Orlando shootings likely to impact security at theme parks

BrettV said:

I have never been a firearm owner and can't envision a situation where I ever would be. Owning or carrying a firearm would not make me feel safer in a situation.

I just can't fathom a reason why a civilian would need a semi automatic weapon.

Interestingly, this describes me as well.

But where I differ is that I would never let that fact color my opinion on what other people should and shouldn't be allowed to do or own.

If anything, those are probably exactly the traits that make me unqualified to make such decisions.

Well, I can't fathom a reason why anyone would need a Cadillac Escalade or Hummer, but it's not my business to judge those who own one. But that's beside the point.

You do realize that most guns in existence nowadays are semi-automatic, right? Even little 5-shot revolvers.

If I remember correctly isn't any gun which doesn't have to be reloaded or cocked in between shots considered semi-automatic? Not an expert, not even sure about the cocked part, I just know that when some people think semi-automatic they think of machine guns and that's not the same thing.

I think part of the reason that we can't reconcile common ground is because we see the problem (or lack thereof) in two different ways. A lot of people frame it in the context of not making prohibitions against people who follow the law. I understand the spirit of that, but I can't stop going back to a place where at some point the freedoms of one person can erode the freedoms of someone else. Again, that's why constraints on the enumerated rights have been, time and time again, ruled as constitutional by the courts. That, academically and historically, is the way that the Constitution as a whole has been interpreted, and it's unlikely to change. That's why I ask the question about where to draw the line, because there is, and always will be a line to draw.

That's my angle from a purely intellectual point of view. From a more emotional view not rooted in law, it strikes me as barbaric and uncivilized to have more guns than people. It doesn't make sense to me at all. That seems to be the perception of other western nations as well.

Paisely: precisely. Semi-auto means there is no need to manually cock the hammer; the trigger does this and fires in one motion (called a double-action trigger). In this manner, there is no difference operationally between a six-shot revolver and an unmolested AR-15.

Jeff said:

I can't stop going back to a place where at some point the freedoms of one person can erode the freedoms of someone else.

But people can and do erode others' freedoms with countless things other than rifles, and as I've said before, rifles are one of the least-used tools of murderers.

it strikes me as barbaric and uncivilized to have more guns than people. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

This is where I think it's necessary to look at history. It does seem barbaric with no context, but the inclusion within our founding documents of the right to own deadly weapons was born from horrific examples of widespread oppression. And there are even more recent examples of this (which is why I can't get behind the theory that such tyranny can never happen in this day and age):

In the 20th century alone, governments all over the world were responsible for the deaths of over 260,000,000 of their own people.

Stalin used government power to kill almost 50,000,000.

Hitler used government power to kill 11,000,000.

Mao used government power to kill between 30,000,000 and 70,000,000.

More people died as a result of their own respective governments than in all the wars of the 20th century.

http://www.simplefactsplainarguments.com/2013/01/6-things-that-kill...-guns.html

It's not historical context if you cherry pick the context. None of your examples were democracies. What examples can you give of democracies where government was oppressing its people in the last 200 years? In the United States alone, since the civil war, there has been a gradual tendency to overcome oppression of people by race, gender, nationality and sexual orientation, all without shooting the government (which doesn't make sense). How do you become oppressed by the government that you elect?

The founders were wary of this very democracy (actually a Republic) devolving into despotism. Benjamin Franklin even predicted it was inevitable, while at the same time claiming that with all its faults the constitution as written then was as close to perfect as it could be. Comparing the power (and corruption) our federal government has today to 230 years ago, I'd say we're closer to despotism than most people want to admit.

With all its checks and balances, it's still gotten out of control. Obviously I'm not talking about taking up arms and going to war with our own government now, but an armed citizenry is the final check, a last resort when all the others have failed.

You're not really answering the question... how does one become oppressed by the government that it elects? The founders thought a lot of things, chief among them that they couldn't predict the future. That's why they allowed for the founding documents to be altered. What they might have thought almost doesn't matter to me... it's what they wrote in the Constitution. What they wrote is the enumeration of certain rights with the ability to place limits on them to balance liberties.

I don't know how you see the US or any western democracy being even remotely close to despotism.

Jeff said:

I don't know how you see the US or any western democracy being even remotely close to despotism.

I dunno. The anti-Trump crowd sure spouts a lot of this.

I'm not saying despotism is right around the corner. However, I believe we're dangerously close to (and some even believe we're living this now) a soft tyranny.

I think it's naive to believe it's impossible that our democratic-republic could eventually fall due to our own policies (enacted by our own elected officials).

I totally agree that we control our own government, but votes have so little to do with that. I claim that money and press (which again, come from the people, though often a much narrower segment with more specific interests) are more important in policy making than votes.

Screamlord said:

To all those who think that I am wrong can kiss my ass. I know I am right on this and I don't believe in being PC about what I say.

Hmmmm, the Trump runs strong in this one...

If the opposite of "PC" is uncivil, then I'll go with PC.