Self Defense is merely a by-product of an armed populous by Hero

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Stop supporting the largest military in the world, then. Vote to slash military spending if you're worried about the big bad government taking over.

Well yeah, sheeeeit Mikey, we're not even supposed to HAVE a standing army.
In fact, if you READ Federalist #46, Madison goes on and on about how impossible that would ever be to even happen, thus excusing the lack of protections against it...

Naive dumbass, he was - and Hamilton exploited the hell out of it, too.

-F

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29 AM

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

To me, it matters not what one or the other of the founders THOUGHT, or even wrote. I'm assuming they debated and discussed at great length when writing the Constitution, and chose to write what they did as the law of the land. The Second Amendment is in no way ambiguous, despite the popular alteration of it's intent--and wording--to fit a pro-gun agenda. What one or more individuals believed at the time has no bearing on the law of the land, in my opinion.

If you want to get into what they thought, I wonder what they would think NOW, 200 years later, if they saw our society as it is regarding guns. I can well imagine some pretty hefty spinning in graves, myself.

"We own guns, as Madison notes, like no other nation on Earth." And therein lies our problem. Not "like no other nation", but so much MORE than any other civilized nation.

Oh, and "the ultimate check on the power of the Federal government". It's not. Period. Nor should it be, in America today.

And finally, TRY to bear in mind that nobody here is discussing disarming the country...only common-sense logic of not having automatic weapons of war available to any and all. It's a real shame the discussion can't be kept to that, instead of constantly spilling over into "we have rights" and "you want to take our guns". I guess it never will, apparently, which is a shame.

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:28 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Alexander Hamilton was the big pro-British 'patriot' -- first United States Secretary of the Treasury -- who demanded a proxy private central bank owned by the Bank of England to run the US Govt. He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views of love of England, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Hamilton got shot to death in a duel. He should've been drawn and quartered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

Note the LOCK on the wiki story, proving propaganda by the jew elite to overthrow USA today, claiming a private central bank owned by foreign nations is 'the US Govt'.

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:29 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

After Hamilton's foreign bank was overthrown, England burned down the White House in the War of 1812.

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:36 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Vote to slash military spending if you're worried about the big bad government taking over.

Or at least don't vote to increase it...

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And finally, TRY to bear in mind that nobody here is discussing disarming the country...only common-sense logic of not having automatic weapons of war available to any and all. It's a real shame the discussion can't be kept to that, instead of constantly spilling over into "we have rights" and "you want to take our guns". I guess it never will, apparently, which is a shame.

I'm sorry too, but again, my issue is the lack of credibility.
A few "reasonable restrictions", and then a few more, and a few more, and a couple more... did you learn nothing from how we have treated the Fourth Amendment, not to mention others ?
There is also that the reason those folks in favor of bans are not proposing one entire is because they know by admitting their intentions right up front it will cause too much backlash to get their way.
The awful weapons in civilian hands is the only deterrent to the same folk wanting to take more things away, or do things unto them without consent - oh it can still be done, but the COST of doing so is high enough to deter it... to me this is the canary in the coal mine, and anyone who proposes ignoring or rejecting it will have utterly no problem ignoring or rejecting other human rights.

Which tells me they cannot be trusted.

-Frem

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:30 PM

ARLO

-.-. ..- -- / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- . / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - .- . / . .-. .- - --..-- / - ..- -- / ... --- .-.. .. / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- ... / .... .- -... . ..- -. -

[img]

The amazing thing about the Taft High School shooting today is that the 16-year-old with the shotgun was TALKED into giving up his weapon. Chances are good if the teacher and the Counsler were armed; he would have seen them as a threat and things could have been a lot worse. Taft High School has an armed security guard on campus.

sincerely, 1933

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ARLO:
The amazing thing about the Taft High School shooting today is that the 16-year-old with the shotgun was TALKED into giving up his weapon. Chances are good if the teacher and the Counsler were armed; he would have seen them as a threat and things could have been a lot worse. Taft High School has an armed security guard on campus.

If the teacher and Counseler were armed he could have seen them as a threat and it could have been worse.

Or, he could have seen them as a deterrent and things could have been...nothing at all.

Or, they could have seen him as a threat and actually been in the position to do something about it.

What happened was they were unarmed, therefore no threat, therefore helpless to defend themselves or anyone else and completely at the mercy of a criminal intent on murder.

That's gun control's side effect, ordinary people left helpless and at the mercy of criminals and tyrants. America was founded on a different principal.

"God created Man, but Samual Colt made them equal."

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 5:55 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If the teacher and Counseler were armed he could have seen them as a threat and it could have been worse.

Or, he could have seen them as a deterrent and things could have been...nothing at all.

Or, they could have seen him as a threat and actually been in the position to do something about it.

But isn't that exactly what they did? See him as a threat and do something about it? And without shedding more blood?

I'm not saying it's ideal to face an armed lunatic unarmed but I also sincerely doubt that it was gun control that caused these people not to be carrying guns at that particularly moment. In the classroom, teaching.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 6:19 AM

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

Yeah, Arlo, I heard about that one, but figured I'd best not put it up here, knowing where it would go. Which is precisely where it did...

Thank you, Agent. But I'm afraid people like Frem and "Hero" will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see things any other way than "ANY regulation means you'll take my guns away" and "Guns are the solution to everything", respectively. I've actually found that quite an education. I knew there were people like that, I'd just never talked to them before. I've learned a lot from these discussions; unfortunately, none of it good.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 7:38 AM

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

Talk about your "armed populous":

Quote:
Despite well-publicized airport security measures, U.S. travelers attempted to bring more than 1,500 guns on board planes in 2012 — resulting in the most annual confiscations on record, according to a Transportation Security Administration report.

The year’s final tally, made on Dec. 28 and released last week, put the total number of confiscated firearms for the year at 1,527, although the TSA still hasn’t released official figures on its blog for the final few days of 2012. It’s still a significant increase over 2011, when more than 1,300 guns were seized by the agency.

More worryingly, approximately 85% of the guns seized by the TSA were loaded, according to NBC News.

Two states dominated the TSA’s tally of gun-toting passengers; four of the top ten airports for confiscated firearms were in Texas and two in Florida. Phoenix, Denver and Nashville also made the list. But the top airport for seized firearms was Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, where the first gun of 2013 was found as well. More at http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/10/tsa-confiscates-record-number-of-g
uns-at-u-s-airports-in-2012/

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But isn't that exactly what they did? See him as a threat and do something about it? And without shedding more blood?

I'm not saying it's ideal to face an armed lunatic unarmed but I also sincerely doubt that it was gun control that caused these people not to be carrying guns at that particularly moment. In the classroom, teaching.

When an armed man is breaking into your home intending on murdering your children, lets all hope 911 brings you the counselor or therapist you need to save you.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 8:00 AM

JONGSSTRAW

With all the debates and statements going on around the country I have yet to hear ONE rational reason given why anyone needs an assault rifle with a large capacity clip. Not one!

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 8:10 AM

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

Thank you, Jong. Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one. Certainly not a rational one.

On a more general note, please see my last response in the "Practical Uses of Gun Control" thread.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 10:32 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
When an armed man is breaking into your home intending on murdering your children, lets all hope 911 brings you the counselor or therapist you need to save you.

Thanks for the sarcasm.

I did explicitly state that facing an armed man unarmed is NOT ideal so atop pretending I said the opposite.

I also debate the implication that the man did nothing, as opposed to "something" with a gun.

I also stand by my doubt that it's reasonable to expect a teacher in the classroom, teaching, to be armed. And ready to kill a violent intruder. Especially when that intruder is also a student whom the teacher maybe saw grow up. It's an unrealistic expectation that has nothing to do with the job of teaching.

So this whole "if only he had a gun" argument just seems ridiculous. Again: Not being allowed to carry a gun likely was not the only reason why this teacher was not carrying a gun right then.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
With all the debates and statements going on around the country I have yet to hear ONE rational reason given why anyone needs an assault rifle with a large capacity clip. Not one!

1. Assault rifles are big guns with lots of bullets. It is rational to argue that if you need a gun, I mean need a gun right this very moment...I'm talking life and death, here we go, lets rock, holy shit I needs me a gun...then bigger with more bulllets is better.

2. Fun. Sport and recreational shooters shoot large, high caliber weapons for fun. It may not be your idea of fun, but then I've never been fond of fondue, pictionary, or ballet...so to each his own. I'm no hunter but I love shooting rifles, shotguns, AR's, and I'd shoot a fracking cannon if they were not so expensive. And before you go spouting off about 'nobody died from ballet'...I agree. But what about recreational drinking? DUI's kill more people then accidental gun deaths. Alcohol is a central factor is Domestic Violence, assaults, etc.

3. Self defense. If the bad guy has a big gun, little gun, or no gun at all but is breaking into my home to kill my family I want to kill him with as big a gun and as many bullets as I can.

4. Vera, Jane's very favorite gun. Not much use in a firefight in space cause it could shoot through the outer hull, but they used it to kill that energy web thing and save the ship. In other words...the unexpected. You don't ever want to be in a situation where by some happenstance you need a big gun and a lot of bullets and you don't have it.

5. Killing commies. Or Jihadies. Or any foriegn 'sum bitch wants to come get some from the good old USA and somehow gets past the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are lined up to kick ass for the red, white, and blue. Assuming they did get past the Marines, I'm gonna need a little more then a six shot pea shooter to take care of business.

6. Killing tyrants...since 1776. The defense of liberty from any 'sum bitch that decides winning a couple elections makes him king.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I also stand by my doubt that it's reasonable to expect a teacher in the classroom, teaching, to be armed. And ready to kill a violent intruder. Especially when that intruder is also a student whom the teacher maybe saw grow up. It's an unrealistic expectation that has nothing to do with the job of teaching.

You are generally correct.

But what about teachers with military or law enforcement backgrounds?

Active members of the National Guard?

Volunteer firefighters?

Or who have attended the National Armed Teacher Training Center at Quantico?

You don't want to have people who are not trained or unqualified carrying guns in school. So train them, qualify them.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ARLO:
The amazing thing about the Taft High School shooting today is that the 16-year-old with the shotgun was TALKED into giving up his weapon. Chances are good if the teacher and the Counsler were armed; he would have seen them as a threat and things could have been a lot worse. Taft High School has an armed security guard on campus.

Remember what I said about self-defense being a range of options rather than a narrow point ?

Quote:
Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

Words can be every bit as effective as weapons, sure.

-F

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 12:13 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

When an armed man is breaking into your home intending on murdering your children, lets all hope 911 brings you the counselor or therapist you need to save you.

H

What's that got to do with preventing tyranny and have a final check on the Feds?

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 12:16 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
With all the debates and statements going on around the country I have yet to hear ONE rational reason given why anyone needs an assault rifle with a large capacity clip. Not one!

1. Assault rifles are big guns with lots of bullets. It is rational to argue that if you need a gun, I mean need a gun right this very moment...I'm talking life and death, here we go, lets rock, holy shit I needs me a gun...then bigger with more bulllets is better.

2. Fun. Sport and recreational shooters shoot large, high caliber weapons for fun. It may not be your idea of fun, but then I've never been fond of fondue, pictionary, or ballet...so to each his own. I'm no hunter but I love shooting rifles, shotguns, AR's, and I'd shoot a fracking cannon if they were not so expensive. And before you go spouting off about 'nobody died from ballet'...I agree. But what about recreational drinking? DUI's kill more people then accidental gun deaths. Alcohol is a central factor is Domestic Violence, assaults, etc.

3. Self defense. If the bad guy has a big gun, little gun, or no gun at all but is breaking into my home to kill my family I want to kill him with as big a gun and as many bullets as I can.

4. Vera, Jane's very favorite gun. Not much use in a firefight in space cause it could shoot through the outer hull, but they used it to kill that energy web thing and save the ship. In other words...the unexpected. You don't ever want to be in a situation where by some happenstance you need a big gun and a lot of bullets and you don't have it.

5. Killing commies. Or Jihadies. Or any foriegn 'sum bitch wants to come get some from the good old USA and somehow gets past the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are lined up to kick ass for the red, white, and blue. Assuming they did get past the Marines, I'm gonna need a little more then a six shot pea shooter to take care of business.

6. Killing tyrants...since 1776. The defense of liberty from any 'sum bitch that decides winning a couple elections makes him king.

H

Somehow I read all this to the imagined sounds of a banjo playing in the background.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 12:16 PM

AGENTROUKA

Hero,

but what if the teacher doesn't WANT to? Would you require them to get training and be ready to kill? Or heap guilt and blame on them when they choose not to?

Because I think this is not what a teacher's job is about and all this "if he had a gun" talk seems to imply it's something that could reasonably be expected. Teachers are not supposed to be armed bodyguards and raising that expectation places an unjust amount of responsibility on their shoulders and ignores the complex relationship that a teacher would have with a (presumably) familiar attacker. I find that completely unreasonable.

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

Friday, January 11, 2013 12:17 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
With all the debates and statements going on around the country I have yet to hear ONE rational reason given why anyone needs an assault rifle with a large capacity clip. Not one!

1. Assault rifles are big guns with lots of bullets. It is rational to argue that if you need a gun, I mean need a gun right this very moment...I'm talking life and death, here we go, lets rock, holy shit I needs me a gun...then bigger with more bulllets is better.

2. Fun. Sport and recreational shooters shoot large, high caliber weapons for fun. It may not be your idea of fun, but then I've never been fond of fondue, pictionary, or ballet...so to each his own. I'm no hunter but I love shooting rifles, shotguns, AR's, and I'd shoot a fracking cannon if they were not so expensive. And before you go spouting off about 'nobody died from ballet'...I agree. But what about recreational drinking? DUI's kill more people then accidental gun deaths. Alcohol is a central factor is Domestic Violence, assaults, etc.

3. Self defense. If the bad guy has a big gun, little gun, or no gun at all but is breaking into my home to kill my family I want to kill him with as big a gun and as many bullets as I can.

4. Vera, Jane's very favorite gun. Not much use in a firefight in space cause it could shoot through the outer hull, but they used it to kill that energy web thing and save the ship. In other words...the unexpected. You don't ever want to be in a situation where by some happenstance you need a big gun and a lot of bullets and you don't have it.

5. Killing commies. Or Jihadies. Or any foriegn 'sum bitch wants to come get some from the good old USA and somehow gets past the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are lined up to kick ass for the red, white, and blue. Assuming they did get past the Marines, I'm gonna need a little more then a six shot pea shooter to take care of business.

6. Killing tyrants...since 1776. The defense of liberty from any 'sum bitch that decides winning a couple elections makes him king.

Humorous, but I'm still waiting for anything rational.

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:25 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Humorous, but I'm still waiting for anything rational.

I listed several rational reasons, but you already disagree with the premise, therefore any reason that supports the conclusion you've predetermined must be irrational.

My reasons are self defense, defense of my family and home, defense of liberty, hunting, sport shooting, and tradition. All of these are rational and legitimate concerns.

You may not agree, fortunately for me your agreement is not required since my right in this matter is expressly enshrined in the Constituition. The burden is upon you, not me. Why shouldn't I have one, or ten, or a hundred? I've never broken a law in my life or acted in an unsafe manner for my firearms, I have training and experiance.

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:42 AM

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

No, 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all essentially the same: Self-defense. And none are RATIONAL reasons for having a weapon of war. The odds on ANY law-abiding citizen EVER being in a situation where an assault weapon is the only "rational" answer to the situation are astronomical. A gun, yes; assault weapons, no.

As to 2, comparing a few people's "right" to play with assault weapons when contrasted with how MANY times assault weapons are used to kill is not a "rational" reason.

None of this will go anywhere, as I posit that you and yours' minds are more closed than ours. You want ALL; everything you want to have; no restrictions. We want not to have just the weapons created for war available to any and all, sans background check, in some cases. There is no compromise for you and most of your fellow pro-gun advocates.

Arming teachers (which is an absurd idea in most of the world, and WOULD have been an absurd idea to anyone, prior to the proliferation of assault weapons within a society which has become high-pressured, unhealthy and accustomed to violence. Of COURSE the vast majority of teachers don't want to carry guns; some are doing it out of pressure; some are doing it out of fear; a few actually want to. But the concept is absurd, nonetheless, and would be at any other time in history and almost any other place than America.

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Humorous, but I'm still waiting for anything rational.

Have we forgotten Waco already, then ?

Seriously, if they HAD the weapons they were accused of having, that probably never would have happened - for the same reason that against any real threat all the jackboots do is cordon off the place and HIDE, whereas little old ladies get the whole gonzo showtime treatment.

There's this little thing called deterrent force, folks.

-F

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:21 AM

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

Quote:
for the same reason that against any real threat all the jackboots do is cordon off the place and HIDE

Frem, I'm sorry, but in my opinion your viewpoint is skewed. Not everywhere or everyone is as you see them where you are. Honest.

As to Waco: Against a tank flamethrower? Really??

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:24 AM

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

Speaking of an "armed populous",

Quote:
How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns In America Since Newtown?

The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate and the Twitter feed @GunDeaths are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete. But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation.

The answer? 695. In less than a month.

More, and interactive version of the above, with each case identifiable by clicking on it and an interactive map showing where they occurred at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_deat
h_tally_every_ american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

(had to cut URL to fit)

That figure is out of date, as it's dated the 8th, by the way. I wonder how many deer were killed in that time, and how many guns were successfully used by people to stop crime? I believe those are two of the arguments for gun ownership, aren't they?

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

Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Frem, I'm sorry, but in my opinion your viewpoint is skewed. Not everywhere or everyone is as you see them where you are. Honest.

As to Waco: Against a tank flamethrower? Really??

Niki, it wouldn't have got that far, all these efforts which have lead to things like that were against "soft" targets, the same way little old ladies get the hoo-rah treatment, while folks who are a realistic potential threat get left alone, or pulled over on the highway, or served phony court papers (to get em through the metal detector before they jump em), or whatnot.
That last was tried on me personally, mind you, I detailed the events of that before here, and it's the reason I ain't too welcome in Indiana.

But tactically, that's exactly what they do, corral the victims and bunker down, wait for the shooter to finish matters and usually take themself out, this protects no one but them, and exposes a certain risk aversion which is unconscienable in their employment.

That mall shooting incident was an example of one of the vanishingly rare times they did it right, move in immediately and start securing by section while evacuating civilians, and it *was* well done, I give that - and probably reduced the potential victim count significantly.
There's more options than blazing away, but no matter how often I say it, nobody hears it, cause that doesn't fit with their narrative, and that for both "sides", mind you.

Remember the FLDS mess ?
Remember how when the Texas authorities started making noise about pulling that shit on OTHER groups, causing them to make a massive run on local armament stocks ?
And just how fast did they turn around and affirm they *weren't* gonna do that ?

Despite all the foo-foo-rah about it (which was found out to be blatant lies) the feds actually thought the Davidions were LESS well armed than they were, which is why that pulled that stunt to begin with. and the backlash from it one can say prevented them from doing that crap to others.

So yes, there is deterrent effect, I've personally benefitted more than once from the perception that crossing irons with me might be a very bad idea, part of my defense of this place all but depends on it.
And from a wider angle, both social and individual - tell me, how often do these police shakedowns, beatdowns and harrassment occur against a CCW holder, hmmm ?
No one keeps stats on that, but generally once they see that yellow card it all turns real polite and professional, cause the risk isn't worth it not only cause they could get hurt, but because it would bring the gunbunnies down on them like the hammer of the gods, especially if someone got it on video.

It ain't the USE of the damn things which is the big factor, it is the PRESENCE.
Vimes sums it up pretty good in The Fifth Elephant upon encountering an assassins tool.

Quote:
‘This is not a weapon. This is for killing people,’ he said.

‘Uh, most weapons are,’ said Inigo.

‘No, they’re not. They’re so you don’t have to kill people. They’re for . . . for having. For being seen. For warning. This isn’t one of those. It’s for hiding away until you bring it out and kill people in the dark.’

Which is why most of the original infringements revolved around CONCEALED weapons, cause some folk felt similar about it, but these days if you tried to carry openly you'd start a panic cause of peoples mortal fear of a mere tool, whipped up by folks who *want* those tools to be feared, so that people don't have them, cause it gets in the way of their....
Intentions.

And I don't like that, not one bit I don't.
As I said, canary in the coal mine - asking me to disarm is IMHO equivalent to some skeezy guy asking you to take your clothes off, ain't NOTHING gonna follow that which is good.
Not. One. Damn. Thing.
Ever.

Sorry, but there I stand.
And I will *not* move.

-Frem

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

Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:59 AM

KWICKO

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

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:07 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Sorry, but there I stand.
And I will *not* move.

I for one respect your position.

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

Monday, January 14, 2013 7:36 AM

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

"Niki, it wouldn't have got that far" = in my opinion your viewpoint is skewed

"these days if you tried to carry openly you'd start a panic cause of peoples mortal fear of a mere tool" Bullshit--people openly carry in many places "these days" and nobody says squat.

"asking me to disarm"--who EXACTLY is asking you disarm?

Eh, why am I bothering...

Yeah, Mike, we here knew all about Ronny Ray-Guns long before the idiots in this country elected him President (which we watched in utter astonishment). The NRA wouldn't now, tho', as their focus has changed from bigotry (=fear) to selling guns to anyone, anytime, anywhere.

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, January 14, 2013 10:23 AM