a well regulated militia

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Nic Name
Who woulda thunk that the opportunity to correct Maggie's spelling would be all the incentive Jag would need to give us posts we can read. Thanks to both of you.

My theory is that Jag finally figured out how to pipe stuff from his browser to a spelling checker. So now he's spell checking his posts <b>and</b> mine. I can live with that. It works so well I'm not even going to point out the ones he's missing.

It may be somewhat akin to the subtle effect that eating with chopsticks has on the enjoyment of food. There's more to it than just better spelling.

[jaguar]

The foundation didn't have a crystal ball, only their wits and the occasional message. Whether it was predicted before or not is irrelevant. The message in the way they did things is the same and just as strong.

How about it just suggesting that he took his secrecy oath seriously...which is a vastly simpler explanation than inventing some mythical embarrassment? My point isn't that he wouldn't talk about it, but rather that he was working on weapons systems while writing the series, which casts some doubt on this "Asimov was a pacifist" theory of yours. Henlein was just as stubborn about not talking about his work there, and I can promise you he had no qualms about the work he was doing.

Quite possibly. There does seem to be a clash to me though. Maybe the work had an effect on the direction of the books, who knows, we can both espouse theories until the sun explodes, it’s pointless.

I'm still waiting for Urbane to get back to me.

Nah no spellcheck, they tend to be american spelling which annoys the hell out of me.
I'm just marginally more alert. In the middle of a batch of english pieces which helps too. It's generally not so much an issue of spelling (although ill admit mine is nowhere near as good as it should be) as typing.

[sib]

Originally posted by spinningfetus


what part of little minds didn't you understand?

The alterative to no assult rifles would be the swiss system wherein everyone by law is required to keep them. And I don't know if that would be that great of an idea in this country.

This was actually proposed in Vermont a few years back. Anyone that didn't own a gun would be assessed with a special "non-gun owning" tax of $500.

I love the state, but that scares the crap out of me.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legisla...2000/guns.html

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally posted by sib


This was actually proposed in Vermont a few years back. Anyone that didn't own a gun would be assessed with a special "non-gun owning" tax of $500.

I love the state, but that scares the crap out of me.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legisla...2000/guns.html

Why?

After all, that's almost heaven compared to the situation in California, where I live, with its blockheaded, genocide-friendly anti-"assault weapon" law. Until a couple of years back, one of the arms prohibited by this law (this has since been rectified by amendment) was a single-shot shotgun that had a pistol grip on it. It got on the banned list entirely because of its exotic looks. Of such irrationalities is antigun thinking built, and antigun/pro-genocide law passed.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally posted by jaguar

I'm still waiting for Urbane to get back to me.

A quick scan of your recent posts here shows me that not only would you rather remain in the poor moral condition of being someone who prefers to keep the gate open to genocide rather than to close it, but even worse, you declare in print that you are not even interested in lifting a finger or reading one lousy book to even prepare to become a moral person with a decent human being's degree of opposition to genocide and the creation of its necessary conditions. You shock and disgust me when you plead disinterest, as you did. You annoy and disgust me when you plead want of time to study, as I am sure you will.

I oppose genocide, and work to create conditions that strangle it stillborn. You would fertilize the ground for it to flower, and genocide is indeed a fleur du mal.

In words both short and curt, given all the above, just what the fuck do you think you have to say to me?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally posted by jaguar
That said I don't think the Khmer Rouge are a good example of the dangers of gun control. Obviously I’m no scholar of pre-revolutionary Cambodian/Indochina law and since you've declined to actually quote anything out of the holy bible of gun control you espouse so highly ill have to guess exactly what your point is. . .

So your conclusion appears to be that since massacres have and do occur under despotic regimes that have gun control, gun control is the key factor, not the existence of the despotic regime in genocides occurring. I assume the counterargument is that the despotic regime in question could not have come to power without weapons.

...I’m an irrational raving loony for opposing you.

I have not declined to quote anything. I merely have not done it yet. Now, how is it that you cannot think how the Khmer Rouge exemplify the perils of gun control? Gun control creates an imbalance of access to killing tools, and there is no surer way to guarantee the oppression of the unarmed by the armed than that. The Khmer Rouge had the guns, the general Cambodian populace had none, and there are two million bleaching human skulls piled in pyramids all over Cambodia, with gun control a contributing factor in these needless deaths. When someone is seized with such a Big Idea that his morals go into suspension, general misery is invariably the result. Adolf Hitler had a Big Idea. Pol Pot had a Big Idea. Mao Tse-Tung, the same Big Idea. Lethal Laws gives a deliberately conservative accounting of their butcher's bill.

Herewith, in translation, is the text of the relevant sections of Cambodia's Code Pénal et Lois Pénales:

From Royal Ordinance no. 71, of 11 April 1935:

Art. 322 -- The manufacture of, importation of, dealing iin, and distribution of firearms, of weapons using liquefied gases, of weapons using compressed air, of ammunition, and of explosive materials or devices, is forbidden. Violations of this prohibition are punished as first degree criminal offenses. In all cases, the making of a weapon or of ammunition for the personal use of the maker is punished as set forth in Article 324.

Art. 323 -- The manufacture, importations, and the distribution of steel weapons of the same type used in the military; of concealable offensive weapons such as a stiletto, dagger, switchblade, truncheon, barss knuckles, etc., is forbidden. Violations of this prohibition are punished as third degree criminal offenses. The additional punishments of a loss of civil rights and a prohibition against entering certain localities may also be imposed. In all cases, the making of a weapon for the personal use of the maker is punished as set forth in Article 325.

Art. 324 -- The acquisition of firearms, of weapons using liquefied gas or compressed air -- and of ammunition -- their possession, storage, or carrying are prohibited to all persons not provided with the prescribed permit, according to the conditions set forth by the regulations established by the French authority. Violations of this prohibition are punished as third degree offenses.
All persons convicted of having sold, given, loaned, rented, or entrusted weapons or ammunition which they had a right to possess, to a person not provided with the prescribed permit, are punished as accomplices to the crime specified above.

From Royal Ordinance No. 55 of 28 March 1938

Art. 325. (Amendment resulting from Law no. 791-NS of 29 May 1953) -- The carrying of offensive or concealed steel weapons, i.e., of truncheons, brass knuckles -- and all weapons of the same type -- is prohibited, as is the transportation of such arms without a legitimate reason.

All persons found on a public road, carrying -- or transporting -- a concealed offensive weapon, are punished with the correctional penalty of the first degree.

Carrying of arms at an election campaign gathering: see Criminal Code: Article 283.

Art. 326 -- A holder of a permit to carry weapons -- whether issued for a fee or gratis -- who, without proper authorization, buys or obtains ammunition, is punished with first degree correctional penalties. The revocation of the permit to carry weapons may, besides, be ordered. The same punishments apply in the case of the sale or the exchange of weapons without prior notification.

Art. 327 -- Every violation of the regulations on permits to carry weapons -- whether the permit is issued gratis or after payment of a fee -- is punished with the correctional penalties of the first degree; moreover, revocations of the permits may be ordered. This also applies to the following: the renewal of a permit, the presentation of permits -- issued gratis or paid -- for periodic authorization; the declaration of the loss of a weapon, of ammunition, or a permit; the handing over of a weapon, ammunition, or a permit, when the permit has expired, been revoked, or when the bearer has died or disappeared.

Art. 328 -- Every person convicted of having kept a weapon -- for a period exceeding eight days -- after the revocation or suspension of the permit, is punished with the penalties applicable to one who owns a weapon without a permit. The possession of several weapons by one who has a single-weapon permit -- and equally the possession of an amount of ammunition exceeding that authorized -- is punished by correctional penalties of the first degree; the revocation of the permit may be ordered. (punctuation as in the original)

These laws set up a very tight control over arms and ammunition of all types. Even air rifles come under this control, though somewhat more loosely regulated. Permits were issued solely at the government's discretion. This setup means that only the favored of the government get arms; everyone else is shut out.

Note that these regulations were in effect for decades before the Killing Fields fell upon the Cambodians' unsuspecting heads -- and their heads fell upon those fields. To say that one cannot see warning signs of genocide on the horizon is to say nothing or worse than nothing; genocide is always a surprise to its targets. Always.

Since despotic regimes always have the gun control without which they cannot long exist, I think you draw a distinction without a difference.

For the moment, I don't think I'll call you irrational -- merely "ignorant and prejudiced by your environment." It is not that you oppose me, but that I oppose you.

[jaguar]

This is quite amusing. I think I've just met a new type of individual. I've never had the misforture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H privilege of coming across somehow how has spliced the absolute moral piety, righteous fury and unshakable faith of a fundie with the 'logical clarity' of a gun rights type. No offence to gun rights people, there are many logical and sound arguments there, I don't debate that. You on the other hand are an entertaining mass of utter trash. "Moral inferiority", outright abuse and the most pious, pompous pile of pontificated pissfarting around I've been unlucky enough to bother replying to. (can you tell I'm feeling like talking in alliterations) .

Since despotic regimes always have the gun control without which they cannot long exist, I think you draw a distinction without a difference.

Yes. That was my point. The regime leads to genocide, and gun control is an aspect of the regime. Not the other way round. Thus genocide is the product of the regime, not gun control. Find an example of a non-despotic regime with gun control committing genocide.

Yes. This is a topic that does not greatly interest me? Different people are passionate about different things, this may come as a shock to your system. Want me to talk stuff that really interests me? Talk politics, foreign affairs, international disputes, diplomacy, technology, and society. Not gun control. Why read your book? I know what's in it; it will not interest me and I doubt ill glean anything interesting from it.

It is not that you oppose me, but that I oppose you.

Come back when you can construct a sentence that makes sense, fool. I was reading your post in class, you had people literally crying they were laughing so hard at your farcical attempts at arguments coupled with such a ridiculous tone. I never thought I'd say it but I'd far rather argue with Maggie about this, she at least generally has a point worth listening to. I don't want time to study whatever you think i should. I have no interest in conforming your narrow definition of a moral person, in fact the entire concept scares me. Your myopic malise is better kept to whatever hole in the ground you crawled out of. Ill waste no more of my time reply to your flamebiat filled frivilious posts, your tone and message make a good enough mockery of you on their own.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Find an example of a non-despotic regime with gun control committing genocide.

Um...tell you what. Find an example of a non-despotic regime comitting genocide, and then we'll talk. :-) I kind of think despotic power (<i>absolute in power; possessing and abusing unlimited power; tyrannical; arbitrary</i>) is a prerequisite to committing genocide.

I never thought I'd say it but I'd far rather argue with Maggie about this, she at least generally has a point worth listening to

Gun prohibition is quite naturally a subject that enflames emotions, both on the part of the people who wish to disarm others, as well as the people whom they wish to disarm. Because of this, I do my best to try to keep the debate on-point and with as little vitriol as possible.

Losing control and spewing in a public forum does little to convince folks that your position is well thought-out and reasonable, no matter which position you espouse. And there certainly are uncontrolled spewers on both sides of this debate.

"When the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- John Locke

[jaguar]

Um...tell you what. Find an example of a non-despotic regime committing genocide, and then we'll talk. :-) I kind of think despotic power (absolute in power; possessing and abusing unlimited power; tyrannical; arbitrary) is a prerequisite to committing genocide.

You love reiterating my points don't you?

Gun prohibition is quite naturally a subject that enflames emotions, both on the part of the people who wish to disarm others, as well as the people whom they wish to disarm. Because of this, I do my best to try to keep the debate on-point and with as little vitriol as possible.

Unlike the not-so urbane guerrilla. I have to admit I’m coming round on this issue. In the end I think it depends if you want a big government or not, or at least the degree of government control. In the end I think the basis of my opinion is that I don't like the majority having power, on the whole they are stupid, myopic and apathetic. Doesn't mean its no the best system but...

[Undertoad]

This begs a question:

on the whole they are stupid, myopic and apathetic.

Then how can they be trusted with the vote?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
You love reiterating my points don't you?

Um...not always. Here I thought you were saying "It's because a regime is despotic that it comits genocide."

My point is that a regime can <b>become</b> despotic because its power is absolute, and to hold absolute power one thing they must do is disarm their people. A regime that is bent on disarming people is one that is moving to consolidate its power.

Unlike the not-so urbane guerrilla. I have to admit I’m coming round on this issue. In the end I think it depends if you want a big government or not, or at least the degree of government control. In the end I think the basis of my opinion is that I don't like the majority having power, on the whole they are stupid, myopic and apathetic. Doesn't mean its no the best system but...

And it's that apathy that makes it possible for a depot to gain control. This is why folks opposed to gun prohibition feel they need to raise their voices every time there's a move to prrohibit guns.

Even in the "violent , militaristic" US, most people don't have guns. Being already disarmed, they are apathetic on the issue; there's this sheep-like "doesn't affect me, sounds like a good idea, go ahead" reaction and then they roll over and go back to sleep. Then when trouble comes to their door, and the cops show up half an hour later, they're outraged and look for somebody to sue.

Those of us who <b>do</b> care about this issue often feel we must speak strongly for our voices to be heard. Unfortunately, for some folks this sometimes combines with frustration from trying to explain our views to the "sheeple" to produce strident, hyperbolic tone of rhetoric. All I can say in defense of that is there's plenty of hyperbole on the other side too.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Then how can they be trusted with the vote?

They can't be trusted UT! Dontcha know that's why we have the electoral college?

[jaguar]

Then how can they be trusted with the vote?

Zactly. Thats why i've always had leaning towards Plato and his enlightened dictatorship, pity such a thing is close to impossible.

Interesting, i doubt up the arguement you just put forward in my origional reply to urbane but forgot to rebut it hehehehe.

I'm still not buying that arguement though. For a start a few civvies with guns is not going to ahve any effective presence against an organised army (bloody sunday anyone?) The number i cannot see anywhere would be large enough to ahve an impact even if they were organised anyway. In the case of cambodia it certinaly didn't stop the Khmer Rouge getting weaponary either.

Half your country didn't bother to vote, its not just guns they're apathetic about.

[MaggieL]

OK, I now beleive Jag's not spell checking. Anymore. :-)

Once again I'll say: the effect and effectiveness of an armed citizenry in preserving their own freedom is something that can't be understood in terms of raw firepower.

Especially since the standing army is drawn from our own populace--in the event of an internal conflict the military would simply not be reliable. (We saw this the *last* time we had open armed conflict in the country.) We do have 1.37 million on active duty with our armed forces. But the population of the country is 278 million including about 71 million males age 15-49. And many of the males older than that know a hell of a lot about guerilla warfare; having learned it while matriculating at the University of The Nam.

Having a armed citizenry is a "canary in the coalmine" too. A despotic regime would have to disarm the citizens first, which is another reason a lot of us see red when our right to self-defense is threatened.

[juju]

Jag, even your custom user text is mispelled. How about re-reading your messages before you post them? It might make it easier to sway people over to your point-of-view.