6/6/2002: PETA advertisement

UK readers will be familiar with this already, I'm guessing. It's a frame from a PETA advertisement that was set to run in cinemas, but was pulled when people felt it was... inappropriate.

The ad features the woman being clubbed to death for her fur coat. Bright folk will see the analogy they're trying to make...

Morons...

... PETA or the censors?

You, nic.

PETA...they just irritate the fuck out of me. It shouldn't have been censored, although I can see why. It could "inspire" people to start beating up on fur-wearers. Perhaps they could have put a disclaimer at the bottom.

If people want to wear fur, that's their right. If I owned one, and someone threw paint on me, it would take all the willpower I have to keep from beating the living fuck out of the vandal.

All depends where the fur comes from as far as i'm concerned.

Oh, my misunderstanding. I thought the image was of a dead PETA vandal who had sprayed paint on that pimp's fur coat.

I remember cracking up to an early Bobcat Goldwaith bit:

"Oh no, I dont eat beef. But I'd kill a cow in second for a cool coat."

I wonder if our righteous dude is striding away in his fine Italian leather shoes...just out of frame.

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore One day I AM going to own a fur coat in an attempt to be cool.

One in america would shooting someone with a painball gun give you the the justification to blow their head off *sighs*

lol now that is amazingly dumb. There are two types of painball, liquid capsules which are pretty harmless and the hard-ball powderpaint ones which can be muchos nasty.

Syc - what is 'legal' and waht is even vaguely ethical are often completely different, in many countires its still 'legal' to hunt endangered species.

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore One day I AM going to own a fur coat in an attempt to be cool.

If someone is driving towards you, past you, aobve you or undernearth you you'd have to be close to deaf not to be able to tell teh diff between a paintball gun and submachinegun, or even a pistol. As for doing a driveby with a 9mm, you'd have to be pretty damn accurate to say the least to be able to hit a moving target while moving pretty dman fast with a single round. I don't really knwo waht drivebys are usually done with, i haven't ehard of one in Australia ever i think, and certainly not in lembourne, and that kinda thing would make the news here, nearly all gun killings do, they are rare(nuff said?). On the other hand i don't see why a you need a 9mm either. Can be drop the gun debate all? its just gonna be long, boring and ugly, this isn't slashdot =)

As for legality, i'm sure the majority of the killing does not happen in the US. Is it a crime to own one of an endangered animal or only to make?

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore Let us make no mistake that I am inherently cool; however, the fur coat and fedora would make me pimp supreme.

I've always been fond of the bumper sticker that goes along the lines, "People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it's safer to harass rich women than biker gangs."

Not true. I once knew a criminal who had never broken a law in his life.

Eh, I had 9th graders making this argument to me when I was 14. I told them the same thing then, and they still insisted on it when they were 17.

Quit being so goddamn gullible and buying the shit that your parents feed to you. Look at it realistically, for Christ's sake. Just because guns are illegal doesn't mean that criminals won't get them - not by a long shot.

juju - then I guess he's not actually a criminal, is he?

paintball fun

I think that only a complete idiot would take a persons' life over being shot with a paintball gun.

You can't just kill someone because you're having an adrenaline rush, are angry, think the guy was an asshole, want to "get even", want to save face, or believe you will get away with it because you can simply say "I though it was a real gun".

The American mentality is such that some would not only kill the pranskter but everyone else in the car in their instant rage. And why not? It's going to be easy to beat in court, and a perfect chance to use your gun on some unarmed kids.

It's crazy.

Re: paintball fun

duh

I'm not saying pointing fake weapons at people is a good idea, it isn't. You'll probably get shot, especially if you do it in America, land of the well armed and trigger happy.

Of course it's our right to be well armed and trigger happy, and to walk down the street, hand in pocket on trusty Glock 9mm, round in the pipe, safety off, just waiting for the chance to double tap some kid with a super soaker who saw too many Clint Eastwood movies. I wonder what his mom would say afterwards.

It's our right, after all. Hell, that squirt gun coulda been a real gun, shoot it LOOKED real. Best tried by 12 than carried by 6! Hey buddy, in today's America I'm not taking any chances.

Whatever.

This brings to mind one of my favorite Jack Handey Deep Thoughts, which I know Tony is a fan of. I will recite it here, from memory.

"I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and hand it to him."

It's funny because both you and I know that anyone doing that would be shot. The Secret Service isn't going to take any chances to distinguish between a chocolate revolver and a real gun.

It's not at all about getting a chance to use your piece. It's being frightened for your life and neutralizing the threat.

I have to make a comment here. I have played paintball. Each marker sounds different. The marker I owned was fully automatic and loud as fuck. It could easily be mistaken as fully automatic gun. It was acctually designed as a training weapon. I would however not recomend it as it jammed more often than my AK.

Now if I beat down a PETA actress with an aluminum baseball bat, am I hitting her with a sports accessory or a weapon? Then isn't shooting "Jag the packin'ist pimp" with a paintball marker, assault with a deadly weapon? Don't fool yourself, a hot shot to the eyes at 300+ fps can kill.

I don't know what I would do If I was in Jag's place but I believe it is his right to defend his person, with deadly force if required.

So to turn that around, if a furry animal can't defend itself against anal electrocution or poison gases, tough shit. To put things in perspective I am a vegetarian that wears leather shoes and hates cows.

Re: duh

This kind of thing has happened before. Try doing a google search for 'police mistook toy gun'. I could produce a laundry list of incidents, but I won't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name I think brandishes is the correct idiom.

and you can get unimaginable legal grief for that? i can't imagine.

Hmmm...maybe the caps were a bit too much...let me see if I can assist here.

Jag, if criminals want a gun, they will get a gun. Period. You could pass 50-11 laws to restrict their ownership and use. And would they work? I doubt it. If they banned handguns in the city of Philadelphia, I could probably still go over to W. Erie Ave. and buy one for $50-500.

An honest law-abiding citizen is very rarely going to act a fool with their gun. Sure, you have the rare instances. But for every Columbine, there are millions of people who store, carry, and use their gun properly. Why would an honest citizen WANT to ruin their chances of owning a gun by being stoopid?

"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."--Unknown

Jag - I think we all agree that it's more difficult to get a gun if they're banned. The problem is that the select few criminals who do get them will use them for intimidation and crime - not necessarily killing, but to, say, force a woman to submit to a rape, or to hand over the keys to the car, etc.

Let's just all agree that, because Maggie carries, she's not getting raped and her vehicle isn't getting carjacked.

Guns are pretty fucking terrible - no doubt about it. Any instrument whose purpose is to take life is not a good thing. The problem is that by denying firearms for protection purposes, one collectively lowers the safety level of a society.

You can probably walk around and not worry about getting shot, and that's certainly a valuable freedom to have. But... suppose you and your girly are walking around and some fuckholes come up and take her and your wallet and just like that, she's a rape victim and you're a few hundred dollars poorer. Maybe that kind of stuff doesn't happen in Australia, and if that's the case, that's great. But it does happen here - Baltimore, Washington, Dallas... Christ, that's why Texas has so many goddamn executions.

Taking away the guns is attacking the <b>symptom</b>, not the problem. Truth be told, we need to spend more money on education and getting people out of the slums - not giving them a hand out, but a hand up. An educated young man with a lot to lose is less likely to murder someone on the streets than a 17 year old crack addict who can't read.

All these politicians talk a real good talk - "let's ban guns" and "guns kill people" and "there's no reason to own a gun" - yet their bodyguards carry. Rosie O'Donnel, organizer of the million mom march, outspoken on gun control... and her body guard is registered to carry a firearm. Why? Why is she more important than me? Bill Clinton and his cronies argue for gun control... what, are the Secret Service carrying butter knives to protect POTUS?

Imagine how different the world might be if the passengers on 175, 77, 11 and 93 had guns. Hijackers wouldn't have stood a chance.

Imagine how less likely someone would be to break into a house or mug a person on the street if the population was 99% armed and <b>they knew that</b>.

We can't un-do the gun, and it's a damn shame. So we have to live with it. Unfortunately, the only way one can protect oneself against a gun is by having a gun. I wish there were some other way, but there just isn't.

Well that is my point dham - if you need to be packing a 9mm to feel safe something else is seriously fucking screwed. To be honest if i know i'm going somehwere dodgy late at night i've been known to carry a 6 inch flick blade but its rare and i've never been in a situation where i've been forced to use it. ANY crime here involving guns detonates the apeshit alert, whether someone is shot or not, if there is one thing the cops don't like is crims with guns, its sht shooting of thsoe who carry them is not uncommon. I can see what you're saying, i'm just switching words around.

guns

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is more to gun ownership than being able to hit a target. What is needed is *discipline*, and a whole lot of it. As a gun owner you will be held to a higher standard than someone else, because you will be responsible for making snap life-or-death decisions during times of stress.

One of those decisions may be to determine if you have been assaulted with a weapon or a toy. If you cannot tell a paintball gun from a real gun, may I suggest some additional firearms safety classes and maybe some time on a paintball range getting shot with paintballs. That way when some complete idiot shoots you with a toy gun in a spasm of stupidity, your first instinct isn't a panicked "Oh my god, I've been shot!" but rather a much calmer "That was a paintball", and let your actions follow from there. It is perhaps unrealistic to suggest to an American to make this distinction, since it takes a whole lot less mental effort to simply say "I thought it was a real gun, so I killed the him to be on the safe side".

Life, or death.

You might also ask yourself how you're going to feel afterwards if you a)killed the paintball idiot to be on the safe side or b)managed to keep your gun in your pocket through the whole incident without anyone even knowing you had one.

I know my argument isn't going to work, that if someone shoots you with a paintball gun from a moving car, making it look every bit like a drive-by shooting, that you will probably kill the shooter. I'm just making a case to avoid tragedy, since kids do some really dumb things in their adolescent years. It is perhaps unrealistic to hope that someone more mature might be able, in a split second, to do enough thinking for two people at once, and save the day.

Re: guns

Another thread hijacking by People Explaining Toy Arms

Just for the record, America isn't quite the gun-happy country that everyone seems to think it is. In my admittedly short 17 years on this earth, spent almost entirely in the Washington DC area, I have seen exactly one person openly carrying. Of course, it's possible that every other stranger I cross on the street has a piece in each pocket, but that is illegal. 'Course, maybe it's different in Texas.

Isn't Washington D.C. the murder capital of the world?

Could be; I'm not certain. It's worth mentioning that when I say "washington DC area" I mostly mean "washington DC suburbs," but I do go into the city fairly often. All I mean to say is that, contrary to how it's often portrayed, this country isn't some kind of modern Everquest zone where everyone walks around with a weapon drawn in case somebody looks at them funny.

FBI statistics on murder rates. Washington D.C. ranks 41 in 2000.

Contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe, there is abundant evidence that enforcing gun control laws reduces the gun homicide rate.

Heh. Guess my earlier point isn't worth much, then. Ah well.

Say, does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.

Not saying I know what those numbers are, mind you.

We have an interesting concept here called an effective polcie force. It eman i can wander around without having to worry about being mugged. I can walk though the centre of the city and take a train home @ 1am without being even vaguely worried about my safty. I don't need a gun to feel safe. As for 'you're safer with' you're starting ot sound liek the NRA and that blatnatly untrue series of adverts they put up about australia.

We have an interesting concept here called freedom. It means that we don't need our government ordering us around and doing things that are "for our own good".

We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this.....

I realize you're almost certainly using hyperbole, but could you please stop using "m16" as an example of a gun people carry around? It's stupid, and getting on my nerves.

It goes a bit beyond "hyperbole" when used in a sentence like that. This "high-school debate team" level of discourse does get old after a while.

Jag says (or tries to): "We have the same freedoms, we just can't wander around with an M-16".

But the truth is we *don't * have the same freedoms, and I think that's one reason we hear so much sour grapes about how there "must be something wrong" with people who exercize their right to be armed.

It would be *nominally* legal for me to open carry an AR-15 (I'm not about to pay the confiscatory tax we have here on full-auto M-16) and "wander around". (Of course, that's another of jag's favorite images on this issue: gun owners out looking for an excuse to shoot something, like one of those teenage fire brigade volunteers that eventually get caught starting fires just so they have something to put out).

But the actual fact is that "wandering around with an AR-15" anyplace but the state game lands would get me picked up for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" in the more populated areas of the state in fairly short order.

Where we *don't* have the same freedoms is when it comes down to the right to carry an effective personal defense weapon. I have that freedom and jag doesn't, so to resolve that dissonance he needs to paint gun owners as a trigger-happy lunatics.

I know *lots* of legal gun owners. As a group, they are polite, mature, restrained, careful, and tend very much to mind their own business. The kind of irresponsible personalities that one could characterize as "trigger happy" spent their youth out blowing up mailboxes (or over in NJ shooting cyclists with paintball guns), and by the time they reach adulthood have usually accumulated enough of a police record that they are no longer allowed to posess firearms legally.

Okok I値l stop the hyperbolic crap and try and keep this realistic. (as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).

My guess is that I知 arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I知 willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect. This novel concept, properly implemented means I don't need to carry a loaded firearm, whether it be a glock or a minigun for my personal protection. Owning a firearm for recreational purposes I wouldn't have a problem with, there are many gun clubs here and they are thriving, but the the point is for sport only - not personal defence.

The bill of rights is an amazingly socially advanced document, there is no question about that - in reality I壇 question just how well things like freedom of speech and freedom of associating actually exist but... Governmental control of these things is of course an icky issue however you look at it and there is always going to have to be a delicate balance drawn between the effectiveness of law enforcement, the freedom of the populace and the power of businesses. Some of the intelligence laws here (http://www.efa.org.au), are starting to lean toward the draconian - all in the name of the war on terror an issue that is starting to and will continue to generate ever-growing dislike but the gun control laws (admittedly passed in the wake of a slaughter committed by one man in Tasmania that would not have been possible without an automatic weapon) generated little concern outside the firearms community. The main argument against was farmers ability to effective control pests such as kangaroos, the issue was never one of positive rights. Abstract 'rights' while making you feel nice are kind of pointless unless they are useful for something. Correct me if I知 wrong but the original purpose of being able to own firearms was as a balance-of-power thing between the people and the state? Neither this or the need to be able to 'best' or 'match' the firepower of thsoe would do us harm is an issue here. I would hope an armed rebellion would not b necessary to keep a democratic system democratic (then again *thinks back* I could be wrong). Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups, if a political here tried to be elected on a platform of 'lets bring god closer to the presidency' I doubt they'd do well at all. Here the government is actively funding stem cell research, despite the lambasting of the Catholic Church. The kind of militant support that the gun lobby has over there may be based on something solid, but from here with a reasonably effective police force and an extremely (by comparison to most) peaceful history, it seems outmoded and unnecessary.

Sorry couldn't help this one
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
by George Orwell

Requires knowledge of the image in question which many people here would know. Basicly it says "argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard" fark refers to a website called fark.com , talk a look.

I missed one point, on the whole i'm sure gun owners are a responsible group, and i'm sure paintball gun owners are, but there always will be a minority....

Jag, while I respect what you have to say, and I am by no means calling you stupid, this may be a situation that is simply not quite understood by non-Americans. Even some Americans might not understand.

The second amendment of the US constitution is very precious to many people in this country.

"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."

Now granted, this amendment is 211 years old. But even if interpreted in modern times, one could interpret it as "In order to keep our country free, people have the right to have guns, knives, etc."

I used to believe a lot of what you're saying, jag. In fact, if I were still a resident of the state of Missouri, I would probably vote to keep the ban against concealed weapons (one of only 7 states I believe to have this ban) b/c I find most Missourians beyond St. Louis to have the IQ of a sock.

But seriously, the second amendment is an unshakable belief that is as strong as our first amendment. The amendments are part of the foundation of our country, and are what make our society truly unique. The Constitution was created so that Americans would never have to suffer as they did under Union Jack rule. People bearing arms are what helped us become the United States of America.

As a whole, our police forces are rather effective, and it's a shame that a few bad apples fuck it up for everyone. While we have laws that govern us, and police that protect us, we are an individualistic society (for better or for worse). We control our destinies for the most part...and that includes the right to protect ourselves in a legal manner, with guns if we choose to do so.

Criminals are bad...they are selfish, and care for nobody but themselves. So, they will do whatever they desire to get over on you.

Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked."

I don't like guns. And maybe I'm risking my life by not carrying one, but that's my decision. I feel able to carry on my life in the city of Philadelphia by not carrying one. And maybe restrictive gun laws are helping us. But we still have people on the street, using semi-automatic weapons, killing each other. People using guns in robberies, assaults. And now, we have people getting creative...passing notes to tellers in bank windows, using no weapon whatsoever.

To me, it's about the criminal element. We have to find better ways to stop the criminal element before it starts. Education...man, that is so damned important. People need to get themselves schooled. Learn that they can succeed in life without having to resort to criminal activity. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds, but somehow, we have to find a way in this country to show that good always trumps bad. Throwing people in prison and restricting our freedoms doesn't seem to be helping that.

In conclusion, we are a unique country that has developed under unique circumstances. Many of our people believe in the right to bear arms, and for the most part, it has worked well over the past 226 years. And so long as law-abiding citizens are not using those arms to infringe upon my individual rights, why the fuck should I care?

Effective police force?

Is this the effective police force you speak of?

http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/alert200205.html

In the USA it's called the PATRIOT ACT.

Googlejag

Re: Effective police force?

http://www.peta.edu.au/

using sex in an attempt to get the thread off gun contol ...

syc i know the second amendment to quote myself

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked."

Pink fails to change the topic ...

I own a number of guns, but I don't carry.

Okay, now I'll say something.

Maggie is not the only one here who openly owns a gun(s), will admit to it, carries one for personal protection, and generally supports the NRA. I am 100% right behind her (I love the womens' movement from here). She is doing a fine job of defending herself and her opinions without me muddying the waters.

But you never know who might be on her side without saying it.

Brian

PS to Maggie, I gave you a free pass on that misquote about the ends justifying the means in an earlier forum.
You owe me one.

B

Site was interesitng, man, long list of anti-gun groups/companies/individuals/flowerbeds/corperations/foundations
. Seem to be lots of school groups, psychologists groups and victims groups, the kind pf people who ahve to clean up the mess afterwards *sighs*. Odd about that. The lobbying to liberals page didn't work which is what i was most interested in =( (anyone ahve a better link for it?)
FAQ was kinda brief. Interesting group. Am i the only one that found the use an what looks like an assult rifle mount/butt worrying?

Syc once again, i wonder how they came into being......
Argh, this is pointless.

Re: Okay, now I'll say something.

Re: Re: Okay, now I'll say something.

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore Hence why I used a disclaimer. I'm going to use Jesus in future hypothetical situations. "If Jesus had his trusty 9mm..." WWJD?

One day we'll live in a socity where minorities won't need firearms to feel safe, where tollerance is the norm, where people can walk the streets in safty. Hell will freeze over first but it might happen.


best i could do, i was looking for another one.
I was looking for the one i knew of, it had the text "fucking crazy" under a pic of jesus holding a 9mm so i did a goodle image search for "fuck jesus". It came up with the MSN logo......

Yeah! That rules!

Jesus: Holy Land Ranger

Re: Okay, now I'll say something.

They haven't heard "An armed society is a polite society."

One is more inclined to be polite to anyone (not necessarily queer) who is known to be packing a gun, is one not?

wink

Brian

This just in ...

Posted on Mon, Jun. 10, 2002

Court rejects review on gun ownership
BY JAMES VICINI
Reuters

WASHINGTON - - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday stayed out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, a position advocated by the Bush administration in reversing the government's long-held policy.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department last month said the right to bear arms does not apply just to state militias, a change in policy denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association.

The Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in the two cases, leaving intact federal appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.

The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."

That legal position still stands since the Supreme Court issued no new ruling. But in one of the cases the high court passed up on Monday, an appeals court did support the Bush administration position on an individual's right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment states: "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."

RIGHT SUBJECT TO 'REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS'

In a footnote in the two cases, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the government now takes the position that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of the militia, to bear firearms.

Olson said the right was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

The Justice Department has said it plans to defend vigorously the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of all existing federal firearms laws.

The administration's shift in position first surfaced in May last year in a letter by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association. It was repeated in a memo sent in November to all federal prosecutors.

In one of the cases, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry guns, but that exceptions do exist.

The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional.

The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.

Interesting....Sure sounds like legal war over there. Is gay bashing still a common thing? I've heard a few cases but nothign widespread. Same applies here, i've seen a few really offputting things here (one of my best friends and her gf kissing at a public train station copped some pretty nasty verbal abuse ) but it seems pretty isloated and rare.

The 2nd Amendment made sense when muskets were the pinnacle of weaponry, and it was reasonable to expect some sort of balance between the military power of the govt and of the people. It is now 100 years obsolete -- made so by the power of modern weaponry vs. the irresponsibility of Joe American.

Anybody who honestly believes a few handguns and assault rifles would have *any* chance of deterring a govt assault by anything more threatening than a letter opener-wielding battalion of postal carriers... is sadly, and ridiculously, mistaken. We need tanks, missiles, and tactical nukes! Now how safe would you feel knowing your drunk neighbor had a couple tactical nukes at his disposal? Not very. I believe, however, the 2nd Amendment gave that right, but it's obsolete and frankly (don't shoot me ) should be repealed.

The classic NRA anti-govt opression line is Grade A bullshit. The real reason: power vs. fellow citizen, whether that's vs. a potential criminal, bullies in a bar, or some schmuck boinking your wife. Now, whether "law-abiding" citizens should have that power is debatable, but not, I feel, within the scope or intent of the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore There's ALWAYS wiggle room. You can always have the right, but that doesn't mean that it can't be restricted, therefore preserving that right. Not that it SHOULD, but it COULD be.

Just an aside, actually the Man of War was the pinnacle of military technology at that time. Private persons owned well armed ships as well, but nothing capable of going toe to toe. Comparable to me having a backhoe vs a Fed tank, potentially useful but really not effective... not that I've considered such things.

The reference to militia has only caused confusion when folks have tried to apply the clause without reference to militia, like it was a case of bad drafting because it doesn't fit well the current perceived needs.

It seems clear that the concern addressed by the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the freedom of the State in a federation. Having been formed by revolution against a government, and viewing themselves as independent sovereign states such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal union of states was "conditional" on certain assurances of freedom of the State from the federation. High on the list was the right of the people to continue to keep and bear their arms to defend the State from the other states and the federation, if need be. Having just proved that an armed militia was necessary to achieve freedom of self determination it was the accepted notion.

In the context of the period, the people had just fought a revolution against their legitimate government, so self-determination was a very high priority and the founding fathers realized that such rights are often achieved and maintained by armed forces of the people of the State seeking self determination.

There are still folks in the NRA who still see their guns as the best defence against their own federal government. Ruby Ridge, etc.

For many, that notion is anachronistic. For others, it is a clear example of why the people need to stockpile weapons in their homes.

In modern times, many Americans interpret the constitutional language to support their current perceived need pack heat to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, terrorists and assorted mofos.

self defense 401

I think that the typical person who thinks they need a gun really just needs a way to stop an attacker.

What about alternate means? More of these are being developed all the time, some are pretty cool.

I want one where I can throw or aim a device at an approaching mugger that instantly encases him in some kind of clear acrylic, tougher than steel but light enough that I can still cart the suspect into a courtroom on a dolly as exhibit A.

"See your honor? Look at that expression on his face, and the way that knife is raised, he was definately up to no good".

Re: self defense 401

Unfortunate reality: most of those alternate self-defense gizmos are basically shit for self defense. Pepper spray hurts, but there's no guarantee it'll drop a guy, and even less you can get to it fast. Same for ranged tasers. Guns don't really improve on those flaws, but at least you can get training for one; don't think I've ever heard of a course in pepper-spray use.

Touch tasers are even worse, though. Have to get the guy in the neck for the full effect, see. Nearly impossible to do that in a struggle, but it's easy when you're sneaking up behind someone. In other words, it's a lovely weapon for rapists and crap for stopping them.

This illustrates one of the core gun-control fallacies: that a weapons prohibition law will prevent criminals from arming themselves more than it prevents law-abiding people from defending themselves..

It's just not true....law-abiding citizens comply with laws *much* more than criminals do; why that's so hard to follow escapes me. And prohibitions that create contraband really never work. In an ideal world they might, but then an ideal world wouldn't need laws.