Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Of course people will choose the best available tool for a job. If that job is killing people, they will identify all available tools, and choose the best one. That tool will frequently be a gun. Not always. But frequently.

If I want to kill you clandestinely, I might not choose a gun. Silencers aren't always readily available, and they tend to be bulky. Some serial killers use guns, but a lot don't, and I think part of the reason for that is the noise of an un-silenced pistol and the bulkiness of a silenced one.

The point we are trying to make, and that you seem to be failing to own up to, is that when people can't get what they want, they frequently improvise. A 180 pound man can afford to improvise a brick to the head of a 100 pound woman. Or a lead pipe. Or a knife. Or, really, he could just use his bare hands and still be at a probable advantage. The person who truly and earnestly needs a weapon is the 100 pound woman. A gun is a good equalizer.

I mean, honestly, have you ever refused to eat something because you had a dull knife instead of a sharp one? Did you ever starve to death because of a lack of proper eating utensils?

Have you ever used a pair of pliers in lieu of a wrench? Did you ever make a funnel out of a piece of paper? Did you ever use anything as a hammer that wasn't a hammer? Pick up a towel and use it like an oven-mitt? Have you ever improvised an imperfect but suitable solution to a problem? Humans aren't just tool users. They are also tool makers and improvisers. You can't disarm foul intent. You can make someone work harder to achieve evil, but you can't do away with the evil itself.

Unfortunately, making the evildoer work harder also makes the law-abiding work harder. Harder than the evil-doer, since they aren't willing to break the rules.

Who is evading the point, here?

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Wow, nice bikini.

I'm actually not that into guns, or girls, but she's pretty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Question: Do you fly? Should I be able to bring my gun on a plane?"

Hello,

I do fly to Florida about once a year to visit my family.

The ultimate decision would have to be with the airlines. It's their plane, and the rules they set may affect who wants to fly with them.

Me? I'd say bring on your pistols, but I'd require you to load them with low-velocity frangible ammunition designed to disintegrate on impact with a hard surface. I think one brand is called the Glaser safety slug. It's designed so that it doesn't penetrate walls. Ironically, my main concern would be screening for ammunition, not for firearms. I'd worry a bit that someone might smuggle in high-velocity FMJ ammo in their orifices. But, you know, if someone is determined, nothing's going to make you completely safe.

I wouldn't worry overmuch about a maniac opening fire. I suppose he might nail one or two people. But he won't get far along, and he probably won't ace the plane.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

*sigh* I see we're not going to come to any common ground on this one. Let's talk about something new, shall we? Make up a new thread or some such, and I'll join you on a new topic of interest.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"- designated gun use areas. I know, sounds like gun free zones, and I already said those are a joke, mainly though because they aren't big enough. My gun free zone is everywhere but the range and your house and designated hunting areas. Seriously, why do you need a gun anywhere else? I don't get, "I want to walk down the street packin'." Maybe it's that phantom Tyranny no one can seem to describe in detail."

Hello,

I heartily disagree with this one, I'm afraid. Having established mandatory training by an agency not interested in regulating gun ownership out of existence, you have already created gun owners who are aware of the proper use and handling of firearms.

Why should these trained, non-criminal (background check) responsible citizens be deprived of the self defense option wherever they happen to be?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Guns are designed to kill, and most of them to kill people, not many other uses really.

---

Quote:

---

- no ban on any weapon equal to or below the lethality of an assault rifle (no grenade launchers, etc) - below that have as many as you like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"About 2 million times a year, some are used (not usually - or even frequently - fired, but used just the same) in self-defense."

CITE PLEASE ? From a REPUTABLE source ...

---

Quote:

---

"Eastleigh, Kenya – The streets of Eastleigh, a Somali enclave of Kenya's capital, Nairobi, are crowded and dirty. Sewage and rotting garbage flow through gullies. Police are virtually nonexistent; restaurants are locked, even when open, for safety reasons; and guns are readily available for sale at the market.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think you may have misunderstood what we were advocating. Perhaps you believe that removing permanent power structure would inevitably result in violence and warfare, but that doesn't mean it's what we think would happen, or that we advocate it.

If not, my mistake, you may just be responding to Wulf's desires for a civil war or something.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: yes, I see. Now there's a new psychiatric disorder calls Combined Hyperactive Intermittent Lethargy Disorder (CHILD) and associated Knowledge Impaired Disorder (KID) Merck and Pfizer are no doubt in a rush at this very moment for new drugs to treat them. Some promising candidates are Hypergeria, psychopathomine, and hypnosomaloyalsomnambulide

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Rights come from God, not a gubmint employee.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

I just wanted to indicate how everyone having a gun will make this a paradise on earth:

Militant and moderate Islamists are battling for control of the rubble-strewn streets of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, fighting that has forced more than 1.4 million people to flee their homes and caused what the United Nations on Wednesday called the country's worst humanitarian crisis in 18 years of war."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

- no ban on any weapon equal to or below the lethality of an assault rifle (no grenade launchers, etc) - below that have as many as you like.

---

Actually, Piz, I have some issues with most of your proposals, but the devil is always in the details...

For instance, the above quoted part is problematic. Why? Easy: Define "assault rifle". It doesn't mean what I think you think it means. An ACTUAL "assault rifle" is defined as having "select-fire" capabilities. In other words, it's capable of semi-automatic fire OR fully-automatic fire. Also known as a "machine gun". Many modern "assault rifles" feature several modes: semi-auto (one shot for every pull of the trigger), full auto (pulling and holding the trigger fires the weapon repeatedly until the ammo runs out), and "burst" modes (a single trigger pull looses two, three, or four rounds).

Of all of those capabilities, only one is currently legal for your average citizen to have and use. Federal laws are in place to govern the ownership, use, and manufacture of firearms with the other modes of operation.

That's just one tiny example of how the best of intentions gets mucked up in the details of definitions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

My point in bringing all this up is just this: It's all well and good to have the best of intentions, but even when you do, you often make life harder for those who are simply trying to follow the laws to the best of their abilities. A career criminal doesn't care about gun-free zones or carrying his gun through them. But because of the good intentions of regular community-minded citizens trying to make things "better" for themselves, now I *DO* have to care, unless I want to become an unintentional felon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Aside from Bytemite and a couple quotes from Kwicko, none of you so much as mentioned the topic of this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Sorry. As to the topic of this thread, darn that First Amendment anyway. It lets whack-jobs you don't agree with say anything they want. That can't be right.

So what would you have the powers-that-be do with this guy?

While I consider this Reverend a blot on both the profession of preacher and humanity in general, the fact that he can rant against Obama in safety also means that when the ruling party changes again you can safely rant against them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
HKCav ?

I'm not so much for the idea of them understanding the right, although that'd help a damn lot, as I am for them respecting it.

---

Quote:

---

But primarily, and my latest post was an attempt to point this out, I am annoyed cause folk see something like that and their first knee-jerk response is over the weapon and it's possession, instead of the outright psychosis that breeds these wackos on a massive scale.

---

Quote:

---

The weapon didn't make that guy a wacko, our society did, and that's WAY more dangerous than any man portable weapon he could possibly be carrying.

---

Quote:

---

For the record, I do consider institutionalized religion to be part of the problem, but as a general rule individualized religion not only isn't, but in my experience has been an overall positive force.

---

Quote:

---

Still, when folks say wackjob with a gun, everyone seems to go berserk at the "with a gun" part, and I am focused on the "wackjob" part, and this does get my ire up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's the combination of the preacher preaching death to Obama as a less than human animal AND his fan showing up to the townhall with the assault rifle slung over his arm. The two separate are a mystery--the two together are motive and opportunity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think we're in trouble in this country and I think this entirely legal incident is an indicator.

---

Quote:

---

The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And yet, Wheezer, despite your 'statistics' (the GALLUP POLL ??? is cited twice ??? wow - now that's certainly scientific) reference to actual effectiveness cites 'some' type of weapon - with no indication if it was a gun, a baseball bat, mace or sharp fingernails.

---

Quote:

---

The interviewers then asked the following question: "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU (defensive gun use) against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve [Page 162] months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think we're in trouble in this country and I think this entirely legal incident is an indicator.

---

Quote:

---

So the question remains, what would you have the powers-that-be do about Rev. "Death to Obama" and Mr. "I have a legal right to carry a firearm"? Should they be jailed because they make you uncomfortable? Should their First Amendment rights be abridged because what they say is hateful and objectionable? Do you want that kind of precedent in place when administrations change and the new one finds what you say hateful and objectionable?

---