a well regulated militia

WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia (AP) -- A man armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire on a helicopter landing in a residential neighborhood, thinking the chopper was carrying terrorists, police said.

Helicopter pilot John S. Sutton landed his helicopter July 13 at the home of businessman John Peters to pick him up, police said.

John Chwaszczewski, a semiretired construction worker, became alarmed when he saw the chopper swoop down over his garage, about a block from Peters' home.

"Maybe I overreacted, but I did feel this was terrorism at its utmost," Chwaszczewski said.

Chwaszczewski told police the shooting was "a natural reaction," after having watched the events of September 11.

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

And the dude needs some serious help. And his rights to firearms taken away.

There are those who have guns who shouldn't and he's proven himself to be one of them.

Natural reaction, indeed! I might have thought "mechanical difficulty" or something. But not terrorists. Last thing I would think, if at all. Normal people do not see torrorists coming out from under their beds. We lived through this once before with Sen Joe McCarthy seeing Reds under the bed.

Oh no, here we go again is my "natural reaction".

Brian

Originally posted by BrianR
Normal people do not see terrorists coming out from under their beds.

Normally this is true, except nowadays we've got the gub'mint running around on tv screaming "terrorists! terrorists!". Somehow I don't think this guy's alone.

Helos can be very unwlecome guests in residential neighborhoods. When I was learning to fly many moons ago, the guy who owned the airport where I was learning brought his Bell Jet Ranger back from upstate with a bullet hole in it. Some folks just don't like helos. 'Namvets especially.

I wonder if this guy just didn't take a potshot at the helo thinking nobody would know where the shot came from. The pilot didn't know the aircraft had been hit until he saw a caution light on his panel The guy's lawyer prolly told him to plead that he thought the helo was terrorists.

Apparently the helo hovered 20 feet over this guy's garage while setting up for the landing....he being inside the garage at the time. It then dropped lower over his driveway for a landing across the street The pilot has also been charged with reckless operation of aircraft, and could spend a month in jail.

> "Maybe I overreacted, but I did feel this was terrorism at its utmost," Chwaszczewski said.

"Maybe?"

After all, if I was a terrorist, the next logical place _I'd_ choose to strike would be a residential neighborhood in the middle of fucking nowhere, to strike at a retired construction worker. Screw the Pentagon and the WTC, THAT'D make a statement!

Ass.

> Chwaszczewski told police the shooting was "a natural reaction," after having watched the events of September 11.

Lashing out violently at people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack is a very unnatural reaction, even if our government seems to have the same idea.

Still think assult rifles are a good idea? And don't say this is just one guy, this is what happens when big guns and little minds team up.

Given that we are a nation of 280 million people, I'd say these type of incidents are few and far between. Of course, there are some out there that would love to spin the stats their way.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Still think assult rifles are a good idea? And don't say this is just one guy, this is what happens when big guns and little minds team up.

Oh, absolutely the gun was at fault. Furthermore, the irresponsible buzz job was the helicopter's fault, too.

I think the helo pilot is getting off lightly here. If somebody pulled a stunt like that over my house, I'd be pissed as hell too. I also still think the whole "terrorism" angle is thought up after the fact to appeal to a jury.

Spin, you never did explain exactly what it was you were doing that got you chased out of PA that time, didja? :-) Sounds like you're still stinging from being sent home for misbehaving.

Originally posted by MaggieL

Spin, you never did explain exactly what it was you were doing that got you chased out of PA that time, didja? :-) Sounds like you're still stinging from being sent home for misbehaving.

I was driving from a church function (not kidding) at a state park home. Last I looked that wasn't something that warrented the local redneck enforcement to get on my ass. Personally, that really has very little to do with my feelings on guns. I really don't have a problem with most guns, I have yet to see a good reason for assult rifles. They are pointless for hunting, they aren't really good for defending your home. They only thing are good for is a bunch of untrained idiots to go play soldier. Oh and killing people with body armor (like cops).

Originally posted by MaggieL
Oh, absolutely the gun was at fault.

what part of little minds didn't you understand?

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

Yeah, the problem is this guy with an assault rifle. Obviously, if Civil Aviation were better armed, such attacks by guys like this would be prevented. I doubt if he would have shot at a Blackhawk. The sooner we get better air to ground capabilities in Civil Aviation, the sooner lunatics like this guy will be blown off the streets and we'll all feel much safer. ;)

Originally posted by spinningfetus
I was driving from a church function (not kidding) at a state park home. Last I looked that wasn't something that warrented the local redneck enforcement to get on my ass.

Waitaminute..."enforcement"? Were you talking about a *cop*? Somehow that got left out of the last telling. And you said something earlier about "bumping the Beastie Boys"....c'mon, what's the real story here? A cop didn't chase you out of the state for going to the church picnic.

I have yet to see a good reason for assult rifles. They are pointless for hunting, they aren't really good for defending your home.

I disagree.

The rifle in question was an AR-15; ten rounds of .233, autoloading. It's a decent home defense weapon, unless you live in an apartment, where penetrating a wall is a problem no matter what you're shooting. A rifle can be aimed much more accurately than a handgun.

Nonetheless, reports from Afghanistan are that the AR-15's military cousins aren't the fiercest "assault rifles" in the world, since they lack stopping power compared to rifles shooting bigger, slower rounds. The main advantage it seems to have is that the rifle and it's ammunition are much lighter (and thus easier to carry and ship) than the competition...an advantage for the logistics people.

The whole "assault-style rifle" category is a canard, one the gun prohibitionists keep hyping on because it's guaranteed to generate an emotional reaction, as I see it has in you. You say "assault rifle" and people immediately imagine someting about the size and power of a BAR and start frothing at the mouth. Would you have been as excited about this if the news story said they guy had been shooting a 12ga shotgun? That probably would have been more likely to bring down the helo at that range.

I've actually fired AR-15s. They're just little rifles, mostly made of plastic, ferchrissiakes. The projectile is tiny (only .003" more than a .22) and tries to make up for it in velocity.

I'd rather have an M-14 at home, myself.

No, not cops. Rednecks, pickups and shotguns. That is what chased me. And as I explained the Beastie Boys weren't that loud cause I don't have a system. That is my point. I LOOK different. Therefore I was a target.

You know, I love when people bring up the fact that .223 is only a tiny bit bigger than .22, as if those opposed to guns weren't smart enough to figure that out. While at the same time leaving out the fact that the size of the charge is about three times the size of .22. And no it doesn't have the stopping power of an AK 47. Duh. Another secret reveled. But with a trigger assembly that can be bought at nearly any gun show or a remachined firing pin you have a fully automatic rifle. With at least twenty rounds in the clip. That isn't the point anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason for these guns to be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

How about this:

Why take away the freedom?

More people die each year from car accidents than gun accidents. Why not make cars illegal? Or, maybe just make fast cars illegal, since they're more likely to be involved in a fatal accident?

How is it that people manage to miss one of the most obvious truths of this stupid and unending debate: <b>criminals will get guns no matter what the law says</b>. If they want an AR-15, they'll get it. Period.

All a law does is make it illegal for law abiding citizens to get them. Well, last time I checked, law abiding citizens weren't murdering each other. Criminals were.

Sure, make it difficult to buy an assault rifle. Require that a class be taken. That's fine. But there's really no reason to make it impossible. Why? Because those that want them to commit crime are going to get them anyway. So there's no reason to take it away from those who are not.

Hey, Comma, what if we all spelled out our punctuation? Question Mark? Although you do make good points, Comma, saying the word 'Period' does not make your point more valid. Period. Oh, Comma, look! Exclamation mark! I'm right, Comma, because I spelled out my punctuation! Exclamation Mark!

Perhaps it's a way of saying "This, in my eyes, is not open to debate."

And perhaps, if you have nothing useful to add to the conversation, you should shut the fuck up.

Sorry, just felt like giving you some shit. :)

Juju, if it helps, I found it insightful. ;)

Originally posted by spinningfetus
That isn't the point anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason for these guns to be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

And the "reason" you're looking for is: It's my right to keep and bear arms. It's not your right to decide what arms I should be allowed to have.

Getting into the business of "prove to me you should be allowed to own this particular gun" is one hell of a slippery slope. Our state constitution says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. It doesn't say "execpt for really nasty things that Spin doesn't like".

Imagine how much freedom of speech would be worth if I had to prove I should be allowed to read each book I wanted to on an individual basis. Or if every privacy right was subject to "Why? You're not hiding anything, are you?"

I think the core of the problem you have is that you live in a state that has taken away your self-defense rights, and now it's all sour-grapes. It was especially aggravating to come down here to PA and have your nose rubbed in it. Don't whine about how hard it is that you "look different"...I look plenty "different". The answer to feeling defenseless isn't to try to disarm everybody else; that just plain doesn't work.

(BTW, "I don't have a system." doen't mean you're incapable of being obnoxious with your car stereo..I can be plenty obnoxious with the stock stereo in my Saturn. )

And for all the huffing horror about what an evil assult weapon of mass distruction this clown was shooting...we seem to have lost track of the fact he didn't actually hurt anybody. Before you snap back with "he could have", I'll point out that the helo pilot could have too.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
No, not cops. Rednecks, pickups and shotguns. That is what chased me. And as I explained the Beastie Boys weren't that loud cause I don't have a system. That is my point. I LOOK different. Therefore I was a target.

I'd like to hear the whole story here someday. Every time I hear you mention it, I hear a new detail that changes the whole thing.

You know, I love when people bring up the fact that .223 is only a tiny bit bigger than .22, as if those opposed to guns weren't smart enough to figure that out. While at the same time leaving out the fact that the size of the charge is about three times the size of .22. And no it doesn't have the stopping power of an AK 47. Duh. Another secret reveled. But with a trigger assembly that can be bought at nearly any gun show or a remachined firing pin you have a fully automatic rifle. With at least twenty rounds in the clip. That isn't the point anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason for these guns to be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

You know, I love when people opposed to guns get sarcastic. Of course the size of the projectile is only a fraction of an inch larger than a .22. So? What difference does the size of the powder charge make in this argument? None. Nor does stopping power which IMO is an arbitrary rating anyway. Neither of these things defines an "assault weapon". What does is the weapon's appearance. That's why some SKS rifles are banned and some are not. It's appearance and not the actual moving parts.

Here's another secret you don't know: no one who does not posess a valid Class III license issued by the federal government can purchase full-auto conversion kits, parts or assemblies. Including the trigger assembly you claim is available at gun shows. I've never seen one. And I know how to do the conversion and it involves a lot more than the firing pin which, other than needing to be hardened, does not need to be changed at all. The selector, cam and engaging rod (sear) need to be replaced. Also if you're smart you'll replace the barrel bushing which in the AR-15 is nylon with a steel one (found only in the M-16 A1/2) to prevent it's melting and jamming the mechanism.

Don't tell anyone though. You'll destroy the idea that a full-auto conversion can be done by anyone with a file and five minutes.

For information: allow me to quote from the National Firearms Act:

The term "machine gun" means any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, [my emphasis] automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under control of a person.


There you have it. And I cannot really find a definition of an "assault rifle" other than that used to describe a rifle, designed for military use, which has a bayonet lug, select fire capability and a detachable magazine. If you can find a better one, please let me know.

Brian

Originally posted by spinningfetus
That isn't the point anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason for these guns to be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

How would you like a look at the best reason for civilian assault rifles (or their cheaper-to-feed cousins the semiauto-only versions) that I've ever seen?

Spinningfetus, let me warn you ahead of time: if you don't at least give this material a good looking over, you are not going to know how genocide gets started, or what the ordinary joe can do about it, which turns out to be not only simple, but fun even.Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Originally posted by dhamsaic
How about this:

Sure, make it difficult to buy an assault rifle. Require that a class be taken. That's fine. But there's really no reason to make it impossible. Why? Because those that want them to commit crime are going to get them anyway. So there's no reason to take it away from those who are not.

Dhamsaic, I don't think "mak[ing] it difficult" is the right idea. For background on why I think that way, I refer you to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. These people have a tremendous, and unrebutted, case -- one that deserves to be heard around the world.

Professional fireamrs instructors that I know are, believe it or not, <b>opposed</b> to government-mandated firearms training as a requirement for licencing. In general they find it tends to be ineffective and overpriced.

JFPO has some interesting things to say about the psychological motivations of gun prohibitionists, too.

Spin,

You still haven't given me a good reason for these guns to be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

Answer:
Because the Bill of Rights says we can.

Counter question:
Why can I not have one?
Have I (not criminals or other hypothetical people) ever done anything wrong to justify you pissing on one of the founding principles of this country?
addendum:
This is a theoretical I. of course you can't answer about me in specific b/c there is the possibility that I am violent in some way and just haven't posted that on these boards.

Originally posted by MaggieL
Professional fireamrs instructors that I know are, believe it or not, <b>opposed</b> to government-mandated firearms training as a requirement for licencing. In general they find it tends to be ineffective and overpriced.

Government...overpriced...ineffective. Shocking. ;)

Are you going to party like it's [been] 1999 [posts since you joined the Cellar]?

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Are you going to party like it's [been] 1999 [posts since you joined the Cellar]?

Of course, he can't answer that question. :)

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Are you going to party like it's [been] 1999 [posts since you joined the Cellar]?

The sky is so purple, there are people running everywhere...

16/F/5'10"/94lbs PM ME!!!

A girl that size would be on her way to supermodelhood. ;)

Originally posted by headsplice
This is a theoretical I. of course you can't answer about me in specific b/c there is the possibility that I am violent in some way and just haven't posted that on these boards.

I doubt it. You're a hard pacifist that probably lives in a blacked-out room spinning Cat Stevens records all day. ;)

Originally posted by sycamore
I doubt it. You're a hard pacifist that probably lives in a blacked-out room spinning Cat Stevens records all day. ;)

Actually, I'm a closet speed freak listening to Swedish death metal in my grandma's basement with 26 sun lamps to keep the demons away. :rar:

And, for everyone's enightenment, a couple of short descriptions of the Cellar, courtesy of Hunter S. Thompson:

"This place is like the Army: the shark ethic prevails-eat the wounded. In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride . . . and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mid, well . . . maybe chalk it off to forced consciousness expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."

Originally posted by MaggieL

And the "reason" you're looking for is: It's my right to keep and bear arms. It's not your right to decide what arms I should be allowed to have.

Getting into the business of "prove to me you should be allowed to own this particular gun" is one hell of a slippery slope. Our state constitution says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. It doesn't say "execpt for really nasty things that Spin doesn't like". <snip>

You're stopping short, hence not recognizing the dilemma. The 2nd Amendment not only gives us "the right to keep and bear" nasty guns, but "arms". It doesn't say "muskets" or "personal protection"; it says honest to goodness ARMS. I believe (as many do) that the intent of this amendment was to allow the public to credibly defend itself against an oppressive government.

Now c'mon -- anybody who honestly believes a few assault rifles would stand any chance of deterring a bona fide govt assault by anything more vicious than a battalion of rabid postal carriers is just stupid. We need machine guns, shoulder-fired rockets, tanks, missiles, and tactical nukes! But you gotta ask yourself, how safe would you feel knowing your neighbor and half the guys in the county had tactical nukes at their personal disposal? (Road rage = KABOOM!!! :D ) I believe, however, the 2nd Amendment gave that right, but it is obsolete, irrelevant, and frankly (don't shoot me -- ;) ) should be repealed.

Don't get me wrong; the 2nd Amendment made good sense when muskets were among the pinnacle of weaponry, and it was reasonable to expect some sort of military balance between the power of the government and the power of the people. However, it is now centuries obsolete -- made so by the power of modern weaponry vs. the irresponsibility of Joe American.

The classic NRA "protection vs. govt" line is Grade A bullshit, and I wish people would stop invoking it. Please understand and recognize this: The real reason for packing heat is for power vs. fellow man, whether that's a potential criminal, a bully in a bar, or an unwelcome visitor caught boinking your spouse. Now whether that's a valid reason to permit personal weapons (even assault rifles) is debatable, but not, I believe, constitutionally protected.

Originally posted by LordSludge

The classic NRA "protection vs. govt" line is Grade A bullshit, and I wish people would stop invoking it. Please understand and recognize this: [b]The real reason for packing heat is for power vs. fellow man, whether that's a potential criminal, a bully in a bar, or an unwelcome visitor caught boinking your spouse. [/B]

The Pennsylvania constitution is very clear on this point: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense <b><i>of themselves</i></b> and the State shall not be questioned." [emphasis added] So this includes the 9mm autoloading pistol I carry, as well as the Springfield M1-A/M-14 "assult-style rifle" I''d like to own, but can't afford at the moment.

(As an aside, capping an unwelcome boinker will get your guns conficated and you thrown in the slammer...unless the boinker was unwelcome by the <i>spouse</i>, too, in which case it's justified use of deadly force in this state...rapist season is always open.)

The intent of Amendment 2 was manifold--danger can come from many directions, not just an out-of-control government--but clearly the founders thought a disarmned populace was a bad idea, and I agree. And and out-of-control government is nothing more than a biggish gang of hoodlums...your "fellow man" writ large.

The idea that an armed citizenry is pointless simply because the government owns bigger guns is silly. Don't underestimate the power of small arms widely held by a large population. Nice thing about it is that it's inherently democratic. The republic was born in guerilla warfare, and it could, if need be, happen again.

Unless people who think our rights are "obsolete" surrender them for us.

Originally posted by MaggieL
The Pennsylvania constitution is very clear on this point: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense <b><i>of themselves</i></b> and the State shall not be questioned." [emphasis added] So this includes the 9mm autoloading pistol I carry, as well as the Springfield M1-A/M-14 "assult-style rifle" I''d like to own, but can't afford at the moment.

Interesting tidbit on the PA constitution! Of course it's irrelevant to the national constitution and, by extension, national arms rights. But my implicit question remains unanswered: What defines "arms"? How do you arrive at the conclusion that pistols and assault rifles are okay? Just your arbitrary personal opinion? Why not shoulder-fired rockets? Sure would be easier to defend my home with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the porch and an M1 Abrams tank in the garage. Who are you to tell me I can't have them?? I have a constitutional RIGHT!!!

(As an aside, capping an unwelcome boinker will get your guns conficated and you thrown in the slammer...unless the boinker was unwelcome by the <i>spouse</i>, too, in which case it's justified use of deadly force in this state...rapist season is always open.)

No argument here, although a simple gunshot is probably too kind...

The intent of Amendment 2 was manifold--danger can come from many directions, not just an out-of-control government...

Maybe, maybe not, but it's kinda hard to support that position in light of the more specific language present in, say, the PA constitution -- language which is conspicuously absent in the national constitution.

--but clearly the founders thought a disarmned populace was a bad idea, and I agree.

This is probably the heart of the issue, and the key point that we disagree on. I really do think the constitution right to arms argument is bunk, but the question remains: Are we safer with armed citizens or with disarmed citizens? It probably boils down to different viewpoints on human nature. I tend to think that even basically kind, decent, "good" people can lose it from time to time. A gun greatly facilitates death in such a situation.

[anecdote edited to protect the guilty; sorry -- I just reconsidered that a public forum prolly isn't the best place for this story]

Guess that's where I'm coming from... I think that gun-advocates tend to see in more black and white, but you tell me?

And and out-of-control government is nothing more than a biggish gang of hoodlums...your "fellow man" writ large.

Maybe true, but the power of their weaponry makes pistols and assault rifles utterly irrelevant. (see below)

The idea that an armed citizenry is pointless simply because the government owns bigger guns is silly. Don't underestimate the power of small arms widely held by a large population. Nice thing about it is that it's inherently democratic. The republic was born in guerilla warfare, and it could, if need be, happen again.

You've got to be kidding. I gotta assume you're just saying this for argument's sake. Please tell me you don't really believe your subdivision, armed with M-14s, could hold off a full assault of marines, complete with automatic weapons, mortars, artillery, heli gunships, etc.

That was then -- we fought muskets with muskets. This is now -- there's just no contest. I guess, you might argue that North Vietnam fought off the U.S. through guerilla warfare, but they had much more than mere pistols and semi-auto assault rifles with which to fight, not to mention that was 30 years ago. U.S. military tech hasn't exactly stood still.

:rolleyes: I can't believe I even have to argue this point. You might as well be insisting the sky is green...

Unless people who think our rights are "obsolete" surrender them for us.

MODERN WEAPONRY has made any constitutional right to arms that may or may not exist obsolete. It just doesn't matter -- "armed" civies vs. "ARMED" govt don't have a prayer, NONE, even w/ guerilla tactics, *unless* the civies have access to real weaponry, e.g. fully automatic rifles, grenades, rockets, etc. at a MINIMUM. They'd need tanks, heli gunships, etc. to even approach a fair fight.

I'll ask again: Would you feel safe if Joe American had access to bona fide modern weaponry? After all, ICBMs don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people.

I'm with you sludge, the whole idea of overthrowing the govt is farcical nowadays.

True story: My best friend freaked out one night at a party, probably as side-effect of an anti-OCD drug plus too much alcohol, and tried to strangle his wife (also a good friend of mine). She fought him off, got away, and they're now split up for good. If he'd had immediate access to a gun, he would have killed her. Then, he would have killed himself over the guilt. He told me this in so many words. Now he's not a bad guy; he's my best friend -- no police record, etc. But sometimes basically good people do bad things. Add guns to the mix, and bad things become Bad Things with a simple pull of the trigger.

This is the "what if" game that no one can win. Yes, if he had a gun, he might have killed her. And if she had a gun, she might have held him off. Would he try to attack his wife if he knew she was armed and knew how to use it? What if? Blah blah blah. Seriously. You can't win here, so let's just drop it. I like you, but this is an awful example.

Guns definitely do facilitate death. That's what they were made to do - kill people. Unfortunately, this can't be undone. Guns are here to stay.

Now, what to do about it?

Well, one option that you <i>seem</i> to support is the idea of gun control laws - making it illegal to possess handguns and assault rifles (which were your examples). Okay. So those laws get passed and you're real happy. What have they accomplished? <b>They remove the guns from the hands of law abiding citizens</b>. That is the very simple and obvious outcome, and you cannot argue it. Read it over again and again until it totally makes sense. Only those that obey the laws are going to follow it. Criminals don't care about the laws, so it's not bothering them.

As a matter of fact, they're loving this gun control stuff. Why? Well, for one, it creates an illegal market for guns. Those that are able to traffic in them will become obscenely rich. Secondly, it means that Joe Q. Citizen does <b>not</b> have a gun, so Leroy G. Thug can pick on him at will. Leroy might not have a gun, but he <b>knows</b> that John doesn't, and that gives him an advantage. Partially because John can't know whether or not Leroy does, and partially because Leroy now isn't in as great a physical danger as he is when he attacks someone who is carrying a firearm.

So the situation that has been created is this: law abiding citizens do not have firearms (pistols and assault rifles), and criminals may or may not.

Explain to me how this is a good idea?

"Well, the potential for accidental firearm deaths will decrease."

Okay. Well, last time I checked, more people died in car accidents than did in shooting incidents. Let's make cars illegal too? Hmmm?

I'll give gun control advocates the benefit of the doubt and assume that their intentions are noble - to make the country a safer place. But... how is it possibly a <b>good idea</b> to make any sorts of firearms illegal? How does that help you accomplish your goal?

Originally posted by LordSludge
Interesting tidbit on the PA constitution! Of course it's irrelevant to the national constitution and, by extension, national arms rights

Not at all. There are no "national arms rights". They're not "national rights", they're the people's rights...the Federal Constitution's Second Amendment simply prohibits the Federal Government from infringing them. In the Commonwealth, our constitution reiterates that that right is not to be questioned.

By the way, they're not called "tid-bits". They're called "articles". If we called them "tid-bits", some dweeb might think they were trivial, optional, and amendable by whim.

What defines "arms"? How do you arrive at the conclusion that pistols and assault rifles are okay?

Arms Arms, n. pl. OE. armes, F. arme, pl. armes, fr. L. arma,
pl., arms, orig. fittings, akin to armus shoulder, and E.
arm. See Arm, n.
1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

Seems pretty clear that handguns and long guns fall under that rubric.

Why not shoulder-fired rockets? Sure would be easier to defend my home with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the porch and an M1 Abrams tank in the garage. Who are you to tell me I can't have them?? I have a constitutional RIGHT!!!

Indeed you do. And *I* certainly won't tell you you can't have them. I might offer some commentary on how effective they might be...but that's just opinion. Make sure you pay the Class 1 tax on the .50 cal, it's annoying, but legally required. You *are* allowed to have one, legally, today...assuming you can get your local cop shop to sign off that you're OK.

The Abrhams might be a bigger problem....catepillar treads tend to tear up municipal paving. :-)

I'm not going to play "slippery slope" with you about drawing a line somewhere between a slingshot and a Minuteman warhead, because we'll end up playing the old Salami Game. That's where somebody steals your salami one slice at a time, and nothing happens, because one slice of salami isn't worth fighting over. Pretty soon, there's nothing left but the string, and that's not worth fighting over either.

a simple gunshot is probably too kind...

Probably too kind (assuming you don't go in for kneecaping), but inarguably effective. Of course, there's that other constitutional "tid-bit" about "cruel and unusual punishment"...but if we're editing the constitution to suit your personal prejudices, why stop with just the Second Amendment?

I tend to think that even basically kind, decent, "good" people can lose it from time to time. A gun greatly facilitates death in such a situation.

So, you just don't trust good people with guns. You'd rather only the criminals and the cops had them (neither of whom have a particularly good record, BTW).

I don't share your view, and I don't believe the facts support it either. I can point you to piles of research and studies that show individually and in bulk that the cases where a legally armed citizen does *good* by being armed vastly outnumber the cases where they go berzerk and do evil. In fact the real-world cases where armed citizens prevent a crime vastly outnumber the cases where cops prevent a crime. They just don't usually generate press reports and anecdotes.

language which is conspicuously absent in the national constitution.

It wasn't conspicuous until I pointed it out to you, of course.

They're obviously not worded in *exactly* the same way. The Federal Constitution had more cooks messing with the broth, and it shows..even in the punctuation, much less the diction. Nontheless, they both still say what they say, and mean what they say. So while you're marvelling at points that you can't belive you need to defend, marvel at that.

If he'd had immediate access to a gun, he would have killed her....sometimes basically good people do bad things...bad things become Bad Things with a simple pull of the trigger...Guess that's where I'm coming from.

Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

I'm sorry that you project your distrust of yourself and your friends onto the rest of us, but happily so far your opinion doesn't rule. The biggest danger you face involving firearms *isn't* that some legally armed citizen is going to go berzerk and plug you. Even if your taste in friends runs to those with personality disorders who mix drugs and alcohol. (I'd recommend the lady involved obtain a protection from abuse order, BTW. Then you won't have to worry about your drunken friend with OCD getting guns legally.)

I can't believe I even have to argue this point.

You can stick in all the eye-roll smilies you like, but I think your view of the balance of power between the government and the people is hideously oversimplified.

Your proposed scenario of a Marine assult on a subdivision sounds like something an elementary school kid would draw in crayon, but do you really think there's a battallion available for every town in the country? Do you really think they'd have much unit cohesion once they started to get orders to assault their own people? And how long do you think their weapons would remain completely in government hands? (The Vietcong at one point were issued handmade single-shot weapons--little more than zip guns--the purpose of which was to take out *one* enemy soldier by sniping, thereby arming the shooter.)

I *do* believe I have to argue the points about gun prohibitionism, because your lines of argument are very common among gun prohibitionists, and we've heard *all* of them on The Cellar at one time or another.

The slippery slope ("You don't want a nuke...do you?") the paranoid accusation ("Why can't you feel safe without a gun?"), the "obsolete constitution" argument ("Oh, it doesn't really mean what it says, and weapons are completely different today, so let's just ignore it") and the *other* paranoid accusation ("I wouldn't trust me with a gun, or any of my friends, I'm afraid they might flip out, so you shouldn't have one either.")

MODERN WEAPONRY has made any constitutional right to arms that may or may not exist obsolete

Well, it *does* exist, and I don't think it's obsolete. Just because *you* don't personally like this particular part of the Constitution doesn't invalidate it, thank goodness.

Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

Thank you for illustrating an argument for gun control. Instead of a situation which ended peacefully it would have ended with a death if *either* of them had had a gun and possibly 2 deaths. People always have a capability to kill, the better the available weaponry the more likely deaths will occur.

Seems pretty clear that handguns and long guns fall under that rubric.

yup, and tanks, nukes, chemical weapons, grenades, rocket launchers.......

I'm not going to play "slippery slope" with you about drawing a line somewhere between a slingshot and a Minuteman warhead, because we'll end up playing the old Salami Game. That's where somebody steals your salami one slice at a time, and nothing happens, because one slice of salami isn't worth fighting over. Pretty soon, there's nothing left but the string, and that's not worth fighting over either.

Summerised to: I can't acutally deny this one.

Out of question, why do you want an assult rifle, personal protection? Killing wildlife?

Your proposed scenario of a Marine assult on a subdivision sounds like something an elementary school kid would draw in crayon, but do you really think there's a battallion available for every town in the country? Do you really think they'd have much unit cohesion once they started to get orders to assault their own people? And how long do you think their weapons would remain completely in government hands? (The Vietcong at one point were issued handmade single-shot weapons--little more than zip guns--the purpose of which was to take out *one* enemy soldier by sniping, thereby arming the shooter.)

Congratulations for defeating your own point. Firstly i'd point out that over 3 million Vietnamese died to 50,000 US soldiers. If the govt dissolved to the point where the vast majority of the population was in open insurrection many other things would happen before it dissolved into armed conflict anyway, its silly to even argue it. It is also point out that militas which were very popular in the 90s were carefuly scrutinised by the govt, i'm sure if any had started posing a serious threat they would have started dissipearing too.

Well, it *does* exist, and I don't think it's obsolete. Just because *you* don't personally like this particular part of the Constitution doesn't invalidate it, thank goodness.

Visa Versa.

Specifically Jag and Sludge, because they're the ones arguing most vehenmently.

Why can I not have a gun? I was speaking in the hypothetical before, but, I'll be more specific now. Why not? I've never been arrested; I haven't even been in a fistfight since I was in junior high school. I don't drive drunk. I don't really even speed that much.
Therefore, I put the challenge to you:

Tell me why I cannot have a weapon at my disposal.

The burden of proof is not on me. I have done nothing wrong. You want to punish me for the actions of another. That, I do not accept.

Orignially posted by MaggieL

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If he'd had immediate access to a gun, he would have killed her....sometimes basically good people do bad things...bad things become Bad Things with a simple pull of the trigger...Guess that's where I'm coming from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

Army officer's wife charged in shooting death

Originally posted by jaguar
Thank you for illustrating an argument for gun control.

Nonsense.

The woman was assulted by a man who was drunk, and on psychiatric drugs. I personally think she should have had the opportunity to defend herself.

Instead *you'd* let her face a lunatic perhaps twice her size barehanded so you can have a feel-good about gun prohibition. Nice guy.

Summerised to: I can't acutally deny this one.

No, summarized to: I won't sacrifice the principle to extreme hypotheticals. Very few people waste money on overkill weapons like that. Some admittedly do, legal or not. If someone wants to keep a tank in his backyard, it's OK with me. (in fact some people here do). Toxic chemicals of any kind, including fissionable materials, fall more under public health issues in my view; but I don't think they should be regulated <i>because they might be used as weapons</i>.

C'mon, you know enough about argumentation to know what a "slippery slope" is.

Out of question, why do you want an assult rifle, personal protection? Killing wildlife?

Oh, please. Why do you buy meat? "Eating wildlife"? It's called "hunting", you're really stretching to try to make it sound evil.

I might want one for self-defense, or for hunting, or for both, or for neither. I might be a collector. I might be a sport shooter. The fact is, my personal reasons for owning any particular weapon (or anything else, for that matter) aren't subject to your personal review.

Do you own a car? Why? Why not? What are you going to do with it.? Can you justify it against the environmental impact? Why don't you sell it and feed the starving children? Why don't you buy one and support the auto industry? Can you prove you'll never have an accident with it?

How about that computer of yours? Why do you need that? It's perfectly capable of comitting intellectual property theft. I demand you surrender it to the government, and replace it with equipment that's been neutered to make sure it can only be used for nice, safe, legal purposes.

You see jag, I don't *have* to justify to you my desire to own any particular weapon, computer, data, software, tool or anything else. It's my business, not yours. Any of them *could* be used to comitt a crime, or make war...or not. That doesn't justify your desire to confiscate them, or make them contraband, just because *you* think I don't "need" them.

Firstly i'd point out that over 3 million Vietnamese died to 50,000 US soldiers. If the govt dissolved to the point where the vast majority of the population was in open insurrection many other things would happen before it dissolved into armed conflict anyway, its silly to even argue it.

And yet the Vietnamese now control ther own goverment. You then go on to confirm *my* position that the balance of power is much more complicated than a simple head-to-head slugfest where higher firepower always wins and thus whoever has fewer/smaller weapons doesn't stand a chance so they might as well surrender before anything happens.
It *is* silly to argue about it in those terms...why are you?

Its a simple matter, they don't trust you. Among all the other things I use to measure politicians I apply the L. Neil Smith test. If they don't trust a citizen with a gun, I don't trust them with a vote.

A couple of things:

Jag, the militias would not have been addressed by the gov't. They tried to address armed religious nuts in Waco. It didn't really work too well, and that wasn't even a militia. (The OKC "blowback" did come via a militia though, if there is any truth to the common notions about what really happened.)

The notion that one cannot manage an entire revolution with peashooters because the feds have bigger weaponry is true. But arms in the hands of the common citizen has prevented the NEED for revolution! There is a big limit to how oppressive the government can act, and Waco is evidence of that point, and a sobering reminder to everyone involved.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS? Because if you send agents to many parts of the country, including the "deep north" of New Hampshire where my grandfather lived, they will get their asses blown off with a load of buckshot. This is an effective control on power, in this case a control on the agency most likely to deny citizen's rights.

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Arms in the hands of citizens has the effect of distributing real power to the lowest levels. This does lead to a certain noise level of tragedy as some people are incapable of handling their responsibilities. I'm convinced that it prevents a larger level of tragedy in crime and, eventually, in government overstepping its limitations.

Maggie you’re in a debate, you have to be able to justify your actions and words on issues that are directly related to the debate. Secondly cars are designed to transport people, computers are designed to process information on the other hand assault rifles are designed to fire bits of lead at really really high speeds many times a second to kill things. It’s not a dual-use device like a computer or a car can be, it’s designed to kill stuff, full stop. Big difference. If I’d asked you why you own a car, you'd have a point, I asked you why you wanted to own a high-power firearm designed for killing people (originally) that’s entirely on topic.

Tell me why I cannot have a weapon at my disposal.

Because you have no justifiable reason for needing one. Why can't I have a library of cracking tools, why can't I modify my own hardware in the future?

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Really? Got a source for that? Arms I’d take to be a shortened version of armaments which includes everything from single shot pistols to 20mm chain guns on choppers to daisy cutters to nukes.

The woman was assaulted by a man who was drunk, and on psychiatric drugs. I personally think she should have had the opportunity to defend herself.

How about some fucking pepper spray? Situation can be resolved without killing people. This I’m sure is news to the NRA. Tasers, teargas, screamers, non lethal ways of disarmaments are bloody effective, I’d argue more effective in some situations and no one dies. That’s the most important thing in my book.

And yet the Vietnamese now control their own government

You really want to get started on Vietnam? Fine. Firstly if you send a battalion of ordinary Vietnamese into battle, and a battalion of ordinary Americans, you'd have a few thou viets left and no Americans. Secondly look at the toll, the damage decades of war ahs done to the place will take centuries to recover. Thirdly half the reason America lost (the actual battle, not would have happened afterwards) was because a swing in public opinion at home, not losses on the battlefield. Thirdly it was knowledge of the territory that made them so deadly, if you a real-life idea of casualties in such conflicts look at possibly Israeli actions in palatine or the British in Northern Ireland. Army wins, hands down. My belief is if something happened to cause the majority of the population to insurrect (lets say bush declares himself dictator and burns the bill of rights...oh wait he already....nevermind) the army would dissolve into chaos anyway.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS?

If it was worth it, they'd do it.

Arms I’d take to be a shortened version of armaments

Tisn't:

From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European Roots. V., from Middle English armen from Old French armer, from Latin armore, from arma

But in context, for the purposes of the Constitution, the word is what it was meant when it was written in 1789: carryable weapons. They didn't mean cannons or trebuchets or poison or bombs. They meant knives, pistols and rifles.

If it was worth it, they'd do it.

Exactly; and the presence of guns in the hands of citizens puts a very large constant on one side of the equation. Is it "worth it" to put the agent in harm's way? Rarely. Ergo, it doesn't routinely happen.

What this does is to ensure that there is consent of the governed, because the governed do have the option of the use of deadly force in larger numbers if they do NOT consent. It is a wonderful way to ensure that there is not need for true revolution and much, much greater loss of life.

Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie you’re in a debate, you have to be able to justify your actions and words on issues that are directly related to the debate. .

Hold on a minute. You're "begging the question", (another one of those argumentation maneuvers you're so fond of).

The debate isn't framed as "prove to my satisfaction why you need a weapon or give it up"...although <b>you'd</b> certainly like to cast it that way, of course. <b>I</b> say, if you want to usurp <b>my</b> right to defend myself in the manner I choose, the burden is on <b>you</b> to demonstrate a compelling reason to do so. Your best move on that score so far is "sometimes people get shot", which is feeble at best.

"The only purpose of a gun is to kill" is another prohibitionist slogan based in a gross oversimplification, the implication being that if a gun isn't used to kill then it has no purpose. If that were true would mean there are lots of cops out there with no reason to have a gun.

One purpose of a gun (ignoring for now the others) is to defend its owner, which it can do <i>witthout ever actually being fired "in anger"</i>. Of course, when this happens it tends to not generate police reports, newspaper articles, or exciting TV drama, so if that's how you learn about the world you might have missed that .

If a gun is never fired in anger, then it may well have <b>succeeded</b> in its purpose.

Ai, talk about nitpick. Why are you so unwilling to answer the question of why you want a high power assult rifle? The question was one asked out of curiousity with the possability of working the answer into another post if it proved useful.

Since when did the burden of proof lie with me? I didn't start this mess, I just weighed in halfway though. For refrence my arguement isn't "sometimes people get shot" it IS that people get shot. People DIE becase some jackass exersizing his constitutional right blows a 45 cal slug though some poor bastards back who he thought was threatening. YOur mainjsutification always seems to have been personal defense, how about less deadly means of doing that?

I mean the agurement of guns for personal defense is flawed anyway. Firstly if peopel arm themselves, crims are either oging to get more organised so people don't have itme ot use them, fire first, resulting in more deaths or get bigger guns. Great solution. I was looking into carrying weapons though cambodia and parts of Thailand for security reasons and after talking to people decided against it because in most cases it makes a bad istuation worse. Beleive it or not ciminals are not that interested in killing people, it tends to cause allot of problems. I'd rahter lose my wallet and leave it at that than risk losing my life over my wallet.

"The only purpose of a gun is to kill" is another prohibitionist slogan based in a gross oversimplification, the implication being that if a gun isn't used to kill then it has no purpose. If that were true would mean there are lots of cops out there with no reason to have a gun.

So the only purpose is a deterrant?

What the hell do you think guns were made for? Assult rifles in particular are designed from the ground up to effective kill people. Full stop. Whether they act as a deterant is irrelavent to that statement, that is their purpose. Just as a convertable can be used to impress people its still fundamentally for transport.

I'd be interested in getting some stats on this, where gun owners have killed unarmed people, armed people, people armed with lesser weapons etc not to mention percieved threat vs real threat. I mean here gun owners are a small group of people, but there penty of clubs around and stuff. I"ve been to a few of these for gun, fired a range of stuff and since i also did cadets i've done firearms traing. I swear the way a some of those people handed weapons, including loaded weapons would make scare the shit out of your average soldier. The simple fact is the vast majority of people are not mentally capable or trained enough to be able to handle wepaons effeicvely and safely in dangerous situations. Thats why i'm advocating nonlethal wepaons.

Ut: got a source on that? this one is interesting. What would a cannon have been calssified as?

Exactly; and the presence of guns in the hands of citizens puts a very large constant on one side of the equation. Is it "worth it" to put the agent in harm's way? Rarely. Ergo, it doesn't routinely happen.

On the other hand if the citizen corsses a line, they will sne dagents, who will effetive deal with that person, armed or not. If large numbers of peopel started protesting in public brandishing arms about something i'm sure the first thing that would happen is those weapons carriers would be singled out and dealt with. Lets face it anyway, the public is too stupid and too apathetic to do it anyway unless all hell borke loose in which case it woudl be ineffective anyway. I don't think bush sits there and this 'if i sign this will all thsoe armed citizens out here get pissed off.

Originally posted by Undertoad
My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS? Because if you send agents to many parts of the country, including the "deep north" of New Hampshire where my grandfather lived, they will get their asses blown off with a load of buckshot. This is an effective control on power, in this case a control on the agency most likely to deny citizen's rights.

While what you said is quite possible UT, you didn't mention why they were sending him letters. Depending on why he was getting letters, it may not have been worth it to send someone beyond the possibility that an agent might get his ass capped. What was he doing? Importing yak meat from Tibet? ;)

(EDIT: Incorrect use of a word..."fact" changed to "possibility" in last paragraph.)

Originally posted by jaguar [
Since when did the burden of proof lie with me?

Since the minute you propose restricting my rights, you need a damn good justification. I don't need a justification to exercise my rights, that's why they're called <i>rights</i>. Sorry you don't have those rights anymore, but it's not my fault.

I was trained to use an M-14 by the military, I found it to be a very satisfactory weapon, accurate, pleasant to shoot, and a fine piece of machinery. It is my right to own one, and if I had the money to spare (I don't) there would be one here right now. I don't need any more reason than that.

There are state game lands only a few miles away from my home, I might use it to hunt. (Or I might not; I'm not really fond of venison but would certainly survive on it if I had to. We're so ovepopulated with deer here that the Feds actually hire hunters to come into the local parks and thin the herds.) I would very likely use it for target shooting....it's definatly *not * the same thing as shooting as a .22 match rifle.

But I don't owe *you* a justification for this, especially since you've already declared yourself hostile to my rights. This is a matter totally within my discretion.

I don't think bush sits there and this 'if i sign this will all thsoe armed citizens out here get pissed off.

You don't? Then you don't know squat about US politics. Bush would have lost the election <b>big-time</b> without the support of armed citizens, and he knows <b>that</b> very well, I assure you.

And once again I've grown weary running after you around in circles over this thing.

If I deny "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" and assert "One purpose of a gun is to deter violence" you jump right into "so the only purpose is deterrance?". And then <i>in the very next sentence</I> you wander off down the "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" street again. Where did you learn logic?

No, the *only* purpose isn't deterrance, but it *is* a damned good one, and one that does not require killing. If a weapon isn't potentially lethal, it doesn't make a very good deterrant. And your proposal "let's give non lethal weapons to people who are too stupid to use guns safely" doesn't appeal to me much either....most non-lethal weapons require even <b>more</b> skill to use effectively and safely than firearms do. .

But this is all pointless...I don''t <b>need</b> a reason that will pass your muster, which is a good thing in my view, because no purpose <b>will</b> pass your muster. I remain convinced the reason it can't is because <i>you've</i> already lost your rights on this score, so everything else is sour grapes.

Enjoy your enlightened civilization, sooner or later you guys may figure it out. Or not.

Syc, I dunno what grandad was doin'... and I don't wanna know. No, really I don't know. I don't expect that it was very serious and might well have been routine. But it did occur to me that, being as he was up there in the middle of nowhere, with many people with righteous indignation at tax payin', it may well not serve your basic revenooer to pay a visit.

That's like Griff country up there; you don't just go knocking on doors without knowing what to expect. Everybody knows everybody else if it isn't tourist season.

Why did you jsut say 'deer hunting' and got the hell over it? What does my view on gun rights have to do with asking you why you want an assult rifle?

YOu've misread waht i said, which is partially my fault at elast twice. Firstly when i said armed citizens i didn't mena gun owners. I was evaluating the role of his thinking of an armed insurrection taking ot the streets, not the NRA throwing money at lobbyists.

I didn't say killing is the ONLY purpose of a gun. I didn't even say thats its purpose. I said what they re designed for. Which is killing. Particulary assult rifles. From a defense perspective a gun can either be used to deter someone from attacking you, or to stop them, i assume by shooting them correct? If a 'successful' use in a defense situation is deterence, ie someone pulls a knife and asked for your bag and you pull out a (mm and tell them to fuck off and they do. i'd love to see some stats on usage in such situations.

I remain convinced the reason it can't is because you've already lost your rights on this score, so everything else is sour grapes.

Phlease. Its the best peice of legislation passed in recent times in this country. Now i can go to a nightclub knowing the chances of some dipshit pulling a glock on the dancefloor is virtually none. I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby, the list just goes on. Furthermore its far easier to take on an attacker with a knife than a gun, its a cc weapon and it takes some serios skill to use effectively, guns are far easier to kill people with, particuarly when theres a few metres involved. I've done enough martial arts, knife fighting and disarmament training to feel confident about taking on an attacker with a knife, unarmed.

I'm glad you finally came out and said that, youv'e been hinting at it all the time, i was tempted to say something but it was jsut too funny. I hope you've now realised i firmly beleive what i say. I would not want to live in a gun toting society and i do not beleive the inability to carry weapons in public is a bad thing. Btw don't get holier than thou about 'enligheneted civilizations', you live in a war mongering, ignorant, arrogant powerhouse, enlightened is something i'd apply to the constitution of America in general, but not the nation.

Originally posted by jaguar
Phlease. Its the best peice of legislation passed in recent times in this country. Now i can go to a nightclub knowing the chances of some dipshit pulling a glock on the dancefloor is virtually none. I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby, the list just goes on. Furthermore its far easier to take on an attacker with a knife than a gun, its a cc weapon and it takes some serios skill to use effectively, guns are far easier to kill people with, particuarly when theres a few metres involved. I've done enough martial arts, knife fighting and disarmament training to feel confident about taking on an attacker with a knife, unarmed.

My God...are you high, man?

There is absolutely no way you can provide evidence to support this statement: "I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby." No way in hell you can prove that. That's like saying, "I know I won't get HIV if I have unprotected sex. It CAN'T happen to me." Not to mention, were the chances of getting shot at a club that high before the gun laws? I'd say probably not.

I challenge you to come to the United States. In fact, I challenge you to come to Philadelphia. Then you can see how much of a "gun-toting society" we really are. You make us sound like we're all hanging out at the OK Corral, when in fact, all you really know about American society is what you read. You've never been here...and I'm willing to wager that if you spend a good month in this country, the only thing you'll need to worry about is people picking on you for having a "bad" accent.

Jag, I think you're an intelligent person. But you are coming across (at least to me) as incredibly paranoid and naive right now. There's nothing wrong with your beliefs, but your rationale seems to be coming out of left field.

Originally posted by jaguar
Why did you jsut say 'deer hunting' and got the hell over it? What does my view on gun rights have to do with asking you why you want an assult rifle?

Because (1) it's not the entire story (go back and read what I wrote again) and (2) your campaign for many postings has been "prove that you need to have a gun", along with a lot of blather about how I don't really. My reasons aren't subject to your review...which is apparently OK because even when I do lay them out you don't hear all of what I say anyhow.

Firstly when i said armed citizens i didn't mena gun owners.

A distinction without a difference.. Gun owners are armed citizens, and vice versa. By "gun owners" I mean legal gun owners...they're citizens, and they are armed.

I was evaluating the role of his thinking of an armed insurrection taking ot the streets, not the NRA throwing money at lobbyists.

What I said had <b>nothing</b> at all to do with lobbyists, (although it's always fun to drag that perjorative into the discussion, just like "eating wildlife" when you mean "hunting").

I was referring the people who elected him President. They're not lobbyists. And fortunately we're not yet at the point where our President needs to be in fear of an armed insurrection before he listens to the people he's supposed to be working for.

I've done enough martial arts, knife fighting and disarmament training to feel confident about taking on an attacker with a knife, unarmed.

Really? I've had martial arts training too, and what I was taught (along with the appropriate techniques) was that if you take on an assailant who has a knife and knows how to use it, with you empty-handed, you *will* get cut, perhaps fatally, unless you are very skillful, recently practiced, *and* very lucky. I respect that sensei very much.

It sounds to me like you've been taught a few techniques and fed some false confidence, which can be very dangerous.

I'm glad you finally came out and said that, youv'e been hinting at it all the time

No, I've said it on several occasions before, you must have missed it. I still think it's true, especially after your account of how you considered arming yourself once you got out of AU but got talked out of it. I sure hope that wasn't on the strength of what a bad-ass martial artist you think you are...in SE Asia, of all places.

I don't doubt you <i>believe</i> what you say, of course, it wouldn't be a good rationalization if you didn't.

which is apparently OK because even when I do lay them out you don't hear all of what I say anyhow.

Ironic; you dismiss the opposition as a 'load of blather' then claim they don't listen to you.

just like "eating wildlife" when you mean "hunting").

If you're going to quote, at least don't misquote. I said 'kill wildlife'. Secondly if there is an overpopulation of a species, its a perfectly valid activity. That's why people like farmers here have guns. There are valid reasons for owning firearms, i don't and still don't think personal defense is one of them. As for them requiring more skill than firearms, bullshit. Pepperspray irequires far less training (spray at person, not you) than loading, carrying and zeroing the sights on a firearm and damn, that stuff is effective.

I was referring the people who elected him President. They're not lobbyists. And fortunately we're not yet at the point where our President needs to be in fear of an armed insurrection before he listens to the people he's supposed to be working for.

When he doens't he doesn't have to worry either, thats my point.

Really? I've had martial arts training too, and what I was taught (along with the appropriate techniques) was that if you take on an assailant who has a knife and knows how to use it, with you empty-handed, you *will* get cut, perhaps fatally, unless you are very skillful, recently practiced, *and* very lucky. I respect that sensei very much.

Firstly i practise twice a week, secondly it depends on how trained your attacker is. If he is trained your most likely stuffed but allot of people carry knives with little or no knowledge of how to use them. Most of the situations in which i could see that happening would most likely involve people who are likely to cut themselves trying to get it out.

I still think it's true, especially after your account of how you considered arming yourself once you got out of AU but got talked out of it.

That becase the places i'm going to be travling too are very heavily armed and dangerous. Australia is not. My decision was based on the point that if you pull a gun on an armed assailant you're more likely to get shot. Its not in my best interest thereore to carry a gun. I'd rather lose my shit than lose my life.
Sorry, what was the basis of your point again?

Jag you may want to consider Sycs point. The Hollywood version of America is for entertainment purposes only, do not transpose the pictures on your screen into a vision of American culture.

I'm thinking that part of the communication problem you and Maggie face is based on differing views of Americas Bill of Rights. The BoR is only a list of rights which man has that cannot be transgressed by government. It is not a list of rights given by or protected by government. That is why when you propose disarming Americans the burden of proof is on you.

oops i somehow missed sycs post

There is absolutely no way you can provide evidence to support this statement

Ill rephrase. The statistical likelyhood of me being gunned down accidetly in a driveby is signifigantly less enough in a bad suburb of melbourne or sydney, than lets say...inner LA is enough to prove a corralation between the number of guns around and the number of driveby shootings.

Yo'd think by now i'd earn that you can never prove anything. COnsidering i wrote na essay on that yesterday i really should remember. *sighs* The catch bieng i didn't sleep inbetween.

were the chances of getting shot at a club that high before the gun laws? I'd say probably not.

Actually, yea. It was higher. Partiucalry sydney, king st etc, man, wouldn't go near those places.

I challenge you to come to the United States. In fact, I challenge you to come to Philadelphia. Then you can see how much of a "gun-toting society" we really are. You make us sound like we're all hanging out at the OK Corral, when in fact, all you really know about American society is what you read. You've never been here...and I'm willing to wager that if you spend a good month in this country, the only thing you'll need to worry about is people picking on you for having a "bad" accent.

*sighs* yea, you do have a point. Yea, i've got coloured views on the issue because of media etc, peace doesn't make news i know. At the same time ill stick to by guns fundamentally, carrying firearms for personal protection is counterproductive. As you can tell i'm way too stuffed to aruge atm, i'm gonan be dropping off the edge of the earth till monday or so, ill come up with something more rational with a couple of days sleep behind me.

You're getting the idea.

I'm thinking we should combine the gun thread with a Palestine thread to create The Cellar Steel Cage Shitstorm.

Originally posted by Griff
I'm thinking we should combine the gun thread with a Palestine thread to create The Cellar Steel Cage Shitstorm.

Throw in the National ID concept too for shits and grins. ;)

Originally posted by sycamore


Throw in the National ID concept too for shits and grins. ;)

wwarner11, the fucking smartass, is no longer with us (I believe), so I'm not sure it would be as interesting.

Originally posted by jaguar
Ironic; you dismiss the opposition as a 'load of blather' then claim they don't listen to you.

Oh, I <b>listened</b>, but that's why I called it blather. Your conclusions always seem driven by this simplistic view of the world that doesn't involve taking into account *why* people really do what they do, and what the *actual* consequences, unintended as well as intended, of passing laws really are.

My decision was based on the point that if you pull a gun on an armed assailant you're more likely to get shot.

That's another fable. The statistics I've read show that as a group, crime victims who resist fare <b>better</b> then those who "give it up". You may find it counter to your expectation based on your casual "fewer guns means less shooting" type of reasoning, but it's true.

The statistical likelyhood of me being gunned down accidetly in a driveby is signifigantly less enough in a bad suburb of melbourne or sydney, than lets say...inner LA is enough to prove a corralation between the number of guns around and the number of driveby shootings.

Jag, given how restrictive California gun laws are, LA is an <i>extremely</i> bad example of how gun control makes the streets safer. CA law is much closer to AU law on this score.

California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, DC and such places have already succumbed to arguments such as yours, and they suffer the consequences daily...which generate the news stories that form your picture of daily life in the US.

Other jursidictions (33 of our 50 states and the majority of our population), where the law provides that the cops "shall issue" permits for legal ownership and carry when the applicant has a clean record have significanty lower rates of violent crime. In each of the states, the crime rate went down when the relevant law was passed.

"Shall issue" rather than "may issue" is important, because it removes discretionary issue...in the hands of local cops discretionary issue too often turns into one of those "prove to me you need this weapon" farces. New Jersey is typical; to get a carry permit in Jersey you effectively need to be either a cop or a politician.

That said, the real reason for gang warfare in the streets in LA is extreme poverty and drug prohibition. Absent drug prohibition, drug gangs wouldn't have so much money and territory to fight over.

As it is, they have so much money that in the magical event of effective worldwide gun prohibition, they could have underground gun foundries set up next to their underground drug labs. In fact, such a foundary would be *easier* to run than a crack factory, since the raw materials for guns and ammunition don't need to be imported.

Gun prohibition works as well as drug prohibition, which is to say "not at all"...and for the same reasons. Creating new categories of contraband simply creates a new black market....and black markets feed on each other.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
wwarner11, the fucking smartass, is no longer with us (I believe), so I'm not sure it would be as interesting.

It'd still be good I think. We still have folks like tw. ;)

Wow, I step away for a couple days to get some work done and see what happens!

Guess I probably should clarify that I'm not totally anti-gun or anything -- I have a .22 in my closet -- but I do lean more towards the left on this one. (FWIW, I'm a liberal libertarian, if that makes any sense to you...) I genuinely feel that I do so in the interest of my own personal safety and the safety of people I love, just as I assume everyone else does. As such, it seems like we could all arrive at a consensus, but I know I'm dreaming...

Just want to make a few points:

1. "Arms", in the second amendment debate, are for some reason assumed by gun-rights advocates to be handguns and semi-auto assault rifles. It's an arbitrary definition. ASSUMING "arms" equals hand-carried weapons (which I've still not convinced of), that still includes not just handguns and semi-auto assault rifles, but also shoulder-fired rockets, fully automatic midi-guns, sachel grenades, suitcase nukes -- are these not also protected under the 2nd Amendment? It's just that much more potential for mass murder, if you ask me. Sure, NYC would be MUCH safer with 3 million suitcase nukes trundling about in the hands of Joe American... :rolleyes: Imagine the damage a disgruntled ex-employee could do -- prolly take out an entire city block and kill thousands. Hurray for arms rights!! Hah, good luck defending yourself against that one.

Gun rights groups assert that the "right to arms" is absolute, but that's a fantasy. We would all do well to lose the absolutist fanatacism, recognize that the line is indeed arbitrary, and boil it down to WHERE that line should be drawn and why -- which is actually a determination of just how much killing power Joe American should have.

(In effect, though, the gun control vs. gun rights debate do that for us. It's just frustrating, for both sides, to not have a clear definition that lasts more than a coupla years.)

Again, though, I really do think the US constitution intended us to be free to own ANY weapon, without restriction. But, bright as they were, even they could not have forseen the destructive power of modern weaponry.

2. The assertion that more guns always make society safer is just wrong. In Denmark (my wife's native country) a few years ago, a policeman was shot and killed. It was a *huge*shock -- the first time it had happened in the entire country in like 10 years, if not ever, and it was easily the top story in the country for several days. (Law officers getting shot is, sadly, a pretty common occurance here in the States.) Nobody has guns over there. The violent crime rate is 1/10th what it is here in the US. You can walk through the middle of downtown Copenhagen at 2:00am without fear for your personal safety. (After living here for nearly 10 years, my wife still doesn't understand that it's a BAD IDEA to do that in a US city.)

Of course Danish culture is different than US culture. And no doubt there are situations where more guns equals less crime. But to assert as fact that it's always true (dunno that anyone here is, but it's certainly implied) just stinks of fanaticism.

3. The notion that citizens should have weapons specifically so that they can ignore laws with which they disagree is, well, disturbing. Somebody look up the definition of "criminal" for me. Or are you only a criminal if you break a law that you agree with? (huh???)

Oh well. Good debate!! :3eye:

ASSUMING "arms" equals hand-carried weapons (which I've still not convinced of), that still includes not just handguns and semi-auto assault rifles, but also shoulder-fired rockets, fully automatic midi-guns, sachel grenades, suitcase nukes -- are these not also protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Sorta but there are competing rights which the courts have found. My take on it is that just by starting contruction on a suitcase nuke, you're committing reckless endangerment. I dunno how much reckless endangerment is a part of the law though.

Argh, i'm a sucker for punsihment, one more before i head off for a well deserved break.

Oh, I listened, but that's why I called it blather. Your conclusions always seem driven by this simplistic view of the world that doesn't involve taking into account *why* people really do what they do, and what the *actual* consequences, unintended as well as intended, of passing laws really are.

I haven't see a democrasy colapse due to the citizens to wield assult rifles yet. In this day and age i don't beleive it makes the slightest in a western democrasy. Law enforcement is a job for police, not vigilantes, if you want personal defense, carry a nonlethal weapon. Talking of simplistic, you paint criminals as people whos primary interest is kiling people, if thats not simplistic i don't know what is.

That's another fable. The statistics I've read show that as a group, crime victims who resist fare better then those who "give it up". You may find it counter to your expectation based on your casual "fewer guns means less shooting" type of reasoning, but it's true.

Pfft bullshit. Least in sth east asia. i spoke in detail to over 20 people who have done the kakoda trail, outer thailand, burma, cambodia etc. Some of them have been robbed. Based on their expereince and those of others they spoke to carrys arms means you are far more likely to get shot, these guys are ogranised, heavily armed and nervour, try and pull a pistol and you'll have a clip of AK-47 in you.. I cannot speak for america but that was the overwhelming advise i recieved. I intend to take it. Its not based on any bullshit you're trying to put into my mouth, its based on the experience of those who've been there and done that.

As it is, they have so much money that in the magical event of effective worldwide gun prohibition, they could have underground gun foundries set up next to their underground drug labs. In fact, such a foundary would be *easier* to run than a crack factory, since the raw materials for guns and ammunition don't need to be imported.

More space, machinery and technicial expertise is needed to produce a beretta replica than a block of herion.

As for CA guns laws, of course they cannot control guns, they're so easily avaiable across the border. Drug prohibition is of course a joke, like booze prohobition, guns are different in many, many ways.

Originally posted by Undertoad

Sorta but there are competing rights which the courts have found. My take on it is that just by starting contruction on a suitcase nuke, you're committing reckless endangerment. I dunno how much reckless endangerment is a part of the law though.

Yes, exactly my point! At some point, one man's right to bear arms becomes reckless endangerment of others. (Incidentally, this is exactly why it is other people's business what weapons I choose to keep -- allow me too much power and they are potentially put in danger.) Now whether to draw the line at suitcase nukes, assault rifles, or sharp pointy sticks is another question, but an absolute right to bear arms is a fallacy. Sounds good for NRA rallies, but it doesn't make sense in the Real World. FWIW, I think the courts "get it", but the public does not, at least not consciously.

But remember kids, suitcase nukes don't kill people; people kill people. (Sorry, need more coffee... :D )

At least one fundamental flaw with having this particular argument (as Undertoad has already pointed out) is that we are arguing about very different parts of the world.
First, jag (and, to a lesser extent, sludge), my right to carry arms is fundamentally different from yours. In the United States, we get (in theory, at least) to carry weapons for self-defense. The government doesn't get to take that right away (again, in theory). The Australian government doesn't work like that. That's fine if that's the way they think their citizens want their country.
But...
you still have yet to prove to me that guns are inherently bad. You say they are bad because they are designed to kill. I say they are good for exactly the same reason. My argument can be stated thus:
If someone wants to hurt me or mine, I will stop them any way necessary.
We have come to an impasse that we will not be able to surmount, two radically different ways of looking at the same thing. I have something for you to mull over though:
A gun is neither inherently good or bad. It is simply a tool. Yes, the primary purpose of that tool is to make stuff disappear in a wicked awesome conflagration of smoke, fire, and lead. But, I put it to both of you to prove that a gun is inherently bad. I will already state that I cannot prove a gun is inherently good. It seems that the intentions of the user of that tool are what matters.

*Discuss*

Yes, that's it! - in the hands of the bad guys, a gun is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a gun is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc.

In the US you are Constitutionally a good guy (or gal) until proven otherwise. This frustrates local municipalities no end because we all know some of those good guys are actually bad. They want to limit gun usage but have no basis on which to do it. They're left to do things like creating arbitrary restrictions and limiting the number of permits and such. Studies show it doesn't work...

Originally posted by Undertoad
Yes, that's it! - in the hands of the bad guys, a gun is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a gun is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc.

Let's play word substitution: "in the hands of the bad guys, a [thermonuclear device] is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a [thermonuclear device] is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc."

Argh, I hate that argument, cuz it's so irrelevant -- EVERYTHING is a tool, with no inherent goodness or badness. A hammer is a tool. A rock is a tool. Cocaine is a tool. A torture device is a tool. A strap-on dildo is a tool. Some tools are good for pounding nails; some tools are good for killing people. What's yer point?

And ya know, it's true -- nukes are tools too -- but Joe American really does not need to have a nuke in his basement. Bad Idea. It's a question of HOW MUCH POWER Joe American should have before it endangers others. Not a question of whether guns are "bad", per se, but a question of whether guns in the hands of avg. Americans are bad.

As an aside, not really relevant to the arms rights discussion, but indicative of my feelings on the matter:

Guns just require too little effort, IMO. Maybe that's what pisses me off about 'em. Any schmoe can get $99 pawn shop special and cap me in the back of the head for the change I'm carrying. Doesn't matter how much heat I'm packing -- pull that trigger finger 1/2" when I'm not looking, I die. Too easy. Maybe it pisses me off cuz I'm a fairly big guy, which is a GREAT deterrant for fist fights, but means nothing vs a gun. If you're gonna kill me, I at least want to make you work for it. It takes a lot more rage and sweat to beat someone to death than *POP*; hence it's less likely to happen, as people are fundamentally lazy.

Ideally, my killer would be a 5th degree black-belt. You know, train his whole life for it. At least he would have earned it...

headsplice: Check my profile -- I'm an American, at least I *think* South Carolina still qualifies...

First, jag (and, to a lesser extent, sludge), my right to carry arms is fundamentally different from yours.

Not to disagree in spirit, but "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
(original Jeffersonian text before the politicians peed in the soup)

Everybody has the same rights "derived from that equal creation" . Those rights are inherent and inalienable, and I beleve those rights include the right to keep and bear arms. I suppose a people could elect to waive thier rights in this regard, since the powers of government "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". But I'm too much of a libartarian myself to cotton to surrendering my rights "for the good of the collective".

My point is that everybody has the same rights, including those who have waived them voluntarily.

Originally posted by LordSludge

Argh, I hate that argument, cuz it's so irrelevant -- EVERYTHING is a tool, with no inherent goodness or badness.

But it's not irrelevant, it's *true*. The fact that it undermines your line of argument is what bothers you.

- but Joe American really does not need to have a nuke in his basement. Bad Idea. It's a question of HOW MUCH POWER Joe American should have before it endangers others. Not a question of whether guns are "bad", per se, but a question of whether guns in the hands of avg. Americans are bad.

See, this is that same old "prove you *need* something before we will let you have it" argument that is so perverted. The question isn't "are guns bad", guns or any other object aren't capable of being bad or good. You're looking for a shortcut past "malum in se", (which is such a hard call to make) so you can go directly to "malum prohibidum".

The question isn't "what does a gun become in the hands of an 'average American' (whoever *that* is, we are a populaton of extremes and variety, not averages). The question you should really be asking is "are <b>people</b> good or evil?"...a question that can't be answered in bulk. We have a process here for deciding that on an individual basis. It is based on evidence and credibility, and we call it the justice system.

Maybe it pisses me off cuz I'm a fairly big guy, which is a GREAT deterrant for fist fights, but means nothing vs a gun. If you're gonna kill me, I at least want to make you work for it....Ideally, my killer would be a 5th degree black-belt. You know, train his whole life for it. At least he would have earned it...

Ah! The light begins to dawn! You want to preserve your personal physical advantage. The idea that you are as vulnerable as everybody else is what <b>really</b> bugs you about the right to keep and bear arms. But why should you be entitled to hold more power than your fellow citizens, who have the same rights you do? Just because you're bigger and stronger? You're not an inherently superior being just because you're a jock, you know.

Abstract absolute rights. Something i've heard throw about here before. They don't exist. Freedom of speach is not absolute freedom of speach. Its free as long as its not libel, or slander, or a threat or piss anyone off enough. Its limited freedom of speach. There is no such thing as absolute rights. You have no rights. When the shit hits the fan, your rights will be ignored. Look at two of the US suspects of terror. Locked up without trial, with access to lawyers. Every right you have is given to you until you piss someone off enough for them to take it away. You can't defend against that, people protesting in the streets won't change that. Our own apathy and greed destroyed the concept of a functioning democracy generations ago. We're at baseline politics now. At a macropolitical level the actions of individual are meaningless and the actions of groups are meanless unless they offer political power or money. Guns on thier own offer nether anymore. The tools of power have changed.

Ah! The light begins to dawn! You want to preserve your personal physical advantage. The idea that you are as vulnerable as everybody else is what really bugs you about the right to keep and bear arms. But why should you be entitled to hold more power than your fellow citizens, who have the same rights you do? Just because you're bigger and stronger? You're not an inherently superior being just because you're a jock, you know.

Man, you really are bitter aren't you? That statement shows more about your mentality than anything else. Guns are the big equaliser eh? Now i can take on that tough guy. What happens when someone gets a bigger gun. What happens when all thsoe bad guys you're just itching to blow away get bigger guns. What happens when they're nervous, they don't want to die, shaking hands on tigger fingers. Not good.

Violence is the tool of the weak minded

Issac Asimov.
Never heard a truer sentence.

EDIT: tools....knew i forgot something. Fundamentally a gun is desigend to kill people. That is in my book a bad thing, no matter who does the killing or why. There are many alternative forms of self defence that are designed to injure or incapacitate, killing should be a last possible alternative, not the first. Therefore guns, for your average joe are an unnessacary risk in terms of self defence.

Originally posted by jaguar
Ill rephrase. The statistical likelyhood of me being gunned down accidetly in a driveby is signifigantly less enough in a bad suburb of melbourne or sydney, than lets say...inner LA is enough to prove a corralation between the number of guns around and the number of driveby shootings.

Metropolitan Los Angeles has 4 times the number of people in metro Sydney (16 million vs. 4 million). Los Angeles city alone has 3.7 million. Based upon the populations alone, I'd say that there will be more guns in Los Angeles.

Now, is it likely that there are more drive-by shootings in Los Angeles? I would say so, based on numbers alone. As far as your chances of getting shot...you're not helping your case in using California, as Maggie noted.

Actually, yea. It was higher. Partiucalry sydney, king st etc, man, wouldn't go near those places.

I'd like to see some stats on that (though I would think them hard to find, if they're even kept).

Jag, when those new gun laws kicked in, do you think that the criminals said, "Dum de doo. I guess I'll have to turn in my gun now."? I'd wager that you probably still have the same folks with the same guns in the same clubs. I suspect the security you and others feel is probably a psychological effect, with no basis in fact.

Originally posted by jaguar
Abstract absolute rights. Something i've heard throw about here before. They don't exist.

It's only abstract to you because your rights in this connection are already gone. For me the issue is still quite concete, thanks. And nobody said "absolute" either; there's plenty of ways self-defense rights are abridged. Some I agree with, some I don't.

So you've set up a "straw-man" augument and then torn it down. Bravo.
(Will you be taking a class in argumentation when you get to college? You *are* going to go to college, right? We haven't heard much about that lately, and September is next month.)

Our own apathy and greed destroyed the concept of a functioning democracy generations ago.

Well, I can certainly see that the functioning of <b>your</b> democracy is impaired, whether we're talking obout the right to keep and bear arms or the right to see what you want on the Internet. But then "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", as long as we're flinging quotes about. <b>Our</b> democracy still seems to be struggling along somehow...not perfect, but arguably still the best deal in town. YMMV.

quote:Violence is the tool of the weak minded
Issac Asimov. Never heard a truer sentence.

I beleive the quote is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetant", from the "Foundation" trilogy. Don't you see that when one employs a weapon in self-defense, it is against such an incompetant who has taken refuge in violence?

Dr. Asimov was an impressive polymath, a good science fiction writer and a delightful gentleman. I met him at a convention in NYC once; I don't think he'd be pleased at the way the words of his character Salvor Hardin have been abused since then. Hardin also said: "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Man, you really are bitter aren't you? That statement shows more about your mentality than anything else. Guns are the big equaliser eh? Now i can take on that tough guy. What happens when someone gets a bigger gun. What happens when all thsoe bad guys you're just itching to blow away...

Oh, dear, we're back to this again. "Anyone who arms themselves for protection must be in the grip of blood lust." Of course, training with and carrying a blade among a disarmed population is noble, it's just <i>firearms</i> that are implicitly evil.

Yes, weapons <b>are</b> an equalizer in combat between the bigger and stronger and the smaller and weaker. That's a trend since Ogg the caveman first picked up a stick. It's continued through the invention of the spear, the sword, armor, the longbow, and so on. Firearms have removed the last advantage of the brute.The possibility that ordinary people may be legally armed with concealed handguns makes comitting violent crime a much trickier and more dangerous affair--<b>for the criminal</b>. I like it that way. Too bad if you don't. But will you ever stop conflating the desire to not be helpless in the face of violence with the desire to <b>be</b> violent?

Sludge feels much better when he's the biggest guy in the joint, and doesn't have to worry that that guy over there who *looks* like a pushover might not actually be. And you seem unable to abide the idea that there are people with the freedom to legally choose to arm themselves, they all must all be slavering murderers looking for an excuse to unleash a bloodbath. (That's called "projection", and even if you don't get a class in argumentation, they'll cover that for you in freshman psych, under "defense mechanisms".)

Look, the process of licencing for concealed carry filters out the great preponderance of people likely to commit *any* crime, much less starting a random spray of fire at a disco (which is your violent fantasy) or sneak up behind Sludge and put a bullet in his head, depriving him of a dramatic struggle on some "Mortal Combat" field of honor, may the best man win.

Those are <b>crimes</b>. I know many folks licenced for concealed carry personally; they are gentle, careful, responsible people. I'm not uncomfortable around them in the slightest. Unfortunately you have little chance to learn the truth of that, since anyone who's armed where you are is by definition a criminal.

So spare me your "you must be bitter". That's a ludicrous red herring...especially after your jaded assertion that democracy is dead and our rights are dead abstractions. Methinks the pot calls the kettle black.

It's only abstract to you because your rights in this connection are already gone. For me the issue is still quite concete, thanks. And nobody said "absolute" either; there's plenty of ways self-defense rights are abridged. Some I agree with, some I don't.

I don't remember linking that to arms rights. I don't remember linking it ot my rights either. Please stop attempting to put words in my mout, particuarly when you misinterpreting deliberately or not what i said.

(Will you be taking a class in argumentation when you get to college? You *are* going to go to college, right? We haven't heard much about that lately, and September is next month.)

Its called uni here. Yea most likely. THe way my marks are going 'I'll be able to get into my course either some breathing room. Either way what the heck does that have to do with anything? The style of my writing here is terrible. If i handed it in i'd get a D if i was lucky. The crap i write on here is nothing like my actual work, i write this entirely on the fly, no review time, no rewrites, no forward thinking about structure. I've got a bunch of opinionative stuff coming up for school, i might able able to twist one of them towards gun rights (taeacher asked me to submit a list of topics so...) so i might be able to write some real stuff on the issue, factually back up logically structured bulletproof stuff unlike the random rablings i'm usually posting.

Well, I can certainly see that the functioning of your democracy is impaired, whether we're talking obout the right to keep and bear arms or the right to see what you want on the Internet. But then "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", as long as we're flinging quotes about. Our democracy still seems to be struggling along somehow...not perfect, but arguably still the best deal in town. YMMV.

Thats bloody debateable. TOu have two parties which squeese out a fair competition with anyone else, and your currant leader was elected by the supreme court. In fact just under 1 quarter of your population voted for him. Best deal in town my ass. The only truely effective democracy existed in Ancient Greece, its a pity our sociopolitical structure jsut would not allow such a system. These days Britan inho has the ebst system, although their judicial wing could do with some redessing. Representative democracy is flawed either way.

Oh, dear, we're back to this again. "Anyone who arms themselves for protection must be in the grip of blood lust." Of course, training with and carrying a blade among a disarmed population is noble, it's just firearms that are implicitly evil.

Pardon? Ok i went a little over on the bloodlust stuff, sure ill admit that but where did you pull the knife stuff from?

Yes, weapons are an equalizer in combat between the bigger and stronger and the smaller and weaker. That's a trend since Ogg the caveman first picked up a stick. It's continued through the invention of the spear, the sword, armor, the longbow, and so on. Firearms have removed the last advantage of the brute.The possibility that ordinary people may be legally armed with concealed handguns makes comitting violent crime a much trickier and more dangerous affair--for the criminal. I like it that way. Too bad if you don't. But will you ever stop conflating the desire to not be helpless in the face of violence with the desire to be violent?

It merely makes the criminal more likely to be armed, more nervous and more likely to shoot you. Wonderful, now everyone is equal - until someone gets a bigger gun, a point which you don't seem to willing to address. If everyone is equal you're just as likely to be shot, what have you really gained?

Look, the process of licencing for concealed carry filters out the great preponderance of people likely to commit *any* crime, much less starting a random spray of fire at a disco (which is your violent fantasy) or sneak up behind Sludge and put a bullet in his head, depriving him of a dramatic struggle on some "Mortal Combat" field of honor, may the best man win.

Firstly i'm not sure where you got my "violent fantasty" from. I've got a friend with a plastic kneecap from an incident in a sydney nightclub.

So spare me your "you must be bitter". That's a ludicrous red herring...especially after your jaded assertion that democracy is dead and our rights are dead abstractions. Methinks the pot calls the kettle black.

Hehehehe. I'm not in the least bit jaded about it, i understand hw the system works and how to twist it to my advantage, Why would i be jaded? I find the whole thing quite fun really.

Originally posted by jaguar
Hehehehe. I'm not in the least bit jaded about it, i understand hw the system works and how to twist it to my advantage, Why would i be jaded?

OK, cynical rather than jaded, then.

Either way what the heck does that have to do with anything? The style of my writing here is terrible. If i handed it in i'd get a D if i was lucky. The crap i write on here is nothing like my actual work, i write this entirely on the fly, no review time, no rewrites, no forward thinking about structure.

Oh...I see. Sorry, I thought you *meant* what you said here. If *you* call it crap, why bridle when I style it "blather"?

If this isn't your "actual work", and doesn't engage your attention, concern or craft, then I'll ignore it. After all, if your words here aren't worthy of *your* attention, they're certainly not worth mine.

Yes, i'm cynical.

Time? I do what i can. I've got school and getting back and forth from 6:30 to 4, homework on average is around 4 hours a night, going up to 6 or even 8 depending on the day. On top of that i'm doing some work on the side for a little spare cash. At the moment writing folio work alone has me writing on average a fully polished 1000 word essay every 2 days not to mention regional secuirty analysis papers on the Spratleys which will take up most of this week, i simply don't have time to polish my posts. I don't see why that invalidates them. either way this thread is going nowhere useful, i should be able to play with one of the topics enough to do an essay on this, ill post that later.

Originally posted by jaguar

&lt;snip&gt;not to mention regional secuirty analysis papers on the Spratleys which will take up most of this week&lt;/snip&gt;

Please, please, PLEASE post it here, in a new thread, when you're finished.

Thank you.

gotta write on paper in class in a book we don't get back sadly, can post pages all my notes though.
Nothing too facinating, just a 2000 or so word summary, causes, history, competing NI outline, external factors, resolution attempts, regional stability impact analysis, bit of stuff of the role of Taiwan in particular to tie in with other stuff and some enviromental stuff.

Originally posted by jaguar
i simply don't have time to polish my posts. I don't see why that invalidates them.

It's just what I said...if it's not worth your time to write them well, it's certainly not worth my time to analyse (and too often, decrypt) and then respond, only to have you blow it all off with the likes of "Oh, it's not my *good* work" or . ."Sorry I'm incoherent, or went overboard because I'm getting no sleep".

As for polish vs. validity, when you write carelessly <br>
--either trivially so as with random spelling and erratic punctuation
<br> --or more deeply with vitriol or wild accusations,
<br>--or at the very deepest level by littering your arguments with enthymemes and classic fallacies of argumentation like question-begging, red herrings and straw-man arguments<br>
...you shirk work you were unwilling to do, leaving it to be done by the people reading your words.

In fact I'm busy with several projects of my own. But I don't consider writing for the Cellar to be "slumming" just because the software is bloggish. Why not take some time and compose your words (and your thoughts as well)...any given thread will still be here for the posting, when you're done.

Or if you really <b>don't</b> have the time, maybe you should just forget about it and concentrate on the stuff you consider more important.

Or if you really don't have the time, maybe you should just forget about it and concentrate on the stuff you consider more important.

That is what i just said.

Originally posted by jaguar
Violence is a tool of the weak minded.

Issac Asimov.
Never heard a truer sentence.

...Therefore guns, for your average joe are an unnessacary risk in terms of self defence.

To Asimov I would append a sentence that improves his contention: Countervailing violence -- resisting evil -- is a tool of the strong of soul.

As to the last sentence of your coda, Jaguar, the experiences of 33 states, Switzerland, and Israel all militate to the falsification of your entire thesis. Furthermore, your argument -- all unbeknownst to you I know, but nonetheless -- opens the way to genocide. A hostility towards private armaments leads to restrictions and bans on guns; and bans on guns are an essential precondition to episodes of genocide -- one of three, the other two being hatred and governmental power. You'd have some awareness of all this if you'd bothered to do the homework in reading Simkin, Zelman, and Rice, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is The Key To Genocide , no ISBN, but available through JPFO's website among other places. I am impressed with this book because the bulk of its pages are devoted to facsimiles of the gun control laws in nations where genocides have occurred, with translations into English on the pages facing each page of original text. Jaguar, I speak, read, and write three of those languages -- the translations are honest, for at least the Spanish, the French, and the Russian. They have relevance to the Guatemalan genocide of the Miskitos, the killing fields of Cambodia [which got its gun control when it was a French protectorate], and the Stalinist unpleasantnesses from the Terror Famine through 1953.

www.jpfo.org

You must master this material before you can persuade the enlightened that you've got it right, and no amount of your misspelled prose will obscure the fundamental flaw of not having this in your knowledge base -- their argument cannot be ignored by rational persons; in my experience it is frequently ignored by those who are not rational about arms.

Countervailing violence -- resisting evil -- is a tool of the strong of soul.

Evil. That’s an odd word to associate with violence in all cases. I don't see how countervailing something is a tool either....but I digress.

Israel I do not think is an example of a peaceful state. Switzerland on the other hand does have a very low murder rate. I'd attribute that to socioeconomic factors rather than a blanket presence of firearms. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of their murders by weapon.

Pretentious, didactic prattle (aplenty) aside I will admit this is an issue I’m not familiar with, its not something I have much experience arguing with either and thus my knowledge base is not that big. I don't intend to purchase books about it either, it simply is not that much of an interest.

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

Apart from the Guatemalan genocide of the Miskitos which I’m not even slightly familiar with and so in no position to comment on your examples are brutal totalitarian regimes. These are not known for their freedoms and oddly enough aren't to keen about leaving firearms in the hands of a populace who would just love to rebel.

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

Your more obscure (at least to me) example aside your genocidal states seem to be examples of poverty, or at least less economic successes (lets not get into the nitty-gritty of Stalin's Russia) than your less violent countries, Switzerland and Israel (at least inter-Israeli wise). Maybe socioeconomics have a far larger role to play in your examples than gun control? Just a thought. Or sorry I forgot. I’m an irrational raving loony for opposing you.

Originally posted by jaguar
Evil. That’s an odd word to associate with violence in all cases.

Distinguish here between "violence" and "agression". Not all violence is agression.

That's one serious problem with the Asmov quote lifted out of context. While the last refuge of the incompetant may indeed be violence, it does not follow that all violence is the acts of desparate incompetants...which is the implicit argument when somebody trots that quote out. This is called "affirming the consequent" , and it's a logical fallacy.

I don't see how countervailing something is a tool either....but I digress.

<blockquote>
<i>To act against with equal force, power, or effect; to thwart
or overcome by such action; to furnish an equivalent to or
for; to counterbalance; to compensate.</i></blockquote>

An umbrella countervails against rain. A flashlight countervails against darkness. A fire extinguisher countervails against fire. An antibiotic countervails against disease. A weapon used defensively countervails against agression.

Of course, a tool can be used agressively as well. I could try to poison you with a pharmaceutical, or try to smother you with a fire extinguisher.

Evil intent will find a tool. Gun prohibitionists ban guns, and then claim success when firearms crime is displaced by violence with other weapons, in greater volume because the victims are known to be disarmed.

Victim was warned of 'shooting spree'

Slain woman had sought protection

By SEAN O'SULLIVAN AND TERRI SANGINITI

Staff reporters

08/17/2002

A woman whose ex-boyfriend shot her to death Thursday outside police headquarters sought court protection from the man 10 days ago.

"He says he's going to get his gun and go on a shooting spree, and I'm first," Lettie A. Lyons, 42, said in a petition seeking a protection from abuse order.

The order was granted Aug. 5, and included a requirement that the man, Christopher M. Williams, 43, surrender his shotgun to police that day. He did not.

Williams shot Lyons about 6 p.m. Thursday as Lyons attempted to seek protection at New Castle County Police Headquarters on U.S. 13 and then shot himself to death, police said.

Distinguish here between "violence" and "agression". Not all violence is agression.

That's one serious problem with the Asmov quote lifted out of context. While the last refuge of the incompetant may indeed be violence, it does not follow that all violence is the acts of desparate incompetants...which is the implicit argument when somebody trots that quote out. This is called "affirming the consequent" , and it's a logical fallacy.

Thankyou for the lesson, very informative I assure you. I'd love to know what it has to do with the line you quoted from me.

Talking of that quote, While you imply that violence is not always the tool of the incompetent, from what I remember the books certainly suggest it is. It is chronicling of the rise of the foundation without the use of force, in my mind that surely suggests that violence is indeed the tool of the incompetent. By the way its Asimov not Asmov. It’s also incompetent, not incompetant and desperate not desparate. Either that or Americans have different ways of spelling these things.

An umbrella countervails against rain. A flashlight countervails against darkness. A fire extinguisher countervails against fire. An antibiotic countervails against disease. A weapon used defensively countervails against agression.

Yes. Correct! The weapon/umbrella/flashlight/fire extinguisher is the tool. Not the countervailing. That was my point. Excuse me while I ram my head into a brick wall.

.....then shot himself to death, police said.

As opposed to.....?

Originally posted by jaguar
Thankyou for the lesson, very informative I assure you.

Glad you found it helpful. Actually the whole Logical Fallacies site is worthy of your attention.

I'd love to know what it has to do with the line you quoted from me.

My point being that not all violence is evil. That was either the point you were making, or absolutely contradicted your point, I'm not sure which.

Talking of that quote, While you imply that violence is not always the tool of the incompetent...

Um, no, I'm not implying it. I've been stating it flat out, repeatedly.

from what I remember the books certainly suggest it is....

So, by your reading, during W.W. II, inbetween writing the first and second voumes of the trilogy, Dr. Asimov really shouldn't have been working (along with Heinlein and DeCamp) at the Naval Air Experimental Station at the Philadelphia Navy Base here? With him being such a total pacifist and all, both his enlisting in the Army and working to develop weapons systems surely would have been hypocritical.

I'll take note that spelling criticism is once again fair game, too. :-)

So, by your reading, during W.W. II, in-between writing the first and second voumes of the trilogy, Dr. Asimov really shouldn't have been working (along with Heinlein and DeCamp) at the Naval Air Experimental Station at the Philadelphia Navy Base here? With him being such a total pacifist and all, both his enlisting in the Army and working to develop weapons systems surely would have been hypocritical. [/QUOTE] News to me. Maybe it was, I’m not sure. The books to me certainly suggest that it was. The key point in the books certainly seems to me to be the use of intelligence instead of violence to resolve problems. I'd have to reread now but maybe it does suggest that there are situations where violence is unavoidable. What exactly was he working on?

My point being that not all violence is evil. That was either the point you were making, or absolutely contradicted your point, I'm not sure which.

That was my origional point, i still don't know what you were talking about apart from a good chance to tundle out some fancy terms for the blindingly obvious.

I'll take note that spelling criticism is once again fair game, too. :-)

You missed an l in volume.

Originally posted by jaguar
News to me. Maybe it was, I’m not sure. The books to me certainly suggest that it was. The key point in the books certainly seems to me to be the use of intelligence instead of violence to resolve problems. I'd have to reread now...

Can't imagine why you'd need to reread it, since you referred to it (as a misquote, admittedly) claiming you'd "never heartd a truer sentence". You wouln't make that claim about something without actually knowing what it <b>meant</b>, would you?

What exactly was he working on?

As far as I have been able to tell, his work was classified and he never discussed it, even after the war.

Heinlien was <b>famous</b> for his obstinacy in not disclosing the nature of the work he did there. It has been conjectured by some to have had to do with aiming antiaircraft fire from radar signals, and some of his writing indicates that he'd thought about that problem extensively. I don't even know for sure that he, Asimov, and deCamp were all working on the same project, but we do know that they became close friends.

Asimov was indeed interested in the idea of solving political problems without violence, but unfortunately he failed to pass on to us Salvor Hardin's mathematical models that would have enabled us to predict social outcomes with the precision and reliablity of problems from physics. Without them, I suppose we may all look "incompetant" next to Hardin. We're left only to console ourselves with the fact that he is a <b>fictional</b> character, and thus perhaps not the best source for ethical guidance.

Asimov also died without revealing a synthesys or structure for the remarkable compond "thiotimoline". His paper "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" described a chemical so incredibly water-soluable that it would dissolve <b>before</b> being added to water. A telegraph system that consisted of a battery of thiotimoline cells would have obvious application in finance (by transmitting pricing information from the future) and significant military applications by allowing early-warning of a future attack with any desired lead time. This would certainly have revolutionized the concept of "preemptive strike".

I do know that Asimov was highly disconcerted when, as the final question during his doctoral orals, he was asked to speak on the subject of thiotimoline's endochronitic properties. I guess he didn't realize anybody on the senior faculty read <i>Amazing Science Fiction</i>.

Can't imagine why you'd need to reread it, since you referred to it (as a misquote, admittedly) claiming you'd "never heartd a truer sentence". You wouln't make that claim about something without actually knowing what it meant, would you?

There are often subtleties in a text that can escape you or forget after a while. Interpreting what an author meant is never a precise art; I would not be willing to delve into a more detailed analysis of the messages in the books without re-reading them.

As far as I have been able to tell, his work was classified and he never discussed it, even after the war.

While it was classified this reluctance suggests maybe it was hypocritical or at least something he was not entirely comfortable with talking about

We're left only to console ourselves with the fact that he is a fictional character, and thus perhaps not the best source for ethical guidance.

The fictional nature of the text does not take away from the value of the message.

You missed a d in wouldn’t.

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

Originally posted by jaguar
Interpreting what an author meant is never a precise art

Especially when he is misquoted, as you are fond of pointing out. :-)

While it was classified this reluctance suggests maybe it was hypocritical or at least something he was not entirely comfortable with talking about

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

Besides being a better SF author. :-)

The fictional nature of the text does not take away from the value of the message.

Yes, but the message may be "If you can predict the future, you can afford to be snide about all those 'incompetents'." "Not a precise art", you know. :-) Still, life in the real world is a bit trickier without Seldon's quite fictional crystal ball.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by spinningfetus


what part of little minds didn't you understand?

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

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

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

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/guns.html

Originally posted by sib


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

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

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/guns.html

Why?

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

Originally posted by jaguar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Royal Ordinance No. 55 of 28 March 1938

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You love reiterating my points don't you?

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

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

This begs a question:

on the whole they are stupid, myopic and apathetic.

Then how can they be trusted with the vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then how can they be trusted with the vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ I type out one post in a hurry and I get the spelling Gestapo on my back. meh, that’s the last time I try and reply in a free period.

I think in most caases of despotic regimes they at least come to power with the backing of the majority, even if only for a short while. Armed rebellion down the track is already too late.

As for armies not turning on their own, look at Tiananmen Square.

When we talk about this we are not just talking about the US you know. I could be flamebaity and say you already have a despotic regime but I’m not in the mood. Actual gun control legislation I think would have little effect in an established despotic regime once the seeds for rebellion had been sown.

Originally posted by jaguar
Christ I type out one post in a hurry and I get the spelling Gestapo on my back. meh, that’s the last time I try and reply in a free period.

You took delight in nitpicking my posts for occasional dropped vowels when they were still quite legible; with multiple transposition errors per sentence and completely indecipherable words you're just gonna hear about it when your own legibility suffers. Too late for whining about Gestapo now, after playing that game yourself you've lost your innocence.

As for armies not turning on their own, look at Tiananmen Square.

I was speaking specifcally about the US. I don't pretend to understand the national psyche of the Chinese in depth at this point. Still, it does seem that most Chinese are content to struggle along under their current govenment; Tienanmen Square was pretty much Kent State writ large; a student demonstration, not a popular movement by any stretch. If the students in the square had been armed with something more than rocks and bottles, things would have been different. Probably not "better", but certainly different. But that's a counterfactual; the authoritarian regime in China knows better than to allow its people arms. So your example has nothing to do with an armed citizenry.

I could be flamebaity and say you already have a despotic regime but I’m not in the mood.

So you thought you'd say it anyway. Our "regime" still looks pretty good from here, and the result of the next presidential election here is pretty much still up in the air; hardly "despotic", even if <b>you</b> don't like their policies.

All things considered I'm glad Bush rather than Gore was in charge when 9/11 hit the fan. How much longer we're going to let him drive I don't know; we have some domestic issues that need attention.

Originally posted by MaggieL All things considered I'm glad Bush rather than Gore was in charge when 9/11 hit the fan. How much longer we're going to let him drive I don't know; we have some domestic issues that need attention.

You didn't give him a driving licence last time, but he's on the road anyway, driving recklessly. (seems to be the mainstream European view)

X.

Originally posted by Xugumad

You didn't give him a driving licence last time, but he's on the road anyway, driving recklessly. (seems to be the mainstream European view)

Probably true enough. But he hasn't hit anything expensive yet.

C'mon, how good a job of responding to 9/11 would Gore have done? He would have formed a commision, launched a few Tomahawks at empty targets, and meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome.

I'm getting less and less interested in what the mainstream European view is these days.. It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and whine. And that's all they ever seem to do.

Originally posted by MaggieL
Probably true enough. But he hasn't hit anything expensive yet.

I guess you really can't put a price on human life (or civil liberties), then. The view from Europe sees the approximately <a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm">3000</a> dead Afghan civilians as being a high price to pay.

C'mon, how good a job of responding to 9/11 would Gore have done?

Speculation doesn't get you anywhere. Clinton was perfectly content to bomb Iraq whenever necessary, and to send US troops to fight on foreign soil. Since we don't know what Gore would've done (and being politically aware, he would have followed public opinion, which was screaming for blood), any further speculation invalidates conclusions drawn from it.

meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome

I am quite baffled why you'd suggest such attacks. Do you seriously think that the attack on the US was merely the first of many on several other countries? (and if so, if those attacks had taken place in any countries that did not directly ally with the US) Was it a Belgian warship that was nearly blown out of the water and had crewmen killed? Was it an Italian border on which people were arrested, trying to smuggle components for a nuclear device into the country? Was it Belgium that is blamed (perhaps wrongly) for many of the ills of the Arab world? It is Spain who has been financing Israel and propping up the corrupt authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia? Is it Portugal that had its embassy sacked and its personnel held hostage in Iran? Is it Italy that financed the war against Russian occupation in Afghanistan?

Was it a symbol of Jewish-American economic and political strength that was destroyed?

As I said: speculation invalidates your arguments. You are arguing from emotion, suggesting that Europe should be happy the US acted, otherwise it'd have been under attack. Instilling fear is not a valid means of argumentation; certainly not a logical one.

I'm getting less and less interested in what the mainstream European view is these days..

Unfortunately the US government desperately needs European support for any further foreign policy ventures. The European papers this week have reported in-depth on US diplomatic maneuvering, desperately trying to get European backing. (If you feel like reading German, try http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,210499,00.html and http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,210484,00.html )

You may not care what Europe thinks, but unless the US is going to retreat into isolation (again), European opinion remains vitally important to US politics, and policies. This is not my opinion, but what has been demonstrated time and again by diplomatic argumentation from US; its only true ally in Europe is Britain, and even there, public opinion is slowly - but surely - moving the government's position further and further away from unquestioningly backing any US move.

It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and whine. And that's all they ever seem to do.

Feel free to direct the insult straight at me, as I'm European. 'Seeming' and 'being' are two different things, as I'm sure you probably know. If you have actual specific problems rather than sweeping, imprecise, (ostensibly insulting) statements, feel free to say what they are, and I'll try to address them, hoping to elaborate on and elucidate the 'European' position. (in itself too sweeping and generalizing)

Anyone?

X.

The view from Europe sees the approximately 3000 dead Afghan civilians as being a high price to pay.

The fact that Europe's body count came largely from the Taliban and is entirely wrong would be part of the problem.

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-semitism problem.

meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome
I am quite baffled why you'd suggest such attacks.

The NY Post reported earlier this year that al Queda targetted Big Ben and Parliament for destruction on 9/11, but unexpectedly flights out of Heathrow airport were grounded.

I'll give you a few blank lines for that to sink in.




I don't think it's sunk in yet.




Look, the notion that "It can't possibly happen here" is one that we isolationist Americans no longer have. The result of not giving a crap was a shitload of death and destruction.

What will it take for Europe to collectively pull its head out of the sand? Didja notice that 15 engineers got blown to smithereens in Pakistan a few months ago, and they were all French? Didja notice that the official explanation for the torching of the Israeli embassy in Paris was utterly lame? Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany? Didja notice that almost every European nation has a virulent anti-immigrant political movement gaining enormous ground?

The European attitude is one of detente. The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know. This is partly because they are MORE dependent on Arabian oil than the US. Europe gets like 2/3rds of its oil from there, the US only gets about 1 third. For all the people who shout that it's all about oil, you're right, and it's more about oil in Europe.

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-semitism. See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

If you believe that makes the attacks "okay", well, fuck you and all the nations that the US defends through NATO. (Or did I miss that fleet of Portuguese aircraft carriers?)

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

The sorry truth is that Europe is desperate for the US to want that support. That's why the papers print stories when the State Department gives them a nod. The truth is, Europe doesn't have much we need, militarily speaking. Their military budgets have gone soft over the years.

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own. Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Xugumad

Since we don't know what Gore would've done...

Those of us who voted here (yes, I was one of them) have a pretty clear idea; we've seen it before. If the electorate had known that we would have a war of this kind on our hands within a year of the election, it certainly wouldn't have been the incredibly close contest that it actually was.

My own view is that we lucked out. I'm hoping we can arrive at an international situation with more long-term stability in time for the next election; as I said we need to put in somebody with some credibility on domestic issues for the next four years. I'm afraid that isn't Dubya.

I don't have much to add to what Tony said.

Talking of generalisations...

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-Semitism problem.

Excuse me I'm going back to reality now, aniteuropean lalaland is getting a little scary now.

Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany?

Didja notice that was an Iraqi dissident group and has no connection to whatever point you're trying to draw?

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-Semitism. See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

Well. Yes. Arabs hate Jews, visa versa. Notice the Daniel Perl video? "I am a Jew my mother is a Jew" ? Notice support of Israel is one of the primary was of recruiting people in much of the middle east?

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-Semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

Oh get the fuck over the anti-Semitism line. Its the most hyperbolic attempt to silence people I've ever heard and I'm sure has hell getting sick of it. Europe has every valid reason to be disgusted with Israel, you might want to consider that 1/3 of the US supports Israel because of the role it plays in the second coming of Christ (Source: Time poll).

I'm hoping we can arrive at an international situation with more long-term stability in time for the next election;

We haven't had that since the fall of the soviet union. Pax Americana Cleary doesn't work so don't expect it anytime soon.

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own. Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Erm... Stop watching CNN and maybe start reading quadrant. An area with that much economic, political and military force is never irrelevant.

Originally posted by jaguar
Erm... Stop watching CNN and maybe start reading quadrant. ...1/3 of the US supports Israel because of the role it plays in the second coming of Christ (Source: Time poll).

Well, if that's what a Time poll said, I guess it must be true. :-)

That's a theory you'll have to explain further; what you're saying is people here beleive if we give aid to the Isaelis we get bonus points when the Rapture hits, is that it?

Here's the pot calling the kettle black again; are you actrually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"? Had you noticed that they're the same company?

And no matter how much military force EU may have as individual countries, if it can't marshal it effectively it *is* irrelevant. Where was all this force while Kosovo was sliding into the toity?

Tony, Maggie - I'll address your points separately and answer them in sequence. Apologies if I misattribute anything. I'll try to number my points as well, to make it easier to cross-reference later.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The fact that Europe's body count came largely from the Taliban and is entirely wrong would be part of the problem.

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-semitism problem.

Mistake No 0: (I am using computer science counting methods here, starting at 0 :) ) 'The French' don't believe that, it was merely a conspiracy theory that came partly from France, and is generally considered to be somewhat absurd. To claim that this is true is akin to claiming that 'Americans believe that there are UFOs at Area51'. A small hardcore conspiracy-obsessed group may believe it, but that's it. Regarding the 'anti-semitism problem', I'd like further details on how you perceive it, especially regarding the considerable number of French Jews in the French Parliament and French Government. Much was made in US about Joseph Lieberman being the first Jew to potentially be the US VP, with <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Why_Lieberman_not_Kerry_was_the_right_choice_for_Gore+.shtml">some</a> sources <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/wickham/wick134.htm">claiming</a> that the choice was going to be yet another factor that would lose the Democrats virtually every southern state (and possibly some of the black vote). (Quote: "Some Democrats privately expressed concern that there would be a voter backlash against Gore for having a Jew on the Democratic ticket." Quote: "black voters "need to be suspicious" of a Jewish vice presidential candidate because Jews care more about money than anything else.") Anti-semitism is on the rise in France, as well as everywhere else in the world, including the US. Singling out France merely weakens your statements, although sweeping claims such as the one above it invalidate them to a certain extent as well.

We'll talk again when the US has had a Jewish head of state, like France has in the past.

Mistake No 1: That is not 'Europe's' body count, it was done by a professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Mistake No 2: Your link is a 'Letter to the Editor', without any further link to the AP report it indicates. (please provide it; I provided my link to the actual report reference above) It suggests that Taliban doctors exaggerated the civilian body count, as reported by, quote, "Afghan journalists." You do realize that Afghanistan had no free press under Taliban rule, thus any Afghan 'journalists' are going to be inevitably opposing the Taliban? Their reports are unverifiable, their motivation unclear. At best we have third-hand reports from second-hand sources. You can thus not claim that your one source invalidates Dr. Nathanson's report.

Even one of the most conservative sources on the matter, the Project on Defense Alternatives, which specializes in military research, <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html">concludes</a> that there were most likely at least between 1000-1300 civilian casualties, twice the 500-600 'at most' specified in the quoted AP report in the Letter to the Editor linked by you. That data was drawn solely from "Western press sources" and were "disinclined to accept on face value official Taliban reports or accounts from the Pakistani press", qualifying for the criteria mentioned in that letter. That additional report shows the lack of credibility in the source you linked, which in itself was little more than an opinion piece, concluding with a patriotic statement by G.W. Bush.

The NY Post reported earlier this year that al Queda targetted Big Ben and Parliament for destruction on 9/11, but unexpectedly flights out of Heathrow airport were grounded.

I'll give you a few blank lines for that to sink in.




I don't think it's sunk in yet.

Mistake 3: Maggie's original piece referenced London, Belgium, and Rome. In the ad absurdum section of my reply where I held that several countries would not have been attacked, I included Belgium and Rome/Italy, but omitted Britain. In fact, I later stated that Britain was the only US ally in Europe.

This is why the absurdity of her earlier statement is so transparent: the US was under attack, and the only true US ally, the only country in Europe that would provide a take-off point for US bombers for the April 1986 bombing of Libya, the only European state that will unquestioningly fall into line, and thus the only logical enemy for those targeting the US.

What will it take for Europe to collectively pull its head out of the sand? [...] Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany?

Mistake 4: We've lived with the threat of terrorism for as long as you've been alive, Tony. I have friends who have lost relatives to IRA bombs. I have seen the RAF's effects in Germany first-hand; I've seen a man - in person - who was crippled by a terrorist assassination attempt. Please don't repeat the nonsense about Europe having its head in the sand: I've lived with terror and fear, right next door to me, for as long as I can think, and so have many others of us, in Britain, in Ireland, in Germany, in Spain, in Greece. For many of us, things have improved considerably over the 90s.

The embassy occupation was done by ostensible enemies of Saddam Hussein, wanting to hasten the attack on Iraq. Those are the types of men that Iraq will be liberated for. They didn't particularly resist arrest, by the way, mostly wanting to make a statement.

Didja notice that almost every European nation has a virulent anti-immigrant political movement gaining enormous ground?

Mistake 5: Stop watching CNN, come live in Europe for a few years, then speak again: most of that anti-immigrant rhetoric is quite soft compared to that of the Republican right in the US. Fact. The much-maligned Dutch LPF is so 'virulent', as you put it, because the immigrant Muslims are directly threatening the tolerant and enlightened Dutch society, directly opposing the legalization of drugs, moral liberty, and a variety of other modern approaches. You yourself <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2005">questioned</a> such multiculturalism in a Cellar post recently.

Don't just blankly believe the ever-returning 'Europe is falling to the extreme right' droning overhyping, realize that most supposedly radical right-wing parties that are anywhere near government in Europe are nowhere near as radical as the Republican right. None of them seriously propose adherence to religious values, not even the 'Christian' Democrats in Germany, the party that was in power in Germany for much of the after-WW2 period. What is considered right-wing in much of Europe is at best middle-of-the-road in the US, especially seeing how European right-wingers often promote social responsibility through state-sponsored health insurance, decent unemployment benefits, etc. The only serious 'threat' was Le Pen in France, and for the French, very few seriously wanted him to win the presidential election: it was a protest vote.

The European attitude is one of detente. The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know.

Mistake 6: Sweeping generalizations about a continent with vastly diverse cultural, social, and political attitudews, when your sole information about it seems to be either from the Internet or the media, without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life, are a mistake. So are run-on sentences, but what the heck. :)

I myself mentioned in my last post that such generalizations are unwise (as I made them myself), but I tried to restrict myself to general brief observations on a specific subject, namely G.W. Bush's presidential legitimacy and the consequences thereof. As unfair as any generalized European snap judgments on one individual may be (and I am sure that they are), it is comparatively easy to conclude from the general mood in several European countries that common opinion on him is very low.

This is partly because they are MORE dependent on Arabian oil than the US. Europe gets like 2/3rds of its oil from there, the US only gets about 1 third. For all the people who shout that it's all about oil, you're right, and it's more about oil in Europe.

Mistake 7: I mentioned the US propping up of Saudi Arabia, which is much-criticized in Europe, despite Europe's dependency on Arab petrol. Moral rights and wrongs rarely depend on economic circumstances.

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-semitism.

Mistake 8: No. My 'rant', as you call it (why the subliminal insult; why the need to be passive-aggressive?), mentioned that the attackers may have seen it as a reason. I did not say that it was right, it was merely seen as one (of many?) motive(s). For the record, I do not believe that it was the only reason, my own Political Science studies indicate that to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.

See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

Allegations of anti-semitism are low; I explained one of the causes that made some of those attackers hate; I never specified whether it was right or wrong.

If you believe that makes the attacks "okay", well, fuck you and all the nations that the US defends through NATO. (Or did I miss that fleet of Portuguese aircraft carriers?)

Maybe you wish to shout 'without us you'd all be speaking German' at this point? I appreciate the protection of NATO, although I myself did grow up in the country with the largest standing land army in Western Europe. I never said anything about NATO, or that anything makes the attacks 'ok', you are putting words in my mouth whilst simultaneously insulting me.

I understand that this may be an emotional subject for you, but ultimately rage won't get you anywhere.

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

This is patently absurd; is there any need to resort to insults because I mentioned that the US-Israel closeness was a factor?

That's why the papers print stories when the State Department gives them a nod.

I assume your German is good enough to have read the articles I specified; they come from one of Europe's most respected news weeklies. The details were quite specific.

The truth is, Europe doesn't have much we need, militarily speaking.

The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil, and the US is currently <a href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/18/wiraq18.xml">threatening</a> all Arab countries in the middle east, using 'be with us or against us' rhetoric. The US Ambassador to Germany has repeatedly complained about the German attitude towards the imminent attack on Iraq, repeatedly criticizing the government's refusal to stand with the US. Why all the sound and the fury if there's nothing there?

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own.

At this point, the sweeping nature of your statements becomes absurd. As an aside, unfortunately the US <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137298.html">can't</a> handle the Iraqi invasion (for <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137295.html">whatever</a> reason)on their own.

Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Sometimes being wrong is worse.

(As an aside, I would appreciate it if you ceased to directly insult me or put words in my mouth. I've managed without doing so myself, I hope, and I'd like to see the same civility from you. Thanks in advance.)

Originally posted by MaggieL
And no matter how much military force EU may have as individual countries, if it can't marshal it effectively it *is* irrelevant.

Very true, I am in full agreement. The current EU move towards joint armed strike forces, with sovereignty over individual armies being ceased to a joint commanding authority is the first step in that direction. It is of course completely opposed by Britain, unwilling to cede any authority and sovereignty, and with that any pull coming from NATO and Britain's privileged role as America's European ally. So far Europe has relied on NATO, but pretty much all EMU countries are moving rapidly away from relying on NATO. The changeover will be interesting, and the US will lose all military influence in Europe, with NATO being more and more relegated to irrelevance, especially considering how Russia has been given a virtual veto right on NATO missions.

[...]are you actrually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"[...]

CNN has to fight a ruthless ratings war, with Fox News etc. gaining, or winning outright. The audience for CNN and the audience who spends maybe 20 minutes reading a Time Magazine article is somewhat different, attention spans being one factor, and the desire for opinion and editorializing rather than factual information being another factor. I do agree that Time, with its comparatively shallow reporting especially regarding world politics issues (compared to The Economist in the US/UK, or Der Spiegel in Germany) is not all that far away from CNN.

X.

Thanks Xugumad but there is a larger factor to it. I read time. I also the read The Guardian, The Economist, The Australian, The Age and many other print and online sources of news, opinion and analysis. I treat all with equal amounts of skepticism. The range just amongst the ones I listed includes both left and right leaning publications, there is a good reason for that.

Here's the pot calling the kettle black again; are you actually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"? Had you noticed that they're the same company?

I'm actually insulted you pointed that out. Not only have you completely missed the huge difference between Print and TV media but you've assumed I don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of the hierarchy of corporate America.

UT you claim I have no view of the 'real' America, you've just proven you have no concept of life here or in Europe. Touché. Thanks once again Xugumad for doing a far more through rebuttal than i did/would have and in a remarkably civilized tone under the circumstances.

That's a theory you'll have to explain further; what you're saying is people here believe if we give aid to the Israelis we get bonus points when the Rapture hits, is that it?

No. Basically without getting bogged down in it the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite for it to happen, which is of course followed closely by the fundie brigade who see everything from S11 to the launch of vanilla coke for the last 500 years as a sign of the second coming. Most of them are in the Republican Party.


I saw an interesting question today. Would guns be so popular if by law they all had to be neon pink and fluffy.

Good response X. I won't go point by point because we've both had our say, and it gets old, but I do have some specific notes.

- It's a New Hampshire professor's body count: precisely. How far did one have to go to find the highest body count possible? New Hampshire. Halfway around the world. That alone should set off your bullshit detectors. How far off are the estimates? The "official" number is closer to 800, I think. How can the numbers be that far off? The prof relied on media and internet body counts because he was mad at the media not paying attention to body counts. Gee, I don't smell credibility here, do you?

Who reported his numbers and gave him credibility? The Guardian, the same rag that saw fit to proclaim Jenin was a massacre for its body count of 500 (later revised to 50).

At this point your bullshit detectors should be pinned, if they are not faulty.

- I watch CNN: yes I do, sometimes all day. I have no fantasies about what it is or isn't; I know exactly what it is. People from the right are aghast that I would watch such a leftist broadcast, which makes it funny that you guys want to fault me for paying attention to something mainstream and shallow. I should think I would earn some points just for not watching Fox?

The real reason I watch it is for the same reason some people like background music on all day. It's filler. It's a lifestyle, not a primary information source. But it does have the benefit of providing a lot of raw facts coming directly from sources in live press conferences. And the release of the Al Queda tapes this week has been priceless. That's great raw information.

- <i>The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil,</i>

You've picked up the most important word in their recent announcement: <i>soil</i>.

That new base in Qatar is well within range of Baghdad - if one takes the direct route. If one has to fly over the Persian Gulf and enter Iraq through Kuwaiti airspace, it's do-able but a little far. But fly over Saudi airspace - not on their <i>soil</i> - and the fighters can go more directly, without worrying about running out of fuel. Military planners must have been thrilled to hear that one; it's exactly what they needed. (Ground troops could be inserted through Kuwait this time, and it might even be preferable to hoofing it across the desert.)

- <i>...to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.</i>

The long-range goal is destruction and/or conversion of all the infidels and Islamic world domination under sharia, Islamic government. Step one was to convince all Muslims to declare Jihad on the US, which the Muslims would win by the grace of Allah. Once the US was destroyed, Israel would be a speed bump, and then Europe would be next.

I don't know why you Euros would have such patience for that kind of thing. Being lower on the food chain doesn't make you exempt. But you didn't even want to go into Afghanistan. Come on. I know war has been hard on you all but it works differently this time. Now we have night vision and laser-guided munitions and unmanned recon drones, and the bad guys blow up real good.

Wake up man. They want to kill you and they've proven to have both the will and the way.

- <i>"...without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life,"</i> Wow! You have a remarkable ability to remember pertinent personal facts from posts that happened long ago.

Originally posted by jaguar

I saw an interesting question today. Would guns be so popular if by law they all had to be neon pink and fluffy.

Nice to see you've been by a-human-right.com.

Oleg is a Pink Pistols member, and has done a lot of wonderful photographic work supporting our cause.

The problem with "neon pink and fluffy" guns is that they would be terribly difficult to conceal or use. For the same reason the flourescent pink fanny packs with the built-in concealment holster are so unpopular that they're being sold off at a deep discount.

This image doesn't do the saturation of the colors on this thing justice, I've seen them in real life:



There actually are handguns with pink grips, but they are indeed not very popular, although members of the Pink Pistols often joke that they're considering buying one.

http://www.cdnninvestments.com is the source, but the gun prohibitionisists have driven their ads for actual firearms offline. You'll have to download their catalog to actually see one.

Failing that, pink replacement handgrips for the venerable Colt Model 1911 are available:



You know, computers wouldn't be so popular if by law they all had to be colored flourescent-puke green and covered with rubber cement, either.

Basically without getting bogged down in it the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite for it to happen, which is of course followed closely by the fundie brigade who see everything from S11 to the launch of vanilla coke for the last 500 years as a sign of the second coming. Most of them are in the Republican Party.

Well, I wouldn't expect to find them in the Democratic Party, that's for the Jews, queers, Blacks and Hispanics, right?

I do have to correct your assumpton--many of the true fundiefolk here--the tinfoil-hat squad of the apocalypse-watchers--are neither Republican nor Democrat. When push copmes to shove they're more likely to support a Republican, of course, but they're not happy with either mainstream party...they tend to form splinter parties of their own, much to the relief of the GOP, who finds them embarassing.

The idea that they're 1/3 of the *US population* (as opposed to a third of the participants in whatever survey that was) is beyond ridiculous. Do tell us what the methodology and other choices in that survey were and who the cohort was...certainly if I saw a survey where that was one of the possible respnses I don't think I'd bother to participate.

It certainly seems that your perception of the US is about as accurate as that of AU conveyed by "Crocodile Dundee". We're 280 million people living in 9 million square km.; movies, network TV and Time Magazine can't tell you our real story any more than they can accurately convey what China is about. You're ready to vacation in Cambodia...swing by the Great Satan sometime.

The only pink-gripped handguns I've seen weren't exactly made by reputable companies, which may have SOME contribution to their unpopularity. IIRC, they were made by Lorcin, and came in all sorts of colors. Lorcin is (well, was) well known for making cheap and crappy firearms.

Take a break to enjoy some Photochopped spoofs of the self-defense poster:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=278533

FWIW, they slam both sides pretty well.

I thought the one with the columbine pic was the best.

a-human.-right.com is funny. I started doing their 'survey' thing at the start and gave up, it’s got no logical options. The site is counter productive, its arguments have obvious flaws and are so..feverant that its scary rather than convincing. On the other hand those pics are fantastic! I needed some high quality fodder for the spoof posters I'm building for graphics, how much better can I get than a grandma with a pump action and a kid with an M16?! I showed them to various people here the consensus was simple 'disturbing'. It's saved me hours of photography and photoshopping, least for folio filler stuff.

It certainly seems that your perception of the US is about as accurate as that of AU conveyed by "Crocodile Dundee". We're 280 million people living in 9 million square km.; movies, network TV and Time Magazine can't tell you our real story any more than they can accurately convey what China is about. You're ready to vacation in Cambodia...swing by the Great Satan sometime.

hehehe I thought that flamebiat would work. My point was simple, UTs silly claim about France (which ill listen to when I see on page 1 of Le Monde) is no more real than mine about US, I purposely made a series of generalizations to make that point. In reality I've probably learnt more about the diversity of the US from national geographic zipcode sections (always interesting) than CNN could teach me. I should point out that The Guardian includes pages from the Washington Post, which is useful for perspective stuff too.

I'd love to some time but it’s an expensive flight from Asia to the US. If I end up staying in Japan for a while it's something I’d love to do at some point.

You know, computers wouldn't be so popular if by law they all had to be colored flourescent-puke green and covered with rubber cement, either.

You're avoiding the point.

Originally posted by jaguar
You're avoiding the point.

Not at all. I don't want a pink gun, and I don't want a fluffy one. The idea that they would be required to be that way by law is silly.

(Almost as silly as "all computers should be required by law to be inhenertly disabled in hardware from doing anything Hollywood hasn't approved."...I wish that one was as unlikely as it is silly.)

But given your hypothetical (yuk), I don't think there would be significantly fewer armed citizens. There might very well be fewer firearms collectors, just because "pink and fluffy" is a pretty grotesque set of attributes for anything but ladies' formal wear.

And even there it could be overdone; if *all* ladies' formal wear was by law pink and fluffy, even ladies' formal wear wouldn't be as popular. Despite having spent a lot of money and endured a lot of pain to get my body to conform to a female mind, I really don't want to live in Barbie World, if it's OK with you.

I can understand completely that many of Oleg's photos are disturbing to hoplophobes. They deliberately create cognitive dissonance in an attempt to get people to think about why their emotional reactions are what they are.

But sadly, it doesn't always work, and the result is people who just feel "disturbed". So for someone who's looking to enflame hoplophobia, those pictures used in the "right" way probably are a big timesaver.

Why shouldn't Grandma have a shotgun? Are we afraid she's going to hold up a liquor store? Maybe she might use it to defend herself and her home, now *that* would be horrible, wouldn't it?

You're still avoiding the point as much as you possibly can. It’s quite funny really.

Why shouldn't Grandma have a shotgun? Are we afraid she's going to hold up a liquor store? Maybe she might use it to defend herself and her home, now *that* would be horrible, wouldn't it?

Maybe the thought that its a pretty fucked up society that requires kids to have M16s to be safe?

I can understand completely that many of Oleg's photos are disturbing to hoplophobes. They deliberately create cognitive dissonance in an attempt to get people to think about why their emotional reactions are what they are.

Bullshit. Read the text on the pages, it’s equally extremist.

One other point got me about that sight. All the rounds he recommends for self defense are dumdum rounds which are explicitly banned by the Geneva Convention.

I can understand completely that many of Oleg's photos are disturbing to hoplophobes

Don't even try such bullshit. You'd think any sane person would find the image of a kid with a high power assault rifle wearing camo gear scary. Its the kind of the I’d expect to see in an UN ad against use of child soldiers. Hoplophobes? Ten points for dressing up terms to make them alien. Zero for logic. I've fired guns, I've carried guns. Yet oddly enough I don't feel the need to carry one to feel safe here. In fact carrying one would make me feel *less* safe, situation escalation is dangerous. If I was somewhere where weapons carrying was common, I'd like to carry one, like some parts of the United States. Because I do not trust anyone else with a firearm.

I don't know which guy is half drunk and is going to mistake me for an attacker, which guy is paranoid, which guy is in a really bad mood. I'd don't know which one of them is carrying an .44 Magnum.

I don't like the concept for a 'armed polite' wild west style society, in fact it sounds pretty horrible.

In an attempt to get this more discussion and less arguement, what about non-lethal weapons? For self defense purposes surely CS Spray, tasters of others are extremely effective, designed for the purpose and *NOONE DIES* which is what i don't like about guns for self defense. Its all good to carry self defense but can we do it without killing people?

Originally posted by jaguar
You're still avoiding the point as much as you possibly can. It’s quite funny really.

Well, my point was that I don't think you have one. Yes, fluffy pink guns mandated by law would be less popular than less regulated guns. So would fluffy pink clothing mandated by law. That the guns would be less popular doesn't really say much uniquely about guns, if the same is true of clothing.

So, although it's nice that you're amused, I'm sorry to seem to avoid your point...what *is* your point?

Maybe the thought that its a pretty fucked up society that requires kids to have M16s to be safe?

Which image are you talking about that carries this message? URL, please?

Because I do not trust anyone else with a firearm.

Well, that's pretty clear. Stricttly speaking that's not hoplophobia, sine you're clear that it's people you're afraid of rather than guns.

So we'll just all surrender our legal weapons so you can feel safe, jag. You won't actually, *be* safe, of course, but I'm sure the feeling will be a relief for you.

In an attempt to get this more discussion and less arguement, what about non-lethal weapons?

No thanks, we've been down that road here before, repeatedly; I don't care to rehash it. And you're back into your shrill "why can't you feel safe without a gun" rant, which we've been over repeatedly too.

Which image are you talking about that carries this message? URL, please?

The one in my frigging post, and there’s another one on there somewhere too.

No thanks, we've been down that road here before, repeatedly; I don't care to rehash it. And you're back into your shrill "why can't you feel safe without a gun" rant, which we've been over repeatedly too.

No. We haven’t. You've never explained why for example CS gas can't do the job. Its the finality of death that worries me. It turns you into a kind of judge. I find that dangerous because it can undermine the legal system. By using a non-lethal weapon you can be safe, with less training and danger to yourself (its easier to use gas than a firearm effectively) and the police and legal system can deal with the offender in a manner that is appropriate under law. There is a thin line between self defense and vigilante justice.

Well, that's pretty clear. Strictly speaking that's not hoplophobia, sine you're clear that it's people you're afraid of rather than guns.

So are you, otherwise you won't carry a weapon designed and loaded specifically to inflict the maximum damage against your fellow citizen. I'm curious, what ammo do you use for self defense?

My point on the pink and fluffy was that guns are cool and people feel cool carrying a gun, its a cool thing to do. If people have had proper firearms training and more importantly, take it seriously, that’s fine, but i don't think they all do.

Choose your weapon.

I'll let you use it on me...free of charge.

Then I'll get up and tear out your heart with my bare hands.

Fair enough?


I made that offer many times. I have yet to get a taker. The closest one was a military instructor who used pepper spray on me for the qualification. As he was looking away and explaining how I was now totally incapacitated to the others in the group, I stood up (eyes closed), and relieved him of his sidearm. Then took the pepper spray from the box next to him and hit him with a blast. All while "totally incapacitated".

Non-lethals do not always work well, and many do not work at all. If I am facing a crack-addled robber or a PCP-crazed killer, I'm not going to spray him...it'll just make him madder. I'm going to use lethal force because that's my last refuge. The drugs will render him impervious to pain of any type...I could break his arms and he wouldn't feel it. I have seen instances where a drug-infused killer took a whole clip of bullets to bring down (police shooting). They do not feel pain. Also, these people do not need to be drug-infused to be dangerous.

I can relate anecdotes of times when an angry opponent simply went off the deep end and felt no pain until later.

it is unfortunate that sometimes lethal force must be used to protect you and yours. I feel sorry for you that you do not have this option. It's your own fault, of course. But I feel sorry for you nonetheless. But, please do not inflict your version of Utopia on Americans. We do not agree. Most of us anyway.

Brian

Then there's the deterrence factor. Figure that a baddie who is looking to harm you is already not deterred by the possibility of spending a few years in prison. He won't be deterred at all, then, by the prospect of spending an hour with burning eyes, if you manage to hit them at all. What seems like a minor inconvenience could turn into a rite of passage for a gangsta.

Frankly if someone is looking to do me harm I lack genuine compassion and consideration for them. Maybe getting my lights punched out in the middle of the street a few years back does that. I don't want to revoke the guy's life, I would prefer if the altercation never happened at all. Deterrence.

Originally posted by jaguar
If people have had proper firearms training and more importantly, take it seriously, that’s fine, but i don't think they all do.

The image in "your frigging post" doesn't say "a kid isn't safe without an M-16". It says "We teach kids the basics of life...let self-defence be one of them". So, make up your mind: are you in favor of firearms training or not? You've *had* yours, of course...you did say that, right?

Obviously you've *not* had training with non-lethal weapons. Using them effectively is decidedly *not* easier than firearms, as you assert so casually. Of course "spray and pray" looks simple. But it's unlikely to be effective. If I'm defending myself, it will be with the most effective tools available. Probably *not* one that keeps some meddling pipsqueek in their comfort zone.

Look, if the finality of death worries you, don't attack me, and you'll be fine. You'll be safe from *me* anyhow. If somebody *else* attacks you, well, I hope your CS works, or maybe you'd better just call the cops. Hope they show up in time. You mentioned carrying a knife, do be careful you don't do anything lethal with it.

So are you, otherwise you won't carry a weapon designed and loaded specifically to inflict the maximum damage against your fellow citizen.

Or various random foreign terrorists.

So, having established we act from similar motivations, I just think my methods work better than yours. <i>Passing laws against guns won't disarm criminals.</i> And I don't care to disarm <b>myself</b> just so you can have a false sense of security. Maybe you *should* stay in the Australian victim disarmament zone.

I'm curious, what ammo do you use for self defense?

Why, so you can tell me how inhumane I am for not following the "Geneva Convention" again? I see you've picked up on another canonical prohibitionist rant.

The <i>Hague Convention IV of 1907</i> is probably what you're thinking of. And it doesn't apply; I'm not a combatant. Neither are the cops, which is why they don't restrict themselves to fully metal-jacketed rounds either. They also carry CS, but they certainly don't rely on it. But then, that's a weapon forbidden by the laws of war that you're in *favor* of.

In a self-defense situation, full-metal jacket rounds are more likely to overpenetrate, pass through the target, and strike someone/something else. Of course, you were taught that when you had your firearms training. Right?

I'm well aware they are. Its also why the British dropped their old standard issue rifle, the muzzle velocity was so high it could get a standard issue round halfway though an engine block. Problem being it didn't do enough damage as one that went though a person as a lower velocity.

I brought up JHP ammo because they are specifically designed to inflict the maximum possible damage to the unfortunate target, and at the kind of distances you're going to be using it in a self-defence situation its most likely going to generate a rather pretty exit wound anyway.

Obviously you've *not* had training with non-lethal weapons. Using them effectively is decidedly *not* easier than firearms, as you assert so casually. Of course "spray and pray" looks simple. But it's unlikely to be effective. If I'm defending myself, it will be with the most effective tools available. Probably *not* one that keeps some meddling pipsqueek in their comfort zone.

You've clearly never seen some unfortunate bastard hit with CS spray in the face. If you have your definition of comfort zone is clearly limited to 'alive'. You have to know how to load a pistol, a clip, zero sights, use a safety, correct stance. Spray canister its point and click, its also harder to miss a cloud than a 9mm wide projectile.

So, having established we act from similar motivations, I just think my methods work better than yours. Passing laws against guns won't disarm criminals. And I don't care to disarm myself just so you can have a false sense of security. Maybe you *should* stay in the Australian victim disarmament zone.

Look i don't give a fuck if you carry a flamethrower, 15 frag grenades and dual 50cal desert eagles when you go to the sops but don't try and tell me i'm some kind of goddamn victim for not. All the arguements I hear thrown about about disarmament apply both ways and the stats are such bullshit on both sides nothing can be proven. I will be staying here, least for now and I'm safe enough here I don't have the inclination to carry any type of weapon (its worth noting police here now carry metal detectors to search people for weapons). When i'm moving though Asia I won't be carrying because it would cause far more problems than it would solve, if i was living somewhere in the US where it was legal to concealed carry i probably would, purely for safety.

Originally posted by jaguar
but don't try and tell me i'm some kind of goddamn victim for not.

The term "victim disarmament zone" refers to anyplace where the prohibitionists have won, because the only people who get disarmed by zone are the victims, not the criminals.

If you have your definition of comfort zone is clearly limited to 'alive'.

The "meddling pipsqueek" whose comfort zone I was referring to was not some hypothetical perp (about whose comfort I care not one tiny bit), it was someone who would try to legally restrict me to only weapons they were comfortable with me having, like CS.

Unfortunately, they're <b>not</b> hypothetical.

I(its worth noting police here now carry metal detectors to search people for weapons).

Yeah, I'd noted it already, as a measure of how far things have gone, down there.

I
if i was living somewhere in the US where it was legal to concealed carry i probably would, purely for safety.

Well, I'll tell you once again you're not in any danger from legally concealed weapons here; the crime rate among CCW holders is vanishingly small. It's the criminals you need to worry about.

Come to think of it, I don't think we grant CCWs to visitors anymore.

The term "victim disarmament zone" refers to anyplace where the prohibitionists have won, because the only people who get disarmed by zone are the victims, not the criminals.

That's not what I was refreing to.
Secondly I can safely say there are less firearmed criminals here than there, ratio wise.

The stats in the recent k5 article on this were interesting, firstly the fact the US has the worlds highest murder rate(at least in the western world) and secondly the information about Switzerland which debunks further the steaming piles of effluent urbane dumped here.

The term "victim disarmament zone" refers to anyplace where the prohibitionists have won, because the only people who get disarmed by zone are the victims, not the criminals.

mmm yes. Less people carrying knives...terrible....

Well, I'll tell you once again you're not in any danger from legally concealed weapons here; the crime rate among CCW holders is vanishing small. It's the criminals you need to worry about.

Yes, most likely firearmed criminals, I don't have to worry about that here.

So, the latest neologism is "firearmed" eh? (Nothing artificial like "hoplophobe", of course.)

Just imagine how much better off you'll be empty-hand against an armed assailant, just as long as he's not "firearmed". As if a law is going to stop him if he thinks he needs a gun. But of course he doesn't, because he knows *you* won't be "firearmed". Maybe he'll be nice and just use CS...or a ceramic knife...or a baseball bat.

So, if you've nothing further beyond handwaving at the kids on K5, we'll bid adeiu to this thread.

So, the latest neologism is "firearmed" eh? (Nothing artificial like "hoplophobe", of course.)

I got sick of writing armed with a firearm. It seemed to repetitive. Its also far more understandable (it does contain both words, I’m sure if I showed both around I know which people would have an easier time guessing the meaning of) than a word that is not even in the oxford dictionary.

Just imagine how much better off you'll be empty-hand against an armed assailant, just as long as he's not "firearmed". As if a law is going to stop him if he thinks he needs a gun. But of course he doesn't, because he knows *you* won't be "firearmed". Maybe he'll be nice and just use CS...or a ceramic knife...or a baseball bat.

This is where ill draw the line at supporting my countries laws. The fact we cannot get legal access to non-lethal weapons like CS gas I think *is* a bad thing. The fact we cannot carry firearms for self defense is a good thing.

As for baseball bats...they're rather hard to conceal.

Originally posted by jaguar
As for baseball bats...they're rather hard to conceal.

Not a sawed-off baseba--Wait a minute...

Originally posted by jaguar

As for baseball bats...they're rather hard to conceal.

Yes, but a perp doesn't *need* to conceal them. Or many other things usable as a bludgeon.

A blackjack or sap won't show on a magnetic scan any more than a polymer/ceramic blade will. As time goes on you folks are going to get a detailed education in non-ferrous weapons. Not that the bad guys won't have firearms too. They just won't need them as much. Mostly to use on each other, I would imagine.

You had to shorten "armed with a firearm" to "firearmed" because you belabor the distinction way beyond its significance....if an assailant is vastly better-armed than you are, where you both fall on the escalation continuum won't matter much in terms of outcomes.

You can't even have CS, eh? How nice.

A blackjack or sap won't show on a magnetic scan any more than a polymer/ceramic blade will. As time goes on you folks are going to get a detailed education in non-ferrous weapons. Not that the bad guys won't have firearms too. They just won't need them as much. Mostly to use on each other, I would imagine.

Oh gee, they're really new aren't they. Meh, random weapons checks won't have a significant impact on weapons carrying apart from some of the most obvious places like clubs, which is a good thing. Outside that kind of controlled enviroment its pretty damn unusual anywhere. Nearly all the knife incidents in the alst year were club related.

Yes, but a perp doesn't *need* to conceal them. Or many other things usable as a bludgeon.

Really? Interesting. You know i've never seen someone carrying a baseball bat here. Ever. I think someones been watching too many movies.

You had to shorten "armed with a firearm" to "firearmed" because you belabor the distinction way beyond its significance....if an assailant is vastly better-armed than you are, where you both fall on the escalation continuum won't matter much in terms of outcomes.

No, I did it for the reasons I mentioned. Stop trying to turn a mountain into a molehill, its ironic you, usually the queen of obscure language to puff yourself up should lay into me for shortening a short sentence into one word.

This is really becoming one very boring slog match, I"m sick of wasting half my newspaper reading time, i'm outa this thread.

Should Jaguar actually make good on his promise to leave this thread, the core of which he has explicitly declared he is not technically competent to discuss, and also declared that he hasn't the time to become so, it will be an act of grace. It will be an act of grace that I will be surprised to see Jaggie the Sophomoric actually performing -- pleasantly surprised, however.

I have but one lifetime in which to bring genocide to an end -- and that lifetime may be half over. I'm not disposed to brook a lot (or indeed any) pro-genocide resistance to this crusade. You can't be pro-genocide and be legitimate, and being pro-genocide can turn around and bite not only you, but your descendants unborn. Even less legitimate is quibbling over my tone. The damned are damned by their own actions, their own words, and their own thoughts. I urge any interested (or not) readers not to be among the damned.

That Jaguar was moved, from time to time since page 7 of this thread, to use various uncomplimentary phrases ("steaming pile...") regarding my remarks suggest that he's still got them in mind, and that those shots went home. Good; that's right where they belong, where he can cogitate upon them: the louder Jag screams out his denials, the more I'm sure he's thinking about what he's trying to dismiss -- without actually being able to do that. In the end Jaguar shall come to the light. It will be an unexpected grace, indeed a mitzvah, if he could refrain from howling and dragging his feet every centimeter of the way.

I can continue to type in text extracts of gun control legislation for quite a while, but they vary mainly in date and detail -- the striking thing about gun control legislation is the temperateness of its legal language, contrasted with the immoderacy of its result. Attempts to preserve the absolute power of the central authority for the present and for all time, it seems, have an ugly way of driving property values way down and shrinking census rolls.

The JPFO unflinchingly cites the genocidal effect on the Amerindians of the de facto and de jure -- for there was both -- denial of arms to the various tribes by the government of the United States, a government not despotic by any measure. This was not the only thing that wiped out whole tribes in this great Volkerwanderung, -- don't forget the microbes -- and the arms embargo was not airtight by any means, but it was there and it was a factor, and it did prevent the indians from gaining any advantageous position that might well have preserved their cultural vitality to an extent greater than their too-often alcohol-sodden current condition. Collapsing into a defeated and self-pitying condition can turn you to substance abuse if you haven't the spiritual resources left to keep your self-respect. This has happened to other Indians, on the Subcontinent. It's why the British East India Company managed to grow into an Empire: the various Hindu princedoms had had the guts and spine smashed out of them by the Mughals.

The Australian government is generally not counted a despotic entity either -- yet consider what effect guns and microbes together had on the Aborigines, who so far as I know had no guns. Sometimes there is malice, but sometimes it's just mostly an accident.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

It all makes sense when you remember that the framers of the Constitution were thinking about Philly ... :p

The necessity of self-defense against criminal attacks was also a reason for keeping and bearing arms. As early as 1697 there were complaints that Philadelphia was becoming invested with "pirates and rogues," and in that year, William Penn felt strongly enough to write that "there is no place more overrun with wickedness than Philadelphia."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowjud.html

Well, Billy was a Quaker boy, black-sheep son of a British Admiral. I suspect he'd lived a rather sheltered life--unless we count that short stay in the Tower of London for heresy, of course. He was no doubt distraught to see his "greene country towne" turn into a massive seaport and colonial metropolis

But Jag must positively worship Penn, who beleived in setting international disputes via arbitration. UN day is even celebrated on Penn's birthday...

click on the pic for more redneck photos

Well, they look like they're having fun -- and fun with the camera too.