Dick Metcalf controversy

[commando552]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I can't hear the phrase reasonable regulation and not think of England, Australia, and Chicago.

So does that mean that you think guns should be totally unregulated in the US, with anybody being able to buy and openly carry machine guns and grenade launchers? If not, then you are already accepting that there does need to be some form of "reasonable" regulation, the question is just where this line is drawn.

Also, I have to say that I do find myself rolling my eyes a bit when Americans bring up British gun laws in response to calls for regulation reform. The attitude towards guns in the two countries is so different due to cultural and historic reasons that there is no way that you can reasonably equate one to the other. IMHO using British gun control laws as some sort of cautionary tale for gun regulations in the US is spurious and comes off as lazy to me. Don't get me wrong though, being a British shooter myself I would love it if I was able to recreationally shoot centerfire semi automatic rifles and handguns, but in this country I am an absolutely tiny minority who actually cares about such things, so I don't get to have my way.

[SPEMack618]

Historically, and I mean this with every fiber of my being, and agree it completely, an American citizen could own what ever the hell he or she wanted.

The Revolutionary War American Army fought with cannon primarily owned by a private citizen turned Continental Colonel, Henry Knox.

Privateers wrought more havoc upon the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine than the Continental Navy, John Paul Jones theatrics aside.

And yes, machine guns should be more readily available for private ownership.

I have the traditional American republican (lower case r) disdain for large standing militaries, government telling me what I can and cannot do, and police forces that enforce laws against crime by statue, not crimes of intent.

I understand the difference in prevailing opinions between American and English gun cultures, however, in my research, which may be wrong, weren't most of the restrictions upon English firearms ownership enacted in incremental fashion as public safety measures?

That is my problem with the phrase "reasonable restriction".

Gun rights are the only Constitutionally protected right that are subject to such preversions by state and federal laws.

We, as Americans, wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on the right to vote, and here is my hard liner coming out, I freely equate the ballot box and cartridge box, metaphorically speaking.

[Yournamehere]

I don't think there's an issue with being angry with American left-wing "reasonable restrictions", but that's because those are never reasonable, they cater to exclusive philosophical ideals that do not account for certain freedoms that should hold true for the American people. And those freedoms should not hold true because they are in the Constitution, but because they are the most all-inclusive of any ideal or because they are the closest to being purely or morally right. The restrictions that have been proposed, or at least the major ones, in the last 20-30 years, or even the GCA, are not reasonable, but arbitrary because they are based on empiricism, and not philosophy. That is one flaw of our governing body, that it equates what is right to an arbitrary "majority" perspective (which can lead to 50/50 deadlocks) as opposed to a moral perspective that tries to account for everyone and not over or under-reach. What's more is that in creating a government, or any institutonalized system, is that there are selfish assholes who have personal desires and exploit sensationalism and partisanism in order to make a quick buck or to make themselves content, the ramifications or implications of their actions be damned. This is the underlying reason why we hate ALL politicians.

In the end, this attachment to arbitration, or to ideals that reinforce any form of selfishness, is what is wrong with any topic, especially the gun debate in America. We have people on the left exploiting the political system either for their own agenda and success in the game that is the systemic institution which is man-made and in the grand scheme, irrelevant, and we have people on the right that do the same thing, even if their fight correlates with ours. But there are people who believe for whatever reason that owning a firearm and self-reliance are good things, or bad, and they look at it with varying types of MORAL arguments and not empirical ones. The ones that are more moral are clearly the ones that are correct, and many come to the conclusion that it's more moral to own a gun and defend ones life than it is to not defend ones life. That's a whole other topic in and of itself but that's an overlay of it.

And in an institution where there are numerous semantic differences between person to person, there ought to be some TRULY reasonable guidelines as to who is allowed a gun and who isn't, and they should be based in MORAL REASONING and not EMPIRICISM, which is just observation of data, which can be skewed or flawed by any number of individuals that contribute to it. This is what Metcalf meant, or ought to have meant, that at the very least, what we determine to be the limit for gun ownership in America (or any issue) should not be absolute or polarizing, but that it should be based in what is morally right.

Not what any statistic says. Statistics are empirical and therefore flawed in dictating what is "right" so to speak.

Not what any document dictates, including the Constitution (the Constitution is only valuable if it adheres to a morality that is all-inclusive, bear in mind, and whether or not it does this now, or has ever, is up to philosophical interpretation, which can be and is skewed and dictated properly numerous times in history, depending on morality's current progress. I'm sure the world's worst dictators all had their own "constitutions" and laws of the land which were bullshit and exclusionary)

But in what we philosophically determine is for the greatest benefit of ALL people, a la John Stuart Mill. When we apply this philosophy to law and society, and consider practical application (confiscation would not necessarily work in America, and it would disenfranchise a lot of people) The answer is there.

I say it's closer to the right wing where guns are present, but not reverting to a world where everyone can walk around carrying an M4A1 with an affixed M203. The whole goal of creating a society is to make life not brutish to the point where that is necessary. But we are transitioning from being vulgar predatatorial animals into civilized beings, always, so there will be a need for the means of self-protection from those who choose to be more irrationally animal than those who are rationally human. But it's not a state of nature just as much as it is not a utopia. We're somewhere in the middle, and there should be a REASONABLE limit in that middle ground, and, again, the determining factor for that cannot be on one side or the other because of how morally inconsiderate or self-defeating that is toward human progress.

tl;dr Philosophy morality and rationale, not empirical evidential induction/deduction, because that will be easily skewed or flawed by anyone.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I have the traditional American republican (lower case r) disdain for large standing militaries, government telling me what I can and cannot do, and police forces that enforce laws against crime by statue, not crimes of intent.

As YourNameHere pointed out, what you are advocating is an America that is based on Hobbesian, not Lockean, principles of republicanism. Which is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs?

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I understand the difference in prevailing opinions between American and English gun cultures, however, in my research, which may be wrong, weren't most of the restrictions upon English firearms ownership enacted in incremental fashion as public safety measures?

They were, but that is still irrelevant. America and England are not the same. American gun owners in the U.S. have enormous political clout, while U.K. gun owners never did. So long as that difference exists, there is no lesson that American pro-gunners can learn from the British experience. End of story.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

We, as Americans, wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on the right to vote, and here is my hard liner coming out, I freely equate the ballot box and cartridge box, metaphorically speaking.

Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.

[SPEMack618]

MT, not avoiding you're response to my post. I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip. I will be out of internet range and what not until next Monday at which point I will do your post justice.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip.

Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me.

HEY! Everyone gets a vacation now and again.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs?

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.

Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.

No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.

Gotcha. I don't know why I thought you were Active-duty Army. But I still think that what you want is not a realistic hope. The military should (and does) downsize when global threats recede, but having a "small" military will never happen.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.

You are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the PLO and IRA to the Continental Army; if you are willing to do that, then you are disrespecting the latter by making a comparison to the former. My point is that you share a mentality with terrorists who sought to undermine a liberal democratic republic, not build one. By equating the ballot box and ammo box, what you are really saying is, "Democracy doesn't work unless the government is afraid of being overthrown by force of arms." Does it really make sense to you that the Founding Fathers would endorse such an idea?

[SPEMack618]

I have been on bouts of extended active duty here as of late. Like, above and beyond the one weekend/two weeks a year type deal. Some of that was OCS, and the other part was I got picked to be part of the liaison team between the 3rd ID and the 48th BCT, which involved a lot of active duty work. (and a lot of beer at the Soldier's Club)

I think every O-2 in the military has an idea about how the military should look.

I don't think the Government should necessarily be afraid of the people, but should realize that they govern with the consent of the govern, are answerable to the citizenry, and that the citizens, if the need arise may use their lawfully held private arms to depose a corrupt regime.