Guns, Guns, Guns. by FREMDFIRMA

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 hope more people like you post - not just here but everywhere. You do a great job showing everyone how bankrupt your 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric is, how disposable even little children are to the promotion of your agenda, how ignorant your are of history, and how irrelevant you are to an intelligent, self-determining society. You'd rather have guns than have society exercise actual working freedom to decide what it wants. You'd rather have guns than safe children. Got it. So keep at it. You're doing a great job.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:19 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

You hav an internal conflict, Frem.

You arent a mindless idealog, so at least subconciously, you know that you hav a share of the blame for all the gun deths and injuries going on.

If there wasn't such a big market for gunz, they woudnt be so eazily available, providing anybody with a working hand with the power to kill from a distance.

You are suppressing feelingz uv gilt for Fridayz massacr.

My segjestion iz to face up to it. Accept the responsibility and either continue to bare it or destroy your gunz.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:25 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
I wish more than anything that the Principal's aide in that office had been able to pull a pistol out of her purse...

Yeah, like Cagney and Lacey used to. Which one was the pretty one again? Better still, let's just give every first-grader a bazooka to keep under their desk.

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:33 PM

That quote from Eisenhower always kills me. Here he said it, plain as day, to the entire nation, and what did we up and do anyway? Epic failsaucexorx!1!

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bigdamngrizzlybear:
I believe all the way down to my soul, that the only free person is someone who can defend that freedom with his own hands.

Such freedom is absolutely relative because there's always someone bigger and meaner and better armed than you. If might makes freedom then only the mighty even have a chance of being free. This kind of thinking is so freakin' primitive, so psuedo-Darwinian. You are speaking nonsense. You are speaking Yang Worship Words.

What do you mean by "defend?" Do you mean you can kill in defense of your liberty? Plenty of people can kill a person, happens all the time. I was a few months away from my black belt in kung fu when I had to leave my dojo after a scandal. I could, at the time (I'm thoroughly rusty these days, but I still know how to breath, that I will never lose), defend myself against a lot of physical assaults and I could disable a person any number of ways. Once the other person was disabled I certainly would have been physically capable of killing that person, abhorrent as the idea is to me. Is that what freedom is to you? The ability to kill? And I understand the sense of freedom martial training gives a person, the courage it plants in you, but this bollywog that you believe down to your toes as the "facts" is simply not real or reasonable. By your weirdass definition no one in the world has ever been free, 'cept maybe who? Genghis Khan?

You and Frem and Anthony all seem to cherish this romance of freedom that your guns bestow. It's simply not true. Your freedoms, your rights are granted to you by every living soul you come into contact with every day. We all have the power to interfer with another's rights, but we humans, for the most part, don't. I experienced nothing but freedom today.

What gets me is that I'm not at all interested in taking your guns away. I think you do have a right to them. I just think you guys have the wackiest way of thinking about it and it's not a little worrisome. Seriously.

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY

Quote:
I must once again emphasize that Frem's philosophy of teaching empathy and compassion while protecting our young and helping them to prosper will encourage a reduction in 1 and 2. A population infused with love isn't generally going batshit crazy and looking to murder people.

I don't know about 3. Three is basically what people have been trying to solve for hundreds of years.

Hmmm, well, I respectfully disagree with love and respect being the answer to all human dysfunction. About 1% of the population is schizophrenic pretty much everywhere in the world, and autism seems to be accelerating. Some things are biologically-based. For (2), I think that respect will solve generalized violence pretty well. On the other hand it's pretty hard to tell someone that they are valuable and that they are cared for when they have to compete tooth-and-nail for some sub-menial job that pays like shit, and be grateful for it. In order to make THAT message real, you'd have to create an entire alternate economy.

GEEZER

Quote:
So how about mental health evaluations of everyone in the U.S. when they turn, say, 14? Anyone who fails gets sent to the reservation until they're better. Also random checks that'd re-test everyone every 3 or 4 years. Everyone who's ever failed gets a shock collar and everyone else gets a controller, so if the nutcase starts to act up, they can be safely tasered.

And who, exactly, has suggested this besides you??? Seems you have some pretty serious issues in realizing that mental illness exists.

We need to address mental illness, and not fatuously like you just did. Opening the doors of the mental institutions, kicking the mentally ill out on the street, pretending that mental illness is all just an anti-freedom conspiracy by salary-sucking doctors, and using our jails as de facto human warehouses a la Ronnie Raygun has not exactly been a stellar success, has it? Our system of mental health... if one could call it that... is so dysfunctional that it can't even respond to an imminent threat. So we get the Aurora/ Gifford/ Columbine/ Virginia Tech shootings.

Yeah, way to go, geezer. You get some kind of prize; I'm just not sure what kind.

FREM: Didn't mean to light your fuse.What's going on?

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Look, I know I am being a hardass about this, but it's not intentional malice, it is because I have good cause to fear the logical consequences which follow such knee jerking.

I want you to understand, truly comprehend - that mine is not a voice raised in anger here, but in cold, bitter, dispassionate warning irregardless of it's futility.

First, there's history.

Way back when there was a spike of moral outrage, and knees were jerked, and we had something call prohibition, the unhappy consequences of which still haunt us today like an unquiet ghost, particularly in the form of government agencies worse than the gangsters they were set against, the "cure" far more poisonous than the problem ever was.

Not too long after that (1934) those government gangsters planted another spike of moral outrage and knees were jerked and the first layer of infringement against the 2nd amendment was laid down, resulting in the very imbalance of power some of you feel makes it no longer worth defending at all.

Then of course, came reefer madness and scary drugs and moral outrage and knees were jerked, and like a bad egg, the reek of the consequences of the "War on Drugs" hath slimed us all.

And then, when those Towers came down in 2001, knees were jerked, and look where THAT has gotten us?

So one can imagine my reaction to the jerking of knees and cries for more abuses in the name of protecting us from ourselves is a groan and a facepalm, followed by what seems to be an inevitably futile stand in the face of sheer goddamned stupidity.

Second, one should understand that this is a large part of what makes me... ME.

I have always stood against the tide, despite personal consequence, when I felt the tide was wrong.

Hell, my very first days of school I wound up punished, although not overtly, for failing to ostracise the black kid, initially taken aside under the assumption my actions were mere ignorance, and told "what's what" by teachers, and my own parent, only for them to quickly realize that I wasn't going to go with the flow, I was NOT going to engage in this conduct because *I* thought it was wrong.
And so I was a ******-lover, an idiot, lost cause, you-name-it.

Then when I refused outright to utter their stupid pledge, and wouldn't budge, the term "commie" got ladled on too, shoulda gone with the flow, shoulda not made waves...
Dating across the race line, oh what a horror, and then there was taking Home Ec, cause the skills were useful and I thought gender roles were bullshit, and "faggot" got applied to that ever-growing list of hateful terms.

Despite a certain usefulness, later on my unwillingness to obey certain orders, and refusal to support the motherfucking Contras wound up adding "traitor" to that list as well.

And of course, when the Towers came down in 2001, and everyone was screaming for blood, there was my single, lone, lost in the shouting, futile little voice calling for a little sanity, pointing out the terrible consequences of the jerking of knees....

Oh it's EASY to stand up for things when it's safe, when it's convenient, when you like those things...
Try standing up, over and over, for religions that take every opportunity to crush their boot in your face whenever they get the chance.
Try standing up, over and over, for the free speech of people who use it to spout hate at you.
Or when you find those persons or their use of those rights thoroughly despicable.
Ain't so easy then, especially when folks turn on YOU over it.

But when one stands up for human rights, it's a package deal.
All rights, All humans - cause to do less, to do ANY less, just makes you one more would-be tyrant, and the worlds got them in plenty already.
Maybe I expect too much, but I would settle for turning away with gritted teeth and hissing an acknowledgement that if you cannot find it in yourself to defend them, one would at least not work AGAINST them - it seems not a lot to ask.

And now - lemme explain WHY.
( Fair Warning, you ain't gonna like this. )

I am going to hold up a mirror here, using another topic sure to fire up tempers and get knees jerking, but I think it very important to provoke a certain understanding.

Do you really think, that outlawing Abortion would stop it ?
What are the logical effects and consequences of doing so ?
And yes, that includes "cheating" by hedging it in with restrictions and manipulating the law or its interpretation to make it EFFECTIVELY illegal, without making it ACTUALLY illegal, a tactic I know full well that some of you have firmly and publicly decried here.

And now, lets turn that mirror all the way around...
And show you that you are advocating the very things you formerly decried.
This is hypocrisy.

While it's a horrible thing, the solution lies in other things, access to contraception, better education, more choices, etc - so it never NEEDS to come down that awful path, yes ?

And so too, with weapons.

The solution lies in other things, but I can nail the *problem* down in three words.
LACK OF EMPATHY.

To use a weapon on a fellow human being, outside of the most desperate of situations, you must first revoke (or never have in the first place) any empathy for them as a person.
Our society has gotten quite good at crushing it out, our media, our institutions - but it's not a problem removing the weapons or access to them is ever going to solve, you can't just slap yet-another-pointless-ban on it and move on, in fact doing so will drive the issue harder, inspire more fear, violence and harm.

Which brings me back around to that personal history bit - where do you think those little children LEARNED to apply terms like "******-lover" or "Commie" in grade school ?
Sure, some from their peers, but where did those peers get them in the first place, hmm?

We need to stoke the empathy of our young, not crush it out as a weakness and a detriment, for it is our strength, our very ability to work together which gives us the power to better ourselves, each other, and the world around us - and you do not do that by locking people in a fortress and making them afraid of each other.

Oh, and that whole live-security thing falls too, even using actual police (they call em School Resource Officers) is troublesome cause one of my current investigations is into the wholesale abuse, exploitation and predatory behavior on their behalf - and while contract security is perhaps a little more accountable on that front there's still significant quality control problems in the biz and no way to know a good one from a bad one without putting kids at risk, alas.

Finally, I *DO* have a decent compromise solution which doesn't require substantial Government interference, nor resources, AND doesn't unduly stomp on anyones rights - I've offered it before, multiple times, only for it to be flatly ignored or lost in folks howling at each other.

I may post it shortly, if I have the time - or you could dig it up yourselves, mayhaps.

-Frem

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

Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Cribbed from THIS thread
(which is a good read in and of itself, about use of force, and goes into more detail on this solution)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52836

Quote:
Mal4 -

CCW is the very basic Carry-Concealed-Weapon cert required to carry a concealed weapon, obviously.
And I firmly think that it would be a damn good idea to hold that level of training as a minimal standard for anyone who wishes to purchase one - alas that it's been proven (See Also: Jim March, Shall-Issue versus May-Issue) that the Government cannot be directly trusted with that decision, but I would firmly support offering indemnity from lawsuit to manufacturers and distributors in exchange for requiring such training as condition of a firearm purchase.

The cool thing is that it costs us nothing, the infrastructure is already there, instructors are inexpensive and ubiquitous, and the training itself is fairly standardized with allowances for the specific state the permit will be issued in.
It's a very sensible solution without adding more Government interference or stepping on anyones rights - although I have issues with revoking peoples right to bear arms for supposed "crimes" which prolly shouldn't be, but we can save that element of topic for later.

I do think the training is very important, for a fact I'd rather someone with the training but no weapon, than a weapon without the training - cause they'd be fully aware of problems like you mention and would very more likely act accordingly, although I think you have some misperception of the NRA and their stance on the matter, although for the record I dislike them as well simply because I feel they have failed to defend rights and become more self-serving than useful.

Worth noting I've brought it up many times, Google: Fireflyfans + Fremdfirma + Indemnity - and you will find quite a few examples.

What "lit my fuse" is the knee-jerk lunacy, when the essential PROBLEM is somewhere else, and winds up dismissed in a wholesale rush to dance to the masterfully played tune of folks with a friggin agenda - even if one agrees with that agenda, one should be suspicious of any politician cause they're essentially advanced sociopaths.

-Frem

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 12:11 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Firstly, I've often wondered whether empathy is learned. From what I understand, its near impossible for small children to have empathy, they see the world only through the lens of their own experience. As they reach around 7 - sometimes younger, sometimes older - they tend to really grasp that others have feelings, and there is a reason their parents tell them not to hit their little sibling over their head.

Some people never learn it, never develop it and some societies are good at inhibiting it. You will never get a society where everyone is empathic.

Secondly, violence and cruelty are as much a part of human nature as empathy is, maybe more so since we tend to lean towards that if empathy is not learned. We evolved with the capacity to use violence against others, against animals, as a survival mechanism. We are predators after all.

Thirdly, and I know this will be the most contentious, people are social animals, and societies need rules. How rigid and how many is all part of the push/pull of individual rights vs collective living. And I see that is the crux of the debate. Sometimes invididual rights need to be sacrificed for the collective good, otherwise you live in a society where everyone else be damned. Maybe America is seeing the end result of the growth of individualism. It peaked some time ago, and now the destruction and dysfuntion of living somewhere where the individual is more important than the many has kicked in.

So I'd say there has to be rules. There rules. An individual can't own nukes or biological weapons, a rocket launcher - or maybe you can???

Even with regards to abortion, the most stalwart advocate would be horrified if foetus were aborted at 35 weeks for no other reason than the mother was sick of the pregnancy.

Most people are okay with limits on most things, you need licences to drive cars, there are road rules, building permits, safety laws when using machinery. It just seems that the issue of guns has been mythologised in the US.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 2:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I hope more people like you post - not just here but everywhere. You do a great job showing everyone how bankrupt your 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric is, how disposable even little children are to the promotion of your agenda, how ignorant your are of history, and how irrelevant you are to an intelligent, self-determining society. You'd rather have guns than have society exercise actual working freedom to decide what it wants. You'd rather have guns than safe children. Got it. So keep at it. You're doing a great job.

Yet you write off the possibility of testing to identify the folks who would likely commit mass murders as irrelevent. Wouldn't it be better to identify and remove from society the people who are likley to go on a killing spree, regardless of the method they use? Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 4:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
You arent a mindless idealog, so at least subconciously, you know that you hav a share of the blame for all the gun deths and injuries going on.

Hello,

As someone who communicates, Jo, using the right to communicate freely, you share responsibility for every hateful thing ever communicated. Every bullying word. Every person who has been driven through hateful speech to a state of self loathing and suicide. Every tyrant who ever riled the masses to violence is an evil shared by your loose tongue.

Fess up, Jo. Bare your guilt to us all. Either that, or advocate an end to all free speech.

It doesn't matter how YOU use your free speech, Jo. If anyone, anywhere, uses free speech to do evil things, then the blame is on you. On you and everyone who supports so hateful a 'right.'

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 4:56 AM

Quote:
Perhaps you've betrayed your ideals in the past in some conversation or other, but that needn't apply to the here and now unless you want it to. If you cannot be civil in discussing your cherished beliefs, perhaps they shouldn't oughta be so cherished?

Absolutely NOT. There are some issues that a person's background and principles makes it impossible for them to be civil about. A lack of civility and alienation is hardly an adequate reason to abandon beliefs that have kept a person ALIVE.

It is unfair to make that suggestion to Frem, even in the name of peace and civility. He is wired differently than you are. You may well question the methods, but you CAN NOT expect such a different mindset to walk the same path you do. Not when those paths diverged long ago.

In fairness to you all, I do not think you are liars and hypocrites no matter where you fall on this issue. I even recommend taking Frem's admonishment in the light that he prides himself on trickster stylism, which by necessity requires some measure of deceit and slight of hand.

The liars and the hypocrites are as ever the power elite and charlatans who run this country and enslave the mind, and on that point I will never be civil. Not so long as their actions are so damaging to every person on this spinning world.

One argument about gun control on a firefly message board really is like an argument about abortion (to crib the example Frem used): holy cats it is COMPLICATED. All of you pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control people honestly think that you are supporting human life and improving the quality of that life. Amazingly enough, it turns out that the people on the opposite sides believe the EXACT SAME about their stances on the issue.

Perhaps it is because these things are not black and white, but rather there are pros and cons and risks inherent in ALL of the options? Perhaps in all of those arguments, it is about choosing life, or choosing free will, and there is something inherently understandable about all the positions.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 4:56 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
It doesn't matter how YOU use your free speech, Jo. If anyone, anywhere, uses free speech to do evil things, then the blame is on you. On you and everyone who supports so hateful a 'right.'

Well said...which given the subject is kind of ironic.

As a gun owner he thinks we bear some measure of responsibility for every evil act committed with a gun. Fine, so long as he gives us our due credit for every life saved or good thing ever done with guns. On balance...I can live with that.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 4:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
So I'd say there has to be rules. There rules. An individual can't own nukes or biological weapons, a rocket launcher - or maybe you can???

Hello,

I think someone can own a rocket launcher. At any rate, there's a hobby shop in town with all the supplies you need to build your own. I used to build rockets when I was a lad. Great fun.

As for nukes and biological weapons, I have to agree that my love for the 2nd amendment has its limits. I want those items banned from ownership by anyone, even governments. But I'm not prepared to go to war to achieve that, so I guess it's a lukewarm feeling.

Quote:
Even with regards to abortion, the most stalwart advocate would be horrified if foetus were aborted at 35 weeks for no other reason than the mother was sick of the pregnancy.

Yeah, that'd be pretty horrific. But ask me if I'm willing to tell a woman what she can do with her own body? The answer would be no.

Quote:
Most people are okay with limits on most things, you need licences to drive cars, there are road rules, building permits, safety laws when using machinery. It just seems that the issue of guns has been mythologised in the US.

I'm okay with limits if they are applied fairly and without a mind to disenfranchise people of their rights or place them in a subordinate position.

That's such a hard criteria to meet, though.

I think guns are mythologized, by a combination of a frontier past and a history of violent rebellion against authority. Every country has its mythologies that contribute to its character. The product of their history.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 4:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
It doesn't matter how YOU use your free speech, Jo. If anyone, anywhere, uses free speech to do evil things, then the blame is on you. On you and everyone who supports so hateful a 'right.'

Well said...which given the subject is kind of ironic.

As a gun owner he thinks we bear some measure of responsibility for every evil act committed with a gun. Fine, so long as he gives us our due credit for every life saved or good thing ever done with guns. On balance...I can live with that.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

Hello,

Or how about we just attribute to people the things they actually do?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 5:01 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
What "lit my fuse" is the knee-jerk lunacy, when the essential PROBLEM is somewhere else, and winds up dismissed in a wholesale rush to dance to the masterfully played tune of folks with a friggin agenda - even if one agrees with that agenda, one should be suspicious of any politician cause they're essentially advanced sociopaths.

I'm sure you watched the TV coverage and you were more angry at seeing all the armed police then you were about the armed killer.

Its amazing that anyone survived once those policemen got there and the killing could really begin...because in your opinion they are the the real murderers...even though not one shot was fired by literally hundreds of responding police.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 5:03 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

The problem is two fold. We have a massive problem in this country of not getting individual with mental health problems the help they need. Second, weapons and ammo are far to assessable to people with mental health problems. I do not think that a firearm, any firearm, should not be in the same home as someone with problems with their mental health. If that means we bar people from having weapons in their homes if they live with such an individual fine.

As far as bans on certain weapons I'm not board. Just because an AR-15 or civilian AK are semi-auto does not mean they are not extremely deadly. Full auto is not really for killing people, but to put a large number of rounds down range as covering fire. Heck, had some of these shooters have full auto weapons the death toll may have been less because accuracy goes to shit. The new versions of the M-14 don't even have a full auto setting anymore for this reason.

...and no an assault rifle is not the same beast as a hunting rifle.

As far as ammo I think some type of permit should be required to buy it. That can be tied to pistol permits and the like.

I know the argument that bans and restrictions will not work because people can just get weapons illegally. They can, but the vast majority of these shooting have been with legal weapons. Perhaps some of the shoots would have gone an bought black market firearms but I think many would not have. There is a reason we see shooting like this far more than bombing even when a bomb can do far more damage. It is rare that a person would have all the components to make a bomb at the ready.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 5:22 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So the Kennesaw law swept corruption out of gubmint, did it? 'Cause that was the point of the discussion: the right to bear arms to keep gubmint in check.

No, that's NOT what the Founders had in mind, when the penned the 2nd Amendment. Govt is suppose to be kept in check by the citizens, at the ballot box. As well as abide by the laws of the land. It's when that govt becomes tyrannical, and starts to over step its bounds, ignoring the will of the people and the laws, that the people are obligated to defend themselves, and their freedoms.

But nice try, anyway.

Quote:
Try as I might, nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about the right to bear arms to reduce burglaries. But thanks for playing, and here's your booby prize:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next time, try to keep your eye on the target.

I did. You just didn't like the fact that crime rates were down as a result of more gun ownership.

And MD, per the pic you posted - I'd say not just your children, but ANY one. When your rights extend so far as to impede,infringe or limit the rights of others, then they've gone too far.

The fault isn't w/ the gun, the mother, or " society " , it lies w/ the monster who committed these heinous acts.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 5:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
it lies w/ the monster

Hello,

I guess with the monster dead, the problem is solved. No more thought need be given.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 5:28 AM

America loves a winner!

Saved us the cost and pain of a trial, at least.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 5:32 AM

Quote:
Its amazing that anyone survived once those policemen got there and the killing could really begin...because in your opinion they are the the real murderers...even though not one shot was fired by literally hundreds of responding police.

One shot WAS fired BECAUSE of them, though. On the whole, I'm not sure if it wasn't a mercy for that messed up kid to take his own life. Imagine living with the knowledge of what he had done. If he was even capable of understanding anymore.

But I do feel the same irritation you all do at these people who don't have the good graces to commit suicide without taking a bunch of other people with them. Is it so important for them to feel important, powerful, and get revenge? Hey, things go wrong in life and we're ALL unknown unacknowledged misunderstood and stuck on this shithole together. They need to get over themselves, this is just TIRESOME.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 6:18 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, that's NOT what the Founders had in mind, when the penned the 2nd Amendment. Govt is suppose to be kept in check by the citizens, at the ballot box. As well as abide by the laws of the land. It's when that govt becomes tyrannical, and starts to over step its bounds, ignoring the will of the people and the laws, that the people are obligated to defend themselves, and their freedoms.

Read the amendment again. What the they had in mind was keeping militias ready for state and national defense. Not to keep the government in check.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 6:49 AM

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 guess with the monster dead, the problem is solved. No more thought need be given."

Until the next one, and the next, and the next ... because there will be more. If this were a society of angels we could brush off our hands in a satisfied gesture of finality and know we're done. But I know we're not and so do you.

What I find incredible about you all is that you'd rather cling to the SYMBOL of freedom - your fetishized gun - and abandon the actual practice of it, which is society making decisions for itself. And I'd like to point out that being anti-government - doesn't make you pro-freedom. As you all have so amply demonstrated.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:01 AM

Quote:
And I'd like to point out that being anti-government - doesn't make you pro-freedom. As you all have so amply demonstrated.

I'm not following. Please elaborate.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I guess with the monster dead, the problem is solved. No more thought need be given."

Until the next one, and the next, and the next ... because there will be more. If this were a society of angels we could brush off our hands in a satisfied gesture of finality and know we're done. But I know we're not and so do you.

Hello,

Yes, I do know it. I posted that to mock Mr. Raptor's silly simplistic perception of the scenario.

Quote:
What I find incredible about you all is that you'd rather cling to the SYMBOL of freedom - your fetishized gun - and abandon the actual practice of it, which is society making decisions for itself.

There's probably a bit more to freedom than 'society' making decisions for itself. Society can decide some pretty horrific things for itself that actually diminish freedom. There's no one magic key to freedom. It's a lot of things.

Quote:
And I'd like to point out that being anti-government - doesn't make you pro-freedom. As you all have so amply demonstrated.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? I enjoy having a support structure, i.e. government. What has been amply demonstrated by what action and by whom to your mind?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I guess with the monster dead, the problem is solved. No more thought need be given."

Until the next one, and the next, and the next ... because there will be more. If this were a society of angels we could brush off our hands in a satisfied gesture of finality and know we're done. But I know we're not and so do you.

So what do you want to do about the monsters to come? Wouldn't it be better to prevent them from becoming monsters in the first place?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:20 AM

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.

If a government says YES, you say NO. If a government says THIS, you say THAT. If a government says I AM, you say, I WILL MAKE YOU TO BE NOT. That's being reflexively anti-government, which Frem demonstrates, in spades. Anything from the government, of the government, by the government he's agin' (except where he recently has grudgingly allowed government may have some limited uses.)

But WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - chose to have a government? WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - direct their government to conform some portion of social rules to their demands? What if the people actually freely CHOOSE the form of their society? Isn't that a true exercise of freedom? Looking at options and freely making choices rather than living by the governance of larger forces more organized than you are? Frem - and Anthony and others - are against that. They are against the society of people making free choices in the construction of their own society. Because they can NOT allow that a people may freely choose to put some limits on guns, or arms in general.

Getting back to Frem specifically, I think we all realize that his background has formed a unique perspective. That perspective is HIGHLY emotional - not logical, not historical, not social. And yet he prescribes his individually meaningful emotions onto society AS IF they were applicable to all. AS IF they're a model for everyone. They're not. As deeply felt as they are, they're not based on anything other than one individual's feelings. I think people have been trying to get Frem to broaden his perspective just a touch, to step outside of his own reactions and understand that there are other reactions equally deeply felt and just as valid.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, that's NOT what the Founders had in mind, when the penned the 2nd Amendment. Govt is suppose to be kept in check by the citizens, at the ballot box. As well as abide by the laws of the land. It's when that govt becomes tyrannical, and starts to over step its bounds, ignoring the will of the people and the laws, that the people are obligated to defend themselves, and their freedoms.

Read the amendment again. What the they had in mind was keeping militias ready for state and national defense. Not to keep the government in check.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Leave American citizens to read and know their own constitution , and the minds of the Founders, a bit better than Australians.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:23 AM

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.

"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."

Not sure what part of 'well regulated militia' you don't understand.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 7:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
If a government says YES, you say NO. If a government says THIS, you say THAT. If a government says I AM, you say, I WILL MAKE YOU TO BE NOT. That's being reflexively anti-government, which Frem demonstrates, in spades. Anything from the government, of the government, by the government he's agin' (except where he recently has grudgingly allowed government may have some limited uses.)

Hello,

If someone admits that government has some use, they aren't anti government. They may be anti the current government. They are probably anti government abuses of the people. And when armed with dozens of cases of government malfeasance and inappropriate action, they may have a reason to doubt government's good intentions much of the time.

Quote:

But WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - chose to have a government? WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - direct their government to conform some portion of social rules to their demands? What if the people actually freely CHOOSE the form of their society? Isn't that a true exercise of freedom? Looking at options and freely making choices rather than living by the governance of larger forces more organized than you are? Frem - and Anthony and others - are against that. They are against the society of people making free choices in the construction of their own society. Because they can NOT allow that a people may freely choose to out some limits on guns, or arms in general.

Wow. You're making a lot of leaps. The first leap you make is that the majority of people can't infringe on the freedoms of a minority. History shows pretty clearly that they can and do.

The second leap you make is that anyone is against anyone else making choices about their government. Opposing bad choices is not the same as opposing the ability to make choices. You are confusing someone saying 'hell no' to a bad idea with someone saying 'hell no' to making choices.

The people of the United States have methods available to them to influence policy. They use them, on both sides of pretty much any issue.

Quote:

Getting back to Frem specifically, I think we all realize that his background has formed a unique perspective. That perspective is HIGHLY emotional - not logical, not historical, not social. And yet he prescribes his individually meaningful emotions onto society AS IF they were applicable to all. AS IF they're a model for everyone. They're not. As deeply felt as they are, they're not based on anything other than one individual's feelings. I think people have been trying to get Frem to broaden his perspective just a touch, to step outside of his own reactions and understand that there are other reactions equally deeply felt and just as valid.

Well, there's a lot of people who don't consider Frem's views valid at all. So what are you asking for when you ask him to understand that the views of others are 'equally valid?' Should he scoff at them with equal vigor?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:03 AM

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

Frem would prefer no government at all. That's his basic position. If pressed he may grudgingly admit that government can do some useful things at present - test foods for safety, test for pollution, and so forth. But only until he thinks he can find a way to do those things without government. His basic position is that there should be no government.

"The first leap you make is that the majority of people can't infringe on the freedoms of a minority. History shows pretty clearly that they can and do."

And that's where the Constitution comes in. It's supposed to be the limit on what things can't be removed, even by the will of the majority. That's why there are so many Constitutional arguments.

But let's take that further. WHAT IF there are limits placed on a minority by the majority that are deemed Constitutional (not an infringement on basic 'rights')? It happens all the time. Do you propose that such a thing is necessarily bad? Or do you think that it's simply the people exercising their freedom to form their society as they wish?

"Opposing bad choices is not the same as opposing the ability to make choices."

Unless the argument is a 'cold dead hands' argument which says you have no right to make ANY decision which infringes on MY GUNS in ANY WAY. That absolutist argument opposes any socially made decision as invalid - and invalidates society’s right to make any decisions at all.

As for Frem - and you - who have equally strong emotions on guns - I think I understand both of you. I think I understand your positions. I think I understand where they come from. I think I can project your opinions onto society and see how they play out in a larger context. I think I have a broader perspective than either of you, who seem to have no understanding at all of my opinions. As a specific example. All I'm saying is that it wold be kinda' nice if the two of you could get out of your mental rut that you've worn far too deep.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"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."

Not sure what part of 'well regulated militia' you don't understand.

What part of ' the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed' escapes you ?

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:07 AM

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.

Hmmm ... the part where it's conditioned on a 'well regulated militia'.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:14 AM

Quote:
That's being reflexively anti-government, which Frem demonstrates, in spades.

No, he actually doesn't. I don't know if you remember Frem saying this, but he's had dust ups with other anarchists because they lean a little more towards wanting to force the issue through collateral damage. Your vision of Frem and Anthony are not the real Frem and Anthony. Your vision of them is only the product of your fears.

Quote:
AS IF they were applicable to all. AS IF they're a model for everyone. They're not.

He's never represented otherwise. Good thing too, I know full well that I'm quite a bit like Frem, and that all of you think our attitude is unhealthy.

All Frem has said is that he will fight you, to the death, if you try to take his weapons on an individual basis. While that does appear to spill over to his opinion about gun control in general, ultimately it is not one single person, it is not FREM or ANTHONY who is holding up the gun control your country so desperately wants. And you are not the axe hovering over their heads, waiting to drop.

They are standing up for their beliefs same as you, and they have every right to, and just standing up for those beliefs and speaking them is NOT the same as personally oppressing you with guns or forcing you to accept guns. Just as you standing up for your beliefs is not demanding they hand all their defenses over to cower naked in a cellar while the police surround them.

Quote:
As for Frem - and you - who have equally strong emotions on guns - I think I understand both of you. I think I understand your positions. I think I understand where they come from. I think I can project your opinions onto society and see how they play out in a larger context. I think I have a broader perspective than either of you, who seem to have no understanding at all of my opinions.

You all - Anthony, Frem, 1kiki - have demonstrated none of you have absolutely any IDEA what the other side is talking about, both pro-gun control and anti-gun control, let alone that any of you understand each other AT ALL.

Frem calls you liars and hypocrites, and you call him and Anthony authoritarians. It's a hopeless business. You all know full well that none of you are ANY of those things, yet one argument has everyone tossing those insults around like knives in a juggling contest.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

Frem would prefer no government at all. That's his basic position. If pressed he may grudgingly admit that government can do some useful things at present - test foods for safety, test for pollution, and so forth. But only until he thinks he can find a way to do those things without government. His basic position is that there should be no government.

Hello,

I think that depends on what you mean by 'no government.' Having listened to Frem carefully over the years, I've come to the conclusion that he actually advocates for a style of community governance that is simply vastly different than what we currently have. When I've pressed him on his views, I've learned that he does not actually favor chaos. Just a very different system of decision making and community management.

Quote:
And that's where the Constitution comes in. It's supposed to be the limit on what things can't be removed, even by the will of the majority. That's why there are so many Constitutional arguments.

Agreed. The Constitution's Bill of Rights is meant to prevent society from making certain decisions on behalf of itself, unless a startling majority have jumped off the deep end and there is a constitutional amendment to excise a right.

Quote:

But let's take that further. WHAT IF there are limits placed on a minority by the majority that are deemed Constitutional (not an infringement on basic 'rights')? It happens all the time. Do you propose that such a thing is necessarily bad? Or do you think that it's simply the people exercising their freedom to form their society as they wish?

Decisions by the majority which are not deemed to infringe on basic rights are much less likely to be bad. Although it's possible to utterly miscalculate when something is infringing on basic rights. We have a history of that, too.

Quote:

Unless the argument is a 'cold dead hands' argument which says you have no right to make ANY decision which infringes on MY GUNS in ANY WAY. That absolutist argument opposes any socially made decision as invalid - and invalidates society’s right to make nay decisions at all.

This is no different than saying that government has no right to your reproductive system. When you make a stance in defense of your rights, you generally make those stances strict and absolute. Society may trample on you anyway, but how should that change your position on the subject? Frem and I have both lived under a broad and idiotic weapons ban in the past, so I'm not sure what you're thinking?

Quote:

As for Frem - and you - who have equally strong emotions on guns - I think I understand both of you. I think I understand your positions. I think I understand where they come from. I think I can project your opinions onto society and see how they play out in a larger context. I think I have a broader perspective than either of you, who seem to have no understanding at all of my opinions. As a specific example. All I'm saying is that it wold be kinda' nice if the two of you could get out of your mental rut that you've worn far too deep.

Do you think your position is misunderstood? That Frem and I have a lack of imagination to understand what you want and why? That we can not extrapolate your position into real world scenarios? That we don't, in fact, have ample real life examples of exactly the kinds of gun controls you may advocate? Do you mistake yourself that we can see these horrible incidents without thinking that something has to be done about this? That we do not ourselves have the thought that reasonable gun controls might prevent some of these incidents?

You are seen by us just as much as you see us.

The problem isn't that you are ignored or invisible or outside the scope of our imagination.

You look at us, understand us, weigh our arguments and concerns, measure their validity, and find them lacking in several particulars.

This, you perceive as the actions of an enlightened, reasonable, and broad mind.

But if you are the subject of an identical judgment, it must be the result of blinders, limited thinking, and dogmatism.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:32 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry, but you're wrong. Leave American citizens to read and know their own constitution , and the minds of the Founders, a bit better than Australians.

I'm an American. The forth amendment says "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."

Pretty clear.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"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."

Not sure what part of 'well regulated militia' you don't understand.

Probably the same part the Supreme Court did on McDonald vs. Chicago.

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. 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

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I'm an American. The forth amendment says "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."

It's the Second Amendment, actually.

And see McDonald vs. Chicago, above, for the determination as to who can keep and bear arms.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Assumed you were an Auzzie, not that it really matters.

You can't keep guns for one thing, but not another. Either you have the right to bear arms, or you don't. Period.

Pretty clear.

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

Funny, the Left loves to give such wide, ever reaching interpretations to the parts of the constitution they DO like, but the parts of it they don't like, could fit though a pin hole, and they'd claim they're following what the Founders intended.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 8:51 AM

Hey Frem,

Thanks for making your most compelling argument to date (in my hearing, at least). And I do appreciate you civility in these latest posts. It helps, it really helps! I think the point that outlawing guns in this country would lead to more violence and fear has merit. However, I'm still clocking a major disconnect on this issue and, interestingly, on the issue of abortion you bring up.

With abortion, relatively few people are in favor of late term abortions. Most folk would understand and accept a ban on that sort of thing. But that never seems to stop the anti-abortion folk from placing late term abortion at the center of their anti-abortion arguments, their poster child, literally. So here, you oppose a prohibition on guns and nobody here, to my knowledge, is advocating an absolute prohibition on guns. No one, right? What I hear people calling for is regulation. Just as we have regulation on the alcohol content of various spirits distilled in this country. Not a ban, but regulation.

And now you propose a training requirement similar to the one required to get your CCW license. (Something I proposed on page one of this thread which no one seemed to notice. Y'know, "gun literacy.") That sure as heck fire sounds like increased regulation to me! So here you are, within striking distance of simply agreeing with the folk you're calling liars and hypocrites. Take the leap!

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:11 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
With abortion, relatively few people are in favor of late term abortions. Most folk would understand and accept a ban on that sort of thing. But that never seems to stop the anti-abortion folk from placing late term abortion at the center of their anti-abortion arguments, their poster child, literally.

Hello,

This is a common tactic. You pick something that seems awful that most people can agree on as being awful. Then you pile on as much stuff as you can into that thing and try to ban it. It's pretty much the playbook for convincing people to surrender rights.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:13 AM

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've learned that he does not actually favor chaos. Just a very different system of decision making and community management."

Well, if one goes by the comic he referenced as his ideal society, it's one where everyone has a gun, and the fastest and best armed are the most free. As to how the trash gets picked up on a regular basis, it's a rosy haze of religious belief that it will all work out.

"This is no different than saying that government has no right to your reproductive system."

Then you mistake my arguments if you think I make absolutist ones. I recognize that lines must be drawn somewhere in the grey zone - the argument is where. For example, I think it's quite reasonable to forbid abortion in the last 2 months of pregnancy, unless there are compelling reasons that have to do with the life of the mother. I'm willing to listen to any reasons to draw the lines elsewhere, except reasons which conclude always or never.

"That we don't, in fact, have ample real life examples of exactly the kinds of gun controls you may advocate?"

Then tell me what I think - and I'll tell you where you're wrong. B/c until you can predict my position and my thoughts (and you failed utterly in the above example), you really can't make any claims to understanding.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And now you propose a training requirement similar to the one required to get your CCW license. (Something I proposed on page one of this thread which no one seemed to notice. Y'know, "gun literacy.")

I've seen proposals like this a few times, and, while it might reduce the number of accidental shootings, I can't see it as doing much about a tragedy like at Sandy Hook. Seems like finding and fixing the folks who do such things might be a better solution.

I've proposed several times recently that reporting - by school counselors, doctors, psychiatric professionals, and family members - of folks who might be prone to mass killing should be encouraged, so those persons might get evaluation, treatment, or possibly confinement; possibly with disincentives for failure to make such a report. No one seems interested in this idea. Any idea why?

I'd note that the reduction in drunk driving fatalities from 26143 in 1982 (60% of all fatalities) to 12,744 in 2009 (38%), wasn't due to the government taking everyone's cars away. They increased enforcement and punishment of the folks caught (though I'd like to see more), and increased education. While there's still a way to go, the process seems to be working. Why not something similar for potential violence, that focuses on the possible offender rather than their tool of choice, be it gun or car.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Well, if one goes by the comic he referenced as his ideal society, it's one where everyone has a gun, and the fastest and best armed are the most free. As to how the trash gets picked up on a regular basis, it's a rosy haze of religious belief that it will all work out.

Hello,

Are you sure you're not confused? Frem has never expressed to me that the comic you mention is his ideal society.

Quote:
Then you mistake my arguments if you think I make absolutist ones. I recognize that lines must be drawn somewhere in the grey zone - the argument is where. For example, I think it's quite reasonable to forbid abortion in the last 2 months of pregnancy, unless there are compelling reasons that have to do with the life of the mother. I'm willing to listen to any reasons to draw the lines elsewhere, except reasons which conclude always or never.

You are quite correct that I misjudged you.

For my own part, I consider a person's body their own property.

Quote:
Then tell me what I think - and I'll tell you where you're wrong

All right. I think that there are certain firearms you don't perceive as being necessary amongst civilians in our society, such as assault weapons.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:30 AM

NIKI2

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

I stopped reading this thread at some point, it just keeps going in circles. But of what I did read:

Quote:
If you know of a way to convince someone that something they despise is valuable, especially when they can't make the mental leap to comparing it to anything they do consider valuable, what is there to do?

You just keep saying no when they ask to take your rights away, and stand up for them when someone asks to take their rights away.

I fear the point Cav is trying to make will always, always be lost on you and Frem, and those like you:

Quote:
This is precisely the problem: NO ONE HERE is ever gonna take your rights away. Not a single soul among us. So, when you talk like this, reasonable people are inclined to think you're not present; like you're stuck in a nightmare shouting "NO, NO, NO!" and we all just want you to wake up and tell us about your dream.

And as to how to convince people that something they despise is valuable, you're framing the issue in the most hostile terms possible. What is it you believe everyone here "despises?" Guns? No. Signy has one. What then? Really, I can't guess what you're refering to here.

That, again, is the think I keep referring to. The attitude that "ANY restriction means you want to take ALL our guns away!"

If reality were to intrude, those saying that would recognize that there is no political power on earth which could take away everyone's guns. America wouldn't stand for it, not now, not ever. It's not going to happen. So with this delusion firmly entrenched, the idea of ANY limitation on ANY gun is immediately translated into "You want to take my guns!"

I agree with Cav that the entire argument of "convincing people something they despise" is ridiculous. I don't despise guns, I know few who do. The vast, overwhelming number of people who LOVE guns in America is only countered by the far smaller number who, whether they love them, have no particular feelings about them, or actually hate them, want to see common-sense restrictions on them.

Quote:
the collective 'you' i.e. the public may very well push to take my rights away. In pieces or in large part, depending on what is possible at the time.

If we could ever succeed in getting past your absolutism--because that's what it is--you might possibly recognize that nobody is EVER going to take those rights away. I don't think we can ever get past it, despite the fact that it's patently obvious to everyone else.

Frem,

Quote:
Of course not, but you will demand others do so, you will support and abet them in this, despite demanding that rights you like, or are used in manners you approve of, be left alone.

You are liars.
You are hypocrites.

That's the worst thing I've ever seen you write here. Your absolutism is every bit as rigid as Anthony's, and every bit as wrong. Who here has EVER demanded guns be taken away from everyone? Who here ever WOULD? None that I know of, and equally, in society, the number who actually want all guns taken away are no more than deluded fools, and no, neither we nor the VAST majority of Americans would EVER support it! You're usually a pretty sensible person, as is Anthony; but on this point, you are both blind as bats.

Damn. Cav keeps saying it for me:

Quote:
You and Frem and Anthony all seem to cherish this romance of freedom that your guns bestow. It's simply not true.

What gets me is that I'm not at all interested in taking your guns away. I think you do have a right to them. I just think you guys have the wackiest way of thinking about it and it's not a little worrisome. Seriously.

A-fucking-men. There can be no discussion, no debate, with such mentality.

Quote:
I do not think that a firearm, any firearm, should not be in the same home as someone with problems with their mental health.

Now that I HEARTILY disagree with. To disallow ONLY us from protecting ourselves is about the worst kind of freedom-denying I can think of! Not to mention complete denial of equal rights! Yes, absolutely, people with mental-health issues should be helped better than we do in this country; people who've shown problems in the past should be noticed; there's a LOT we can do to prevent people with mental health issues from doing what these mass murderers have done. But just deny us the right to own guns? That's insane. You DO realize that "depression" is a mental-health problem, yes? That anyone who wanted to seek help for depression would immediately stop to think "Wait a minute, once diagnosed, I couldn't own a gun to protect myself!" People who enjoy collecting guns, or even those who just have one for protection, would never seek mental health treatment! Yeah, that would help a whole lot!

I'm bipolar; it's a serious mental-health disorder. The fact that I'm Bipolar II, a much milder form and one where we don't go "manic", would mean nothing. The fact that my symptoms are kept completely in check, even mild as they are, would mean nothing. I'm diagnosed. It's a mental-health issue. So you would deny me the second amendment freedom Frem, Anthony and others demand, and demand there be NO restrictions upon. Does that really make sense to you? If it does, and you're willing to take away second-amendment rights from anyone who's ever been diagnosed with a mental-health problem, or who even LIVES with someone who's ever been diagnosed with a mental-health problem, then you're far, far worse than any gun bunny I've ever heard of.

There are nuances to everything. Just as we can apparently never, never get through to Anthony and Frem that nobody wants to take away their guns, that nobody could EVER take away everyone's guns, that all we want are common-sense restrictions, better enforcement, closing on loopholes that allow people to circumvent the gun laws, and things like that, saying nobody who's ever been diagnosed with any mental-health issue shouldn't be allowed to own a gun is just as blind to the nuances as they are. We need better mental-health treatment (but you can't get anyone treatment who DOESN'T WANT IT, so there are problems there), we need people to be more aware of those who show worrying indications. But none of this is black and white. None of it.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

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

Monday, December 17, 2012 9:36 AM