|
Aswad -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/28/2012 1:46:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I don't have an issue with any of your qualifications.
I didn't expect you to- which underlines your point on the disinterested parties having the most constructive interest.
quote:
How significant is it that us foreigners are the only ones who seem to be interested in finding a solution to these issues?
Sometimes, things get entrenched and people cease to work for change, yet can't leave well enough alone?
Or maybe it's cause it's a forum and we all love to "solve the world's problems", as my uncle derisively calls such debates. [:D]
quote:
To judge by the rest of the thread, there's a lot more prurient interest in the arcane details of individual firearms than solving the problems produced by the overabundance of firearms.
If my understanding is correct, "prurient" is a bit Victorian in its connotation, in the sense that lust is seen as something improper. If you're carrying that element over into your use of the term about the otherwise arguably present prurience, I would object to that, seeing as I'm of a somewhat martial persuasion myself. I can see not taking part in watersports or finding the acts unpalatable, but it seems inappropriate to ill regard those that enjoy it, save insofar as it is your garden receiving the unwelcome nitrate. For such a stream to cross the intervening span of ocean would take a prodigous shooter indeed, of either sort.
Just so we're clear, my preference is for little gun control, but my political views favor a modicum thereof.
That's why I'm interested in a compromise: I'm on both sides, and I see no contradiction.
I have no problem with the ban on assault rifles where I live, nor the extreme restriction on handguns. I would prefer some options to be available for those that would like to play with the autos on a range, a matter of flexibility and being reasonable. But that is a detail compared to more important political concerns where I live, such as the current debate on mindcrime laws, or the ban on all purchase of sex (indeed, if you have a kink scenario involving prostitution in a SSC framework and someone finds out, they could report it and the 'client' would be arrested unless you all commit perjury).
I do have a problem with the lack of flexibility in storage that makes it a social class issue to own one. I can use a heavily armored carry case in each of two different houses to store the bolt and body seperately, even use seperate codes to the lock and with me knowing only one of them, but it still won't qualify. Or I can use an inferior storage option in my own home to store it ready to fire, and hang the keys under a sign pointing out where the safe is, and that will. But my lease doesn't permit the bolting down required for the legal storage option. Only an owned villa permits that option, realistically, and those start at a half million dollars as a fixxer upper in a rural area, with the law requiring the fixing to be done by qualified and well paid union labor.
That is an issue, because it has an impact on many legitimate users, and one that discriminates on gentry status.
Less seriously, I have a problem with not being allowed to use a 50cal sniper here. I can use the 338LM snipers, however, which are possible to silence and will reliably hit center mass on the only bridge to the mainland from where I live, with lethal effects. At that range, even military acoustic analyzers will not be able to sense the shooter's location. And the target area is a straight path so you can easily lead the target. There's even a wind meter next to the bridge that you can read through the scope, and direction is indicated. Conditions are near optimal for a crazy shooting spree if you have the skill, which you'll need for either caliber.
Clearly, there is a distinction there that has no basis in a real concern for the damage that can be done. It isn't really a big deal, practically speaking, but it is a law that impinges on liberty with no solid foundation. If they banned based on effective range, I could see the logic in that. But instead the ban is on the basis of caliber. And, to me, as a liberalminded person, impinging on a lawabiding citizen's liberty must be a well founded decision, even when doing it is a compromise (which democracy requires us to make when there are competing interests and preferences).
Thus I see both sides of that issue: gun control has legitimate arguments, but fear of poor legislation is a proven legitimate concern.
I don't see it as an intractable problem, but as you say, it is from the sidelines one is more likely to find an argument being made that is sensitive to the concerns of both sides. The idea that one can make a liberalminded compromise is not one that has a very strong tradition in "the land of the free", where liberty has never been a major concern. As such, I'll believe in a viable compromise on the gun control issue when I see all 52 states permitting gay marriage and adoption, not before. It's a more complex issue, after all, than those two are. And one that apparently raises people's ire about as much.
In a nation of the two of us, I'm sure we could reach a compromise between us as regards firearms.
I'm not sure the USA is ready to do that any time soon.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
