Guns will protect you from tsunamis.
NRA's wacky graphic novel:
Freedom In Peril: Guarding the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century
If you're not scared enough to buy a riot gun today by this fear-mongering, then I don't know what else could make you.
Ever think it might be determination to prevail rather than 'fear', Hip? Bet you've not... the antis have the oddest mindset, being over-hostile to self defense and all the human rights it helps guarantee. But do they ever see that deeply? Not on your life.
I am persuaded, on abundant evidence and stellar reasoning (no, not my own, you grabasstic unorganized wombat-schtupper), that if you're gun people, you are smarter.
I am persuaded, on abundant evidence and stellar reasoning (no, not my own, you grabasstic unorganized wombat-schtupper), that if you're gun people, you are smarter.
No. Just better armed.
And if you think that is smarter.......
Oh god...here we go again....
No. Just better armed.
And if you think that is smarter.......
Yes, as a matter of fact, we do.
UT, sorry for my duplicate post, haven't been around that much anymore and kinda lost the daily touch. Looked for a delete button, but couldn't find it.
Anywayz.... your knee jerk response was expected, UG. I guess that's why you chose that silly handle. Maybe you were born 150 years late? Guns for brains...
I am persuaded, on abundant evidence and stellar reasoning, that if you're gun people, you are smarter.
A most classic example of 'big dic' thinking. Using the wrong head to think with: 'big dic' thinking. Clearly they are smarter. 'Big dic' thinking gave us "Mission Accomplished".
Who were the strongest advocates of that unjustified war? Same people who promote more guns for safer streets. 'Big dic' thinking is still alive and well despite lessons from history. So some (UG) must then rewrite history.
Maybe you were born 150 years late? Guns for brains...
Gawd, I'm just so in awe of our highly-evolved Eurofriend. No, really...
Ok, we've heard from the Big Dic thinker now let's turn the floor over to the Small Dic thinker...
A most classic example of 'big dic' thinking.
Ok, we've heard from the Big Dic thinker now let's turn the floor over to the Small Dic thinker...
You have. They are telling MaggieL how naive and rediculous her logic is.
Clearly more guns in Iraq have made Iraqi streets so much safer. Why does she fear to touch that fact? Clearly more guns in Sudan and Somolia are making those nations safer. Clearly the increase in guns now carried on Phily's streets are now making Philly safer. Philadelphia is may have the second highest year of violent deaths because even kids are now so routinely carrying guns. According to MaggieL, that should have causes a decrease in murders - not an increase. But these are facts that 'big dic' thinking must ignore.
Gawd, I'm just so in awe of our highly-evolved Eurofriend. No, really...
Maybe you would, unless you prefer the quantity murders/killings?
BTW I saw on that pic with you that you own a gun with a telescope. Is that for self defense also? At least that was what I thought, because it was in an article about self defense.
tw, please rewrite that in proper english - I know you have a point or two to make, but I can't seem to find it.
More legal firearms reduce the crime rates. Philadelphia does not have a lot of legal or legally carried firearms. The Phila PD controls permit issuance, and it is nigh impossible to get one there.
I assure you that the young men who are pointing Glocks sideways at each other aren't legal owners.
The "kids" are involved in the drug trade, even if the news won't tell you that.
Iraq is a warzone, usual statistics do not apply. But answer me this ... how many people (average citizens as well as american military) are being shot by insurgents vs. being blow up by them?
More legal firearms reduce the crime rates.
I assure you that the young men who are pointing Glocks sideways at each other aren't legal owners.
So then you do agree the ownership of a firearm with responsibility - just like a driver’s license - is a good thing. Problem is that MaggieL posts all ownership of guns means less violent crime. Maybe she wants to clarify that because her current posts imply wide open and unrestricted ownership of guns means less crime.
Driver licensing is not a good analogy, as driving is a privilege, and keeping and bearing arms is a whatchamacallit again? oh yeah, a Right.
Problem is that MaggieL posts all ownership of guns means less violent crime.
Please cite an example where I said *all* gun ownership means less violent crime (or accept the "liar" label you so delight in trying to hang on others).
I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.
Legal gun ownership does *not* include
-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,
-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation
-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.
I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.
Legal gun ownership does *not* include
-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,
-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation
-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.
So then you are in favor of gun control.
BTW I saw on that pic with you that you own a gun with a telescope. Is that for self defense also? At least that was what I thought, because it was in an article about self defense.
It *could* be used for home defense, although that is not its primary use by design. That rifle fires .22LR ammunition, and is best used for target shooting (or possibly hunting small nuisance animals; but we're friends with the local woodchucks --a.k.a "groundhogs"-- and tend to leave them alone.). .22LR would not be my first choice for a self-defense load even in a rifle; it doesn't deliver enough kinetic energy to be effective against larger targets.
The scope sight is useful because of the distances at which the rifle is used. and we included it in the photo shoot to add visual interest, since Gwen was already displaying her Kimber autoloader.
I first shot .22LR on the rifle team in college--although of course a scope is not used in competition! In fact, there was a time when training in small caliber rifle was very common in US secondary schools; .22LR is a good training load because the recoil is light and the beginning shooter--of either long guns or handguns--can develop the fundamentals without the likelyhood of developing a flinch.
But I certainly don't intend to attempt to justify the weapons owned by my household to an obvious hoplophobe.
So then you are in favor of gun control.
No.
Let's dispose of the *last* time you misquoted me before you put even more words in my mouth. Where's your cite where I said *all* gun posession reduces crime? Or don't you have one?
Driver licensing is not a good analogy, as driving is a privilege, and keeping and bearing arms is a whatchamacallit again? oh yeah, a Right.
Why is that? Because semiautomatics and cars hadn't been invented yet?
Why is that?
For starters, because it is enumerated as such in the Constitution.
For other supporting background, I'd recommend reading
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the US Senate, 97th CongressI think rifles and shotguns should be allowed because I am all in favor of hunting and being able to shoot a rifle. Handguns and automatic weapons on the other hand, scare me. You don't need a handgun to protect your home, if I broke into someone's house I would be a lot more scared of a shotgun than a 9mm pointed at me.
I am in favor of a law against concealed weapons not because I don't think people should have them, I just think things will get out of hand because people are stupid. For example, if someone robs you with a gun and you have a concealed gun yourself you are tempted to use it. So you pull it out, the natural reaction of the guy robbing you is to shoot you. So instead of losing a few hundred dollars you lose your life. Allowing concealed weapons will also give people confidence to take paths they would not usually take, which gets them into more trouble.
As Wolf said, they guys robbing you with guns don't get them legally, crime will not go down. Most often crime is a last resort for people and they are wiling to take the risk of someone having a gun. All it will do is create moments when two scared people have guns and that leads to death, plain and simple.
For starters, because it is enumerated as such in the Constitution.
That's what I said.
I think rifles and shotguns should be allowed because I am all in favor of hunting and being able to shoot a rifle. Handguns and automatic weapons on the other hand, scare me. You don't need a handgun to protect your home, if I broke into someone's house I would be a lot more scared of a shotgun than a 9mm pointed at me.
Well, it actually turns out that I'm not always at home. Sometimes I venture out, to go to work, or buy food, etc. You'd be surprised how quickly people get upset if you walk around some places with a long gun on your shoulder...like a shopping mall, for example. Are you saying that I should not have a right to defend myself if I'm not at home?
I think if you actually knew anything about firearms beyond finding them scary to varying degrees, you'd know that a rifle or a shotgun is far from ideal even in some home defense situations, for example at close range or in close quarters; lika a small apartment.
Let's sum up your position: you're scared of handguns because you wouldn't be as scared of them as you would be of a shotgun...which doesn't scare you as much as handguns do. (Please get your phobias straightened out before you start proposing laws based on them, OK?)
What scares *me* is people who want to disarm me because one kind or another of guns scare them. That's called hoplophobia. Maybe we should make hoplophobia illegal, since the fact that something scares you seems to be grounds for banning it.
That's what I said.
It is? Where?
I assume you haven't read the Hatch Report yet.
Perhaps we need to distinguish what guns should be controlled and which should be banned. As an avid hunter I see no reason to ban shotguns or hunting rifles. However, I still see no need for "Joe Average" to own an assault weapon. To me they should be illegal.
I think rifles and shotguns should be allowed because I am all in favor of hunting and being able to shoot a rifle. Handguns and automatic weapons on the other hand, scare me. You don't need a handgun to protect your home, if I broke into someone's house I would be a lot more scared of a shotgun than a 9mm pointed at me.
The first part of this para professes the "theory of the evil gun," that some types of arm are in some way more conducive of, well, brutality than are others. This theory is exploded on closer study: the very characteristics of concealable portability that make the handgun attractive to the felon intent on robbery are the very characteristics that make the handgun the best immediate defense -- because the defender can simply
wear the piece around his daily doings, and thus will have it available to resist the evil attentions of the criminal.
The second part exhibits ignorance of home defense tactics. A long arm is rather bulky and can be levered away from the defender more easily at hand to hand range than a properly held pistol can. Also, consider the blast of a larger long arm cartridge of any description, touched off in the confined space of a room -- it well nigh brings down the plaster, and its disorienting effect works as hard on the defender as on the invader. Not something the defender will want. Handgun cartridges are a little less battering, and that is all to the good. This is not to say long arms don't have their place in home defense, but it is usually a last-ditch defense of the designated panic room/rendezvous chamber, e.g., the kids and any other noncombatants on the floor behind the bed in the master bedroom along with one of the defenders forted up in the same place, firing across the bed if an invader enters (and there's a protocol to ensure the man of the house with the pistol intended to meet the invaders with doesn't get mistaken at first blush for an invader, as is only sensible). Firing from the "panic room," you see, would be a situation where you really do need, beyond all else, to hit as hard as possible, and let the plaster fall where it may.
I am in favor of a law against concealed weapons not because I don't think people should have them, I just think things will get out of hand because people are stupid.
In self-defense situations, rather than drunk lowlifes assaulting each other, this doesn't happen, and this is the universal experience of the 38 states in the Union who have liberalized their concealed carry of weapon (CCW) provisions, regulations, and laws. They know something you do not, my friend, and they are staying with liberalized CCW because crime in every such state has plunged. Read John Lott, and Stephen P. Halbrook. Between these two luminaries, you will understand arms far better than you do now.
For example, if someone robs you with a gun and you have a concealed gun yourself you are tempted to use it. So you pull it out, the natural reaction of the guy robbing you is to shoot you. So instead of losing a few hundred dollars you lose your life. Allowing concealed weapons will also give people confidence to take paths they would not usually take, which gets them into more trouble.
Only true if they're not any too bright to begin with. The prudent use of arms does not turn a prudent man foolish. If he isn't sworn and paid to do it, he's
still not going to be strolling down those alleys.
As Wolf said, they guys robbing you with guns don't get them legally, crime will not go down. Most often crime is a last resort for people and they are wiling to take the risk of someone having a gun.
The science done on this says, no, they aren't willing.
All it will do is create moments when two scared people have guns and that leads to death, plain and simple.
Not so plain and not so simple. 98% of all armed self defense situations are not settled by a firefight, but by simply the threat of one; no shot is fired. Of the remaining two percent, fatality is not an inevitable outcome either, though even wounding can admittedly leave its victim permanently maimed. The maimed most often would take surviving over dying, so you don't hear too much complaining on this score by anyone who knows from experience.
It would lead to deaths, perhaps, if everyone who does it knew no more than you do about it, but education and training about how to prevail in this most dangerous situation can be had by civilians, and at less than the one-year cost of insuring your car. Less, in fact, than some people's monthly insurance payment, for the fundamentals. And one can build on the fundamentals at any time.
As for selective fire weapons, these, being military arms, are the ones most suited for ending genocides, which can really only happen to disarmed peoples. The people who like the full-auto weapons are the ones who are truly, effectually, worthily anti-genocide. All others are less so, and merely flapping their gums, which has never stopped a genocide yet. It isn't stopping one now -- though that genocide would stop if Sudanese janjaweed were to start vanishing beyond recall, and Khartoum-government air support with them. In other words, if a genocide is going on, you
must shoot back. Otherwise, you're oven fuel. Did your mama really raise you up to be somebody else's fireplace log?
Do not hope to take refuge in the idea that
I don't see any signs of impending genocide. Genocide invariably starts in concealment, and it sneaks up on its victims. Military-type arms are the best, for reasons of logistics and efficiency, and the only known, individual solution to the genocide problem, and AFAWK they are the final solution. The forces of the State have never once kept a genocide from happening, which is unsurprising when you consider State power is necessary to get a genocide under way. See
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for more on this. Be advised: these people are the real article when it comes to genocide stopping.
So then you are in favor of gun control.
Only in the sense of Ringer's Paradox -- and in the using of both hands for the worthwhile sort of gun control: that which puts all your rounds downrange, inside the ten-ring, and at least half cutting the X-ring.
It is to be hoped, tw, that you will conquer your massive ignorance of guns and gun law to come around to the side of the angels. You, of course, will try and dash this hope, for the simple, but bad, reason that it's me telling you. (Vulcan, shmulcan.)
Perhaps we need to distinguish what guns should be controlled and which should be banned. As an avid hunter I see no reason to ban shotguns or hunting rifles. However, I still see no need for "Joe Average" to own an assault weapon. To me they should be illegal.
Fortunately, things are not made illegal on the basis of "yesman65 doesn't see a need for them".
The
Clinton Gun Ban attempted to create a class of "very evil guns" that were somehow distinguishable from "still evil guns that it's OK to have", it was a dismal failure and allowed to lapse.
If you wish to keep your hunting rifles, you should at least read
this.
Ok, I'll go with you that handguns can be better for protection in the home with training. On the streets I'm keeping my stance, oh, I never said we should ban handguns in the home anyways.
Well, it actually turns out that I'm not always at home. Sometimes I venture out, to go to work, or buy food, etc. You'd be surprised how quickly people get upset if you walk around some places with a long gun on your shoulder...like a shopping mall, for example. Are you saying that I should not have a right to defend myself if I'm not at home?
I forgot guns are the only way to defend yourself...
Sarcasm is a great way of retaliating isn't it, makes me look stupid by taking my words competely out of context (like how I somewhere pointed out that handguns should be outlawed in the home and rifles are fine in public). Good job, you argue like a tenth grader, grow up and present me facts or common sense.
Let's sum up your position: you're scared of handguns because you wouldn't be as scared of them as you would be of a shotgun...which doesn't scare you as much as handguns do. (Please get your phobias straightened out before you start proposing laws based on them, OK?)
Way to take my postion out of context...again, must take skill to do that.
By the way, since when did I have a phobia? I just said that some people with handguns scare me, the fact that I, or someone else, can get hurt or killed by irresposibility is scary. I am also scared that I can get killed by a drunk driver and I'm not against drinking or driving, just the two put together. It also doesn't stop me from driving on friday nights either. Stop making assumptions about people, it just makes you look intolerent.
What scares *me* is people who want to disarm me because one kind or another of guns scare them. That's called hoplophobia. Maybe we should make hoplophobia illegal, since the fact that something scares you seems to be grounds for banning it.
I bet you feel all good about yourself from that rant? Too bad I don't have hoplophobia and too bad I'm not disarming you, just illegalizing concealed weapons, not your ability to possess one.
They know something you do not, my friend, and they are staying with liberalized CCW because crime in every such state has plunged.
Funny, I also heard that the new police techniques and legalized abortion also lowers crime. It could also be social forces, but what does all this conclude? Statistics don't prove shit.
The thing is, if guns were harder to get I wouldn't mind the legalized concealed gun law, but guns are very easy to get and anyone can get ahold of them with little or no training. Notice how my opinion is swayed by training and not guns itselves.
This also give me a chance to rant about something else. I have a stance that neither pro-gun or anti-gun but since people on one extreme side thinks anyone who mentions banning guns on one situation is competely anti-gun on every issue which is very far from the truth. Stop splitting people into two groups (pro-gun vs. anti-gun, conservative vs. liberal, capitaist vs. communist, etc) becuase your assumption is going to be wrong a majority of the time if not every.
This also give me a chance to rant about something else. I have a stance that neither pro-gun or anti-gun but since people on one extreme side thinks anyone who mentions banning guns on one situation is competely anti-gun on every issue which is very far from the truth. Stop splitting people into two groups (pro-gun vs. anti-gun, conservative vs. liberal, capitaist vs. communist, etc) becuase your assumption is going to be wrong a majority of the time if not every.
Well said! I was accused of hoplophobia too but I'm far from anti-gun. Putting somebody into a group (even if they don't belong) is a popular way to start marginalizing them.
I forgot guns are the only way to defend yourself...Sarcasm is a great way of retaliating isn't it?
Depends on how good you are at it. In your case, as evidenced above...well...
Too bad I don't have hoplophobia...
Handguns and automatic weapons on the other hand, scare me.
Ipse dixit. Speaks for itself.
Your argument that you're not hoplophobic looks pretty weak after you tell us how much various kinds of firearms scare you, and then propose prohibitions on that basis.
Consider that your fears would be better founded and lead to clearer thought when directed at
people and their intentions rather than weapons.
You're in vastly greater danger from a mugger with a knife, lead pipe or rock than you are from me with a full-auto AK-47, because I'm trained in firearms safety and the operation of an AK, and do not intend you harm.
and too bad I'm not disarming you, just illegalizing concealed weapons, not your ability to possess one.
If you make my currently legal possesion of a concealed handgun illegal (I'm currently licenced for concealed carry in 29 states), you have disarmed me when I'm anywhere but in my home, plain and simple.
(*muses*)
Has anyone here ever shot a person?
MaggieL - Why does anyone need a machine gun or an Uzi? - These are the types of guns I think are rediculous for regular citizens to own. They serve no purpose other than to kill humans. I will agree that this creates a very difficult situation where someone has to dide what is and/or isn't ok. If I had to choose one absolute or the other, I agree that there should be no ban, however our police are at times horribly outgunned.
MaggieL - Why does anyone need a machine gun or an Uzi? - These are the types of guns I think are rediculous for regular citizens to own
I think they are ridiculous too. The ironic thing is that the Constitution specifically lets us have guns for military reasons. To form Militias. Machine guns and Uzis are the guns the founding fathers would have wanted us to have. But then again, the founding fathers thought it would be cool for us to own slaves, so there you go.
But then again, the founding fathers thought it would be cool for us to own slaves, so there you go.
Not all of them.
MaggieL - Why does anyone need a machine gun or an Uzi? - These are the types of guns I think are rediculous for regular citizens to own. They serve no purpose other than to kill humans. I will agree that this creates a very difficult situation where someone has to dide what is and/or isn't ok. If I had to choose one absolute or the other, I agree that there should be no ban, however our police are at times horribly outgunned.
Then the police need better guns, because criiminals won't follow your laws. That's why we call them criminals.
I won't buy into your prohibitionist line of "Prove to my satisfaction that you
need ${x} or the government should take it away from you." That's lame. If you want to restrict my liberty, it's incumbent on you to prove an overwheleming justification for it, and "maybe there would be less violence, I think." doesn't cut it...especially when it's already demonstrated every day that someone who already intends to commit a crime won't be deterred by the fact that their weapon is illegal too.
We've been down all these paths before here over and over on the Cellar. It's always been the case here that a gun prohibitionist espousing a feel-good law that only prohibits weapons he doesn't own won't be convinced by arguments from principle...the principle being that once someone passes a law that firearms with characteristic ${x} (for example full-auto, standard magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, pistol grips have all been tried in the past) should be illegal, they're back in the next session looking to amend the law to expand the class of prohibited weapons because--
quelle surprise!--the law was somehow completely ineffective in preventing crime. In fact full-auto weapons are almost never used in crime. They're expensive, and not terribly effective as criminal tools.
Go read
http://www.clintongunban.comDepends on how good you are at it. In your case, as evidenced above...well...
Thats because my sarcasm was actually relevant to my point. Guns aren't the only way to defend yourself, it is a fact. Talking about how people get scared if someone is walking around with a rifle on their shoulder is not relevant. Get what I'm talking about?
Your argument that you're not hoplophobic looks pretty weak after you tell us how much various kinds of firearms scare you, and then propose prohibitions on that basis.
Do you even know what a phobia is? Just because I twich when looking over a 100 story building doesn't make me an acrophobic. An acrophobic would freak out when seeing someone else go up an elevator, hardly the same. Stop going to extremes, it doesn't help your argument at all.
Consider that your fears would be better founded and lead to clearer thought when directed at people and their intentions rather than weapons.
There we go, a good point. No bias, and it actually makes sense. Yes, my worry (noticed how I changed the word so you don't jump to hoplophobia ;) ) comes from the people who will use these weapons, not the weapons themselves. Yet, when you put the two together, it doesn't really make a difference. That's why I am in favor of training before you can get ahold of a gun. I don't know if this will be brought up but I will answer it anyways. Yes, I would rather have someone rob me with a knife than a gun.
You're in vastly greater danger from a mugger with a knife, lead pipe or rock than you are from me with a full-auto AK-47, because I'm trained in firearms safety and the operation of an AK, and do not intend you harm.
I don't have any fear of you (or worry) because you do not intend to harm me. Yet, if I piss someone off and they go buy a gun two hours later, I will be scared of them. More scared of them with a gun than a knife even though they can both kill me since it is a lot easier to run from a knife than a gun.
If you make my currently legal possesion of a concealed handgun illegal (I'm currently licenced for concealed carry in 29 states), you have disarmed me when I'm anywhere but in my home, plain and simple.
Not from your ability to own one. Why do you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon anyways?
I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.
Legal gun ownership does *not* include
-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,
-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation
-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.
So then you are in favor of gun control.
No.
MaggieL posts justifications for Gun Control. Then denies she approves of gun control. Obviously a paradox. She previously advocated free access to guns by all. Now she says we should restrict who has access to guns? Which is it MaggieL? Either you advocate gun control or you advocate unrestricted access to guns. They are mutually exclusive. Which is it? How can you advocate restrictions on gun access and then not support gun control? They are same thing. And they both contradict your open opposition to gun control. How do you explain that contradiction?
There are two ways you can say gun control. One is restrictions on who can get guns and one on total control. You two just have different definitions.
We already have gun control. There are thousands of laws already on the books, which if enforced, would solve most of the "gun problem".
Unfortunately, whether lack of interest or lack of funding, they are not. :(
Either you advocate gun control or you advocate unrestricted access to guns. They are mutually exclusive. Which is it? How can you advocate restrictions on gun access and then not support gun control? They are same thing. And they both contradict your open opposition to gun control. How do you explain that contradiction?
I don't advocate "gun control". I simply don't particularly strongly to the current Federal law on who may possess a handgun: over 21 and non-ex-felon.
At the same time, I wouldn't particularly object to removing the restriction for ex-felons (except when it has been imposed as a condition of parole). I don't object to the law forbidding children to posess handguns other than under the currently provided conditions of adult supervision, but if you call that "gun control" then you're using the term in a highly unconventional way; children are not allowed to posess alcohol or buy tobacco but nobody calles that "prohibition".
Or you're trolling. Again.
Now quit your blustering and post your cite where I said "all* firearms posession reduces crime...your continued failure to do so will be a tacit admission that you deliberately misquoted me again.
Do you even know what a phobia is?
phobia: an uncontrollable, irrational, and persistent fear of a specific object, situation, or activity
Your attitude seems to meet the definition.
Yes, my worry (noticed how I changed the word so you don't jump to hoplophobia ;) ) comes from the people who will use these weapons, not the weapons themselves.
So kindly focus your legal attention on people who use weapons illegally.
Why do you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon anyways?
Ah we're back to the old "prove you need it" argument again; I'm not going there. Without
proving I
need a fire extinguisher or a smoke alarm, I have them both because they are a sensible precaution in my judgement. So is exercising my right to carry arms for defense of myself and others, as the law clearly permits.
Why do *you* feel the need to disarm me? Are you projecting onto others your own fear that you can't control your anger, as your example suggests?
Or you're trolling. Again.
Pot calling the kettle black...
Your attitude seems to meet the definition.
What? How have I even gotten close to any of those definitions? I just said some people with guns scare me, that is not an uncontrollable, irrational, and persistent fear. Stop making judgment about people because it is wrong.
So kindly focus your legal attention on people who use weapons illegally.
Wouldn't that be easier? If you can tell me a way to be able to solely focus on people that use weapons illegally I will be all ears.
Ah we're back to the old "prove you need it" argument again; I'm not going there. Without proving I need a fire extinguisher or a smoke alarm, I have them both because they are a sensible precaution in my judgement. So is exercising my right to carry arms for defense of myself and others, as the law clearly permits.
Why can't I drive drunk, I want to excersise my right to be able to drive drunk but people are taking right that away from me?
Why do *you* feel the need to disarm me? Are you projecting onto others your own fear that you can't control your anger, as your example suggests?
I can control my own anger perfectly fine, its just others that I cannot control. As I said many times before but you keep to seem ignoring this fact, as long as you are trained I have no problem with you owning guns.
Then who do you want to disarm & how?
I think that is the issue.
Stop making judgment about people because it is wrong.
Oh, is that your judgement? :-)
As I said many times before but you keep to seem ignoring this fact, as long as you are trained I have no problem with you owning guns.
But you insist I leave them at home?
Wouldn't that be easier? If you can tell me a way to be able to solely focus on people that use weapons illegally I will be all ears.
I would suggest actually enforcing the laws against ag assault, armed robbery and related offenses. Instead of the revolving door currently operated by most urban areas.
I'd also be in favor of legalizing all drugs and allowing Darwin to sort things out. But my sense is that that proposal is *way* ouside the current
Overton window.
Why can't I drive drunk, I want to excersise my right to be able to drive drunk but people are taking right that away from me?
You claim to have a right to drive drunk? Can you cite a basis for that right?
I don't advocate "gun control". I simply don't particularly strongly to the current Federal law on who may possess a handgun: over 21 and non-ex-felon.
At the same time, I wouldn't particularly object to removing the restriction for ex-felons (except when it has been imposed as a condition of parole). I don't object to the law forbidding children to posess handguns other than under the currently provided conditions of adult supervision, but if you call that "gun control" then you're using the term in a highly unconventional way; children are not allowed to posess alcohol or buy tobacco but nobody calles that "prohibition".
Gun Control is restrictions on
-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,
-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation
-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.
Nothing unconventional about it. That has always been called gun control. MaggieL says she is opposed to gun control when just
yesterday, MaggieL approved of gun control.
So how do we reconcile MaggieL's opposition with when she posted
yesterday? Apparently MaggieL wants us to believe that Rush Limbaugh lie that gun control means removing all guns. Classic fear tactics? Apparently MaggieL has a Rush Limbaugh interpretation.
When confronted to provide facts and details, well, MaggieL really does approve of gun control. It is the expression (a phrase hyped as evil in Rush Limbaugh propaganda) that she fears.
MaggieL approves of gun control. She approves of restrictions on 155 mm howitzers. She does not approve of "posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them". And she admits to all this while kicking and screaming - pretending to be opposed. It is called gun control not matter how she denies the phrase. MaggieL has approved of 'gun control' – once we eliminate hype and fear from Rush Limbaugh lies and propaganda.
Sure, I, probably like Maggie, approve of Gun Control... just less than we have today.
Sounds like an arms race to me. Something one of your presidents worked very hard to stop a couple of decades ago.
I only want the guns I have, which are not many... just don't want any damn restrictions on my rights to them now or in the future.
When confronted to provide facts and details, well, MaggieL really does approve of gun control.
Quoted out of context, tw. You really are pathetic.
I didn't say I "approved of gun control". My words that you quoted were from my enumeration of
why such gang bangers are in violation of current law...which context of course you conveniently trimmed off. I was not offering support for those laws.
So you stand convicted. Again.
The gang-bangers shouldn't even be on the street--not for "gun posession", but for assault and robbery and other crimes-- but liberal urban municipal governments are unwilling to keep them locked up, so they're soon out and killing each other (on the rare occasion when they're able placed accurate fire, and killing bystanders otherwise).
(*muses*)
Has anyone here ever shot a person?
No, but I've come closer than I'd ever like, considering it might be a present possibility that I'd have to cap a roomie who was going crazy. Didn't like it. Really didn't like it. :thepain:
There was a hollow-core door between me and Crazy Neil the Roomie, acting -- well, living up to that name. If he'd started kicking that door in...
Some months earlier, he'd suggested he'd like to buy one of my guns -- not being Army- nor Marine-trained he didn't say
rifle or
pistol. Wasn't much likelihood a cokehead like Crazy Neil would have ever been either, really. I didn't take him up on the idea.
Then he committed what I suppose was simple assault -- on the person of the mayor of Laurel, Maryland. He got brought home in squad cars a couple of times, separately from this, having made himself an absolute plague to a couple of different police departments, though I never knew the details.
Not too long after that, Crazy Neil was prevailed upon to check himself in to Saint Elizabeth's -- the Washington DC-area mental-hygiene hospital. This disembarrassed me and a couple other roomies of a real pest. Crazy people with keys to your place ain't a good thing.
Why do *you* feel the need to disarm me? Are you projecting onto others your own fear that you can't control your anger, as your example suggests?
This is usually, if seldom consciously, the motivation behind the anti-self-defense lobby. It would seem they haven't the emotional resources for self-control the gun people do. It really doesn't take a lot to elicit a hysterical reaction here, and that is, in a rather quiet way, what we are seeing.
NRA'ers wouldn't disagree that this lot could really use therapy. These are passionately wedded to the unreal, and at this time, the pro-self-defense and genuinely antigenocide people are rolling this bunch up like a tatty rug.
Again, Yesman, look to the link I posted to the JPFO earlier this thread. You will find complete justification for a full auto weapon over every mantle -- yours too -- therein, in argument that has never been rebutted, not once. I think those guys have happened upon an eternal truth: that armed populations shall not and will not endure genocides; and that its corollary is that the better armed the population, the more remote are the chances that they would ever suffer it.
And I perceive that tw keeps me on Ignore, writing in blissful ignorance on points I've already addressed -- jabber on, you dumb Soviet; the more you talk the better I look. The better I look, the harder sensible people laugh at you.
MaggieL posts justifications for Gun Control.
Crime control, not gun control, tw.
I only want the guns I have, which are not many... just don't want any damn restrictions on my rights to them now or in the future.
I, on the other hand, want the guns I want, not just what I have now.
Quoted out of context, tw. You really are pathetic.
Quoted exactly in the context as originally posted. Hyperlinked for all to see the context:
12-28-2006, 05:59 PM. Since you cannot admit to
a definition of gun control, then you resort to Rush Limbaugh tactics? Posting insults is not a logical defense. MaggieL - you advocated the objectives of gun control:
I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.
Legal gun ownership does *not* include
-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,
-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation
-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.
MaggieL - that is gun control. No way around it. You advocated gun control.
"You really are pathetic" is how Urbane Guerrilla defends his rewritten history. Do you really want to be associated Urbane Guerrilla intelligence? Get a grip MaggieL. You have just advocated the objectives of gun control on
12-28-2006, 05:59 PM .
Why do you so fear the phrase 'gun control'? Has Rush Limbaugh propaganda made you fear the expression rather than admit to what responsible gun ownership is about? MaggieL has advocated 'gun control', cannot logically deny it, and now resorts to personal insult? Urbane Guerrilla tactics are alive and well.
Crime control, not gun control, tw.
Crime control, according to MaggieL, is more guns, carry permits, etc. MaggieL says that more guns on the street means less crime. UG calls it a fully loaded automatic weapon over every mantle. That was defined as Crime Control.
Gun control is restructions on guns such as
-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,
-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation
-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.
Oh, is that your judgement? :-)
Eh, it was representing your judgement not the morality of making judgements. My bad.
But you insist I leave them at home?
If you're well trained I could really give a rat's ass but perferably not. I'm not losing sleep over it by any means.
I would suggest actually enforcing the laws against ag assault, armed robbery and related offenses. Instead of the revolving door currently operated by most urban areas.
Well at least we agree on something...
I'd also be in favor of legalizing all drugs and allowing Darwin to sort things out. But my sense is that that proposal is *way* ouside the current Overton window.
Ah, we have two things in common now. I like drugs because it seperates the ones who can handle them and the ones that can't.
Crime control, according to MaggieL...
You're never quite so full of shit as when you're holding forth on your special private version of "according to MaggieL". And that's no small achievement, considering your baseline state of nine pounds in a five pound bag. :-)
I'm confident that you wouldn't know "responsible gun ownership" if it bit you on the ass. Have you ever owned a gun? When did they make you stop?
No way around it. You advocated gun control.
Let's take it a step a a time, perhaps you'll be able to follow:
I identified what legal gun ownership is.
I pointed out that those willing to violate gun laws are also likely willing to violate other laws. (This is the core of the "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" principle.)
Now then: where do you see my
advocacy of those laws here? Be specific. (Don't struggle, that's quicksand you're standing in.)
Perhaps this example will help you understand: I
respect the gun laws of New Jersey. I do not carry in New Jersey on the rare occasions when I absolutely cannot avoid going there. I beleive that people who are violating New Jersey's gun laws are likely to be criminals in other ways too.
But I abhor New Jersey's gun laws, and would support efforts to change them.
Are you really incapable of making a distinction between
knowing a law,
respecting a law, and
advocating a law?
They really are quite different things.
To advocate gun control does not mean you advocate the laws regarding them as you have pointed out Maggie.
I'm pretty sure - since it's in black and white in your above post as a quote - that what tw said is that you do in fact advocate gun control. That is, you agree that there should be gun control. Of course we are all very well aware of your stance on the matter and what you consider to be acceptable use and ownership of guns and therefore you would only advocate laws which coincide with your own personal opinion on what is right on this issue.
You're never quite so full of shit as when you're holding forth on your special private version of "according to MaggieL".
As you can see from MaggieL's repeated emotional tirades, she is caught by her own short hairs. She has advocated gun control. Her only objection is details of how some states do it. But even MaggieL - so voraciously promoting hate of gun laws for a political agenda, indeed, does advocate gun control.
But then one need only review her own post that details what gun control should address on:
12-28-2006, 05:59 PM . That is MaggieL recommending classic gun control. Somehow that is not gun control because State of New Jersey does not permit concealed weapons? Bull. MaggieL has advocated gun control. She has posted in direct opposition to NRA decrees. Why do you know she is having trouble denying it? She starts using words such as "shit", "pathetic", and "rant". Sorry MaggieL. You have been caught with your pants down. We have you by the short hairs. Your own post of
12-28-2006, 05:59 PM advocates gun control - no matter how many insult used to deny it.
Disneyland. Fuck, man, this is better than Disneyland.
Pass the popcorn its gonna be a long night.
I'm pretty sure - since it's in black and white in your above post as a quote - that what tw said is that you do in fact advocate gun control.
Nope. Read it again, and try not to make things up out of wishful thinking.
I actually said "Legal gun ownership means less crime".
This because tw claimed I said "*all* gun ownership means less crime"...which I certainly did not say. He (and you, now) are waving around this quote of me enumerating some clauses of the Federal law on firearms posession, and claiming that somehow that means I support the law, and therefore support "gun control". A red herring; he lied about what I said and now he thinks if he screams louldly enough people will beleive him.
Well, maybe he's right;
you seem to have been hooked. :-)
I can obey a law without supporting it (see the New Jersey example in my previous post). We have words for people who refuse to obey laws they dont like. One of them is "criminal". Another is "anarchist".
Gun ownership by criminals
doesn't reduce crime. Without endorsing gun prohibition for ex-felons who have served their time, I can easily recognize that contempt for gun laws is often found in those with contempt for *all* law. It happens to be illegal for convicted felons to posess firearms. That does not entail an endorsement of the gun laws they happen to be violating.
But I do support laws against ag assault, burglary, robbery and sexual assault, etc. If someone illegally posesses a firearm,
but does not commit another crime, I personally don't much care. It's no harm, no foul;
Malum prohibitum but not
malum in se.
But those who commit violent crimes with guns are most often also in violation of gun laws. And it's those violent criminals (who are very often gun law violators as well) who were the original subject of discussion. Their gun ownership does nothing to reduce crime, even if it were not inherently illegal itself.
None of this translates into an endorsement of
any particular gun law...and most especially not the most odious gun laws of liberal disaster areas like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland and DC.
If you're unable or unwilling to follow that, I can't make it any plainer. If you're unable to avoid logical fallacies while juggling predicates, I can understand why you seem to be indulging in what I could most charitably describe as "blurry thinking".
How bout you read my post again Maggie.
tw is accusing you of advocating gun control not being an advocate for gun laws.
My post was to try and get you to respond to his actual post and not what you wish he was posting.
I responded to one of the points he is arguing with you because you don't seem to be able to read it for what it is.
I'm guessing no one else bothered to try and point it out because when people do so all you do is insult them. Much as you will do once again to me I'm sure.
Anyway, blind freddy can see what's going on here, so I'll leave you to fumble through your own folly.
Just to be clear:
I am ok with, no more than, a three day background check.
Violent felons being unable to own guns.
That is it.
No restrictions on gun types, amount of ammo (nor tracking or lists of owners for guns and after purchase), no carry restrictions for those legal to own.
Just to add to the fun, making the rounds is this story of use of an AK-47 in home defense.
Alleged home intruder killed after homeowner shoots him with AK-47
ATLAS TOWNSHIP, Mich. Prosecutors in Genesee County will evaluate whether to file charges after a man was fatally shot while allegedly terrorizing a couple in their home.
Police say a 51-year-old Sterling Heights man came to the Atlas Township home of his ex-wife last weekend. He reportedly sprayed the back of the home with bullets, threw a whiskey bottle through a window and broke into the home.
The homeowner then fatally shot the man with an AK-47 assault rifle.
The Genesee County Sheriff's Department says the 9-1-1 tape recorded the caller saying he was going to have to shoot the man firing shots at the house.
Dude was careful and lucid enough to tell 911 he may have to use deadly force because deadly force was at hand. He apparently waited for the right moment when the threat was actually breaking in. The AK applied that deadly force with precision and devastation. It was one of the best possible tools for the job.
This story is not pro or anti gun control, obviously, as it was a gun that put the people at risk in the first place. It simply offers one possible narrative for how a powerful semi-automatic "assault rifle" can be used to defend a home. For anyone who says "I don't see how an assault weapon is needed for home defense", if you were trained in its use and knew what you were doing, perhaps you would in fact choose it.
http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-41/1167427202260850.xml&coll=5
more of the story
"This guy went wild," Pickell said about Ftoyan Novakov, 51, of Sterling Heights, who was shot after he fired at least two bullets into the man's house, broke in and stalked up the stairs toward the man and Novakov's ex-wife. "Our investigation shows the homeowner was defending himself."
Undersheriff James Gage and Lt. Kevin Shanlian said the incident began about 10:25 p.m. when the homeowner, a 41-year-old man, called 911 from his house on Irish Road near Baldwin Road and reported shots were being fired into the house.
He and his girlfriend, Novakov's 42-year-old ex-wife from Macomb Township, retreated to an upstairs bedroom as Novakov threw a whiskey bottle through a window and climbed into the house.
Investigators found that Novakov was armed with a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight.
Gage said a 911 operator could hear the sound of gunshots as the homeowner reported what was happening. The homeowner also said that he was a hunter, and that he had a rifle and needed to defend himself and his girlfriend.
She and the homeowner were in the bedroom trying to hide and protect themselves when Novakov came in, Gage said.
The homeowner then fired his rifle, killing Novakov.
This was ideal approach, clearly the guy was trained. They took position in the remotest section of the house, got behind the bed and waited until the last possible time to shoot, acting totally in defense and giving every opportunity for the shooting not to happen.
Big snip~ It happens to be illegal for convicted felons to posess firearms. ~big snip
I want to expand this thought. It is also a Federal offense for convicted felons to
TRY to buy a gun. Thousands are refused, by background checks, every year. Although it's a violation of Federal law, the number of people prosecuted for this felony is,
ZERO.
Don't talk to me about new gun laws until you show me you really want to solve the problem by enforcing the thousands already on the books. :headshake
Did the homeowners know Novakov?
The homeowner did the right thing, he couldn't have done much different.
Home owner had an AK47, the intruder had a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight, while MaggieL proudly poses with a rifle with telescope. Only in the US and A (and Iraq).
The homeowner also said that he was a hunter, and that he had a rifle and needed to defend himself and his girlfriend.
AK47 for hunting?? bin-Laden?
Cause that is so much better than both the homeowner and wife dead in their own home...
Guns is a problem you can't avoid or solve. You have to prevent, and the US is probably the worst country in the western world in preventing crime.
Just to add to the fun, making the rounds is this story of use of an AK-47 in home defense. It was one of the best possible tools for the job. It simply offers one possible narrative for how a powerful semi-automatic "assault rifle" can be used to defend a home. For anyone who says "I don't see how an assault weapon is needed for home defense", if you were trained in its use and knew what you were doing, perhaps you would in fact choose it.
Point taken, but it doesn't mean that a shotgun or pistol (in properly trained hands) wouldn't have done the same thing. :rattat:
Home owner had an AK47, the intruder had a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight, while MaggieL proudly poses with a rifle with telescope.
Actually, I do have a (semi-auto) AK, also. And a 9mm. They're just not in that photo. Fortunately I don't have to "justify" them to the likes of you...or I'd be just as disarmed as you are, and reduced to spouting "sour grapes."
I did explain that the .22 is a
target rifle. One of the things the Pink Pistols do is training.
I'm pretty sure - since it's in black and white in your above post as a quote - that what tw said is that you do in fact advocate gun control. That is, you agree that there should be gun control.
If by "gun control" you mean that people who own firearns should control them--not someone else--then you're right. But that's not what the idiom "gun control" means in normal discourse, ordinarily it means various forms of externally imposed governmental prohibition, as you have in AU.
The US "Gun Control Act of 1968" is a case in point. I don't find it personally particularly onerous, but I don't support it.
If you're going to talk about some meaning of "gun control" that doesn't include laws, then you'd better use some other phrase to refer to it, or you will be misunderstood.
This story is not pro or anti gun control, obviously, as it was a gun that put the people at risk in the first place.
Erm...the
gun didn't do
anything. It's inanimate.
What put people at risk was a
person with criminal intent.
Erm...the gun didn't do anything. It's inanimate.
God, I hate that line. The fact is that people can use guns, and it is the most effective and easiest way of killing someone. By your logic, we should allow EVERYTHING, even weapons of mass destruction. I want a nuclear weapon, but remember, the bomb isn't at fault, it is mine. So when you send me to jail for blowing up the city of New York it is solely my fault, right? And disallowing the distribution of nuclear weapons would be against people's rights too, right?
God, I hate that line.
Sorry, but it's the truth; you should get used to it.
Trying to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of people is misdirected animism. As you point out "people can use guns"...and they can also use bludgeons, poisons, explosives and edged weapons. They can also use them for *good* purposes; note that most police carry firearms.
The common element is the people. The issue isn't what tools they have, it's what they
do with them.
If you
were to blow up New York, would you blame somebody else for "letting you"? Or would you take responsibility for your own actions?
3,000 people died on 9/11; obviously the box-cutters were at fault.
Trying to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of people is misdirected animism. As you point out "people can use guns"...and they can also use bludgeons, poisons, explosives and edged weapons.
As I said before, guns are the easiest and most efficient method of killing someone. Lets just give everyone the anthrax virus as well and see what happens.
They can also use them for *good* purposes; note that most police carry firearms.
And the US has a stockpile of nuclear weapons for *good* purposes too. It's called an arms race; if criminals didn't have guns then police wouldn't either.
The common element is the people. The issue isn't what tools they have, it's what they do with them.
Obviously no one thinks that guns shoot people without a person's consent, that is idiotic. But the fact that guns make killing people easier, that is what people are scared about. Everyone knows that you can get a knife and stab someone but it is a lot easier to shoot a person and if you take the gun away, people's lives may be saved because someone won’t go through more trouble to kill a person.
If you were to blow up New York, would you blame somebody else for "letting you"? Or would you take responsibility for your own actions?
How about we give a five year old a gun and say how evil your neighbor is and how happy you would be if he got killed and the kid takes the hint. It is all the kid’s fault right? Don't say, “well, the kid doesn't know any better” because adults act the same way so don't give me that bullshit.
3,000 people died on 9/11; obviously the box-cutters were at fault.
Actually the real analogy would be the planes were at fault since no one was killed directly by the box cutters but I get your point nevertheless. Once again, I speak for the majority when we agree that "guns" itselves aren't at fault for the killings but it is the convenience of it that is at fault. If we didn't have airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If it were harder to hijack airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If proper screening was used 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Catch my drift?
...if you take the gun away, people's lives may be saved because someone won’t go through more trouble to kill a person.
You actually
believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?
How childishly naive.
How about we give a five year old a gun and say how evil your neighbor is and how happy you would be if he got killed and the kid takes the hint. It is all the kid’s fault right? Don't say, “well, the kid doesn't know any better” because adults act the same way so don't give me that bullshit.
Is
your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?
Uh...you *are* an adult, arent you? Your apparent naïveté makes me wonder.
..."guns" itselves aren't at fault for the killings but it is the convenience of it that is at fault. If we didn't have airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened...Catch my drift?
No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost
did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.
It's called an arms race; if criminals didn't have guns then police wouldn't either.
No, that's not called "an arms race". That's called "a fantasy". Criminals manufacture guns
in prison every day.
As you can see from MaggieL's repeated emotional tirades,
The tirades, tw, are all on your side, and you're in denial about it, as is par for the course. Vulcan, shmulcan.
That is MaggieL recommending classic gun control. Somehow that is not gun control because State of New Jersey does not permit concealed weapons? Bull. MaggieL has advocated gun control. She has posted in direct opposition to NRA decrees.
Still with no visible understanding of Ringer's Paradox, I see. Might anyone suggest to you, tw, that you are no student of politics?
"NRA decrees" -- I should smile. If that is your understanding of how the NRA works, your understanding of the matter runs from the minuscule to the pathetic. Your opinion is therefore poorly based, valueless, and indeed on a par with Saddam Hussein's fan club, you tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms. Your postings inspire contempt among the wise.
MaggieL is handling you just fine, and good for her. While she stands in no need of reinforcement just now, it happens to be a hobby of mine to rub your nose in your own invalidity, your towering pettiness shown here in your lengthy insistent howling after a micro-point, and your myriad other examples of how lousy a human being you are. The one thing in which you excel is as a big fat target for my opprobrium. That is what's known as a worthless life.
Warts-and-all observations are not tirades, and I urge that no Cellarite try to defend the wholly indefensible, but instead that we unanimously attack it with efficiency, determination, and indeed savagery. Let the Communist suffer for his sins, and those of all Communists, five times daily throughout 2007. When all the Communists are dead, the world's better. Maybe not perfect, but better.
You actually believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?
How childishly naive.
Maybe
you just don't get it. Like I said before, guns are the easiest, most efficient way of killing someone. If you don't have a gun it may take longer for you to get a chance to kill the person. In this extended period, the constant anger will lessen and you have more time to think over your decision and turn back on it. Or you could make it harder to get a gun (preferable) since the same effect will happen if you have to wait a week to get a gun opposed to two hours. It won’t stop all if not even the majority of killings, but if someone’s life is saved then maybe it would be worth it.
Is your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?
Killing someone to gain respect from peers would be comparable to my example.
No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.
In some situations you are right, in some I am. You need to stop thinking in black and white, the level of anger it takes someone to consider to kill another varies. If someone killed my family and ruined my life, whether there are guns or not there is a good chance I will kill that person. If someone beats me on the street I may kill that person out of initial anger later that night but if I have to wait another two days, it may not be worth it.
There are only a couple of people here who live in fantasy land, and unfortunately you are one of them Maggie. I pity you.
Aliantha, is it somehow too much for you to allow, or admit of, armed defense of oneself? Our Republic conceives this as deriving from our condition as human beings, quite independent of any governmental provision. It's a human right, Aliantha, and against this you should not be setting your face.
Jesus fucking christ UG. Owning a gun is not a human rights issue. Get off the grass for a minute and watch where you're walking. You're very quickly losing your credibility.
Aliantha, that is the thinking that facilitates the greatest violation of human rights perpetratable. It is absolutely, unquestionably a matter of human rights not to endure genocide, and therefore, to have the only article known to have even a hope of preventing it. You're blind, Ali, and that saddens me. Your disbelief, your failure to understand, does not help you.
Jesus fucking christ UG. Owning a gun is not a human rights issue. Get off the grass for a minute and watch where you're walking. You're very quickly losing your credibility.
The ability to defend oneself is a human rights issue, attacking someone else isn't. It's all how you look at the issue.
You need to stop thinking in black and white, the level of anger it takes someone to consider to kill another varies.
If you think you might kill out of anger, rather than in accordance with the legal principles for the justified use of deadly force, then please don't arm yourself; you're not up to the responsibility.
Suggested reading:
Ethics from the Barrel of a GunOwning a gun is not a human rights issue.
Evidently, not everyone agrees with that stance.
http://www.a-human-right.com/I'd be in favor of legalizing all drugs and allowing Darwin to sort things out.
Based on this are we to assume everyone should get in line and be handed a gun so that those who are up to "your definition of responsibility" can kill off those who aren't? What happens when someone not meeting your qualifications kills your "responsible" ones? Perhaps we should go back to the old west. Oh, thats right they eventually LEARNED to restrict gun possession in the towns because too many innocent people were getting killed.
If you think you might kill out of anger, rather than in accordance with the legal principles for the justified use of deadly force, then please don't arm yourself; you're not up to the responsibility.
Are you saying that we should individually restrict gun possession? Thats inherently not gonna work too well, as we all know.
If you think you might kill out of anger, rather than in accordance with the legal principles for the justified use of deadly force, then please don't arm yourself; you're not up to the responsibility.
Well what if I really want a gun, you know, for "protection".
Warts-and-all observations are not tirades, and I urge that no Cellarite try to defend the wholly indefensible, but instead that we unanimously attack it with efficiency, determination, and indeed savagery. Let the Communist suffer for his sins, and those of all Communists, five times daily throughout 2007. When all the Communists are dead, the world's better. Maybe not perfect, but better.
Don't make me get medieval on your ass. You can pro or con, any point about any issue, but your personal attacks, having nothing to do with the issues, come close to "intolerably irritating". Please stick to the issues.:chill:
Actually, I do have a (semi-auto) AK, also. And a 9mm. They're just not in that photo. Fortunately I don't have to "justify" them to the likes of you...or I'd be just as disarmed as you are, and reduced to spouting "sour grapes."
Never asked you to justify your fetish for guns. "The likes of me"... you´re always on the defense...
Looking at your arsenal one can hardy assume it´s for self defense only, so save me that hipocracy the next time.
Is it only me noticing the pro gunners are noticeable more aggressive in this discussion? Coincidence... don´t think so.
Lots of tail-posting going on here... as I stated before my side-arm was used to protect me from animals as I grew-up. Nothing to do with human animals and it is my right to have it for that protection as well as protection against humans. On a ranch we use guns as tools like any other, it is no different than an ax or chainsaw. Sidearms are required because they need to be small and easy to carry. I have had to shoot rattlesnakes while crawling under citrus trees more than once and shot a charging wild boar with my side-arm once. People who rant about how "people don't need handguns" know nothing of what they speak.
& no, it is not for gun owners to prove that they need their guns, rights are not for explaining need, justification or desire... they just are.
I keep saying it, freedom means being exposed to other's freedoms... deal. If you don't like them, go where it is not free.
Takes a special, tough, tolerant, person to be free.
UG...I am far from blind. I see things (including you) very clearly.
rkz...I don't think you need to be special to be free.
I don't think you need to be tough to be free.
I don't think you need to be tolerant to be free.
Being free is a basic human right. It just is.
Then stop complaining about other's freedoms.
What if your freedoms inflict on my freedoms? Or my freedoms inflict on yours?
I'm not complaining rkz. I'm arguing a point. There's a difference.
Anyway, I'm sure if I lived in the US I'd want to carry a gun too, so go ahead and do what you want along with the likes of UG and MaggieL et al. :)
What if your freedoms inflict on my freedoms? Or my freedoms inflict on yours?
Can you please make this make sense?
It means, that if your idea of freedom conflicts with his therefor one of you will not be free if the other is.
How does my owning and carrying a gun, without any intent to harm anyone who isn't trying to harm me, conflict with anyone else's freedom?
Anyway, I'm sure if I lived in the US I'd want to carry a gun too, so go ahead and do what you want along with the likes of UG and MaggieL et al. :)
And we'd probably enjoy an afternoon at the shooting range with you if you did live here, making noise and holes in paper.:cool:
What if your freedoms inflict on my freedoms? Or my freedoms inflict on yours?
This sort of question gets answered empirically in our Republic weekly if not daily. The results have been largely satisfactory these 230 years, counting from 1776, or 217 counting from 1789's adoption of the Constitution.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
UG...I am far from blind. I see things (including you) very clearly.
I don't think you need to be tough to be free.
Again, others disagree.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it...What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Anyway, I'm sure if I lived in the US I'd want to carry a gun too...
And if you lived in the US, you'd be
allowed to.
Probably.
Based on this are we to assume everyone should get in line and be handed a gun so that those who are up to "your definition of responsibility" can kill off those who aren't?
Really missing the point there. In the phrase you quoted, I was expressing my opinion that the government should stop trying to protect drug users from themselves; there's far too many unintended consequences and collateral damage from those efforts. The Darwininan effect would arise when someone managed to kill himself with cheap, freely available drugs.
Those who are up to "my standard of responsibility" only use deadly force when it is consistant with the principles of the law on justification. That doesn't happen much...and with drugs legalized it would happen even less.
Are you saying that we should individually restrict gun possession?
I think people should make thier own decisions about it, but if you don't think you can handle the responsibility, I encourage you to opt out. Do read that link I posted to
Ethics from the Barrel of A Gun.
Really missing the point there. In the phrase you quoted, I was expressing my opinion that the government should stop trying to protect drug users from themselves; there's far too many unintended consequences and collateral damage from those efforts. The Darwininan effect would arise when someone managed to kill himself with cheap, freely available drugs.
I still don't agree with that concept either, but apologize for the misquote.
I think people should make thier own decisions about it, but if you don't think you can handle the responsibility, I encourage you to opt out. Do read that link I posted to Ethics from the Barrel of A Gun.
You seemed to have forgotten, I have owned guns since I was 16 yrs old and still have two. They are both kept at my parents home so that there are no "accidents." I have a son that lives with me.
I respect the fact that you want to own certain types of weapons, but it seems a bit overboard. What realistic purpose does a machine gun, a bomb, tank or a howitzer serve for Joe Average in todays society?
It means, that if your idea of freedom conflicts with his therefor one of you will not be free if the other is.
You sound like the PMRC.
I respect the fact that you want to own certain types of weapons, but it seems a bit overboard. What realistic purpose does a machine gun, a bomb, tank or a howitzer serve for Joe Average in todays society?
Today's society is not composed totally of "Joe Average", and people's activities are not subject to your review for compliance with "realistic purpose" and assurance that it's not "a bit overboard". This whole principle of "prove to us you need this before we'll permit you to have it" is odious.
You certainly have a strange way of showing your "respect".
Imagine being legally required to prove to your local Green people that you *need* an internal combustion engine before you could have one. (And watch how many morons pipe up here with "Yeah, I think that would be a great idea!") Or how about being require to prove to the Pope that you "need" condoms...
By the way, there are over 13,000 machine guns currently registered by the ATF in Pennsylvania. I'm unaware that *any* of them have been used in a crime, although someone may be able to produce an anecdote or two.
Shouldn't
you have to prove there's a problem before imposing a restriction on somebody else, rather than imposing a requrement on them to prove that there isn't? Awfully difficult to prove a negative...
You seemed to have forgotten, I have owned guns since I was 16 yrs old and still have two. They are both kept at my parents home so that there are no "accidents."
Will you be introducing your son to firearms when *he* turns 16?
Why the scare quotes on "accidents"? Do you really just mean accidents, or something more sinister?
(And watch how many morons pipe up here with "Yeah, I think that would be a great idea!")
Trying to intimidate Dwellars into silence, are we? Classy.
You sound like the PMRC.
What is that?
Also, remember I was only clarifying a point which someone had trouble understanding.
Again, others disagree.
So what about those people in society who aren't strong naturally, such as the old and infirm, the handicapped or simply those who are frail for any other reason? Do they not deserve freedom also? Doesn't society owe them the same priviledges as other more able bodied citizens?
Again, I suggest that one should not have to be strong to be free.
not strong, just well-armed.........
Shouldn't you have to prove there's a problem before imposing a restriction on somebody else, rather than imposing a requrement on them to prove that there isn't? Awfully difficult to prove a negative...
Machine guns? They have proven it to be a problem, Bonnie & Clyde, 1932 to 1934, and they have been pushing that example ever since.:rolleyes:
MaggieL I guess my point was completely missed. Then again you are so sure of what you think that there is no longer any discussion of other opinions. Just so I'm not accused of ignoring your points I'll respond.
1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
2) I planned on taking my son out to a local club for firearms safety training, but decided against it for a number of reasons.
3) I meant accidents, as in a child or other person unfamiliar with firearms getting their hands on one. Like one of my children or their friends, nieces, nephews, neighbors - whomever. Nothing more "sinister" no need to be paranoid.
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.
What is that?
PMRC aka "The Mothers of Prevention."
(warning, small, but naughy bits exposed, picture of Rage Against the Machine toward the bottom of the page)
(warning, small, but naughy bits exposed, picture of Rage Against the Machine toward the bottom of the page)
Ouch! Great band though, one of my top five.
Thanks wolf. Interesting little group there although definitely far from my cup of tea.
Perhaps rkz has been taking lessons on how to be insulting from some of his compatriots.
1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
And uncessesary laws shouldn't be designed at all, they should be forgotten.
Joe Average may be Christian, shall we forbid all other religions? Or only shall we only require that someone show a "realistic purpose" to their religion, and prove that they're not going to go "a bit overboard"?
2) I planned on taking my son out to a local club for firearms safety training, but decided against it for a number of reasons.
Why?
3) I meant accidents, as in a child or other person unfamiliar with firearms getting their hands on one. Like one of my children or their friends, nieces, nephews, neighbors - whomever. Nothing more "sinister" no need to be paranoid.
I don't think I'm being paranoid, I just wanted to know why you put quotes around the word, surely a reasonable question. Why did you do that?
"I wanted to avoid accidents." carries a very different meaning from "I wanted to avoid 'accidents'"; your use of
scare quotes carries the implication that what you feared wouldn't actually be accidental.
Again, I suggest that one should not have to be strong to be free.
No, that's the first time you suggested that. Previously you said:
I don't think you need to be tough to be free.
Not at all the same thing.
So what about those people in society who aren't strong naturally, such as the old and infirm, the handicapped or simply those who are frail for any other reason?
Sounds like a compelling argument for armed citizens. By disarming the old, the infirm, the handicapped and the frail, you place them at the mercy of the physically strong.
The best way to avoid accidents is to teach firearms safety.
We used to consider it essential to teach a child to look both ways when crossing the street. Having nearly macked any number of children in parking lots while their clueless parents chat away on cellphones, I doubt that this is the case any longer. But it still makes sense to teach these very basic skills.
I don't think I'm being paranoid, I just wanted to know why you put quotes around the word, surely a reasonable question. Why did you do that? "I wanted to avoid accidents." carries a very different meaning from "I wanted to avoid 'accidents'"; your use of scare quotes carries the implication that what you feared wouldn't actually be accidental.
Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.
And I chose not to take my son hunting because his grades were not what we discussed for him to EARN the right to do things like that.
Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.
I *read* what was written, and it was unclear; that's not my fault. "Because accidents do happen" does not explain your use of quote marks, which is what I was asking about. Were the quote marks an error?
The best way to avoid accidents is to teach firearms safety.
I agree. Somehow yesman's gone from "firearms training" to "hunting"...I suppose he'll say if the son doesn't go hunting the training is superfluous.
Trying to intimidate Dwellars into silence, are we? Classy.
Would me calling you a moron silence you? I hope not.
But I do think anyone who would agree with the statement in question to be moronic; should I actually wait for someone to do so they can call it a "personal attack"?
I agree. Somehow yesman's gone from "firearms training" to "hunting"...I suppose he'll say if the son doesn't go hunting the training is superfluous.
I am beginning to "respect" your opinions less and less the more you write. I am taking my son to a local club for training PRIOR to any hunting - period. That has not, nor will it change. You are totally offbase (which is becoming more frequent, the more you type) and now going so far as to make assumptions about me as a parent - eff you.
Were the quote marks an error?
No, they weren't.
Would me calling you a moron silence you? I hope not.
But I do think anyone who would agree with the statement in question to be moronic; should I actually wait for someone to do so they can call it a "personal attack"?
You just made another on me so there you go. You've answered your own question.
But I do think anyone who would agree with the statement in question to be moronic; should I actually wait for someone to do so they can call it a "personal attack"?
That's two straw men in a row.
Don't you have enough real people to spar with that you have to invent imaginary opponents like your "morons"?
Also, in the quote above, why didn't you leave it at "should I actually wait for someone to do so?" Why did you have to invent what your imaginary opponent would accuse you of?
Why did you have to invent what your imaginary opponent would accuse you of?
Because I've been there, done that, and burned the T-shirt.
No, they weren't.
Then what do they denote?
You just made another on me so there you go. You've answered your own question.
I wasn't addressing you.
Oh stop bickering and argue something substantial. I want meat, bloody meat, not this gruel you guys have been serving. :p
Because I've been there, done that, and burned the T-shirt.
Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.
No, that's the first time you suggested that. Previously you said:
Not at all the same thing.
No, it's not the first time I've suggested it. Go back and have another look.
Popcorn...<munch munch munch>
Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.
Man, I love it when you crack a joke tw. :)
So, ergo conclusio memorandum : Guns make a country more safe, right?
rotflmao tw...
Oh stop bickering and argue something substantial. I want meat, bloody meat, not this gruel you guys have been serving. :p
Sorry; I actually have a life, a job, and in addition have been addressing some serious family healthcare issues, so I don't have the energy for this I sometimes do.
It's also boring having the same tired old liberal misconceptions and excuses about gun prohibition trotted out by yet another round of noobs who either haven't read the last round or have but didn't absorb any of it.
How many times are you going to hear interesting responses to the usual drivel like "If it saves one child it's worth it" or the "would you want your neighbor to have a {nuke|tank|machine gun}" slippery slope or "guns have no purpose except to kill" or "The constitution didn't really mean that" or "the constitution really did mean that but we should change it" or "prove that you really *need* a gun" or "if you try to prove it you're a dangerously sick paranoid".
The usual do-gooder motivations apply: to be seen publically advocating putatively noble goals. Practical issues and unintended consequences are unimportant.
It's freaking boring...especially when the advocacy comes from sour grapes in places where the local government has already disarmed everybody but the criminals and is blaming the lack of positive effect on the fact that the same prohibitionist mistakes haven't been applied *everywhere*, or expanded to kitchen knives, cricket bats, morningstars, slingshots or bullwhips.
So, ergo conclusio memorandum : Guns make a country more safe, right?
The same way drugs make a country more healthy.
Once again: it's not
das ding an sich, it's the motivations and intents of the people using them.
Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.
Wet t-shirts don't burn.
The same way drugs make a country more healthy.
Totally incomparable. In fact it's a grotesk absurdity. Guns do not heal, do not reconcile, do not transport people, do not educate poeple, they are exclusively to kill living creatures, not a single other purpose, no matter what other fancy Kant quote you use.
it's the motivations and intents of the people using them.
That's in fact where the problem lies. It's not about guns itself. A vicious circle, where only violence can solve the problems, as it seems. People buy guns, because others have guns and may use it against you.
Again, do you think guns made the US safer?
Guns are part of the mix that keeps the US, in personality, a strong, rugged individualist; prepared to address any particular shit that hits the fan, unwilling to automatically cede control to authority, and not falling for the polite fantasy that life can be made perfectly safe.
Addressing problems without calling for help; admitting that we are, in the end, in charge of our own safety and thus our own lives; unwilling to automatically accept any new order thrust upon us. Willing, if need be, to give the federal revenooer an assload of buckshot to keep him off our property. (historical ref: during alcohol prohibition, people fought feds to keep their bathtub distillers running.)
It is this personality that has kept the US entrepreneurial, dynamic, and powerful.
Safe? Most definitely. Safer? Subject to definition. I don't believe I could walk through North Philly at midnight without being in danger. Almost any other part of Pennsylvania, which is about the same size in square miles as England, is absolutely fair game. Since there is nothing that North Philly offers me unless I'm looking for crack rocks at midnight, I am pretty safe.
Totally incomparable. In fact it's a grotesk absurdity. Guns do not heal, do not reconcile, do not transport people, do not educate poeple, they are exclusively to kill living creatures, not a single other purpose...
No, that's not true, because a gun doesn't have to be
fired to be
used. In fact
most legal firearms usage for self-defense does not involve discharging the weapon. (Even in the rare instances when they
are used to kill, the killing isn't necessarily implicitly evil.) I
use my weapons every day, and yet I've never hurt anyone with them, nor even tried to. With luck, I never shall. And yet being
prepared and
willing to use deadly force in true self-defense is a requrement for the weapon to be truly useful.
Your reasoning--and your question--is "grotesquely" simplistic...just like "do drugs make people healthy". Because they
don't necessarily, it depends completely on
how they are used. Focusing on and demonizing the *thing* is misguided. Do stoves make food taste good? Well, they *can*, but it's not guaranteed. You can make raw food tasty, or you can burn it into inedibility.
Do you not accept the use of deadly force in self-defense?
"would you want your neighbor to have a {nuke|tank|machine gun}" slippery slope
Wait, what is the answer to that one? Is there a Constitutional difference between sidearms and nuclear arms? I mean, obviously there's a practical difference, but is there a Second Amendment one?
Safe? Most definitely. Safer? Subject to definition. I don't believe I could walk through North Philly at midnight without being in danger. Almost any other part of Pennsylvania, which is about the same size in square miles as England, is absolutely fair game. Since there is nothing that North Philly offers me unless I'm looking for crack rocks at midnight, I am pretty safe.
As you mention guns are a very part of the American life, based on frontier, lawless times, which has been gone a long time. The idea that guns will turn men into a rugged, strong Marlboro man is in many eyes unthinkable. Problem is the numbers of arms is so massive in the US that even the smallest percentage of morons will turn into massacres. The majority of all global school shootings did happen in the US.
The question of a safer US was hypothetical, the problem is already there, 200 Million guns cannot be destroyed, let alone the mindset of the average entrepeneurial US citizin. Maybe it's because I'm from a different culture, but I think guns will contribute to a violent society. Entrepeneurship has a diferent meaning to me, think
VOC
Your reasoning--and your question--is "grotesquely" simplistic...just like "do drugs make people healthy". Because they don't necessarily, it depends completely on how they are used. Focusing on and demonizing the *thing* is misguided. Do stoves make food taste good? Well, they *can*, but it's not guaranteed. You can make raw food tasty, or you can burn it into inedibility.
You're at it again, making one silly comparison after another. Guns are for killing and drugs are for healing people. Indeed grotesquely simple, no matter how much smoke screens to try to put up.
You're at it again, making one silly comparison after another. Guns are for killing and drugs are for healing people. Indeed grotesquely simple, no matter how much smoke screens to try to put up.
So...cocaine is for healing people?
And heroin?
Cocaine
is used to heal...
sometimes. Heroin used to be used medicinally...as a cure for cocaine addiction.
Sodium Pentothal is used for anesthesia induction...or for executions by lethal injection.
Your whole formula of
${x} is for ${y} is deeply flawed.
Things simply don't have some nice black-and-while single inherent purpose, subject to your personal judgement as either "good" or "bad".
And I'm still waiting for an answer: do you accept the use of deadly force for self-defense? Because if you don't, and you believe killing is
always wrong, this dialogue is pointless.
Wait, what is the answer to that one? Is there a Constitutional difference between sidearms and nuclear arms? I mean, obviously there's a practical difference, but is there a Second Amendment one?
If you can find a reference to nuclear arms in the Constitution, that'll be a first. The Second Amendment doesn't say "keep and bear arms except for big ones".
You're just so anxious to get folks out on that slippery slope...the same slippery slope that the Clinton Gun Ban was all about. ""If we can just establish a class of prohibited weapons, it'll just be a matter of gradually amending the definition of the class until there's nothing left".
Well there's the cultural difference; I can start my own company to do web development (or make pizzas, or whatever) without feeling connected in any way at all to the "original sin" of the history of the East India Company.
If you can find a reference to nuclear arms in the Constitution, that'll be a first. The Second Amendment doesn't say "keep and bear arms except for big ones".
You're just so anxious to get folks out on that slippery slope...
No I thought pretty much everyone was on that slope already, and had different ideas of where to stop.
If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?
Then what do they denote?
Read the first or second explanation, Maggie. I have no need nor desire to go over this repeatedly. You are so paranoid and blatantly attempting to utilize the weakest diversionary tactic to avoid the real issues, its pathetic.
Forget about it - lets just agree to disagree about this and move on.
Better yet - go find my pic in the "show yourself" thread, print it out and use it for target practice.
No I thought pretty much everyone was on that slope already, and had different ideas of where to stop.
That's wishful thinking. I'd say it's not the case that "pretty much everybody" shares your ideas of the proper role of government and law.
As far as I can see, the constitution provides no foundation for any restriction on the posession of weapons by the people, nor does it delgate such a power to the states. You're invited to point out clauses that support your point of view. (You know, the one that "pretty much everybody" shares.)
Now I know for certain that there are lower statutes and case law that contravene that point of view.
U.S v. Miller is probably the most prominent example, although most folks don't understand how narrowly drawn the court's judgement was in that case. Even so, I think
U.S v. Miller was wrongly decided.
And there are certainly NRC regulations relating to the possession of nuclear material that would essentially prohibit civilian posession of a fission or fusion device of any design I know of.
But you very carefully asked about the Constitution. Kopel, Halbroook and Korwin's
Supreme Court Gun Cases is a useful reference on the topic.
Better yet - go find my pic in the "show yourself" thread, print it out and use it for target practice.
Still projecting your fear and hostility on others, I see. :-)
Maybe it's a good thing you leave your weapons in the hands of others...we wouldn't want any "accidents". (scare quotes intentional).
I just didn't see an explanation that made any sense. If you meant "accident", then say "accident". When you say "'accident'", it carries a different meaning. If it's a case of grocer's apostrophe", then it's an error, but you said it wasn't.
If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?
..{hey look over there}...
Happy Monkey was asking where
you stand, MaggieL, not what the law says. You say you aren't on the slope. If not, where are you? He acknowledged that there are restrictions on owning nukes. Listing those restrictions doesn't answer the question.
In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?
As far as I can see, the constitution provides no foundation for any restriction on the posession of weapons by the people, nor does it delgate such a power to the states. You're invited to point out clauses that support your point of view.
My view is that if you believe the 2nd Amendment prohibits the regulation of arms, then it must also support the right of anyone to own nuclear weapons.
And there are certainly NRC regulations relating to the possession of nuclear material that would essentially prohibit civilian posession of a fission or fusion device of any design I know of.
Under your view of the 2nd amendment, how could that be valid? It would be like allowing firearms, but prohibiting civilian posession of gunpowder. The 2nd should override.
But you very carefully asked about the Constitution.
Right. Any other laws aren't relevant if you think they are unconstitutional (relevant discussion-wise; in real life you still have to follow them if you aren't up for the consequences).
What I think "pretty much everyone" believes is that there are some weapons that should not be in your neighbor's basement. Just as libel and slander aren't mentioned in the First, nukes and weaponized biological agents aren't mentioned in the Second. Arguing the dividing line for both amendments is and should be an ongoing process.
...
1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
...
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.
Of course I am, you have
no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence
inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.
Still projecting your fear and hostility on others, I see.
Hmm, another diversionary tactic trying to get away from the point at hand.
BTW, no fear nor hostility projected, you do seem to be very emotional about this and I thought harmlessly discharging a few rounds at a pic of me might make you feel better - sorry I tried to to help. (It won't happen again.)
Maybe it's a good thing you leave your weapons in the hands of others...we wouldn't want any "accidents". (scare quotes intentional).
Uh, I think that was my whole point for leaving them there. Remember? It was only a couple days ago - if that. (See prior posts.)
I just didn't see an explanation that made any sense. If you meant "accident", then say "accident". When you say "'accident'", it carries a different meaning. If it's a case of grocer's apostrophe", then it's an error, but you said it wasn't.
:eyebrow:
Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.
After rereading what I wrote, I apologize. I was incorrect. It was not what I intended, but nonetheless it was wrong.
Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.
Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.
The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.
Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children. :mad:
Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children. :mad:
Indeed so......
(now, just
which part of the Constition were you pickin'n'choosin' from?)
The 2nd amendment refers to the citizens right and no other part supersedes it. There is no "pickin' and choosin'". :eyebrow:
perhaps I was being too subtle.......
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.
so how come there's a first let alone a second and the dozens that followed, amendment?
Don't be misled by the term amendment. :headshake
The Constitution was written and approved by the framers. When they were done they looked at the thing, and decided it's a good outline for running a country, now how does it apply to and effect the people? They then wrote the "Bill of Rights" to spell out the protections of the people from the government. They were written as amendments 1 through 10, so they would never be separated from the Constitution.... so the government couldn't just cast them aside. Only then was the package presented for the approval of the states, of the people.
Heroin used to be used medicinally...as a cure for cocaine addiction.
Morphine converts to heroin within 15 seconds of entering the bloodstream. One is legal the other is not. That's the only difference.
Of course, this means that we still use heroin medicinally. It's just that we've learned how to refine it.
It's all legal for the medical community to use responsibly, no?
Chemical versions of Superman's powers, to be used for good, only. ;)
And I'm still waiting for an answer: do you accept the use of deadly force for self-defense? Because if you don't, and you believe killing is always wrong, this dialogue is pointless.
I thought that was bleeding obvious, unless you have a large canon in front of your head. Of course I'm against killing and I'm against the death penalty. And the discussion is not pointless, it's the very essence. But then again all discussions about someting you don't agree with you regard as pointless.
Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.
OK, maybe not a nuke, but how about a bazooka? Hand granate? Stinger? M2 Browning? M1 36 Anti Tank weapon? Flamethrower? All portable. Remember according Maggie's Law it's the people who fire them, not the weapons itself.
Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.
What is confusing you about this statement?:confused:
The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.
This is what you're doing.
How broad is the right of the 2nd Amendment ( "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.")? 1791 Muskets? Or rocket launchers? Or somewhere between?
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
They then wrote the "Bill of Rights" to spell out the protections of the people from the government. They were written as amendments 1 through 10, so they would never be separated from the Constitution.... so the government couldn't just cast them aside.
Very good, that's the first half of the equation. The second half entails the inalienable rights, predominantly LIFE, from which the concept of proportionality extends to protect the citizenry. The reasonable man principle is applied to determine what weapons may be owned by individuals to protect their own lives. The reasonable man's perspective being established through the Legislature and Judiciary with Executive branch enforcement. It is a continuing process just as is the Constitution a living document.
We have Armed Forces, National Guard, and Police organizations at many levels which negate the need for Joe Citizen to maintain private ownership of WMD and many other weapons of war. The government; however, does NOT provide personal bodyguards for each and every one of its citizens (to negate the need for personal arms of any sort) and probably never will as it would create an invasion of privacy situation [prohibited by the Constitution]. Even if privacy concerns were not a factor, would anyone else assigned to protect your life do so with the same dedication you have to saving your own life? Society has both collective personal security tasks and individual personal security tasks. Joe Citizen is still responsible for taking care of himself in his everyday walk of life. Those who choose not to do so have that right; but, they do not have the right to impose that choice on anyone else and it can't be done through due process without first rescinding other parts of the Constitution which would change the fabric of this nation.
At this point in our cultural and technological development, firearms are still the great equalizer between weak and strong, old and young, poor and rich ... etc. Many other forms of equalization (i.e. justice) are reactive in nature rather than proactive thus diminishing the individual's right to life. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and those who would deprive all citizens of the right to bear arms in any form are the weakest links in our society AT THIS TIME. Perhaps someday, we will become culturally and technologically advanced enough that individually owned weapons will not be necessary to secure our persons. Until then, ALL are invited to read the
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations with particular attention to Article 3. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person."; also, Article 30. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group
or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
Because so few here get the big picture and so few here are men or women of vision, I generally don't get involved in these tunnel vision discussions. The timing was right to make an exception. Now I'm going back to Nothingland: as I've said before "I'm only here for the entertainment".
Aren't I a stinker?! :p
Thank you NoBoxes for taking the time to decline from Nowhere and share you immense wisdom with us mortals.
If you're still around:
If this great equalizer (Lott?) works so well in the US, do you think it would work also in Europe? Would we have even less crime? Would every woman, homeless person need to buy a concealed gun in order to defend himself against the (very slim) chance being harassed?
Are for instance Iran and NKorea allowed to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves?
A man who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.
A statewide manhunt ensued.
The gunman was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit him 68 times. Asked why they shot him 68 times, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel...:
“That's all the bullets we had.”
Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.
Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.
The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.
Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children. :mad:
Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.
I thought that was bleeding obvious, unless you have a large canon in front of your head.
While my Webster's Third does give
canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people
"One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or
"A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...
And the precedent set by the acknowledgement (it isn't a granting -- read the text and you'll see that the right to keep and bear arms inheres in one's condition as a human being is assumed) that free humans should have killing tools at their private disposal, that private persons should be equipped comparably to the best armies of the time, is a very strong one.
It's all the stronger in that this is the one known remedy to genocides; the state is no bulwark against this kind of mass crime as it takes the state to enable it -- one state may punish another for having done it, but that's too late to prevent it or cure it. No state has successfully impeded a genocide in another state.
If you oppose death penalties, presumably by deeming them too likely to be wrongful, you'd oppose death as a penalty for being in an unpopular group, too. Thereby, you'd be interested in the known means of preventing that.
[QUOTE/Hippikos]A man who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.
A statewide manhunt ensued.
The gunman was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit him 68 times. Asked why they shot him 68 times, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel...:
“That's all the bullets we had.”[QUOTE]
That's a pretty cool story.
While my Webster's Third does give canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people "One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or "A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...
If you play Pachabel's Canon loud enough and long enough, it's really pretty effective, although I really prefer Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance for really deadly boring action.
Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.
Prior to 1776, cannons, privately owned by individuals, not communities or settlements, were rare as hen's teeth. They were too expensive to acquire and shoot (used a lot of powder), for most individuals to afford. Yes, they were legal, everything was legal until technology upped the ante.
As rifles and side arms improved, the people that could afford them, kept pace. It wasn't until weapons were developed for killing buildings and tanks, that private citizens didn't have a legitimate application for, that the government said whoa, Nellie. The people don't need this shit and could do a hell of a lot of bad things, even accidentally, with it. They figured it probably wasn't a good idea for you to be able to run down to the hardware store and pick up a gun that would shoot the door off a bank vault.
I'm hard pressed to come up with an occasion where I'd need anything bigger than a .5 bore. Defend myself from the government's military? When they can drop a nuke on me from half way around the world? No way.
Come to think of it, I wonder how many people with small arsenals like mine, are deluded into thinking that's all that's necessary to keep them safe from the government. That's nonsense, the ONLY thing that will protect us from the government, is an active, vigilant, voting public.
Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.:shotgun:
Guns do work to curb government power B. Whatever law they pass still requires an agent of the government to enforce it. That means somebody is put in mortal danger. That in turn explains why the IRS does almost all its business via the US Mail.
I brought up alcohol prohibition earlier, "revenuers" who got their ass shot full of buckshot and the backyard distillers who would load up without fear, were part of the equation.
Well written Bruce - as usual, much better than I did in about 20 attempts.
While my Webster's Third does give canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people "One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or "A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...
Well UG, I'm deeply sorry for my spelling faults, English not being my native tongue I'm afraid that can happen. Of course I can response in Dutch, Deutsch or Francais, but I'm afraid you won't be able to follow that, so excuse my past, present and future grammar and syntax errors. Maybe you want me to add a disclaimer the next time?
If you play Pachabel's Canon loud enough and long enough, it's really pretty effective, although I really prefer Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance for really deadly boring action.
Crying Wolf again?
If you play Pachabel's Canon loud enough and long enough, it's really pretty effective, although I really prefer Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance for really deadly boring action.
[youtube]JdxkVQy7QLM[/youtube]
Regarding spelling and grammatical mistakes, I have some type of web spellcheck at home, but not at work, so they do seem to slip through when I'm on there - no biggie. I got your point.
Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.:shotgun:
When used collectively, they can repel or disrupt an invading army; domestic or foreign as we have been finding out.
Regarding spelling and grammatical mistakes, I have some type of web spellcheck at home, but not at work, so they do seem to slip through when I'm on there - no biggie. I got your point.
Grammar Nazis live in any forum, you have to live with it like with other vermin.
Prior to 1776, cannons, privately owned by individuals, not communities or settlements, were rare as hen's teeth. They were too expensive to acquire and shoot (used a lot of powder), for most individuals to afford. Yes, they were legal, everything was legal until technology upped the ante.
As rifles and side arms improved, the people that could afford them, kept pace. It wasn't until weapons were developed for killing buildings and tanks, that private citizens didn't have a legitimate application for, that the government said whoa, Nellie. The people don't need this shit and could do a hell of a lot of bad things, even accidentally, with it. They figured it probably wasn't a good idea for you to be able to run down to the hardware store and pick up a gun that would shoot the door off a bank vault.
I'm hard pressed to come up with an occasion where I'd need anything bigger than a .5 bore. Defend myself from the government's military? When they can drop a nuke on me from half way around the world? No way.
Come to think of it, I wonder how many people with small arsenals like mine, are deluded into thinking that's all that's necessary to keep them safe from the government. That's nonsense, the ONLY thing that will protect us from the government, is an active, vigilant, voting public.
Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.:shotgun:
There is no larger bully/thug/criminal group than the US government.
Hmm, another diversionary tactic trying to get away from the point at hand.
You have a point? What is it?
Uh, I think that was my whole point for leaving them there.
My use of them
was deliberately ironic, implying that were you to act on uncontrollable anger that any resulting incident would
not actually be accidental. Thus scare quotes are appropriate (see the Wikipedia citation earlier).
You claimed you actually meant literally "accidents", no irony, which would call for no scare quotes.
And you also said there was no error.
That's contradictory. Which is it?
A man who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida...
Hardly plausible that seven shots were fired *after* the close range headshot. The headshot was probably coupe de grace last shot to make sure the deputy would not be able to identify the shooter. Not what is ordinarily meant by "an execution", but it makes better news copy.
Human emotion can be a funny thing; I suspect the cops emptied their guns into this guy
because he shot the dog. Somehow that was seen as more venial than shooting the cop.
In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?
Yes, although that highly hypothetical strawman isn't high on my list of unconstitutional weapons prohibitions to worry about.
Much higher are the liberals who want to confiscate the much more ordinary weapons that I actually do have (and could actually use in justified self-defense without causing megadeaths of collateral damage, most likely including myself) on the specious theory that doing so will somehow reduce violent crime.
I think there's a lot of provisions of the National Firearms Act that are unconstitutional too. The Pennsylvania State Police maintans a gun registry that's forbidden by an explicit statue. There's lots of gun laws that suck mightily, but I try to reserve my attention for the ones that matter most.
For example, why does "full faith and credit" apply to drivers licences, but not to gun licences and marriage licences? (It's interesting that both gun licencing and marriage licencing were invented to instiutionalize racial discrimination...perhaps that's why somehow Article IV, Section 1 is ignored in those cases)
We hear the "nuke" strawman trotted out every so often to get us onto the slippery slope of "some weapons should be prohibited", and start the old prohibitionist salami game category by category. The folks behind the Clinton Gun Ban admitted quite openly that that was exactly what they intended to do.
Wouldn't anybody who assembling a nuke be arrested under the "risking a catastrophe" statutes? It's not necessary to sacrifice the Second Amendment principle to address this mostly imaginary "problem".
Maggie - just let it go - it's not worth it.
Again, if you don't like guns... don't buy one.
Guns do work to curb government power B. Whatever law they pass still requires an agent of the government to enforce it. That means somebody is put in mortal danger. That in turn explains why the IRS does almost all its business via the US Mail.
I brought up alcohol prohibition earlier, "revenuers" who got their ass shot full of buckshot and the backyard distillers who would load up without fear, were part of the equation.
Those days are long gone, wounded knee, Ruby ridge, Waco.
If you run afoul of one of their laws, most likely your contact will be with a local police officer. If he leaves with a load of buckshot in his ass, they will come down on you in biblical proportion. You will not win.
They have the power to send an "army" without even going outside the County for help.
If your buddy joins you, a State will join them.
If two buddies join you, the Federal Government will join them.
No, staying on top of the politicians is the only shot at preventing onerous laws making your life miserable.;)
Maggie - just let it go - it's not worth it.
Well, if you don't write coherently, that's not my fault. Conversely, if your writing reveals more of your thinking than you like, that's on you also.
Those days are long gone, wounded knee, Ruby ridge, Waco.
Not necessarily.
Like at the ballot box, a few isolated individuals don't mean much, but collectively, the more the merrier...so to speak. Especially when the boys in blue have a lot of shared values with the general population.
Thats a scary Apache photo you have there. Two words:
posse commitatus.
Those days are long gone, wounded knee, Ruby ridge, Waco.
If you run afoul of one of their laws, most likely your contact will be with a local police officer. If he leaves with a load of buckshot in his ass, they will come down on you in biblical proportion. You will not win.
It's not necessary to "win" or even to load up. There mere threat of 1 out of 1000 principled bathtub gin owners (or whatever) taking a stand is enough to influence the power.
Nobody "won" at Waco but the rules of engagement are forever changed.
Exactly.
Plus, since then, I promise you those agents will not get that close to a compound again.
Well, if you don't write coherently, that's not my fault. Conversely, if your writing reveals more of your thinking than you like, that's on you also.
Whatever.
Don't worry Yesman...you're better off not wasting your effort on pointless discussions. You're not the only one she fails to comprehend. ;)
Wow, it's a good thing nobody ever gets shot over anything petty like grammar or spelling.
Wow, it's a good thing nobody ever gets shot over anything petty like grammar or spelling.
Yeah we'd miss out on all tw's posts too, and that would suck! Really, although I disagree with tw most of the time, I find his posts interesting if nothing else.
Oh and thanks Ali. I was beginnig to think it WAS just me.
Well, yesman, I've only been half following your discussion with MaggieL, but the half I saw tells me you need to understand guns and the guns-and-people interface considerably better than you do.
I see that in the fact that you're not pro-gun enough. I can suggest a few written works that would help your understanding a great deal -- as they helped mine. Shall I do a PM?
MaggieL is the opposite of arrogant -- that's more in my line -- so you really couldn't claim to be put off by her manner -- but she does know more about the benevolent effects of privately owned killing tools than you've ever thought of.
Well, yesman, I've only been half following your discussion with MaggieL, but the half I saw tells me you need to understand guns and the guns-and-people interface considerably better than you do.
We all have our own opinions - neither right nor wrong - just different.
I see that in the fact that you're not pro-gun enough. I can suggest a few written works that would help your understanding a great deal -- as they helped mine. Shall I do a PM?
no thanks I think I have a good grasp of the situation and simply disagree with her - and you I guess.
She does know more about the benevolent effects of privately owned killing tools than you've ever thought of.
Perhaps making more of the benevolent effects of guns and downplaying (or completely ignoring) the negatives leads you too, to this conclusion.
I have said what I believe and after all the banter, shall continue to stand fast in them.
We all have our own opinions - neither right nor wrong - just different.
A perfect example of the kind of mindless no-fault relativism widely promoted in our educational system these days.
A perfect example of the kind of mindless no-fault relativism widely promoted in our educational system these days.
Ah yes, and views pounded into us by the state would be so much better.
Whatever.
Thank you for clarifying your point. Somehow my viewpoint just wasn't nuanced enough to pick up on the incicive logic of "whatever".
Ah yes, and views pounded into us by the state would be so much better.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the educational system is *run* by the state.
Must have been all that pounding.
I had other less mature responses for you too, MaggieL, but I thought better of using any of them. Therefore I'll continue on the high road while you may feel free to sling mud and disparaging remarks at will. I would have to respect you to care what you think of me and you have certainly not gained any and lost what little you had.
I am aware of that and I have my seperate issues with that but at least it allows us to have more than one view.
You are implying that our educational system is too soft on ideas that might not work, right? How would you fix this? Selecting one system and brainwashing our students to believe that is the "right" way (what I believe is happening anyways)? Seriously, how would you like it?
You are implying that our educational system is too soft on ideas that might not work, right?
No. I'm not saying the educational system is soft on ideas. I'm saying the system built on soft ideas.
Critical thinking seems to have been largely abandonded in favor that particularly pernicious flavor of sociospeak that
Richard Mitchell once referred to as "Educanto". Everyone does indeed
have their own opinion, but critical thinking reveals that not all opinions are deserving of equal respect.
I had other less mature responses for you too...
There's a difference between "standing on the moral high ground" and "not struggling because you're in quicksand".
Critical thinking seems to have been largely abandonded in favor that particularly pernicious flavor of sociospeak that Richard Mitchell once referred to as "Educanto". Everyone does indeed have their own opinion, but critical thinking reveals that not all opinions are deserving of equal respect.
Does that include critical thinking of fire arms? Or only ideas that suits your opinion?
There's a difference between "standing on the moral high ground" and "not struggling because you're in quicksand".
"Message refused. Return to Sender"
No. I'm not saying the educational system is soft on ideas. I'm saying the system built on soft ideas.
How so? I think the idea itself isn't bad just that it doesn't work as planned. Just like communism.
Everyone does indeed have their own opinion, but critical thinking reveals that not all opinions are deserving of equal respect.
Agreed but all that leads to is 'if you disagree with me your opinion is wrong which doesn't deserve equal respect'. The bias in determining which idea is respectable ruins that whole idea.
"Critical thinking seems to have been largely abandonded "
I'm not sure what the system is like in the US, but here, students are encouraged to do a lot more critical thinking than they were perhaps twenty years ago or so. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to infer than rote learning was more beneficial, although in some aspects I would argue that it is and should still be employed.
It's about teaching people how to learn. Some go off half cocked and don't 'get it', but others benefit greatly from it.
I don't think the system is perfect. In fact, I think it's a long way from it, but it's certainly better than it was. More inclusive for starters, and that's an incredibly important aspect in a learning environment.
In America from what I have noticed it is either you are a "democratic captitalistic" patriot or you are a commie. That may just be the white republican suburban atomosphere that I grew up in though.
Yeah, that's about right...maybe not commie, but at least wacko misfit and definitely un-American.
Critical thinking is a wonderful tool to give the kids, but it won't make them a living if they don't have a solid base in the three Rs and science. :headshake
You mean it wont make them a living if they dont sit down like good little sheep and parrot back what the teacher says to get good grades...
fuckin' rat race.
You mean it wont make them a living if they dont sit down like good little sheep and parrot back what the teacher says to get good grades...
fuckin' rat race.
Ha, all you have to do is not competely piss the teacher off and you will be fine. High school is all about doing homework which is bitchwork but if you don't learn that sometimes you will have to do things you don't want to get ahead, you won't get real far.
Captitalistic and atomosphere... I sense an impending avalanche of Sniglets.
Rhythmical ones, yet: cap-tit-a-lis-tic and at-om-o-sphere, cap-tit-a-lis-tic and at-om-o-sphere...
Critical thinking is a wonderful tool to give the kids, but it won't make them a living if they don't have a solid base in the three Rs and science.
Doing real science and math requires piles of critical thinking.
Does that include critical thinking of fire arms? Or only ideas that suits your opinion?
Yes.
My opinions about firearms were arrived at by applying critical thinking.
And even better, I have the freedom to act on my opinions.
Some folks have been left no options by their governments, and thus have to rationalize the situation they find themselves in. Preferably an opinion that makes them appear noble, rather than emasculated.
"Message refused. Return to Sender"
If you actually have nothing to say, consider the STFU option. Having the last word is meaningless if you haven't said anything. And it's even worse if nobody can understand what you said.
Some folks have been left no options by their governments, and thus have to rationalize the situation they find themselves in. Preferably an opinion that makes them appear noble, rather than emasculated.
According your definition Anarchism would be critical thinking. Who is going to judge whether your rationalisation is correct? Only yourself by critical thinking? Do you think that owing 4 fire arms makes a person noble?
You mean it wont make them a living if they dont sit down like good little sheep and parrot back what the teacher says to get good grades...
fuckin' rat race.
I don't know what sort of school you go to Ibram, but the schools I've been in haven't valued students who parrot the teacher any where near as highly as those who can argue their point with clarity. Maybe it's a different system there. I don't really know, but if it's that different, it's pretty sad.
If you actually have nothing to say, consider the STFU option. Having the last word is meaningless if you haven't said anything. And it's even worse if nobody can understand what you said.
I understood it. I'm almost certain I'm not the only one who did.
Critical thinking is a wonderful tool to give the kids, but it won't make them a living if they don't have a solid base in the three Rs and science. :headshake
I think that's exactly right Bruce, and it's what I meant when I was suggesting that some rote learning is still beneficial to students.
I don't know what sort of school you go to Ibram, but the schools I've been in haven't valued students who parrot the teacher any where near as highly as those who can argue their point with clarity. Maybe it's a different system there. I don't really know, but if it's that different, it's pretty sad.
Well, I can tell you I'm definitely more of a thinker than a repeater, and i argue ALL my points, and the teachers', and my classmates'... but I'm practically failing because I don't do my homework (shuddup, I don't need a lecture), and all the homework is is parrotting back the same things they said in class. The teachers are (i hope) fond of me because I actually, y'know, DO shit in class (you know the whole meek asian school mindset...), but I nearly fail cause I won't do the rote shit.
Maybe you're missing the point of what they want you to do? They are the teachers after all...and you are the student.
Maybe not though. Maybe you're right. Unfortunately, if you're failing, you're doing something wrong. Maybe you need to look at that?
If you actually have nothing to say, consider the STFU option.
Ok, hey MaggieL STFU.
I said I didn't want a lecture. I learn more out of school than in it, and most of what I do learn in school isn't worth learning to me. I thirst, I yearn for knowlegde, but having it mandated and force-fed to me is not the way I want it. I learn what I'm taught, but I don't care enough to buy into the rat race and shoot for the grades to show it if they dont come naturally. I'm passing, I ace almost all my tests (except in math, but thats a different matter altogether, one of apathy), but I don't do the ridiculous busywork I get assigned. I don't care if that costs me a good college, because as I've implied and outright said, I dont want to be part of the rat race. I don't need a piece of paper saying I know shit to know it. I know what I want to do, and I don't care what I have to sacrifice to do what I think is right.
Ibram, I promise this is no lecture, I just want to share my brother's experience with you, since he could have said your last post word-for-word about about 5 years ago.
He knew what he wanted to do, photography. (I'm guessing your dream is music, but I could be wrong.) He assured us he would never, ever want to work for a place that valued a piece of paper over a genuine assessment of his skills and intelligence, so it wouldn't matter that he didn't go to college. Now, five years later, he is still trying to get his life moving in the direction he wants it to go, and he (quite surprisingly) admitted several things to me recently:
1.) He never expected life would be so damn expensive.
2.) He realizes now that even if he had gone to college just to barely scrape by like he had been doing in high school, that would have at least been another 4 years of complete financial support from our parents while he continued to hone his photography skills.
3.) "Selling out" his art by doing weddings, portrait shots, etc. turned out to be far worse on him emotionally than a day job, because at least he can rationalize away the day job without souring the experience of what he loves.
4.) He never realized how many relatively decent day-jobs there are, where one can have a desk and an internet connection and few responsibilities.
5.) He thought everyone else in the "rat race" completely bought into the philosophy. He never dreamed that the bosses of the above jobs wouldn't care about their job any more than he does, and thus wouldn't be interested in taking the time to assess his knowledge and intelligence, and would instead just take the first application candidate with a piece of paper saying they graduated so they can get back to surfing the internet all day.
6.) He never realized how much better a "rat race" position would still be compared tp food service and retail--which, as it turns out, is just another rat race after all, except it pays a lot less and you actually have to work.
He said overall (and he waxed eloquent for quite awhile, having a bit of a mid-twenties crisis over all this by now) that he really wished he had believed my father back when he told him, "You will have to work, I mean really work and not just do what you love, for many years of your life if not all of it. The only question is, how bad do you want it to suck?" He didn't understand at the time that what made high school so annoying was that the teachers cared about whether he did well, and nagged him about his grades, whereas in the real world people just blew him off and never gave him a chance to prove how smart he was in the first place.
Anyway, end of pretend-non-lecture. Don't take it from me, take it from another hyperintelligent, idealistic young man still dedicated to following his dream.
According your definition Anarchism would be critical thinking. Who is going to judge whether your rationalisation is correct? Only yourself by critical thinking? Do you think that owing 4 fire arms makes a person noble?
Anarchism isn't that bad of a system. I just personally think it won't work in real life. More American 'Democracy is the only good system' bias?
Ibram - you sound exactly like me a lil while ago - ok a long while ago. I went back to college after having gotten married and 3 kids - trust me - its a lot easier to just do it - you'll be much better off as well. Just kick ass at every stupid task they put in front of you and then YOU get to decide what you do and where, when, why and for whom. Otherwise, it'll be some idiot without a clue telling you what to do and that sucks way more than the alternative. Either way - GL.
--snip--
What I think "pretty much everyone" believes is that there are some weapons that should not be in your neighbor's basement. Just as libel and slander aren't mentioned in the First, nukes and weaponized biological agents aren't mentioned in the Second. Arguing the dividing line for both amendments is and should be an ongoing process.
Well said, Happy Monkey. Thank you for so clearly pointing out the obvious. It is important and necessary, even if it is difficult or "freaking boring".
As rifles and side arms improved, the people that could afford them, kept pace. It wasn't until weapons were developed for killing buildings and tanks, that private citizens didn't have a legitimate application for, that the government said whoa, Nellie. The people don't need this shit and could do a hell of a lot of bad things, even accidentally, with it. They figured it probably wasn't a good idea for you to be able to run down to the hardware store and pick up a gun that would shoot the door off a bank vault.
:cool:
I understood it. I'm almost certain I'm not the only one who did.
I'm almost certain you think so.
I'm almost certain you think you understood it, too.
It's not at all hard to project your own beliefs onto the words of others...no matter how sematically bankrupt the words themselves may be. In fact, that makes it easier...a
tabula rasa makes the best projection screen...
It's not at all hard to project your own beliefs onto the words of others...
For example, thinking that if you didn't understand something, nobody else could have either?
It wasn't until weapons were developed for killing buildings and tanks, that private citizens didn't have a legitimate application for, that the government said whoa, Nellie...
Like cannon? They've been around quite a while.
"Legitimate application" is a neat little bit of question begging...once it's established you must demonstrate a "legitimate application" for something, it's pretty easy for some clerk to take it away from you.
Hey, do you have a "legtimate application" for that computer there? Fill out this form and wait for your licence... How about that hacked TiVo? You can't possibly have a "legitimate application" for that, it's obviously "burgalar's tools".
For example, thinking that if you didn't understand something, nobody else could have either?
The phrase in question didn't involve much in the way of belief...it pretty much turned on standard English usage and the law of the excluded middle. Quote marks have meaning, and punctuation matters.
On the other hand, appeals to logic won't sway those whose beliefs include "all points of view are legitimate and thus deserve equal weight".
[QUOTE=MaggieL]It's not at all hard to project your own beliefs onto the words of others...
For example, thinking that if you didn't understand something, nobody else could have either?[/QUOTE]Ouch.
Like cannon? They've been around quite a while.
"Legitimate application" is a neat little bit of question begging...once it's established you must demonstrate a "legitimate application" for something, it's pretty easy for some clerk to take it away from you.
Hey, do you have a "legtimate application" for that computer there? Fill out this form and wait for your licence... How about that hacked TiVo? You can't possibly have a "legitimate application" for that, it's obviously "burgalar's tools".
What are you playing, leapfrog? Try to keep it connected, from paragraph to paragraph, will you.
Chew on this. Sooner or later, DARPA is going to come up with a laser that's small enough for one person to carry and will have the power to be a serious weapon. You know, Star Wars, Star Trek, stuff.
Now, I'll bet a million bucks the government will say you can't have one. Strictly military and law enforcement personnel, because you don't have a legitimate application, just as they have done with hand grenades and such.
You know what? They're right. :p
Chew on this. Sooner or later, DARPA is going to come up with a laser that's small enough for one person to carry and will have the power to be a serious weapon.
They actually already have something like that avaliable to the public. I don't know its exact strength, but it's powerful. I wish I could find that link.
I'm almost certain you think so.
I'm almost certain you think you understood it, too.
It's not at all hard to project your own beliefs onto the words of others...no matter how sematically bankrupt the words themselves may be. In fact, that makes it easier...a tabula rasa makes the best projection screen...
Very pretty Maggie, but unfortunately, a load of bullshit. It was very clear what was intended.
They actually already have something like that avaliable to the public. I don't know its exact strength, but it's powerful. I wish I could find that link.
You probably mean
http://www.wickedlasers.com/Very pretty Maggie, but unfortunately, a load of bullshit. It was very clear what was intended.
OK. Since it was so clear, suppose you explain why
They are both kept at my parents home so that there are no accidents.
...means the same thing as...
They are both kept at my parents home so that there are no "accidents."
...since yesman065 claimed after the fact that the quote marks were neither ironic nor an error.
ISTR a short story by Robert Heinlen which postulated just such a device. As the right-winger he was, I'm sure you wont be surprised that his viewpoint matched Maggies pretty much word for word.
You probably mean http://www.wickedlasers.com/
Yup that is it.
Pretty impressive but I wouldn't take one to a knife fight. :headshake
I just have to say I will never understand why you people care so much about your weapons. You value your right to a gun above any other right you have, you would rather people take away your right to be treated equally, your right to fair treatment under the law, all your other rights given to you by the bill of rights, as long as amendment two doesnt get touched.
I will never, ever understand it.
Another lesson mostly lost in my and your generation - I touched on this in another thread, but many believe that their right to bear arms keeps them safe and prepared to defend themselves from tyranny or oppression. Those who cannot understand this agree with you. Then again there is the Switzerland principle.
Ibram, the short answer is you won't have a mature nor complete understanding of it until you read Stephen P. Halbrook.
The long answer is the clear and engagingly written text of Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed: the Evolution of a Constitutional Right. The man's no shifty propagandist; he's the Constitutional lawyer who gutted the Brady Law's more noxious provisions before the US Supreme Court. He's someone to respect and give ear to.
After all, it is the Second Amendment, and no other, that gives teeth to the First. Its intent, and indeed its rather unacknowledged effect, is to give teeth to all of them, Amendments and Constitution alike.
Meanwhile, you might peruse, online, the writing of Don B. Kates and David Kopel. These too are highly sensible men. But don't take my word for it; see for yourself and discuss it.
Once again, the only truly important law that is not either dead or dying is the second. That is not right. An armed america without the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendment... is still a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime that YOU, Urbane Guerrilla, support and helped establish. Which makes you no better than the red-bandannas in cambodia, or the general german public in the late thirties, or the Bolsheviks in russia. It is YOU that is an enemy of freedom and therefore mankind..
I just have to say I will never understand why you people care so much about your weapons. You value your right to a gun above any other right you have, you would rather people take away your right to be treated equally, your right to fair treatment under the law, all your other rights given to you by the bill of rights, as long as amendment two doesnt get touched.
That's quite a claim. What evidence do you have to support it?
It's also not clear to me why I should have to choose one right above another...if they are *all* my rights. "We'll support your other rights, but give up your right to defend yourself, since you can't proive you *need* it."
What is *that* about?
Pretty impressive but I wouldn't take one to a knife fight.
Not really an effective wepon at all. But very cool for party tricks.
What are you playing, leapfrog? Try to keep it connected, from paragraph to paragraph, will you.
Those *are* connected. The idea that someone must prove a "legitimate purpose" to posess any particular device is what's way out there.
ISTR a short story by Robert Heinlen which postulated just such a device. As the right-winger he was, I'm sure you wont be surprised that his viewpoint matched Maggies pretty much word for word.
Which device are you referring to?
In fact I'm a huge Heinlien fan. His personal political evolution is rather interesting; he didn't start out as what you dismiss as a "right-winger"--in fact he was quite liberal when young--but his life experience led him to the positions he espoused later.
indeed so, Maggie.... as he aged, he became more and more right-wing, ending up as the literary equivalent of John Wayne.
The device I mentioned was a hand-held laser, from one of his short-stories. It may have been called 'the equliser' or 'the leveller'.
I just have to say I will never understand why you people care so much about your weapons. You value your right to a gun above any other right you have, you would rather people take away your right to be treated equally, your right to fair treatment under the law, all your other rights given to you by the bill of rights, as long as amendment two doesnt get touched.
I will never, ever understand it.
I don't want
any of my rights taken away and fight it as hard as I can.
So, what is next, after you get guns outlawed by legal citizens, tazers?
Rant away, Ibram, rant away. The more you yell, the smarter I look, or perhaps am. Meanwhile, get your reading done if you really want to run with the big dogs.
Look, I'm anti-gun-control myself, in the spirit of freedom, even though I don't like the things, but given the choice between republicans (take away all your rights but leave the guns) and the democrats (take away your guns but leave all the rest of your rights), too many of you (not you personally, you universal) pick republican.
too many of you (not you personally, you universal) pick republican.
Uh, you sure about that?? I would say the exact opposite. The world has gotten more liberal over time not more conservative.
But it's still too conservative.
That depends on your perspective. Many would agree with you, but many would disagree with you too.
Yes, but that could be said of anything at all. I will still believe I'm right.
And I believe I am right as well. The world is far more liberal today than it was 20, 40 or 50 years ago. Oh, and not enough picked republican this last election.
No, about 49% too many picked Republicans.
I don't like the Democrats, but they're by far the lesser of two evils.
Well there are other options beside those two. . .
But until America can really throw off the shackles of the two-party system, other parties are simply impractical to vote for without massive coordinated effort.
Look, I'm anti-gun-control myself, in the spirit of freedom...
I'm not willing to settle for just "the sprit" of freedom.
indeed so, Maggie.... as he aged, he became more and more right-wing, ending up as the literary equivalent of John Wayne.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html...Maggie, I'm relatively on your side on this one. I hate guns with a burning passion, but I'm STILL AGAINST GUN CONTROL. Don't pick on me on this one, calm down.
...Maggie, I'm relatively on your side on this one. I hate guns with a burning passion, but I'm STILL AGAINST GUN CONTROL. Don't pick on me on this one, calm down.
Calm down? You're the one who's shouting.
I just don't agree that the Dems are the lesser evil. And their stance on gun control is symptomatic of the core problems in their philosophy.
I'm not willing to settle for just "the sprit" of freedom.
Nor I. Ibbie, you clearly do not yet know yet what guns are, and what guns are not. Experience is about all I can recommend.
OMG - I think I agree with MaggieL on something
I wouldn't be surprised -- the two of you have more differences in degree, I think, than of kind.
OMG - I think I agree with MaggieL on something
And it take a big man to admit it. Congratulations, you've taken the first step. :cool:
And it take a big man to admit it. Congratulations, you've taken the first step. :cool:
Yep, too bad it'll never happen the other way...
Yep, too bad it'll never happen the other way...
I not infrequently agree with xoxoxoBruce. and evidently I'm in agreement with yesman on this point. I even have agreed-admittedly rarely-with tw.
To be shocked that you could *ever* agree with someone about *anything* is an indication that conflict is no longer about issues, and has become personal.
MaggieL, Personal? My statement was more a figure of speech than anything, but I suppose you are right. I enjoy discussing the issues and have learned a great deal here. Interacting and exchanging thoughts, views and opinions with others who have opposing views is the best way learn and understand said view.
That being said, there are times where neither individual will yield their point or opinion, an agreement cannot be reached and an "agree to disagree" position may be the best option. You and I for example, I respect your position on gun control, although I do not totally agree with you. Thats fine with me. Hell, if we all thought the same thing there would very little discussion here, right?
