What gun control would you actually support?

[mark056]

Zach,

I have to say that I appreciate the time you put into your very thoughtful and carefully crafted answer, and again I am extremely appreciative of your candor.

In general, I think you made several good points, but I would have to say that you still have faith in government and those that serve it. Your analogy about the farmer and the consumer was interesting. The only problem, is that the farmer operates efficiently to provide a product to the consumer. If I could no longer get an adequate supply of green beans, I would have to figure out how to grow them myself. I am not in total disagreement with some of your points, and I think how you displayed how government has helped you in a positive way over the years was good. The problem, as I see it, is that what may have worked at one time, is not working so well today.

Your incident regarding the parking ticket is in reality a microcosm of government as a whole. Yes, they could use common sense. But why should they, or even more importantly, why would they? They gave you the ticket because they could and because you were an easy mark to generate more income into the revenue stream.

Unfortunately, and I say this somewhat reluctantly having an aggregate total of 35 years of government service, the best and brightest are simply not to be found in government service overall IMO. This is why the very best and brightest of our citizenry need to become involved in some way in the process, IMO. Again, paying taxes (or dues if you will) and voting in elections which are admirable and indeed the model for the ideal citizen, may, today not be enough. Something we need to ponder, anyway.

As I am sure you are aware, not all Republicans are anti-gun control, and not all Democrats are pro-gun control. This is especially true at the state legislator level, and indeed, some of our best advocates for better gun laws in this state are Democrats. Ironically, GOP hopeful Mitt Romney was not, and in fact supported in the main, our current gun laws.

I sincerely believe that the further you delve into this, you will see that descriptive labels can frequently be misleading.

Too bad about your car, I hope that things resolve favorably for you.

Mark

 

[ARV]

I have to give MA credit for one thing: I continue to find things that bewilder me about this place... Just when I think I've heard/seen the dumbest thing yet MA still manages to lower the bar.

The other day a guy at work told me his town (I forget which, started with a "B" I think...) requires a permit to install counter tops in your own home. And furthermore, if you get new counter tops and a tax assesor comes to take a look and notices it: well congratulations you get to donate more money.

Then just today I learned that tattoo parlors were illegal in MA from 1962 -2000....

Yup. Want to fix that leaky faucet? Your required to have a license plumber do it.

The desire for justice and fairness are not limited solely to liberals, and others would argue the liberal version of fairness--which is often codeword for economic equality--isn't fair at all. Furthermore, disliking the policies of George W. Bush is a weak (and I would say unenlightened) reason for going leftie.

To many of us, the political spectrum is more than just left and right--there are parts of the quinisential libertarian position on taxes that are aligned with the Tea Party movement, and positions on civil liberties that are in line with the ACLU (see pre-trial forfeiture, recording of police, etc.). Additionally, I'm a libertarian because I too believe in justice and fairness--but we fundamentally disagree on just how that fairness should be exercised. Liberals believe it's the government's job to make virtually every facet of life equal, which is their version of fair. But I think fairness is allowing me to keep what I've rightfully earned and what it rightfully mine, despite if others have less. One makes the best in life with the hand their dealt; it's not the government's job to stack the deck for the poor poker player.

I believe the government should minimally impede on my life and allow me the right to make my own way. If I fall on my face, that's on me. And the reason that's fair is because is if I look to the government to break that fall, they're taking the money from someone else who earned it fair and square. The government should be in the business of creating a fair enviornment through minimal taxation and regulations that allows natural human ambition to flourish. The governement should not be in the business of leveling the playing field for those who stumble, however unfortunate the circumstances might be. I'm all for giving them a helping hand, as long as it's voluntary (i.e., charity) and not forced from me every April 15th.

To get back to your gun control debate, to many here that fits squarely into our sense of justice and fairness. Should one need to protect himself, whether it be from a violent criminal or the government, how is is it fair or just to allow him to stand there and not have the ability to defend himself? How is it fair or just that a tyrranical government should be able to suppress my freedoms? How is it just or fair that a criminal gets to do me or my family harm? The RKBA is predicated on the notion that an armed citizenry can first deter--and if not, then repel--the actions all too natural to the darker inclinations of the human condition.

That to me is fair and just.

Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.

- Irving Kristol

I find it interesting that after 6 years of living here, you were unaware of the annual vehicle excise tax. This, BTW decreases on a pro rated basis as the vehicle ages.

And it used to drop to next to nothing. I think the last excise tax my father paid on his old truck was $15. Now it goes down to a point (a certain # of years IIRC?) and then stops, and you pay that amount until you get rid of the car. Guess they realized they were losing out on another entrepreneurial opportunity

What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation. If they looked up my plate number, which I'm sure they did, they would have seen that I do in fact live in the area, that this is a new car with the same plates and so I'm obviously in the process of transferring registration. But they nail me on a technicality, not to keep non-residents from parking, but to get money. The fact that they make it so difficult for someone (who works) who is trying to follow the law, to get their affairs in order after buying a new car is infuriating.

One of your first tastes of how this place runs. Welcome to Massachusetts.

 

[TomH]

Boy, are you naive.

The stupidity is strong. I can't believe people are still responding to this BS.

 

[TWBARRETT]

Didn't some kid make a(nuke) pile out of old smoke detectors and clocks in Mich, 1995? David Hahn I think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

 

[ARV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

Tale of the Radioactive Boy Scout:

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

 

[jefftk]

What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation. If they looked up my plate number, which I'm sure they did, they would have seen that I do in fact live in the area, that this is a new car with the same plates and so I'm obviously in the process of transferring registration. But they nail me on a technicality, not to keep non-residents from parking, but to get money. The fact that they make it so difficult for someone (who works) who is trying to follow the law, to get their affairs in order after buying a new car is infuriating.

Thats just too rich.... Are we sure this isn't a troll thread?

Your apartment parking police don't necessarily operate any different from real police.
I believe any cop worth their weight in union dues will tell you its not their job to interpret the spirit of the law, just to enforce it.

If you want a good example about how any law can and will be used against you if possible just look at how MA had been using the wiretapping law to arrest people for recording police in public. Fortunately the courts are now saying that is unacceptable, but not before any damage was done.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

I believe any cop worth their weight in union dues will tell you its not their job to interpret the spirit of the law, just to enforce it.

And here is where you come to an interesting point. They just enforce the laws that the politicians pass, but that makes them the tools of tyranny. At some point, when you read this thread enough, you will realize that laws are written to turn you into a criminal, not prevent crime. So how does that make you feel about the cops that "are just doing their job"?

 

[GunGrey]

Only in Mass

 

[mark056]

Unfortunately when people say "Only in Mass" they only fuel the notion that somehow big government works elsewhere when in fact it is everywhere, it's merely a matter of degree.

For example, one would look at Nevada, for example as a pretty free state: legalized gambling, legalized prostitution (except in some counties) but there in counties over 400,000 in population (cf Clark County i.e. Las Vegas) people are required to register their firearms with the LV Metro Police. This is not CCW licensure, BTW.

Then, of course, there is the Federal Government which is everywhere.

Rather than say: "Only in Mass"...a better slogan might be: "Only in America"

 

[Fixxah]

The one is surrounding himself with the clinton refuse, not bush.

Wtf,, I had you pegged for a prius.


Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[Pilgrim]

MA does some things well, like its healthcare system

holy crap, what a statement! He's really gonna love ObamaCare.

There's too many other things in his (albeit really well written) manifesto for me to comment on.

 

[cekim]

MA does some things well, like its healthcare system

Who said that? Seriously? So, the inability to find Primary Care DRs, highest insurance premiums/cost in the country and providers leaving the state because they can't get paid is "doing it well?"

 

[zbrod]

There's too many other things in his (albeit really well written) manifesto for me to comment on.

I'm not trying to launch a discussion on all of these different topics, I am aware you guys disagree and have made your opinions on the role of government in our lives clear. I just wanted to respond to Mark's post, and give you guys more insight into what I believe. You're of course welcome to respond but like I said I'm not trying to throw down here.

 

[lancecolonel]

I find it interesting that after 6 years of living here, you were unaware of the annual vehicle excise tax.

I've only technically been a MA resident for 3 months, and thus have avoided most of the bullshit.

so are you saying that you have managed to take advantage of all mass has to offer () without paying your "fair share" towards it's cost? karma is a bitch.

The parking ticket issue is interesting, because you are dealing with bureaucracy. By being presumptuous that "they" would not actually enforce parking regulations..

What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation. If they looked up my plate number, which I'm sure they did, they would have seen that I do in fact live in the area, that this is a new car with the same plates and so I'm obviously in the process of transferring registration. But they nail me on a technicality, not to keep non-residents from parking, but to get money. The fact that they make it so difficult for someone (who works) who is trying to follow the law, to get their affairs in order after buying a new car is infuriating.

remember what i said about karma being a bitch? there it is. people who want to save the world tend to forget that it costs money-lots of money. the funding needs to come from somewhere. towns, cities, states and the fed gov "generate revenue" in a number of creative fashions, from an income tax, sales tax, registration fees and right down to a parking ticket. but you must be thrilled knowing that when you pay that ticket you have contributed to the "cause". correct?

 

[xtry51]

Government is (supposed to) represent the will of the people, the mechanism by which we come together and accomplish things as a society that can't be accomplished alone or in private enterprise. Paying taxes and voting for politicians I think will enact the policies I believe will help our society is my means of contributing, and I would be happy to contribute even more in taxes if we had a truly progressive set of social policies to reduce poverty.

This part right here is what personally differentiates you as a socialist from me as a libertarian. The purpose of gov't is to protect your freedom, not supply it. I don't want a gov't that solves the world's problems and neither did the people who created this country. I also am not foolish enough to believe that all people will make something of themselves. The sad fact is there will always be lazy people, dumb people, incompetent people, etc. Not everyone will try to pursue the life you or I have. Not everyone wants to have an education. To deny this is to deny reality.

When gov't steals from those who persist until they succeed and then give to those who will never try to better themselves, you get what we have today: Entitlement.

I'm not saying there aren't those who genuinely come on hard times and wouldn't benefit from charity. What I am saying is if you want to help those people and you honestly believe it is a cause that others will support, then start you're own charity to help those people. Convince people to willingly give, rather than using the gov't to steal what you want to "give away".

Until you can admit to yourself that no one can stop the poor and unfortunate from existing you'll live in the fantasy world where socialism is a viable and plausible solution. Sadly there will always be winners and losers in life and you don't make the world better by stealing from one to give to the other.

 

[cekim]

This part right here is what personally differentiates you as a socialist from me as a libertarian. The purpose of gov't is to protect your freedom, not supply it. I don't want a gov't that solves the world's problems and neither did the people who created this country.

This is the part the zbrod's of the world don't get, they may be "happy to" allow this non-sense, but they are FORCING me to do the same with their policies which is an act of violence on their part on those who do not agree with them.

 

[center442]

Nice reply, Zach. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I appreciate the time you took to respond.

My only comment at this point is that if you think MA is doing a good job with health care, you'll love our gun laws. Also, now that you're an official Ma**h***, keep an eye open for sales on KY Jelly. It will make the screwing you'll be getting a little less painful. The PRM is not a considerate bed partner.

 

[drgrant]

It seems that most people here are libertarian as opposed to authoritarian, and on that spectrum I believe I am similarly aligned, as are many "liberals", as we've been calling them.

I don't think most "liberals" are libertarian. Most libertarians don't agree with forced redistribution of wealth by the state, even the most left leaning ones don't approve of government mandated theft. There is some debate on the edges about government services, etc, but that stuff is not even in the same realm as an entitlement like welfare, etc.

What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation.

This is where you go off the rails. You are assuming that there is some kind of legitimate purpose to these kinds of laws beyond enrichment of the state, and there isn't.... parking tickets and speed enforcement are nothing but revenue generation devices for the state. The sooner you dump that mindset (that the government is, by default, doing things for some benevolent reason) the easier things are to understand.

You're obviously taken the blue pill.

The Depression era programs (Social Security, etc) are usually held up as the shining examples of successful social programs.

Yeah, only by moonbats. Those programs would have been fine if they had sunsetted, but instead they gave birth to an entire entitlement mentality in this country.

How can anyone consider them successful, considering that things like Social Security are going to implode? The model was never sustainable to begin with, but it also doesn't help that pols have stolen money from SS over the years... so much so that the "investors" would not be able to get most of their principal back if they wanted an opt-out.

To put it in raw terms... the government was given money by the people on good faith to protect it... and they even failed at protecting the principal of that money. That's nothing more than a legalized scheme of the same s**t that Bernie Madoff was doing- except nobody is going to get prosecuted for running a ponzi scheme that's "government approved".

I think government is one of those things that you don't notice when it's doing things right, but only when it's doing things wrong.

Well, for whatever "good" it supposedly does it's not worth anywhere near what I have to pay for it, let's put it in those terms.

You're also making this statement with (likely) a false understanding of what government is supposed to be responsible for.

Government is supposed to exist on a scale comprehensible to its citizens. What we have now is anything but that... it's a go**anm albatross.

MA does some things well, like its healthcare system,

Dude, this is rich.....

So you think it's OK for the MA state gov to point a gun at you and DEMAND that you buy something? Because that's exactly what the system is.... Ponder that for a minute.

but it has a lot of problems that are not necessarily the result of liberal policies, but rather just shitty politicians.

Wrong. It's poor policy being implemented by even poorer politicians. "Good" politicians, if there ever were such a thing, would not subject those they represent to socialism. Good politicians understand that the role of government is supposed to be limited- the state was only created with the intent of handling functions which could not possibly be handled any other way reasonably. The problem is that feature creep has worked its way into government, particularly at the federal level.

-Mike

 

[GunGrey]

Unfortunately when people say "Only in Mass" they only fuel the notion that somehow big government works elsewhere when in fact it is everywhere, it's merely a matter of degree.

For example, one would look at Nevada, for example as a pretty free state: legalized gambling, legalized prostitution (except in some counties) but there in counties over 400,000 in population (cf Clark County i.e. Las Vegas) people are required to register their firearms with the LV Metro Police. This is not CCW licensure, BTW.

Then, of course, there is the Federal Government which is everywhere.

Rather than say: "Only in Mass"...a better slogan might be: "Only in America"

What I ment was only in mass do find people this nieve and looking of common sense.......here and California actually

 

[Stef]

What I ment was only in mass do find people this nieve and looking of common sense.......here and California actually

Wow. Hooked on Phonics clearly didn't work for you. Are you related to qwerty53 by any chance?

 

[GunGrey]

Wow. Hooked on Phonics clearly didn't work for you. Are you related to qwerty53 by any chance?[/QUOTE

I'm on a phone things Like this happen

 

[JoeT]

doubletap, please ignore

 

[JoeT]

just when I thought this thread had run it's coarse.....a whole new line of lunacy erupts

 

[cekim]

doubletap, please ignore him...

Well, that's a harsh (but effective) way to deal with the problem...

 

[Metalhead]

Hmmmm full retard anyone?

 

[Rick1987]

In before the close.


I think instead of gun control, we should have criminal control.

 

[ARV]

Hmmmm full retard anyone?

My sig line quote from drgrant.

 

[CosmicIrony]

So you think it's OK for the MA state gov to point a gun at you and DEMAND that you buy something? Because that's exactly what the system is.... Ponder that for a minute.

OMG, I actually agree with you on something! The individual mandate (a Romney contribution, BTW, not original with Obama) is clearly unconstitutional. I am fairly confident the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, although not in time to avoid major problems in health care.

 

[Blitz1]

OMG, I actually agree with you on something! The individual mandate (a Romney contribution, BTW, not original with Obama) is clearly unconstitutional. I am fairly confident the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, although not in time to avoid major problems in health care.

So, You actually believe in The Constitution?

 

[Blitz1]

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/members/27325-zbrod