Reasonable Gun Restrictions by ANTHONYT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Some reasonable restrictions, in line with the Second Amendment:

1) Mandatory national service, whether it be military or otherwise, as a prerequisite for gun ownership. Call it part of the "well regulated militia" that was deemed necessary for the security of a free nation.

2) Licensing and accountability. Training would be part of licensing, insurance would be part of accountability.

I'm not advocating a position on any of these things, just putting them out there for discussion. Fire at will (whoever the hell Will is).

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:26 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Some reasonable restrictions, in line with the Second Amendment:

1) Mandatory national service, whether it be military or otherwise, as a prerequisite for gun ownership. Call it part of the "well regulated militia" that was deemed necessary for the security of a free nation.

2) Licensing and accountability. Training would be part of licensing, insurance would be part of accountability.

I'm not advocating a position on any of these things, just putting them out there for discussion. Fire at will (whoever the hell Will is).

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

Hello Mike,

1) I'm not sure the government is big enough to give a job to everyone who wants one. I'm not sure how government service makes someone more suitable for a weapon, either. Also, I don't read the 'well regulated militia' bit the same as most people. Then again, I don't read the 'turn the other cheek' bit the same as most people, either.

2) This makes sense. I often think of the licensing and insurance requirements of a car to be roughly analogous to what I'd deem proper of a firearm. If. If I imagine a government that does not want to restrict my access, but merely to ensure my competence. If I imagine a government that will not use the roster to find me and disarm me at their convenience. This is, sadly, not my government. But if we could stipulate such a government, I'd be happy with the requirement.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:17 PM

This "debate" doesn't make any sense to me. There simply is never going to be anything resembling a "middle ground" between the pro-gun folk and the con-. The two sides proceed from totally incompatible premises. Magonsdaughter, f'rinstance, over in the other thread said at one point, "It's kind of nuts to me that people can't see the correlation of massive amounts of weaponry available = increased gun deaths." I dare say, the pro-gun people know perfectly well that fewer guns would make for fewer gun deaths, but their right to bear arms as a measure against tyranny is simply more important to them. It's really not about making the streets safer to them. It's not. It's about holding onto some idea of personal sovereignty. And that's the sort of thing people will defend to, well, the death.

But it's confusing, 'cause pro-gun folks will make arguments AS IF they care about making the streets safer with all the CCW B.S. vis a vis the batman shooting. But that's just them trying to win an argument framed by the anti-gun folks. To these men ('cause it's only men arguing pro-gun here), GUNS ARE A RIGHT. Period. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a man has a right to a car. It says he has a right to bear arms.

The question I have for the pro-gun folk here is this: do you guys really think that you're gonna slow down the steamroller of State Power with your guns when and if it comes to that? Isn't it reasonable to assume that that ship sailed somewhere back in the 19th century? Wasn't the final nail put to the coffin when we got ourselves a standing army (and navy and air force and the freakin' atomic bomb)??? Private citizens can't own RPG's or tanks or tactical nukes, but the state can. And does. So isn't this stickin' to your guns a kind of sentimentality at this point? Some out-dated die-with-your-boots-on ethos? Whenever some folks decide to face off with the U.S. Government, they get their asses handed to 'em, right? What earthly good are your guns to you now?

I'm just trying to cut through some of the fog and maybe get people talking about what they actually think their guns are for.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
do you guys really think that you're gonna slow down the steamroller of State Power with your guns when and if it comes to that? Isn't it reasonable to assume that that ship sailed somewhere back in the 19th century? Wasn't the final nail put to the coffin when we got ourselves a standing army (and navy and air force and the freakin' atomic bomb)??? Private citizens can't own RPG's or tanks or tactical nukes, but the state can. And does. So isn't this stickin' to your guns a kind of sentimentality at this point?

^^^^^THIS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

1) I'll begin by addressing the disparagement of the idea of personal defense. I'll simply say that I have a knitting tool of some kind that I recovered from the desk of a laid off employee at work. It was one of many items abandoned when the employee was laid off (they are allowed to take their things with them) and one of those articles I decided to keep myself rather than throw away. (I was tasked with cleaning out these freshly unoccupied desks.)

At the time, it was out of a sense of curiosity about what the devil this odd metal stick was for, with a hook at one end and a kind of u-shape at the other. I found out one day by accident that it is *quite* good at removing staples from paperwork. I have two tools specifically designed for removing staples, but this improvised device does a better job at it.

Our right to bear arms may indeed be in place to secure our liberty against tyranny, but I find that guns make excellent sporting tools and are my very best resort for self-defense. Oh, I could have knives or swords or bludgeons or electronic torture devices or chemical weapons, but only a gun gives me my best chance at defense with my modest skill and asthma. It turns out that a thing can have many ancillary uses and need not be boiled down to a single intended purpose. Guns ARE useful for equalizing the playing field between predator and prey. Just having one can be a predation retardant, and I have personal real-life experience with that which sufficient to convince me of its truth.

2) On the topic of resisting tyranny, it is often pointed out that no handgun, rifle, or shotgun on Earth can possibly allow me to resist the predations of the United States government. By similar token, none of these devices is directly useful to revolutionaries anywhere else in the world. The government always has more warfare tools and better ones than the average man.

However, I do feel that armed rebellion is an important litmus test and character-stresser for identifying tyrannical regimes that will no longer be tolerated by a populace, and causing individuals within the government structure to rethink their position. Ruthlessly hunting and killing your own citizens is an occupation that I believe (perhaps contrarily to Frem) may make a soldier or two reconsider their life choices. If those soldiers or two happen to have some bit of rank, a rebellion suddenly transforms from a poorly armed rabble to a poorly trained but well-armed rabble.

I believe, unlike Frem, that any successful rebellion will need the help of the military (at least some of them) and that such help will only come when the military is given the distasteful job of wiping out friends and neighbors who are desperately scrabbling for freedom against impossible odds. Such murderous contests are also likely to attract international attention and sympathy (as they do, if you haven't been reading the news.)

A rifle or pistol or shotgun won't win a rebellion by itself but it can be used to start one. Hear the shot heard round the world. The hopelessness of rebellion is part of the reason it can work. Because when a man finds his situation so insufferable that he will pick up a weapon and march into certain death while wildly trying to murder his oppressors, I believe the paradigm has a chance (Just a chance, but by this time people will grasp for ANY chance) to shift.

In this sense, a gun is very much a symbol of the individual's ability to resist tyranny, and it remains that symbol tenfold while it is actively employed in trying to secure liberty. If you want to say that Ghandi was braver than George Washington I will gladly concede the point. Not all men are lions, and lambs need something to hold onto while they gamble away all their tomorrows.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:04 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

AnthonyT

I hope you are prepared to throw out the 'constitutional' argument.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Our right to bear arms may indeed be in place to secure our liberty against tyranny ..."

Actually, no. The wording is plain, a well-regulated militia is there to protect the state. Not individual free state of being, not free state of mind, but the political entity, the state. Anything else is non-constitutional, including self-defense, sport, or the effyu to the government. BTW, the constitution is also pretty harsh about treason. I'm thinking they weren't that supportive of nascent revolutions. This is just my guess, but I'm thinking that they figured if you had the vote to change your government, you didn't need the gun.

"However, I do feel that armed rebellion is an important litmus test and character-stresser for identifying tyrannical regimes that will no longer be tolerated by a populace ... (those who are) desperately scrabbling for freedom against impossible odds."

At what percentage of the 'populace'? 0.01% ? 1% ? 90% ? How 'impossible' the odds? A small minority may take umbrage at 'the state' - does that give them the right to armed rebellion? And what if they then access tanks, fighter jets, and nukes? Would you be OK with them imposing their fight for 'freedom' on a larger population that doesn't want it, and laying waste to lives and societies while they duke it out with government? Where is the dividing line between freedom-fighters and a small group of armed would-be rulers trying to impose their will?

"A rifle or pistol or shotgun won't win a rebellion by itself but it can be used to start one."

Not really. What starts a rebellion is a consensus among people. The rest follows.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:10 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I hope you are prepared to throw out the 'constitutional' argument.

Hello,

Throw it out? I'm not. Why should I? Even if I interpreted the amendment as you do, it would still be a constitutionally granted right. "The Green Cheese of the Moon being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," would still mean that I had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So I DO believe that a Constitutional right exists, above and beyond whatever personal reasons I may have to do things.

Quote:
Actually, no. The wording is plain, a well-regulated militia is there to protect the state. Not individual free state of being, not free state of mind, but the political entity, the state.

I will state emphatically that I am not a Constitutional Lawyer or any other sort of lawyer. I am a layman. My take-away from that amendment is not the same as yours. The wording is very plain to me, but the conclusions I draw from it are very different than those you draw.

It has never been the wording itself, but the meaning gleaned from that wording that has always been an issue of debate. Nobody disputes the wording. We only ever argue about what intent was behind the wording. My perception of the intent is vastly different from yours- but neither my perception nor your perception can negate the amendment itself- for it is without doubt that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be upheld.

Quote:
At what percentage of the 'populace'? 0.01% ? 1% ? 90% ? How 'impossible' the odds? A small minority may take umbrage at 'the state' - does that give them the right to armed rebellion?

If you'll forgive me for saying so, this question has no meaning. A person will fight when they can no longer tolerate their situation and can no longer perceive easier ways to change it. Any percentage of the population or all of them or even one solitary man. People do not enter into rebellion for fun. (Or at least, most do not.) I expect any man or woman to fight when they feel they must, and no amount of finger wagging or head shaking will move someone who feels they are at the end of their tether. I have never known the admonition, "But you're not the majority" to influence a person rebelling against their government. I'll even go so far as to wager that the majority in any rebellion are passive, just as the majority falling in with any government are passive. I think most political change on the planet is accomplished by minorities battling for desired outcomes while majorities sit idle and watch. I certainly don't believe that every action of my government nor every political movement in my government is the will of the majority.

Quote:
Not really. What starts a rebellion is a consensus among people. The rest follows.

I concede this point of philosophy. Once people achieve their consensus, whether it be a consensus of the majority or the few, they either metaphorically agree to sit in front of tanks or they agree to firebomb them. If they choose violence, weapons are desirable for the effort. I believe the presence of weapons forces the government to respond with much more intense violence and at much greater risk than they would in the absence of them.

You may come to different conclusions, but this is my thinking on the matter.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:48 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"It has never been the wording itself, but the meaning gleaned from that wording that has always been an issue of debate."

The only reason to bring in non-constitutional stuff is b/c you don't like what the constitutional words say. So you have to insert new words not contained in the constitution - like sport, self-defense, hunting, and rebellion. If you think they're in the constitution then find them for me. If they're not in the constitution, maybe you shouldn’t be using them as a source of meaning.

"A person will fight when they can no longer tolerate their situation and can no longer perceive easier ways to change it."

"Once people achieve their consensus, whether it be a consensus of the majority OR THE FEW, they either metaphorically agree to sit in front of tanks or they agree to firebomb them."

You know what I think - I think you can't come to grips with the fact that people remain oppressed not b/c they lack guns, but b/c the populace as a whole prefers things the way they are. The one, or two or a few individuals who make suicidal gestures with guns aren't going to win a revolution if their neighbors simply don't care to join in. Or worse, if they actually want things to stay the same.

So let's look at it another way. Let's say you have a very large percentage of the populace that likes things the way they are. And then you have the one, or two or a few individuals that find the way things are to be offensive to their sense of freedom. Maybe we call them Contras, or Revolutionaries. Let's say this very small group finds funding to get them extremely effective weapons - tanks, artillery, bombers, nukes. With these resources they wage a war against not only 'the government' but also the rest of the populace that isn't for them.

Are they freedom fighters as they call themselves, or are they in fact oppressors?

Numbers matter. If you find yourself in armed revolt against the society around you, you may be on the side of freedom for YOU to make other people do what YOU want, but you are probably not on the side of freedom for all.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:51 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quote:
"... someone from another country ..."
Australia, I think, perhaps NZ.

That sounds right, though I can't recall what country they might have been from.

Quote:

"... some people do in fact feel that way ... Suffice that we both agree the current political winds are not blowing in the direction of abolition. Some of us wish they would ..."
Who?

Oh, I haven't taken a poll, Kiki. If you want to believe that nobody favors abolition, you are free to believe it. I do not have the tools to prove my point of view.

Quote:
"The current strategy, to my mind, involves nibbling the 2nd Amendment to death."
In what way?

By placing restrictions that are not related to proven dangers. The Assault Weapons bill of some years back had numerous restrictions based on appearance. The current .50 caliber weapons restriction and melting point restriction of a particular western state is another such nibbling. I consider the .50 caliber weapon restriction to have been moronic while the melting point provision was both moronic and racist and 'classist.' In any event, they take bites out of legal ownership to no practical end, constituting the nibbling I refer to.

Quote:
"Suffice that we both agree the current political winds are not blowing in the direction of abolition. ... and some of us hope they never do again."
Again?

Again what? Are you looking for me to name names of people who hope the political winds do not blow in the direction of abolition?

Quote:
"Non-gun people frequently put ink to paper with nothing but myth and innuendo in their bra(i)ns, and they are generally NOT interested in the points of view or arguments of gun-people."
And yet, police departments have major input on gun restrictions. Are they non-gun people?

Many police employees are decidedly NOT gun people. Others are. Based on the quality of some of the aforementioned gun control laws, and based on your assertion of law-enforcement complicity, I'd have to say such police departments were NOT gun people.

Quote:
These extremely vague declamations are not convincing.

I am sorry that you are not moved, but I am not surprised. I have no magic that will move you. I am merely telling you what I think and feel and have experienced and lamented. Even if you are not 'moved' by my statements I hope you will consider them.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:10 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... some people do in fact feel that way (for abolition) ... Suffice that we both agree the current political winds are not blowing in the direction of abolition. Some of us wish they would ..."
Do you in fact know of any in the US? I would think that if you're making a claim you have at least SOME evidence to back it. B/c it seems all you have is a theoretical supposition that there must be someone blowing some pro-abolition political winds out there. Do you have any facts? Or just supposition.

"In any event, they take bites out of legal ownership to no practical end ..."
And what would that 'practical end' be that you would approve?

"Suffice that we both agree the current political winds are not blowing in the direction of abolition. ... and some of us hope they never do again."
Here you are making the claim that while there is no CURRENT move to abolition, there was a move to abolition in the past. You are hoping to not return to that AGAIN. When was that move to abolition in the past?

"I'd have to say such police departments were NOT gun people."
I interpret this as meaning 'NOT YOUR TYPE of gun people'. Though I would think that since they tend to be at both ends of the barrel far more than most people, confiscate guns from gangs and drug dealers, and see what gets used in shootings far more frequently than most they probably have a wealth of experience that you, for example, don't have.

"I am sorry that you are not moved, but I am not surprised. I have no magic that will move you."
I'm not looking for magic, just facts and logic.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:12 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
The only reason to bring in non-constitutional stuff is b/c you don't like what the constitutional words say. So you have to insert new words not contained in the constitution - like sport, self-defense, hunting, and rebellion. If you think they're in the constitution then find them for me. If they're not in the constitution, maybe you shouldn’t be using them as a source of meaning.

Hello,

I'm not sure what you mean by this? The constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms. Full stop. You and I disagree about WHY, but if we stick to provable constitutional arguments only, we both have to agree that I have the right, without ambiguity.

I don't know about you, but I can do things for many reasons. I have used a gun for self defense only one time in my life. By 'used' I mean 'had handy for that purpose in the face of a proven threat.' I have used my guns for sporting purposes the rest of the time. I don't hunt. I don't have anything against hunting, but I don't like butchering animals so I don't kill them.

As for rebellion, that's a place where you and I disagree on the Very Plain Wording of the Constitution. That self-same Very Plain Wording means very different things to you and I.

But we need have no argument about rebellion. The right is there, for whatever intended purpose. I'm just sharing my reasons, some of which are unrelated to the Constitution and some of which I feel are related.

Quote:
You know what I think - I think you can't come to grips with the fact that people remain oppressed not b/c they lack guns, but b/c the populace as a whole prefers things the way they are.

I can come to grips with that quite easily. People always have the government that they are willing to put up with.

Quote:
And then you have the one, or two or a few individuals that find the way things are to be offensive to their sense of freedom. Maybe we call them Contras, or Revolutionaries. Let's say this very small group finds funding to get them extremely effective weapons - tanks, artillery, bombers, nukes. With these resources they wage a war against not only 'the government' but also the rest of the populace that isn't for them.

Are they freedom fighters as they call themselves, or are they in fact oppressors?

They might be one or the other or both. You may not know my family history, but I assure you that you are not revealing to me a revelation when you tell me that 'freedom fighters' can be 'oppressors.'

Quote:
Numbers matter. If you find yourself in armed revolt against the society around you, you may be on the side of freedom for YOU to make other people do what YOU want, but you are probably not on the side of freedom for all.

Kiki, I don't know many revolutions that started on Day #1 with a majority of citizens actively supporting it. Most revolutions I've heard of are snowball things. Often, the majority doesn't get behind a revolution until the government does something unsavory while suppressing a minority rebellion or protest.

In any event, if you ever find ME in a violent rebellion against my government, I assure you that something will be very, very rotten in Denmark. I like my skin and comforts far too much to risk them casually. I think most people feel this way. And if I ever *did* get pushed to violence, which would require a series of events outside my current imagination, I doubt I'll take a vote before acting. Something would have to be awfully wrong and in need of immediate intervention for someone like me to become violent in this way. I don't know what that would be. Maybe if they started rounding up the Jews and putting them to death. I'm not sure I'd wait for a majority consensus if that happened. I hope not. That's the kind of thing that demands immediate action and leading by example, possibly posthumously.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I'm not wedded to non-violence or suicidal protest, but the conscience of the people can be raised by more than the sound of a gun.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I'm not wedded to non-violence or suicidal protest, but the conscience of the people can be raised by more than the sound of a gun.

Hello,

It can be, and I've said so. I even already brought up Ghandi and contrasted him to Washington.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:10 PM

Pro gun sans restrictions people seem to be more interested in owning guns coz they're kind of cool toys rather than having any ideas about preventing tyanny. I call bullshit on that one.

High powered/high tech guns for hunting animals like deer just piss me off. I say arm the animals and then I'll consider it a sport.

Hello Anthony. I am from Australia. I have been posting here for a about 2 years. I have never suggested a total ban on guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 1:52 AM

I'll note for the record that the Arab Spring uprisings did not start with a gunshot. Being sick and tired of oppression doesn't require you to have any guns to lash out at your oppressors.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Pro gun sans restrictions people seem to be more interested in owning guns coz they're kind of cool toys rather than having any ideas about preventing tyanny. I call bullshit on that one.

Hello,

I am prepared to believe you feel this way about their opinions. I am also prepared to believe they feel as they say they do about theirs. And I know how I feel about mine.

Quote:
High powered/high tech guns for hunting animals like deer just piss me off. I say arm the animals and then I'll consider it a sport.

I doubt anyone will try to convert you to hunting, though I'll point out that my weekly hamburgers are acquired under much less 'sporting' conditions. As long as the animal is eaten, I don't care whether it was clobbered with a cranial stunner (pneumatic piston skullcrusher) after being herded into a killhouse or shot in the woods. Having seen conditions at some 'farms' I might think to prefer to end my life by a hunter's bullet than a slaughterhouse's stunner. But really, I've eaten the hamburger or steak from both methods.

Quote:

Hello Anthony. I am from Australia. I have been posting here for a about 2 years. I have never suggested a total ban on guns.

Hello. I hope I never confuse you for a Brit or Kiwi. I'll have to take your word on the rest that you do not disdain a man's right to a firearm.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'll note for the record that the Arab Spring uprisings did not start with a gunshot. Being sick and tired of oppression doesn't require you to have any guns to lash out at your oppressors.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

Hello,

I'll note it myself if it will help.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 5:05 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

"Non-gun people frequently put ink to paper with nothing but myth and innuendo in their bra(i)ns, and they are generally NOT interested in the points of view or arguments of gun-people."

Oh dear, that is how I see the pro gun lobby, seriously distorting stats and situations. I've seen propaganda from the NRA about my own country that is completely ludicrous.

Hello,

Thank you for finding my misplaced 'i'. I hate it when I leave behind orphaned letters.

Some propaganda is factual, but most of it is completely ludicrous and terribly distorted. No matter whose propaganda it is.

But I again draw your attention to laws restricting weapons on the basis of melting point and bullet width so that you can see that such ludicrousness does extend to getting laws passed on the anti-gun side of things, not merely laws that the NRA might advocate on their side of the continuum.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 5:46 AM

CAVETROLL

Sorry this is long, too much to reply to in this thread.

The wording in the 2nd amendment is clear. “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

SCOTUS just incorporated that to include the states in McDonald v. Chicago.

Quote:
… The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

There’s really no reason to think much about conditions on gun control. Since SCOTUS has stated that gun ownership is an individual right, you can’t tax it. You cannot require a license to exercise a right. You cannot require a test on an individual right (training would probably be found to be a test). You cannot impose a fee on the exercise of a right (insurance would almost be guaranteed to be found as a fee).

The “No Guns” line of thinking is a fairy tale. Firearms have been around for over 500 years. They are not a difficult technology. A machine shop capable of building a piston for a gasoline engine has all the tooling needed to make a bolt action rifle. Or for that matter, a delayed blowback semi-auto rifle. Simple black powder weapons could be manufactured at home, weapon and ammunition. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

As for the “Government Only” argument. Let’s say we can wave a magic wand and only the police and the military have weapons. Now let’s say I’m a police officer and you are a citizen. Now take off your clothing. I’m going to rape you. That’s what you are opening the door to with the government only option. You have given the monopoly of force to the government. The law abiding have no recourse.

The lawbreakers are not going to care what the law says. They will get their guns no matter what. Great Britain confiscates enough guns every year to remove half of the legally owned firearms from the country. But they keep coming in. They are an island nation with strict gun control that cannot stop guns from coming into their country. And that is an island nation surrounded by other nations with strong to strict gun control.

As for the question about gun abolishers, Diane Feinstein has stated "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe,.." and Chuck Schumer has publicly stated, "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare [ban on guns] is true,.." I will note that Diane Feinstein has a pistol permit issued by the San Francisco police department. Her quote on that inconvenient fact;

Quote:
"Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. [...] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. [...] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

So, her attitude is “fine for me, but not for thee, peasant.”

Now, will guns help America if there is an uprising against tyranny? Let’s look at a few facts. In both of our World Wars America drew on a population that was primarily rural, country boys who grew up hunting and working on farm equipment. But, even prior to that time, starting in 1903, congress established a government agency, the Department of Civilian Marksmanship. The purpose was to provide civilians with an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills, so that they would already be skilled marksmen if they were later called to military service. By World War 2 military leadership was decrying the lack of basic marksmanship skills possessed by the recruits. CMP is still around. If you qualify they will sell you a M-1 Garand, and ship it through the mail to your home, along with as much ammo as you can afford.

Now, the military barely spends any money on recruit training marksmanship with rifles. When my niece and nephew came back from basic a few years ago they told me that they shot a total of 500 rounds each. My nephew, who went to Iraq 12 months later, never fired his rifle again until he was in Iraq. My niece fires 200 rounds to qualify once a year. They’re drawing on a pool of volunteers who primarily come from cities and are not familiar with marksmanship.
In comparison I’ve fired 500 rounds in a weekend, and probably do that much once a quarter. Usually less but at least once a month, more in good weather. And there are shooters at my range who are there several times a week shooting a couple hundred rounds (yes, it’s my hobby).

Now let’s look at Iraq. The big difference between American and Iraqi culture is a difference in work ethic. America has a Protestant work ethic summed up in the phrase, “God helps those who helps themselves”. Not to judge relative good or bad, just a compare and contrast. The Islamic ethic is “Ishallah” or “If God wills it”. How does this relate to marksmanship? There are lots of stories, including the ones I heard from my nephew, of insurgents, standing out at 300 yards with their AK-47s and AK-74s, spraying full-auto fire. Culturally, they do not believe in aimed fire. “If God wills it” a bullet will strike the offending crusader. Usually the US troops sent them off to see God first hand. (An AK-47’s effective range is about 300 yards. An AK-74 uses a different caliber. Depending on quality of manufacture an AK-74 is good out to 600 yards.) This is not to say that the insurgents don’t have good shooters. They do, they just usually put them behind the scope of a Dragunov or other sniper rifle.

Now, let’s look at the Iraqi insurgency. After the collapse of the Iraqi army, insurgencies held their ground against the full weight of the US Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. Yes, they took horrific losses. But we’re talking about a culture that doesn’t believe in aimed fire. That has resorted to IEDs once they got their heads busted enough times trying to fight mano a mano (which, by the way, speaks to their adaptability.) And, speaking of adaptability, with the Iraq involvement, most of the US troops have gone from the m-16, with a 20 inch barrel to the m-4 carbine with a 14.5 inch barrel length. What does that mean? It means it handles better in tight confines, like urban fighting. It also means the bullet does not generate as much velocity before it leaves the weapon. This could potentially turn a kill shot into a wound. It also makes it easier for armor to stop the bullet.

Now, let’s look at the same situation in the US. The insurgencies would start off with a core of good shooters (either hobbyists like me or dedicated hunters) The uninitiated would have to be schooled. There’s no better teacher than time, but she kills all of her students. The quality of the good civilian shooters would be augmented by the quality of their weapons. A good scoped deer rifle is perfectly adequate to shoot at long distance. The forces would not be falling back to neighboring countries. The naval assets could fly off to carriers and be relatively safe. But the tanks, infantry, helicopters and Air Force jets would be going back to their bases which would still be in “Indian Country”. Anybody remember a little place we left called Vietnam?

The insurgents, in this case the civilian population of the US, would have a 330 to 1 ratio on the combined US military. That’s a lot of casualties the civilians could absorb. Of course I don’t suppose the whole of the US population would rise up. But the US military having 1 million bodies in it doesn’t mean everyone is a shooter. The ratio is about 7/1 at best. 7 personnel to support one shooter in the field. With the stated total of 7/1 and 1 million men and women in uniform that means that there are only 125,000 combat arms. That is also spread across infantry, armor, aviation, artillery, and the navy. You need infantry to take and hold ground.

Unlike Vietnam the military would have to get their supplies from “Indian Country”. Their food, fuel and ammunition would all have to come from the folks that they were trying to suppress. Plus, their convoys would have to roll through that hostile territory to resupply forward bases. It is physically impossible to guard every mile of highway, every bridge, every railroad track. This is further complicated by the fact that those jets, helicopters, drones and tanks require spare parts. They don’t just magic themselves into existence. They’re manufactured, transported, warehoused, transported to depots, requisitioned, transported to the units and then installed. How many places can they be intercepted and destroyed en route? The best thing to destroy would not be tanks, helicopters, jets and infantry, but trucks. Plain old, unarmored trucks.

And then, only at the end of all this, do we have to take into account the fact that the line troops, not the officers, are going to have to make a decision on whether or not they pull the triggers on their fellow Americans.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:16 AM

Yup, any day now a tyrant will be overthrown by a gun-wielding mob in this country...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Yes, Really, Ban all the guns."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105337/yes-really-ban-all-the-guns

"Unsafe in any Hands: Why America Needs to ban Handguns"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm

"Every Handgun is Aimed At You: Ban Handguns Now"

http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/

Hello,

Some light reading I dug up this morning after a brief search. Articles authored by nobody and supported by no one.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Yup, any day now a tyrant will be overthrown by a gun-wielding mob in this country...

Hello,

There was one, a long time ago, though our definition of tyrant may vary from theirs.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:43 AM

CAVETROLL

Hey, the usual suspects are at it again.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun
-control-measure

Quote:

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition

Tacked onto a cybercrime bill.

Quote:

Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground...

The problem with leftists like Schumer is that "common ground" and "compromise" means "eventually it will be our way". There can be no accommodation and no compromise with the left on this issue. Since 1934 they have passed gun control measure after measure, with no discernible increase in public safety. Always, the move the goalposts and claim that the right does not want "reasonable gun control", always inching toward their idea of a total ban.

Well, within the last decade more states have passed pro gun laws regarding concealed carry and self defense. Guess what? Crime went down. Anybody could have seen the writing on the wall just by comparing Morton Grove, IL with Kennesaw, GA. Morton Grove outlawed handguns in 1981. In response, Kennesaw made firearm ownership mandatory. Guess which town's crime rate climbed and which one plunged?

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Hello,

I'll note it myself if it will help.

--Anthony

Hey Anthony,

I'm having a hell of a time reading your tone throughout this thread. You're coming off so guarded that it's starting to sound passive aggressive--not something I'm used to from you. I truly do not get the impression that you believe "Reasonable Gun Restrictions" exist, certainly not beyond driver's licence style regulation. So the thread feels like a set-up. And you don't seem to hold yourself to a standard of reasonableness on this issue either--constantly pointing at the Constitution is pure argument from authority. Much as we may revere the Constitution of the United States it is not an inerrant sacred text. When kiki challenges your interpretation of the 2A you reply smuggly that she has her interpretation and you have yours--end of discussion? CAn we not even have a discussion of the meaning of a single sentence in English? Who are you and what have you done with AnthonyT? At best this is the behavior of a man who believes the folk he's arguing with are so irretrievably irrational that all he can do is present a placid, staunch and utterly disengaged opposition. Is that how you feel?

Me, I don't have a lot to say in this debate except to ask folk to be a little clearer. I don't believe we can legislate ourselves out of gun-craziness in this country. I think it's a somewhat pointless wedge issue. Gun laws will change when there are enough folk who want to change 'em. I don't believe we can "catch" a guy like Holmes before he acts, unless we "catch" him in childhood. Or we create a culture where a promising neurophysicist who is having serious emotional trouble will feel free to seek the help he needs without shame.

I wonder if we might get more actual discussion if we took this in the other direction: would you accept private ownership of military ordnance, such as RPG's, tanks and the like with driver's license style regulation? And if not, what would be your justification? And do you personally believe that there is anything to be done with respect to our gun laws to discourage more mass murder such as we saw in Colorado last week? Any reasonable response?(Forgive me if you've already spoken to these questions elsewhere--there's been A LOT of talk about these issues this week and I'm sure I missed some.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:47 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Yup, any day now a tyrant will be overthrown by a gun-wielding mob in this country...

Hello,

There was one, a long time ago, though our definition of tyrant may vary from theirs.

--Anthony

Don't forget the Battle of Athens, TN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You see, the thing about Kwindbago, is he will ignore the fact that his cute little picture has been refuted in a slam dunk of historical facts and he'll keep right on spewing his same old leftist drivel. It's sad. He doesn't understand facts, or perhaps it is that he can't comprehend them and integrate new data. The only thing that drives him on is emotions and a seeming need to be right. I bet he watches a lot of Lifetime.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:18 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/23/ice-t_defends_gun_ri
ghts_the_last_form_of_defense_against_tyranny.html

I've seen what happens when liberals create gun-free kill zones/states.

Going to the gun show this weekend. Need to stock up.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I'm having a hell of a time reading your tone throughout this thread. You're coming off so guarded that it's starting to sound passive aggressive--not something I'm used to from you.

Hello,

I'm sorry. I do not intend to sound aggressive in any way- passive or not. In fact, I am struggling mightily to prevent this thread from devolving into a cliche' laden shouting match. (Though I admit many cliches can be found here already.) I have never seen one of these gun threads that does not decay into emotional shouting and pointing coupled with bravado exclamations. (Such are creeping in already.)

Quote:
I truly do not get the impression that you believe "Reasonable Gun Restrictions" exist, certainly not beyond driver's licence style regulation.

I can't express how mightily I feel that there should be licensing, training, registration, and tracking of firearms. I would feel so much safer and so much more at ease if a responsible authority knew the exact location of every such weapon and could trace every bullet to its origin. Such a system, well managed, would make murder by firearms an impractical concept useful only for people who had lost their minds in either a momentary fit of emotion or some long-term decay. I believe such a system would drastically retard gun crime in this country and improve the safety of the individual to the point where few would ever feel compelled to own a firearm for any reason other than sporting purpose.

But I don't feel I can trust the authority as being responsible or capable of good management in this regard. I also don't feel that any authority can regulate the manufacture and distribution of firearms sufficiently that this ideal can be realized- even by a benign and efficient institution.

Quote:
And you don't seem to hold yourself to a standard of reasonableness on this issue either--constantly pointing at the Constitution is pure argument from authority.

Actually, when someone ELSE brought up the constitution, I pointed out that it grants the right. Period. Regardless of interpretation of WHY it grants the right. My personal reasons for wanting to be armed exist outside the constitution, though the constitution happily grants the right plainly in any case.

Quote:
When kiki challenges your interpretation of the 2A you reply smuggly that she has her interpretation and you have yours--end of discussion? CAn we not even discuss the meaning of single sentence in English?

We can. But would such a discussion help to find reasonable gun restrictions, or explain why they can or can not be attained? Does the wording and interpretation of the 2nd amendment factor at all into the discussion, or is it an ancillary topic that will derail the subject matter? Is there anything we can say about the 2nd Amendment that will not result in, "That's not what it means, you ninny, it means this instead?" I am trying to avoid unnecessary and tangential conflict, but if you feel that my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is intregal to the discussion, I will oblige you by explaining my feelings about it.

Quote:
At best this is the behavior of a man who believes the folk he's arguing with are so irretrievably irrational that all he can do is present a placid, staunch and utterly disengaged opposition. Is that how you feel?

Let me say that I feel there are strong emotions and irrational thoughts held by both sides of this debate (I am often appalled at comments made by my 'allies' in this discussion, and sometimes find I have no real allies.) My attempt to acknowledge the valid statements and points of view of other people, my attempts to defuse potential outrage and emotional argument- this seems to have instead made you feel that I am passive-aggressive and perhaps dealing dishonorably here. So I seem to have failed in my attempts to be civil and reasonable.

Quote:
I wonder if we might get more actual discussion if we took this in the other direction: would you accept private ownership of military ordnance, such as RPG's, tanks and the like with driver's license style regulation?

I believe that citizens should be allowed to own tanks, and as far as I know, some of them do. I believe that citizens should be allowed to own fighter planes, and as far as I know, some of them do. I like the idea that these items (as well as grenade launchers or rocket launchers) are registered with the government and are under some level of control. I enjoy that any weapon expressly designed to kill large numbers of people in short order (machineguns, anti-personnel explosives, anti-vehicle rockets) are controlled and tracked by the government. I feel this way even though these weapons are rarely used in crimes. I believe this way because of their vast destructive potential if used unlawfully. If they ever were used in crimes I'd want them to be able to be sourced quickly. Weapons that allow many people to be snuffed out with one pull of a trigger make me nervous. However, I do worry for the lawful owners of such weapons if the government ever decides to break faith with them and revoke ownership.

Quote:
And do you personally believe that there is anything to be done with respect to our gun laws to discourage more mass murder such as we saw in Colorado last week? Any reasonable response?

Other than an outright and blind ban on materials and products used, I don't think anything could have prevented that theater murder. When a brilliant and law-abiding citizen goes bad without significant and actionable precursors, there's really nothing you can do to prevent it. He surely would have been able to hurdle any training, licensing, or control requirement. If you allow these things to be legal at all, he'd have been able to get these things legally. He was a good citizen. Until he wasn't.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
You see, the thing about Kwindbago, is he will ignore the fact that his cute little picture has been refuted in a slam dunk of historical facts and he'll keep right on spewing his same old leftist drivel.

This from the dolt whose mantra is "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" - and then blames guns for the deaths of Mexican civilians and U.S. agents. I guess it's those must have been Mexican jumping guns, huh?

Quote:
It's sad. He doesn't understand facts, or perhaps it is that he can't comprehend them and integrate new data.

Oh, I understand and integrate facts just fine. You just haven't presented any. And when you were presented with new facts in the Fast & Furious thread, you bitched out and ran away, never to return. That wasn't the first time you did so, of course. It seems to be a constant in your behavior: New facts come into play, and TrollLOLOL runs away!

Quote:
The only thing that drives him on is emotions and a seeming need to be right.

As opposed to... who? You? You post a blizzard of bullshit, none of it sourced or verified, all of it opinion and conjecture, and try to claim it as irrefutable fact. Then, when your "facts" are refuted completely, you (as I've noted already) run away, never to return to that thread, and pop up a week or so later and try to sell us the same old load of bullshit.

Quote:

I bet he watches a lot of Lifetime.

Sorry, no. I hear it's got lots of damsels-in-distress movies on it, though, which is exactly the kind of right-wing porn hero-wannabe idiots like you jack off to. "Hey, I'll save ya, little lady - just grab onto my giant GUN!"

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:33 AM

Quote:
Other than an outright and blind ban on materials and products used, I don't think anything could have prevented that theater murder. When a brilliant and law-abiding citizen goes bad without significant and actionable precursors, there's really nothing you can do to prevent it. He surely would have been able to hurdle any training, licensing, or control requirement. If you allow these things to be legal at all, he'd have been able to get these things legally. He was a good citizen. Until he wasn't.

Do you believe he did anything wrong in building bombs and booby-trapping his apartment?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:50 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Do you believe he did anything wrong in building bombs and booby-trapping his apartment?

Hello,

I would be a mighty hypocrite if I disagreed with his building of explosives. I can complain at WHY he built them, but not the building itself. I used to build explosives for my amusement every 4th of July. I'd add iron filings or copper filings for different colored sparks, and used blackpowder as the explosive medium.

More recently, I have used tannerite explosives while target shooting. They remove all doubt about whether you have successfully struck a target 300 yards away. Plus they are fun to watch.

I believe that people should be allowed to booby-trap their homes, (in contravention of current law) but I recommend against it. Booby-traps have no brains or capacity for good judgment. I would not booby trap my house even if I was allowed to, because the potential horror of injuring an innocent party is too great, and I could not live with it as a potential consequence of my actions. I definitely do not agree with using bombs or incendiaries in booby-trapping a home, as they endanger the entire neighborhood. It seems to me his intention in creating these explosives was to kill lots of people who might enter his home on a lawful warrant. That is attempted murder, to my mind.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
The question I have for the pro-gun folk here is this: do you guys really think that you're gonna slow down the steamroller of State Power with your guns when and if it comes to that?

Do you really think that lock is gonna stop a determined thief ?
Do you really think my gimpy ass is gonna stop a carload of gangbangers ?

It's all about deterrent force, raising the difficulty bar - I am well aware of the nature of state power, which is why I generally stand against ANYTHING that lowers that difficulty bar.

I am also very well aware of what The States promises are worth, in respect to not abusing these powers - case in point it wasn't that long ago I pointed out that simply handing Tasers to cops without proper control and accountability would result in massive abuse of the things, and was called a paranoid extremist for it.
Never forget that them bastards working for The State during Katrina did exactly the things they promised never to do in regards to this, and they "had a list", breaking another promise in this regard.

So why on EARTH do you think for a split-second I would trust The State not to abuse licensing powers when historically they have done so every single time they have had it in hand, not least of which is simply refusing to issue (for them that missed the may-issue vs shall-issue brawl) and thus enacting a de-facto ban in open defiance of both local and constitutional law.
Ironic in that it was a Democrat, Governor Jennifer Granholm, who had to apply the screws to the Flint, Michigan local Government and Law Enforcement, and force them to comply, which resulted in a swan dive of the crime rate so profound that Sheriff Dicks wound up trying to enforce a fucking DRESS CODE in order to give his officers something to do to look useful.
(See Also: Baggy Pants Law)

Quote:
Isn't it reasonable to assume that that ship sailed somewhere back in the 19th century? Wasn't the final nail put to the coffin when we got ourselves a standing army (and navy and air force and the freakin' atomic bomb)???

Actually in my eyes it sailed in 1921 at Blair Mountain, when it became clear the Gov and it's military were willing to kill us all for their Corporate friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Quote:
Private citizens can't own RPG's or tanks or tactical nukes, but the state can. And does.

Just because the Constitution is conveniently ignored - particularly in regards to the Eight Amendment since bail in excess of several times the total assets of the accused is so regularly assigned that an entire industry (Bail Bonds) is built around that violation...
Does not mean that it does not say what it says, or that it's intent is in doubt since the founders painstakingly documented what it meant almost word by word.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

I realize that it's a minority opinion, but *I* am of the belief that anything man-portable should be on the table, and if you want and can afford a tank or a jet fighter, so be it.

Quote:
So isn't this stickin' to your guns a kind of sentimentality at this point? Some out-dated die-with-your-boots-on ethos? Whenever some folks decide to face off with the U.S. Government, they get their asses handed to 'em, right? What earthly good are your guns to you now?

Because the The State isn't the only scourge a person may face, even today.
Remember I used to live in a place where you went grocery shopping armed, cause the skells and scavengers would do for you if you didn't - that neighborhood (and I use the term loosely) still exists, and there are still people who must do so, what then, for them ?

Oh, and I contest this assertion.

Quote:
To these men ('cause it's only men arguing pro-gun here), GUNS ARE A RIGHT. Period.

Not just men, in fact *MOST* of the pro-gun attitude I have seen since has come from women, up to and including strangely enough, my Ex - to whom I had to point out in detail how bad the tactical situation sucked and why armed patrons would not have made a substantial difference and probably would have increased the casualties...
This struck me odd cause she was something of a law-and-order conservative type and a bit of an "anti" when I met her, but then one of the things which lead to our relationship blowing up was when the realities of the situations she found herself in didn't fit her worldview but mine.
She NEVER took that well, not from her very first encounter with police corruption she didn't.

I was going to post more, but having read through this thread, I think not.

I will say that Kiki damn well ought to read through the collected Federalist/Antifederalist papers and related speeches, as well as State Constitutions of the time....
They left it IN NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, what the intent was, and limiting to distortions of a single sentence will in no way change the paragraphs and paragraphs of other related literature which fully explains intent, execution and reasoning.

-Frem

Edit: State Constitutions, there ya go.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
Not that a lot of em don't just say "shall not be infringed", they say "SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED".
I'd say that's a pretty obvious statement of intent all by itself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 8:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Since Frem brought it up, I will note that THIS opinion coincides with my own interpretation of the Amendment's intended meaning.

Quote:
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 8:15 AM

Hey Anthony, and Frem,

Firstly, thank you, Anthony, for answering my questions so clearly and effectively. I feel I finally understand your position. And I understand better your reticence to "get into it" on the internet.

And Frem, I meant that it was men HERE who were arguing on the pro-gun side, right here in RWED land. It's the kind of thing I notice. Cavetroll brought the misogyny out in the open with his snide comment that Kwicko probably watches the Lifetime channel. He might as well have said Mike squats to pee. His meaning was clear. Gun-craziness (I don't consider you or Anthony examples of gun-craziness--just the ordinary kind! Whoohoo! Zing! I'll be here all week!), gun-craziness, I say, is a lot like rape in this respect--sure there have been women who were into it, but by far, and somewhat definitively, it is a male activity. I think that's important to bear in mind.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 8:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
sure there have been women who were into it, but by far, and somewhat definitively, it is a male activity. I think that's important to bear in mind.

Hello,

I often think about this, but I don't see it the same way you do. I think we have a history both in this nation and in our parent nations that suggests any physical struggle and all weapons should be the purview of men. Only very recently have we allowed women into law enforcement and warfare roles. So, I see mysogyny (sp?) in the disparity too, but not the same way you do.

I think the reason Frem sees a lot of women who are into gun-ownership is because he sees a lot of women who have been horrifically violated.

On the other hand, history also teaches me that women, even a century or more ago, did sometimes favor carrying a firearm for personal defense. Perhaps even then, when the idea of a woman having to fight for her own honor was an uncouth concept, some women felt the pressing need. I suspect this was the case especially when a woman might find the need to travel somewhere unescorted. There are a number of antique firearms which were specifically designed to be concealed and employed by females. I never knew how many until I saw a History channel special on it. This cottage industry could not have existed in such variety without a client base.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 8:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I've never understood the problem with the Second Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you want to "interpret" it to mean anything other than exactly that, you certainly can, and those arguing pro-gun always do. But the FACT is that, at the time it was written, the purpose of it was so that the rebel Americans, in order to keep their independence, set up militias AGAINST THE BRITISH. That was the simple, and unarguable, purpose of the Amendment. "Being necessary to the security of a free state". The free state was the rebellion; the security was against the British oppressors. To argue otherwise is to RE-interpret the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

Which, of course, is a useless argument against the pro-gun people. They CHOOSE to read only the last part of the sentence, along the lines of "if we don't think our government is the "free state" WE WANT, we have the right to set up our own "militia" to fight it. Or, as Anthony has done, choose to see only the last part of the sentence as saying we have the right to bear arms, period. I've never understood it, as the wording and intent is perfectly clear; if they had wanted it to be anything else, they'd have merely written, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and left the rest out. The rest was intended as foresight on their part to tell people WHY they had the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't see any other interpretation as even possible. At the time it was written, and the purpose of it being written, was exactly what it says. Kiki nailed that one:

Quote:
Not individual free state of being, not free state of mind, but the political entity, the state. Anything else is non-constitutional, including self-defense, sport, or the effyu to the government. BTW, the constitution is also pretty harsh about treason. I'm thinking they weren't that supportive of nascent revolutions. This is just my guess, but I'm thinking that they figured if you had the vote to change your government, you didn't need the gun.

I will argue that point with Anthony's:

Quote:
The constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms. Full stop.

No, it does not. It gives you the right to do so FOR A PURPOSE, and only that purpose is enumerated. If it didn't, there would not be the exact purpose enumerated in the first half of the sentence. You can choose only which part of a sentence to accept, but that doesn't make it accurate. Because you find other reasons to own a gun has nothing to do with why the framers of the Constitution wrote what they did, or meant what they did. Essentially: It is not a matter of "interpretation". It is one FULL sentence which is totally clear, and choosing only part of that sentenceis just plain wrong. There is no "interpretation" needed, the wording is clear.

That's just to say. I realize it goes absolutely nowhere with pro-gun folk who CHOOSE--again I say choose--to "interpret" it differently. But the simple fact remains; it is what it is, and it meant what it meant. In Anthony's case, I fully recognize any argument, reasonable or otherwise, is a waste of time...again I chalk it up to your absolutism mentality, Anthony, which I am NOT putting down, just saying you think that way, whereas I'm more inclined to think in terms of greys. It makes any attempt at debate impossible.

That aside, because I know full well that goes nowhere.

In fairness, however, I must provide SOMEWHAT of the facts Kiki asked for in

Quote:
Do you in fact know of any in the US? I would think that if you're making a claim you have at least SOME evidence to back it.

Searching around briefly, I can't find any solid "evidence" of same, however, I will direct you to http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_guns_be_banned_in_Ameri
ca . The question posed was "Should guns be banned in America?" The response was 813 NO, and 368 "yes". So there are at least some out there who would have all guns banned in America. It's a debate site, "Create a Debate"--it's possible some voted that way in order to enjoy a good debate, but at least some of them, surely, answered honestly. So point to the pro-gun people: at least SOME people in America would choose to ban all guns.

Ah, I see later on that Anthony came up with some actual websites proposing a full ban. So that further answers the question.

As to complete abolition, leaving aside the fact that it could never, ever happen...and that to me is unarguable, given the power and money of the NRA and the feelings of pro-gun people...I wouldn't want it even in some fantasy where it was possible. They tried abolition of alcohol; we can see how well that worked. Such things just don't work, in America anyway.

By the way, Anthony: That knitting needle you found? It has another ancillary purpose: Abortion. NOT to bring that debate into this one, but you might want to mail it to someone in one of those states which are trying, through every means possible despite the legality of abortion in America, to make it impossible legally. I have no doubt some are already employing it, and many, many more who can't afford a back-street abortion will be as time goes on,.

Cav, regarding your disagreement with Anthony, in both style and substance. I can only tell you that, for all the time I've known him and in this discussion as well, he has always been civil and as logical as he can. What I can also tell you is that, during that same time, I have come to recognize an "absolutism" in the way Anthony thinks about peoples' rights. There's nothing wrong with that, or should I say there is no more "wrong" than with my way of living in the greys and trying to see both sides of things (or all sides, because it's usually multiples, not just two). It's his way. He is a good, honest, reasonable person at all times, but SEEMS unreasonable to some when his absolutism comes to the fore. I first learned this when we debated whether demonstrators had the right to impinge on people's right to pass. What I have seen is that when it comes to "rights", Anthony can often only see one side of the argument. I may argue that with him, but I can rarely, if ever, get him to see the greys. The mere fact that he believes people should be able to own tanks, and pretty much everything else in the way of weapons, is a perfect example of his "absolutism". As he said, it would be hypocritical of him to believe otherwise. I don't think it's hypocritical to see the greys of the fact that there shouldn't be absolutism, that there should be reasonable curbs to everything that has the potential of harming others.

That's where I get frustrated. The absolutism seems to go only one way. The idea that people should be okay with private citizens owning guns, but feel their rights are taken away by others owning assault rifles or high-count bullets, he seems to see as only impinging on the "rights" of those who can legally own guns, period. He may be in favor of some restrictions, but (in my opinion ONLY), I feel he blinds himself to the fact that the restrictions we now have are not enforced, have many ways to be avoided, don't even exist in some areas (such as gun shows), and are simply null and void in some states. Simply that there "are" restrictions is good enough for him, apparently. The fact that he speaks of the government chewing away at gun rights for nefarious purposes seems to leave out the fact that the NRA and ALEC, etc., have LONG been chewing away at any and all restrictions on guns far, far more than the government restricting same. If that last fact were not true, we wouldn't have further and further availability of owning, carrying, openly carrying and easily obtaining guns of every possible kind.--in other words, restrictions would be going in the other direction, which they most certainly ARE not and HAVE not been in my lifetime.

There is also the fact that Anthony, like others here, does not trust the government and is firmly convinced that if they had the power and all the guns, they would oppress us. That may come from his background, I don't know, but others here and in America feel the same. To my mind it's illogical; I believe it is special interests, if anything, that maipulate and oppress us, and the government only insofar as they are guided by them. I don't believe there will be a revolution in this country, and that having a gun in case of one is, pardon me, silly. We've never had one, we're too big to have one, and there will never be enough people in the country willing TO have one. But trying to convince those who hate and fear the government to that extent is a waste of time.

So in my opinion what you are seeing isn't intentional and has no nefarious purpose; it is Anthony's attempt at a civil discussion, making some points, giving on others, but holding fast to the things he believes are absolutes. It is just how he thinks; we all think differently and see things differently, and he's waaaay more reasonable and civil than many pro-gun people out there! That's all JUST my observation and interpretation.

That said, I'll try not to engage in this discussion further, because I'm not fond of

and I know that's all that will happen. When it comes to guns, the same people make the same arguments on both sides, and nothing is ever solved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 9:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

Thank you for your kind remarks about the quality of my character. I will not try to dissuade you of your ideas in some areas where we disagree, especially since you are bowing out of this thread in order to avoid frustration. Suffice to say that I do not think I am alone in the firmness and immutability of my position.

With affection,

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 9:39 AM

Hey Niki,

You're making the fundamentalist argument here and I don't think you intend to nor would even approve if you realized that that's what you're doing. Anything written, even the simplest sentence, but particularly such a sentence used in a largely immutable legal document, cannot be properly understood without knowing the context in which it was written. No matter how "straight forward" the meaning looks to us after 200 years have passed, it probably needs some annotation.

"Turn the other cheek," to take a pretty safe example, has a nearly opposite meaning from the modern misunderstanding when looked at in its proper cultural context (an interesting controversy and one easily googled to get the jist). Of course the 2A must be interpreted, particularly with an eye to what it meant as part of the discourse of the time it was written. So reading the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers isn't just Frem grinding an axe, it reflects the only world where the 2A as it was written makes proper sense.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 9:46 AM

CHRISISALL

I refuse to think about what I read, rather, I will read it, interpret at my own easy comfort level, and spout off about it at will.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 3:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
1) Mandatory national service, whether it be military or otherwise, as a prerequisite for gun ownership. Call it part of the "well regulated militia" that was deemed necessary for the security of a free nation.

I was actually considering joining up for the National Guard Kwick, before I got my job at the Mart.

That is.... until I found out that I'd have a 90% chance of ending up in the Middle East with sand up my crack for the measly pay.

National Guard..... talk about a misnomer.

There ain't no way I'm going to willingly be a part of a war I don't agree with, not for peanuts, and surely not to secure a gun right I already possess...

Next idea?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

I doubt anyone will try to convert you to hunting, though I'll point out that my weekly hamburgers are acquired under much less 'sporting' conditions. As long as the animal is eaten, I don't care whether it was clobbered with a cranial stunner (pneumatic piston skullcrusher) after being herded into a killhouse or shot in the woods. Having seen conditions at some 'farms' I might think to prefer to end my life by a hunter's bullet than a slaughterhouse's stunner. But really, I've eaten the hamburger or steak from both methods.

I don'r consider butchering animals in any way a sport.

Quote:

Hello. I hope I never confuse you for a Brit or Kiwi. I'll have to take your word on the rest that you do not disdain a man's right to a firearm.

? Strange tone there. Are you suggesting I am lying about my beliefs?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 3:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Well, you're suggesting some kind of reasonable restrictions. What are they?

Just for fun, then, here are some:

No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions (or maybe just felonies?). Attempts at purchase or possession by these people result in Federal prosecution. Background checks in place to identify these folks.

Federal prosecutions of persons otherwise legally entitled to purchase firearms who knowingly purchase them for felons.

Additional Federal prosecution for use of a firearm in commission of a crime by a convicted felon.

No sales to folks who have been adjudged incompetent or insane (or whatever the term of art is currently). Reporting and background checks to identify these folks.

Checks more stringent than regular background checks for those purchasing automatic weapons and, for example, silenced weapons. Possible higher licensing fees or bonds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:04 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Pro gun sans restrictions people seem to be more interested in owning guns coz they're kind of cool toys rather than having any ideas about preventing tyanny. I call bullshit on that one.

Quote:
? Strange tone there. Are you suggesting I am lying about my beliefs?

Hello,

It would be terribly rude to suggest to someone that they are lying about their beliefs. I hope to never treat you that way. Sometimes, I know it is possible to get a false impression of what someone believes. I am sorry if I ever did that to you.

I also hope that if I forget what country you are from, you will never mistake that for considering you an inconsequential human being.

I used to get irked by such things myself, so I understand the feeling. To this day, there are people who think to instruct me on concepts of tyranny and rebellion which I have posted about extensively in the past. I have learned that such people aren't ignoring me and they aren't diminishing me. It's simply easy to lose track of a sound while standing on a beach beside the rush of the sea.

By the same token, when they make broad assumptions about who I am and what I believe, I try to remind myself that humans survive partially due to our skill in categorization. I don't always succeed, but I try.

If I sinned against you, I apologize. I find you valuable and intelligent and worthwhile.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Well, you're suggesting some kind of reasonable restrictions. What are they?

Just for fun, then, here are some:

No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions (or maybe just felonies?). Attempts at purchase or possession by these people result in Federal prosecution. Background checks in place to identify these folks.

Federal prosecutions of persons otherwise legally entitled to purchase firearms who knowingly purchase them for felons.

Additional Federal prosecution for use of a firearm in commission of a crime by a convicted felon.

No sales to folks who have been adjudged incompetent or insane (or whatever the term of art is currently). Reporting and background checks to identify these folks.

Checks more stringent than regular background checks for those purchasing automatic weapons and, for example, silenced weapons. Possible higher licensing fees or bonds.

Hello,

The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Pro gun sans restrictions people seem to be more interested in owning guns coz they're kind of cool toys rather than having any ideas about preventing tyanny. I call bullshit on that one.

Quote:
? Strange tone there. Are you suggesting I am lying about my beliefs?

Hello,

It would be terribly rude to suggest to someone that they are lying about their beliefs. I hope to never treat you that way. Sometimes, I know it is possible to get a false impression of what someone believes. I am sorry if I ever did that to you.

I also hope that if I forget what country you are from, you will never mistake that for considering you an inconsequential human being.

I used to get irked by such things myself, so I understand the feeling. To this day, there are people who think to instruct me on concepts of tyranny and rebellion which I have posted about extensively in the past. I have learned that such people aren't ignoring me and they aren't diminishing me. It's simply easy to lose track of a sound while standing on a beach beside the rush of the sea.

By the same token, when they make broad assumptions about who I am and what I believe, I try to remind myself that humans survive partially due to our skill in categorization. I don't always succeed, but I try.

If I sinned against you, I apologize. I find you valuable and intelligent and worthwhile.

--Anthony

I admit I struggle generally with your tone, which is kind of strange, because whereas others find you so polite, I often feel there is a lot of double meaning in what you say. It makes responding to you difficult, even the above post where you have unequivocably apologised, I still feel you are having a go at me (I hope you can understand if this is an idiom).

For example, you go on to say

"I used to get irked by such things myself, so I understand the feeling. To this day, there are people who think to instruct me on concepts of tyranny and rebellion which I have posted about extensively in the past. I have learned that such people aren't ignoring me and they aren't diminishing me. It's simply easy to lose track of a sound while standing on a beach beside the rush of the sea."

I am wondering whether you are referring to me. If you are, I would find it easier if you said that you throught I was one of those people, rather than 'there are people'. I guess that makes me sound vaguely paranoid, but I only find it with your posts and not others, so I am assuming that there is something in the way you communicate that I may easily misconstrue.

My intention here is not to be unappreciative about your concilatory post, but to let you know what I find difficult about communicating with you and understanding your intent, because I would like to have good discussions with you and I feel the only way to do it is to check your meaning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:51 PM

Quote:

I believe that citizens should be allowed to own tanks, and as far as I know, some of them do. I believe that citizens should be allowed to own fighter planes, and as far as I know, some of them do.

Okay, catching up here...

Anthony, I think you're being a bit disingenuous in this response.

You realize that those tanks and fighter planes have no working armaments, right? Tank cannon are spiked or concreted, and weapons are removed from military aircraft before they're turned over to civilian buyers.

I know of no private U.S. citizens who own fully-operational and fully-ared tanks or fighter planes, at least not without a government contract a la Blackwater, or whatever they're calling themselves this week.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:55 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I try to be very careful with language. Usually, even when I am admonishing someone, I try to use highly controlled words.

I suffer from CRS to the extent that I sometimes wonder if I am inheriting my family's preponderance of Alzheimer's.

Anyway, I'll try to convert my post to a plainer style for convenience. This is the stuff I think in my head and then repackage because I find the format of my own thoughts to be repugnant sometimes. I used to get in a lot of trouble before I learned to re-constitute my words and feelings into a constructive and less abrasive form.

Quote:
Are you suggesting I am lying about my beliefs?

Hey,

Doesn't that take the cake? Right after you called bullshit on what other people say THEY believe, now you're trying to take offense about the same thing from ME. Did I offend you some time in the past? Do you have some kind of a grudge? I sure don't detect any sweetness in your posts, Magons. If I crapped on you sometime, I am sorry. I don't remember what I did to you, I sure don't like to crap on anyone, and even if I did want to crap on someone, it wouldn't be you. All the same, I have to cry foul at that comment right there, after what you said before.

Truth be told, I don't know what the fuck you believe, but I got a feeling lately that there's a whole bag of negativity on the subject of guns that you keep slung over one shoulder. If you say you're not an abolitionist, I'll believe you, but I honestly have no idea what you DO believe reasonable gun rights should be.

Now onto the topic of remembering, because it's a topic that seems to have gotten all hot lately.

Let me tell you something, Magons. There is a girl who has sat three seats up from me at work for SIX MONTHS and I have no idea what her name is unless I scoot up and read the nametag on her cubicle, never mind where she was born. She's a wonderful person and a great coworker and I've collaborated with her and spoken to her on a variety of topics. And I value her. I really do. But I couldn't tell you her name if the devil was holding my soul hostage. That's my failing. It has dick all to do with her, and it's certainly no intentional slight. It actually worries me awful some days.

Just the other day, Frem was talking to me and he was like, "You remember the stuff I sent you about XYZ?" And I was like, "That sounds familiar" while trying to remember what the hell XYZ was. That's just me. Half of what goes in the brainpan gets lost.

Somewhere upthread, or maybe in a similar thread, some equally unobservant or unrecollecting asshole tried to explain to me that not all freedom fighters are good, that some of them are tyrants in their own right. This shit is being explained to a fellow who grew up in the middle of the Cuban exile community. This happens more than you'd think, despite the fact that I've probably written a half dozen posts about Cuba and Castro and Batista. I guess some other jerk besides myself either doesn't consider memorizing my posts to be at the top of their list of priorities, or they also suffer from a heavy dose of CRS. (Can't Remember Shit.)

Was it you? I don't fucking know and I'm tired of scrolling up and down through this thread and others because I can't remember the details of a particular phrase or argument. Half the time I remember 'someone said something about this' but I can't remember who it was or what they said exactly or if it was today or last week. Was it you, Magons? Or was it someone else who tried to explain to me that freedom fighters can be douchebags and oppressors?

As for making broad assumptions about people, well hell, I've done it. Putting things in files is the only way I get along, and sometimes something that oughta be in file A ends up in file B. When people do that to me, I cry bloody murder. Or I used to. I'm kinda learning that it's just gonna happen. I'm trying not to be all uptight about it. Can't be uptight about something I do myself, now, can I?

Anyhow, the point of this, beyond calling hypocrisy on your outrage, is to admit that my own outrage has a heavy dose of hypocrisy in it. I like you, Magons. I didn't mean to pee in your cup of coffee. I assume that when you say shit that rubs me wrong, you're not trying to pee in MY cup. Can we call it quits to any bullshit negativity going on and just talk polite like and get along? I'd like that. You're a sharp cookie and I don't like having you on the wrong end of my ledger.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 4:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I believe that citizens should be allowed to own tanks, and as far as I know, some of them do. I believe that citizens should be allowed to own fighter planes, and as far as I know, some of them do.

Okay, catching up here...

Anthony, I think you're being a bit disingenuous in this response.

You realize that those tanks and fighter planes have no working armaments, right? Tank cannon are spiked or concreted, and weapons are removed from military aircraft before they're turned over to civilian buyers.

I know of no private U.S. citizens who own fully-operational and fully-ared tanks or fighter planes, at least not without a government contract a la Blackwater, or whatever they're calling themselves this week.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

Hello,

I'm pretty sure I've heard of one fully functional tank in private hands. I know I've seen cannons in private ownership. Admittedly, the only armed fighter planes I've seen outside government control were antiques. I DO have a strong recollection of seeing a private citizen employ launchable grenades.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous at all, and some of this stuff does make me nervous.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 5:07 PM

There was another thread where militias were discussed. I have no idea when or what the title was, but in it I believe I supported the establishment of militias for purpose of a country's defence. A little along the swiss lines, where there is compulsory weapons ownership once you have received military training. I believe the swiss model is more what the founders of the constitution intended.

In order for this to work, the professional army would be more or less disbanded to be replaced by military trained citizens, who could form militias should the need for national defence arrive.

I would prefer that citizens did not have to keep their military grade weapons in their own home, but that some sort of community venue where weapons could be securely held and practised.

The militias could receive some federal funding, but would operate independantly from the government.

Community militias would vote before being involved in military action.

Individual gun ownership would be fairly restricted in my world, with there being lots of background checks, licencing, and restriction over the type of weaponry owned and amount of ammo able to be purchased.

In the real world, the US would never go for something like this, not in my lifetime. not until there are some serious changing in attitudes, and how do you do this, when words like 'inalienable rights' are used, I have no idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 5:09 PM