TomAiello

How about we start another thread to discuss your proposed system? If you want I'll even throw in some ideas for how you could get gun control legislation passed with the support of the NRA--here's a few: 1) Require firearm instruction in public schools, and get the NRA to design and administer the curriculum. Makes a society which has guns safer, but also gives the pro-gun folks a chance to shape the young, while also requiring them to put their money where their mouth is on safety. 2) Open up the NFA registry for machine gun registration again. It's been closed since the 80's, making the scarcity cost of the things absurd. Allowing people to register new ones would not increase crime (only one use of a machine gun in a violent crime has occurred since 1934, and that was a police officer who would have been able to gain access anyway), and it would show good faith in negotiations. 3) Remove suppressors and short barrel rifles/shotguns from the NFA list. Suppressors actually make firearms safer (and less annoying to the neighbors) to fire--most European countries figures this out a long time ago. The short barrel business is a silly anachronism that's outlived it's usefulness, as is demonstrated by the number of "pistols" out there that are just de-stocked versions of rifles. Removing these items from the "serious" registry would reduce paperwork, streamline processes, and give the hobby shooters some toys to play with (which would make them happy) without creating any increase in violent crime. What do you want in return? I don't know, but negotiations are composed of give and take. Now you see what you could give--I recommend thinking some of that over before asking to take things. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I do not view this as an issue of convenience, or one about toys. I feel that we're talking about a fundamental Constitutional right here. I think the variance in opinion is mostly about whether such a right is necessary or proper. Once you view this as a fundamental right, you can start to understand other positions than your own. I do understand how people who feel that the private ownership of arms can be so outraged here. It's just that I feel the protection of fundamental rights is worth some error. It's the same reason I feel that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where we are absolutely certain--even if that means some guilty parties are subject to lesser punishment. But that's a price I'm willing to pay for the protection of fundamental freedoms. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I can honestly defend the system that could make such an error. Using individual cases to show mistakes made by a system is easy. Designing a better system, that still protects the fundamental freedoms? That's a bit harder. Put another way, if we locked everyone in padded rooms from birth to death, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone ever getting hurt, would we? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Quade, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. It's obvious on casual reflection that many people have exercised significant (and fatal) influence upon others simply by using language. Do you think, for example, that Charles Manson held a gun to his follower's heads and made them kill people? That's a bit of over the top hyperbole, don't you think? In any question of fundamental rights, I think it's important to err on the side of allowing the rights, even if some errors will be made. If allowing some error is the cost of essential freedoms, then I'll pay that cost. I think that you'd actually agree with my statement there--the issue is that I feel that a right to firearm ownership is a fundamental right, and you disagree about that. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You misunderstand my point, perhaps intentionally. I do not mean to require my children to be armed, or even to own firearms. I simply wish to educate them on the functioning and safety rules of firearms. In similar fashion, I will not require them to own motor vehicles, but I will educate them on the functioning and safety rules of motor vehicles. They will live in a world where firearms are readily available. I would be remiss in my duty as a parent where I not to educate them on this topic. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here. [jerryzflies] and [carmenc] do have notional points w/r/t integrity and consistency – if one criticizes the removal of rights under one administration but rationalizes/excuses/ignores that behavior under another than it is inconsistent and speaks to an integrity issue, i.e., situational ethics. That's only if one excuses the previous administration. "They're guy did bad things, so it's ok for my guy to do them too!" sounds positively insane when viewed from the perspective of an observer who claims neither "guy." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hey, buddy, I've got a nice bridge for sale... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I believe it is my responsibility to teach my children how to use firearms for the same reasons I believe it is my responsibility to teach them how to drive, to teach them about safe sex, and to teach them many other things. They will live in a world where there are various things that they can use as tools, but which might injure them if mis-used. I want them to know how to use those things properly, to minimize the chance they will be hurt. Parenting isn't all about what's "more fun." Some of it is about teaching things that your children ought to know to live happier, safer, more productive lives. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If an innocent produces a firearm in self defense, the most likely result is not a shootout that makes the news--it's a non-news event where the shooter flees. Those sorts of events don't make the news. I don't have the statistics (anyone who does, can you give us some links) but I'd bet money that the vast majority of self-defensive uses of firearms result in no injuries--most likely in zero shots fired. That's because simply brandishing a firearm in self defense is enough to make any rational (i.e. not drug crazed or actually insane) criminal leave you alone and look for a softer target. If there were lots of reports of people shooting others in self-defense, I'd be worried that concealed carry and defensive firearm use were bad ideas, because it would show that we're arming a lot of irresponsible people. The current trend (victims engaging in rational self-defense without over-reacting by pumping their attacker full of lead) actually shows that an armed citizenry is responsible enough to be trusted with weapons, not that they ought to be disarmed. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here. Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to hear it from the last guys, about the guys before them, either. When you become President of the United States, it's well and truly time to stop pointing fingers at other people. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm totally writing that down in my collection. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Further, no where does anyone claim that the 29,000 firearms recovered from crime scenes were actually used in any crime. Basically, the statistics are vague enough that anyone can use them to support any position they want. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Without looking at the statistics, think about this: You are an expert at moving contraband around, especially from South and Central America into Mexico (and from there into the United States). You have substantial transport infrastructure (planes, boats, cars, etc) with built in smuggling compartments. The cost of a fully automatic M-16 in the USA is around $20,000. Buying machine guns in the USA takes loads of time (several months for the ATF to turn the paperwork around). Buying machine guns in the USA requires that you notify the ATF of your purchase, and gives them the legal right to demand inspection of the weapon (which means you either have to produce it or have your straw man purchaser get arrested). The cost of a fully automatic M-16 in Central America is around $2,000. There are no associated paperwork, registration or inspection hassles with the purchases in Central America. The cost of a fully automatic assault rifle in Central Asia or Africa is even lower--maybe $500 for an AK-47. There are no registration, paperwork or inspection hassles in Central Asia. Now ask yourself--where are you going to buy your weapons? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It would also make me a fair chunk of change. Edit to add: But I find it extremely unlikely that it will happen before the economy picks up. Check out this letter from congressional democrats occupying seats with largely pro-gun constituencies. Or this one, and note that Max Baucus isn't exactly a political lightweight. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Agree!!! She looks like a French version of Katherine Zeta Jones.... Admit it...you bought the photo didn't you? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Um, you got me? I'm not sure what you're talking about, actually. I'm pretty sure I haven't used the term "Clinton Recession" either here or elsewhere, unless it was some sort of shorthand for a time period, rather than an attempt to cast blame (for example, although I usually try to refer to the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, I'm sure that somehow, somewhere I shortened it to the Clinton ban--that was not an attempt to attribute that bad law to one person). You go ahead and laugh, and shout your "gotcha". I'll sit over here scratching my head and wondering what you're on about. Edit to add: As you suggested, here is a search for "Clinton Recession." I admit I only scanned the first two pages (until I encountered your post suggesting the search at the bottom of the second page), but I failed to see any posts where I used that term. Please do let me know what post of mine you are talking about, so I can check it out. Thanks! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Blame shifting isn't terribly productive. I wasn't happy with the Bush administration's overspending. I'm not happy with the Obama administration's overspending. It's just insane that when someone (like me) says they don't like government spending, the knee jerk response appears to be "but that other guy you didn't like did it, too!" No one man--George Bush, Barack Obama, or the King of Siam--has the power to throw the whole world into a recession. Blaming any one person is generally a futile exercise in partisan finger pointing. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

YES!!!!!!!! Well, clearly YOU do. I was asking people that might know what they're talking about. I think Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. Not just in the bailouts, but in a lot of things. If I disagree with you, does that mean that I'm just one of those people who doesn't know what I'm talking about? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't know. It seems like his reputation and previous actions support a more "he really wants to balance the budget" interpretation of his actions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't agree. I think the way the courts have generally interpreted the Constitution since the 1930's leaves the leeway. The way it's phrased doesn't seem, to me, to do so. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Um, did you actually read Vattel? If the one thing is a subset of the other, then it's clearly not a synonym. The drafters, being reasonably precise in their language, probably would not use a subset as a synonym. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Did anyone else read this news story? I love the idea. Why use prime real estate as a prison when you could sell it off and plug holes in the state budget, coincidentally reducing the state's economic signature at the same time. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are you asserting that the term "treaty" and the term "international law" are synonyms? Or that at the time of drafting, the founders viewed the terms "treaty" and "law of nations" (used generically) as synomyms? The reason the founders didn't use them interchangeably is because they have different meanings. Please note that if there is a book called "Different Meanings" it is in no way my intention to refer to it, much less to incorporate it's entirety, by reference, into this post. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No, it's not. At that time, in the english language, the accepted term used to describe what today we call "international law" was "the law of nations." If they had used the term "International Law" I'm sure you would now be arguing that they had meant to incorporate, by reference, the entirety of this work. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Just because they have it currently doesn't mean considering whether they ought to have it or not is a bad idea. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com