equipment ....crew served things...that are actually banned and unobtainable even by Special Weapons permit.

We have NO gun owner registration system of any kind. None. We have NO registration of firearms sales between 100% private, non commercial people (Dealer is defined by FFL license of course). There are no limits on how many guns or cases of ammo one might want in a purchase. Nothing of the sort. Just a NICS check and Class III's for automatic or special weapons.

^^^^ What that should say is how little Federal Law actually does have because Federal is about all we're working under here for day to day reality of firearms use and buying.

Would that, as described above and held as the status quo be acceptable? I can't see an argument about the NICS check for licensed dealer/retail purchase and I sure can't see the argument for the Class III on the TRUE military grade/power weapons....can you? That's all the feds actually have for the most part. Everything else is one's own state doing it to them ..or in our case and many others around the Midwest..NOT doing to them.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Wrabbit - the problem as I see it today is that we don't have two opposing forces that conform to a paradigm - left v. right, democrat vs. republican, etc. What we have is a DONUT shaped field of influence where there is nothing in the middle and all the "battles" are between, around, and among the fringe elements - many of which are seemingly indistinguishable in terms of cause-and-effect albeit their stated positions are opposed. A good analogy for me is a phrase I first heard here on ATS: "Liberal Fascist" (aka Nanny State Liberal) - it makes no sense on the face of it, but I've come to understand what folks mean by it and it DOES seem to apply.

Extremism doesn't have to pervade our discourse, but you'll find those most vocal and participative are typically viewed as extreme - by some group or other. Maybe we need some extreme centrists?!

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 

I have to admit, I have never looked at it that way. The Donut of Conflict?


I'm sorry, I don't mean to appear to be laughing AT your concept because you actually describe it as well as anyone I've heard. It just makes a funny mental image given all that's come for this topic lately. Accurate and even true...but still humorous when put that way.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I hesitated to use the topological term "torus" so as not to be confused with the automobile.


Besides, if I posted a pic of my waist you'd see exactly how devastating being conflicted about donuts can be...

ganjoa





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join