Yep, this is what going mad feels like.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, January 14, 2008 06:29
VIEWED: 16243
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.

Not correct- I read it and it says you have the right to shoot a bear with arms.

Intellectual Chrisisall

KIRKULES

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It is a basic right in law."

Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

It's a good thing then that my neighbors and fellow countryman are the militia envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

CITIZEN

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Americans don't just see it as a basic right. It is a basic right in law.

I don't see how that changes a single thing.

CITIZEN

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It's a good thing then that my neighbors and fellow countryman are the militia envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Their millitia is "well regulated" is it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:48 PM

Or is that a right to shoot at bare arms.

***************************************************************
Buy me a burkah, quick !

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or is that a right to shoot at bare arms.

Rue, if yer gonna be silly here, we have nothing more to discuss.

Chrisisall

KIRKULES

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Americans don't just see it as a basic right. It is a basic right in law.
I don't see how that changes a single thing.

I'm not saying this discounts your argument in any way. What I mean is that the limitations on sword/firearm ownership you propose are not as simple in the US as elsewhere. It will require an Amendment to the Constitution. Doing it any other way in the US will mean another Civil War.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.

That’s not true. The second amendment clearly provides the right to bare arms, because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not say that those arms have to bared only in the presence of a well-regulated militia.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.
That’s not true. The second amendment clearly provides the right to bare arms, because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not say that those arms have to bared only in the presence of a well-regulated militia.

The US Supreme Court ruled that a certain type of weapon was not covered under the second amendment because it did not contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

From this it could be argued, but not by me as I'm just too tired lately, that the right to bear a given weapon is only protected by the second amendment if it contributes to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. In the absence of a well-regulated militia no weapon can contribute to said militia's efficiency so it could be argued, again, that there is at present no weapon protected under the second amendment.

-

Of course it could also be argued that the second amendment protects every American's right to be nuclear armed.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
From this it could be argued, but not by me as I'm just too tired lately, that the right to bear a given weapon is only protected by the second amendment if it contributes to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

This I agree with. Any weapon that cannot be used by a well-regulated militia (whatever such a weapon is) would not necessarily be protected by the Second Amendment, since said amendment is explicit justified by the need for a well regulated militia.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
In the absence of a well-regulated militia no weapon can contribute to said militia's efficiency so it could be argued, again, that there is at present no weapon protected under the second amendment.

This is not born out by the amendment. Once again, the Second Amendment does not state that a weapon is only protected if it exists in conjunction with an existent militia. It ONLY states that the right to bear arms is based upon the need for a well regulated militia.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:58 PM

"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.

***************************************************************
Let me buy this round. CHEERS !

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 21, 2007 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.

Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise. So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings.

And shooting an automatic rifle in the air at weddings has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms, it doesn't grant the right to be stupid.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTHONYT

Friday, December 21, 2007 12:46 AM

"Someone shouldn't be entrusted with a deadly weapon until they have earned that trust, and proven they can act responsibly with it."

Hello,

I advocate competency based testing, which shows an understanding of safe operation and basic maintenance, for gun ownership.

I also advocate a basic understanding of use-of-force law, for carrying guns.

These can be simple classes followed by simple tests to gauge understanding of the principles involved. The principles of gun ownership are not overly complex. Just as I feel that most people can pass a driver's test once properly instructed, I feel most people would be able to pass a firearms test once properly instructed.

This is the source of my repeated statements of, "Most people should be allowed to carry guns/drive."

It would take a truly deficient intellect to be unable to grasp the concepts of vehicular and firearm ownership.

A test can only gauge understanding of principles. It can't test a person's capacity to behave responsibly. Only life can do that.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, December 21, 2007 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.
Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise. So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings.

I'm not going to argue the meaning of the second amendment, but I am going to nitpick a little tiny bit.

The fact that practically everyone in your family legally owns and carries weapons without being in a militia does not obviously mean that rue misinterpreted the court rulings. It doesn't say anything about either the second amendment or the courts interpretations of it.

Even if the courts ruled that the second amendment protected no form or armament at all it would still be possible for practically everyone in your family to legally own and carry weapons (without being in a militia.)

Even if there were no second amendment to to make rulings on it would still be possible for practically everyone in your family to legally own and carry weapons (without being in a militia.)

A lack of protection is not the same as a prohibition. The fact that practically everyone in your family legally owns and carries weapons says nothing about the second amendment or its interpretation because that fact does not cover whether they are able to do this because of lack or prohibition or protection, it also doesn't speak to what provides the protection if any exists.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:08 AM

Well, this is some pretty deeply convoluted nitpicks. Let me just cut to the chase, a few people in my family carry a weapon because they are entrusted as an agent of the state, but most people in my family who own a weapon or weapons, do so because the Second Amendment provides them that right. In fact, even those people who are agents of the state own at least some weapons that are protected under the Second Amendment. So yes, rue very likely has misinterpreted the court rulings as I understand what rue stated, and in general, it is not the court that bans or regulates weapons, but rather the Congress.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi 6-ix

I was going to get into that - looking at relative poverty rates and so forth - but to do justice (so to speak) to the entire topic would take a PhD thesis. What I would say in general is that many developed European societies that until recently had kings and queens (and some still do) seem to have done much better with the whole 'democracy' concept than the US. Government as representative of the people as a whole, promoting the general welfare, securing the common defense, providing for themselves and their posterity, and so on.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Though this may be true Rue, I will take freedom over security anyday.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:32 AM

Given that you have not said what the weapons in question are it is, of course, impossible for me to know if you are right.

If you had said, for example, "My father in law owns a ____ which would have been outlawed under the ___ legislation in ____ if it hadn't failed to pass/been overturned based on the argument it violated the second amendment in spite of the lack of an existing militia at the time," then of course I would agree with you.

You did not say that. You said that your family legally having weapons proves that the courts have not had the interpretation rue claims they have had. It doesn't.

The fact that I can legally own and carry X does not prove that the courts interpret the ability to own and carry X to be a protected right, regardless of what X is. It proves that there is not a law prohibiting me for owning and carrying X.

In the US I can legally own and carry ANYTHING I want as long there is not a law prohibiting doing such. This does not mean that the courts have interpreted preexisting laws as meaning I have a right to carry these things, it means only that they have not been prohibited.

The only way your family being armed proves that rue is wrong about the interpretation of the second amendment by the courts is if the specific weapons they are armed with are available only because the courts made decisions contrary to the interpretation rue describes.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:57 AM

Let’s look at this way. The US Constitution is the law of the land. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states the right to bear arms. Some laws, passed by Congress, most notably the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 regulate what weapons can be legally privately owned and certain state laws also regulate the ownership of weapons. Unless these laws are unconstitutional they cannot eliminate the right to bear arms. In fact, neither the Court nor the Congress can eliminate this right without an amendment to the US Constitution. No amendment, as far as I know, has been passed, therefore there must be certain weapons which a private citizen can own, unless current gun control laws are unconstitutional. And in fact, that is the case. A US citizen can, given certain restriction, legally own a weapon in the United States. Many Americans do own - nearly half the population.

The burden is on you and rue, to show that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. A contention you’ll likely find very difficult to demonstrate, I expect.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KIRKULES

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"This is not born out by the amendment."

I's born out by over a century of court rulings. Individuals do NOT have a right to weapons, absent a militia. That's why regulations and outright bans have been ruled over and over again as constitutional. That's why the US doesn't have weddings where people aim their AK-47's up in the air for a little celebratory round of - gunfire.

If your referring to the Miller case in 1939 the Supreme court made a very narrow ruling saying that sawed off shotguns are not protected because they are not suitable for a "militia". Since then liberal lower courts have taken this narrow ruling and used it improperly to come up with the "collective right" argument. The Supreme's have never made a decisive decision on this issue. This may change in this court session because the court has agreed to take up the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court could use this case to decisively settle this issue for the next century. Judging by the chatter on the Internet the anti-gunners are shaking in their boots over this one and the NRA feels pretty confident.

ANTHONYT

Friday, December 21, 2007 2:00 AM

Hello,

I have to agree with our Cynic. It is possible, for instance, that the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

Keep in mind also that the 2nd ammendment has historically not prevented states or cities from enacting severe gun-control legislation and enforcement. (Some of which I believe violate the 2nd ammendment protections.)

Very soon, the Supreme Court will be deciding on one such law in D.C. Even if they decide that states or municipalities can ban guns, that doesn't mean your state or municipality will do so.

However, if they decide that states or municipalities can't ban guns, then your rights would be protected no matter where you are in this country. This is the result I am hoping for.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, December 21, 2007 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
...the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

A nice thought Anthony, but tell that to the people who legally grow medicinal marijuana in states which have deemed it legal, only to be raided by the FED Nazis.

Quote:
However, if they decide that states or municipalities can't ban guns, then your rights would be protected no matter where you are in this country. This is the result I am hoping for.

Let us hope that sanity wins out over idiocy and soccer-momism. I'd be curious to know what would happen to Americans if their gun rights were entirely stripped from them and China and Russia decided to send over a billion people to roll us over.

It's not only our own corrupt Government we need to consider when making such brash decisions. As much as I despise them, there are others whos potential I fear much more.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

ANTHONYT

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:50 AM

Hello,

Fret not, Six String. We still have naval and air superiority. It would be very difficult to float enough bodies over here to mount a successful invasion while we sink transports wholesale.

I'm more worried about local threats.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, December 21, 2007 6:20 AM

That's a mixed bag for me though. I feel that we would be able to decrease our millitary (and tax expendatures) if we weren't spread out out all over the world now, and I feel that we would be able to rid ourselves of half the pig fat in our police force if our rights as property owners and gun owners were respected as well.

Gun ownership allows us to protect ourselves from possible threats from external forces such as China and Russia. Any sleeper cells already in America would think a whole lot more if they knew we were able to protect ourselves during an attack, rather than have a police force come after the fact to scrape up the bones. A police force would think twice about kicking down your door if you had an NRA sticker on the door. And, most importantly, the government has no fear of citizens which have no way of defending themselves. Every single instance of genocide which has taken place on this planet by a government on its people in history has been preceeded with a period of time where the citizens were disarmed.

I'm sure you already knew all of that though Anthony. I'm just saying that being able to trust that our overbloated Government and millitary might will defend us when we are unable to do so for ourselves doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The burden is on you and rue, to show that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. A contention you’ll likely find very difficult to demonstrate, I expect.

It would be difficult, but given that I never said or implied that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons I fail to see how the burden would be on me to prove it.

If you would read my posts you would see that I said that US citizens do have the right to legally own weapons. In fact I said that US citizens have the right to legally own anything provided that the ownership of that thing is not prohibited by law. As the ownership of weapons, in general, is not prohibited by law of course it is legal for US citizens to own them. (Obviously the ownership of certain weapons, ICBMs for example, is prohibited and thus it is not legal for US citizens to own those.)

What I said is that the fact certain US citizens own weapons does not prove the courts have or have not interpreted the second amendment in a certain way. The truth is that if the second amendment were repealed, right now as I type, that would not make ownership of any weapon it is currently legal to own illegal. (It is possible that at some date after the repeal currently legal weapons could be outlawed, but it is equally possible that the legality of weapons would remain the same.)

The second amendment is a protection, courts interpreting it doesn't apply to a given case would result in, at most, a lack of protection. Nothing more, nothing less. Lack of protection, on its own, doesn't make ANYTHING illegal.

If rue is right, and I'm not saying rue is right, it would not mean that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. I'm honestly not sure where you came up with that (unless you've been having private communications with rue and therefore know things about what is going on that I don't.)

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, December 21, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
...the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

A nice thought Anthony, but tell that to the people who legally grow medicinal marijuana in states which have deemed it legal, only to be raided by the FED Nazis.

The point that certain people, yourself included, seem to be missing is that there is a difference between a lack of protection and a prohibition.

The people who are raided by feds are not raided because there is a lack of federal protection for marijuana growing. They are raided because growing marijuana is explicitly prohibited.

If the second amendment were repealed that wouldn't make bearing arms illegal, in theory it might make it easier to to make bearing arms illegal but in practice you still have nearly half of the populous armed, even more of them asserting that being able to be armed is a good thing, all of the arguments put forth in the defense of armament over the life of this nation and a powerful gun lobby standing in the way of such a ban. It wouldn't make guns illegal and thus the situation would not be comparable to marijuana growing.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'd be curious to know what would happen to Americans if their gun rights were entirely stripped from them and China and Russia decided to send over a billion people to roll us over.

We would fight. With stolen guns if possible, with other means if not.
We would fight using improvised explosives, we would fight using Molotov cocktails, we would fight with whatever was at hand be it hunting bows or rocks. If we had nothing that could kill the enemy at a distance we would lure them in close and use farming implements if we had to.
If it came down to it we would fight tooth and nail.

No one likes to be invaded or occupied, in this respect Americans are the same as everyone else, so if we were invaded the result would be the same whether or not we had guns. We would fight.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 21, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The burden is on you and rue, to show that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons. A contention you’ll likely find very difficult to demonstrate, I expect.
It would be difficult, but given that I never said or implied that US citizens are not allowed to legally own weapons I fail to see how the burden would be on me to prove it.

You’re whole argument is just sophism. I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You’re right that in the absence of a Constitutional right to own weapons, the law could still allow the ownership of weapons, but so what? That’s purely hypothetical - the fact remains that there is a Constitutional right to own weapons. So until that right is repealed through an Amendment to the Constitution, then I don’t see what baring your argument has. So what is your point?

And rue is still wrong. The courts have not ruled, nor can they, that there is no right to own weapons. The Second Amendment is pretty explicit in that the people have the right to own weapons. Now details like what exactly “arms” means or what “keep and bear” means have been subject to discussion in the Congress and the courts for a very long time, but while both have been curtailed considerably, there is not enough degree of freedom to eliminate the right all together, which is what rue is claiming.

In US v. Miller the courts ruled that Saw-off shotguns could be regulated because they were not used by the US military and therefore not a weapon that would qualify as used by a “well regulated Militia.” Something of a strange ruling, considering that prior to that ruling it had been basically accepted that automatic weapons and artillery, which were unquestionably military, could be regulated. This kind of nonsense goes back and forth in the Second Amendment debate, and the result has been considerable regulation, but at no point was the right to “keep and bear Arms” ever been dismissed by the court.

To this day, I can go out and legally buy and own an automatic weapon, because even though such weapons are considerably regulated, they are not, nor can they be under the Constitution, banned.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:11 PM

My point was that you said, "Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise. So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings," and that isn't right.

It does not obviously follow that rue interpreted the court rulings because if rue were right the members of your family would still be able to legally own and carry weapons.

That is the whole of my point. I realize it isn't much of a point but I've always felt that in any disagreement, and I feel that you and rue were having a disagreement just as we are now, it helps to make sure people don't stray from the truth.

On the one hand if rue is wrong that would mean that the members of your family would be able to legally own and carry weapons without being part of a militia. On the other hand if rue is right the members of your family would still be able to legally own and carry weapons without being part of a militia.

Since the members of your family would legally be allowed to own and carry weapons without being part of a militia regardless of whether or not rue misinterpreted the court rulings, the fact that they do just that does not make it obvious that rue misinterpreted the court rulings.

It doesn't matter what the courts have ruled, it does not matter whether or not rue misinterpreted the rulings or not, the statement, "So obviously, you’ve misinterpreted the court rulings," does not logically follow from, "Practically everyone in my family legally owns and carries weapons. None of us are in any kind of militia, regulated or otherwise."

Like I said before, it is a little tiny bit of nitpicking. Some people might say at this point, "If I knew this would happen I wouldn't have said anything," but I can't honestly say that. What you said wasn't true -your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all, certainly not obviously- and you shouldn't have said it in the first place. I assumed, and still assume, that you didn't realize what you said was false which is why I pointed out the error. I had thought that when it was pointed out you would simply choose a better example to illustrate your point.

KIRKULES

Friday, December 21, 2007 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I have to agree with our Cynic. It is possible, for instance, that the 2nd ammendment could be abolished by another ammendment someday.

And were that the case, I would still be able to walk around heeled in Arizona. This is because Arizona law allows me the right to keep and bear arms independent of the Federal government.

Keep in mind also that the 2nd ammendment has historically not prevented states or cities from enacting severe gun-control legislation and enforcement. (Some of which I believe violate the 2nd ammendment protections.)

Very soon, the Supreme Court will be deciding on one such law in D.C. Even if they decide that states or municipalities can ban guns, that doesn't mean your state or municipality will do so.

However, if they decide that states or municipalities can't ban guns, then your rights would be protected no matter where you are in this country. This is the result I am hoping for.

--Anthony

While I agree that the 2nd Amendment has not kept the liberal courts and politicians from imposing "severe gun-control legislation...Some of which... violate the 2nd amendment protections". What makes you think that the States rights given in the 10th Amendment wont just be ignored by the courts/politicians just like they have ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment. All to often in the past the Interstate Commerce Clause has been sited by courts/politicians to justify the usurpation of States rights to impose Federal will on the States. Absent the 2nd Amendment the courts/politician will have free reign to bust down your door an seize your weapons. As much as I would like to believe that other parts of the Bill of Rights give us some protection, absent the 1st & 2nd Amendments I believe this country will not survive long.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 PM

Normally when someone goes this deep in nitpicks its often because they're beating around the bush about something. If that’s not the case then okay. But rue’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is still wrong.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:27 PM

No, no deeper meaning.

It's kind of hard to explain why I care about a relatively minor nitpick when I'm not even trying to argue either side, but basically I've learned to appreciate the importance of getting the little things right after seeing several disputes explode as a result of people getting little things wrong.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:27 AM

Hello,

I think we could all use a reminder on honest debate technique and logic. Keep up the patrol, brother.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Like I said before, it is a little tiny bit of nitpicking. Some people might say at this point, "If I knew this would happen I wouldn't have said anything," but I can't honestly say that. What you said wasn't true -your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all, certainly not obviously- and you shouldn't have said it in the first place. I assumed, and still assume, that you didn't realize what you said was false which is why I pointed out the error. I had thought that when it was pointed out you would simply choose a better example to illustrate your point.

I appreciated this post very much actually. Not because of who you were saying it against, but just the premise of the post itself. There are very many of us in here who tend to do that, from degrees varying from purely unintentional to thinking that they're being real sly in their manipulation. I can think of one person in particular with whom you can never possibly win an argument because are so good at this they can get you talk you in a frustrating loop and manipulate the converstaion without ever disproving your point and then throw out the dreaded words "strawman" or "ad hominem attack".

Way to keep it on point. I think I'm bookmarking this thread now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:41 PM

And there's another poster on this forum who can't come up with a logical argument so relies on lying about other people and what they're saying, and can't quite grasp why calling people names doesn't win the debate. They also seem to confuse said lying and insults as a 'point'.

That person then blames other people for their behaviour. Some people are just sophists, don't understand the basics of logic, but are completely too far up themselves to grow as a person.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:49 AM

Figured I need to educate some of you on what the REAL state of the law is, and get some of that fictional stuff out'a your collective ... heads ... :

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

(Lower courts have recently said) "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." — U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:31 AM

These are just idiotic rulings handed out by liberal judges on low levels. They hardly can be claimed to be solid proof of your personal interpretation of the second ammendment.

Besides... if you were ever able to successfully pass laws baning handgun ownership in this country, you better be ready to fund the insane expansion of prisons in this country. The amount of previously law abiding citizens who would be breaking the law would outnumber the current amount of law breaking citizens in this country. I'm surely not going to give up my firearm. You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

KIRKULES

Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:56 PM

The fact that the courts have temporarily decided to ignore the intent of 2nd Amendment has lead many States to pass gun ban preemption laws. These laws prevent County and City Governments from passing any gun law that is more restrictive than the State law. Everyone should find out if their State has such a law and if you don't write your State Senators an Congressman and ask why not.

FLETCH2

Saturday, December 29, 2007 7:24 PM

Well the one time you could argue that it REALLY mattered --- the Civil war where some states were opposing the Federal government -- the Feds did confiscate personal arms and it was considered "legal." So in practice no matter how you interpret the Constitution you are allowed guns just as along as the government allows you to have them.

RUE

Monday, December 31, 2007 7:44 AM

6-ix

"liberal judges on low levels"

Dude, the first cite was the US Supreme Court - in 1936. Not sure how that qualifies as 'low level' or 'liberal'.

The second cite was about how the US Supreme Court has refused to revisit the question over the last 81 years Again, that doesn't qualify as either 'low level' or 'liberal'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, December 31, 2007 11:31 AM

Rue's understanding of the court cases seems limited to forcing his own ideology from the law, so I'm not sure why he thinks he can educate anyone on the subject.

First rue misinterprets the only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, by claiming that the ruling distinguished between the collectivist and individualist camps, when in reality the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons and therefore were not protected under the Second Amendment. In other words, the Miller Case ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people (meaning individual) to keep and bare arms as long as those arms could reasonably be concluded to be used for military purposes. (At least two other people in this thread have already pointed this out.) An odd ruling to be sure, since automatic weapons had just been regulated by legislation, but the court found that the meaning of militia was a service of male citizens who upon being called to service (as a militia) were expected to provide for themselves weapons in common use. In other words, USA v. Miller distinctly asserts that the meaning of the Second Amendment was to provide the right of individuals to keep and bare arms so that when a militia was deemed necessary to be called this militia would be armed.

Second, Rue then cherry picks a couple of lower court rulings, which have been all over the board on this issue. In fact, an appeals court in DC just recently ruled (as in 2007) right the opposite of what rue would have you believe.

The legal merits of the controversy concern the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which provides, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The court noted that there are "two camps" in the debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. "Collective rights theorists" maintain that the Amendment secures the power of state governments to preserve and arm militias. The other camp, "individual rights theorists," maintains that the Amendment protects a right of individuals to possess arms for private use, such as self defense. The court readily admitted that the phrase "bear arms" could be read to have a military connotation, but only if it is viewed in isolation. Since "the people" and "keep" have individual and private meanings, the court concluded that "the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8128

Now regardless of what one actually believes that the law should saw, any honest person with a native understanding of English, could not claim that the way the Second Amendment is worded could possible mean that the "People" don't have a right to "keep and bare" weapons. So while some lower courts have found rue's particular view in the law, it is not logically there.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 31, 2007 10:08 PM

I've said my piece and don't intend to add to it, but this bit leaps out here.

"the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons.."

How in the world did they come to THAT conclusion ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_shotguns_history.php

Hell, the good ole sawed-off has been used by armies as far back as the civil war (a favorite of confederate cavalry, in fact) and if you ever saw the movie Aliens, potentially the future, too.

Hicks "I like to keep this handy.. for close encounters"
*Ker-CHACK*
Frost "I heard that."

-F

RUE

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 12:45 AM

finn: rue misinterprets the only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, by claiming that the ruling distinguished between the collectivist and individualist camps, when in reality the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons ..." However, the distinction between collectivist and individual is cearly made within the ruling, a FACT finn has clearly avoided.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (militia) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end (militia) in view." The sentences are inverted, so in straight form it reads: since the second amendment was written to make militias possible and effective it must be interpreted with that goal in mind.

Swing and a miss, strike one.

finn: Rue then cherry picks a couple of lower court rulings, which have been all over the board on this issue. The Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment as recently as 1983 when it let stand a lower court ruling (Quillici v. Morton Grove) which held "Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia."
Previous to that "In the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Lewis, the Court came close to stating that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, in a footnote written by Justice Harry Blackmun. "

Swing and a miss, strike two.

finn: So while some lower courts have found rue's particular view in the law, it is not logically there.
Mortom Grove v Illinois pretty much nailed that one into the ground.

Swing and a miss, strike three.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
finn: rue misinterprets the only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, by claiming that the ruling distinguished between the collectivist and individualist camps, when in reality the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons ..." However, the distinction between collectivist and individual is cearly made within the ruling, a FACT finn has clearly avoided.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (militia) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end (militia) in view." The sentences are inverted, so in straight form it reads: since the second amendment was written to make militias possible and effective it must be interpreted with that goal in mind.

Swing and a miss, strike one.

I was the first person in this thread to point out that the ruling regulated sawed-off shotguns because they were deemed not to be usable as a military weapon. In fact, I pointed this out a couple of time. God, you’re dumb.
BUT the fact that the Miller case distinguishes between certain weapons appropriate to a militia and certain not, in no way distinguishes between the collectivist and individualist theories. In fact, the Miller case defines a militia as being a temporary body of soldiers who are required to provide their own weapons. So if the Second Amendment, as interpreted by USA v. Miller, held that there was no right to individual ownership of weapons how then is this militia supposed to arm itself? Magic?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
finn: Rue then cherry picks a couple of lower court rulings, which have been all over the board on this issue. The Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment as recently as 1983 when it let stand a lower court ruling (Quillici v. Morton Grove) which held "Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia."

So the a well organized militia that is necessary to the preservation of a free state is central to the Second Amendment. Great. You’ve managed to point out the obvious, but you still haven’t managed to understand it.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Previous to that "In the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Lewis, the Court came close to stating that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, in a footnote written by Justice Harry Blackmun. "

Swing and a miss, strike two.

Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!! Hahahahahahah!

Oh wait!

Hahahahahahahahah!

If rue can’t find what he wants in the law he claims the law almost said what he wanted to hear and that’s good enough for him - which pretty much proves that his interpretation of the Second Amendment is driven completely by an ideological desire to manipulate it into what he want’s it to say, not what it does say.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
finn: So while some lower courts have found rue's particular view in the law, it is not logically there.
Mortom Grove v Illinois pretty much nailed that one into the ground.

Swing and a miss, strike three.

Still ignoring cases that don’t fit your view, I see. It must be a very neat and simple world you live in.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I've said my piece and don't intend to add to it, but this bit leaps out here.

"the court only stated that sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons.."

How in the world did they come to THAT conclusion ?

Yes, well, as I said, it’s an odd ruling. But it has to be understood in context. And at the time, the standard issue for the US army was the M1 Garand. Obviously, any kind of weapon could and probably was used in some fashion, but the principle and standard weapon of the US army was a small caliber semi-automatic rifle, not a shotgun. And the idea behind the ruling was the same as that behind the 1934 NFA, which basically interpreted the militia described in the Second Amendment as not being required to be armed with anything other then the standard issue for the US army. That ruling works in 1936, but today the standard issue is an automatic assault rifle, which were expressly regulated by the NFA, and today have been all but banned for private civilian use. So the Miller case is bit dated and needs to be re-examined, which I think is coming around the corner, with this 2007 ruling. When the Supreme Court does re-examine it, the conclusion they will come to is probably the one in practice today, which is to strike a compromise between the need for a well-regulated militia and the need for safety from high-powered weapons on the street. They will likely acknowledge, that the Second Amendment clearly states that right and necessity of individual ownership of weapons, but that a militia need not necessarily be as armed as the standing army, which is probably not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but it’s possible they never conceived of the day when machine guns could pump out 3000 supersonic highly-accurate armor-piercing rounds a minute.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, January 3, 2008 5:48 PM

Finn

Instead of reading just the right-wing spin, from - say - the Cato Inst, try reading the rulings. They are very clear, in context, that the ONLY reason to own a weapon is to make a militia possible. After the initial Supreme Court ruling, repeated rulings by lower courts - that have been reviewed BY THE SUPREME COURT and let stand - have been ever more explicit. No militia = no weapons. In other words, there is no individual right - absent a militia - to own a gun.

So, go back to warming the bench, son. When you've worked on your game and are ready to play better, come back.

BTW - have you never wondered the Brady Act was never challenged on gun control per se ? Maybe you need to think about it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:14 PM

Finn feels certain things very deeply and holds them to be true, but until he can disengage reaction/emotions from thought... or at least understand that he's feeling something not thinking it...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KIRKULES

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

BTW - have you never wondered the Brady Act was never challenged on gun control per se ? Maybe you need to think about it.

Both sides of this issue have been afraid to take this issue to the Supreme court again. It has been reported that the Brady anti-gun group has tried to get DC not to pursue DC v Heller because their afraid they'll lose this time around.

"Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, has suggested to D.C. that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court. Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it 'could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question.' "

KIRKULES

Thursday, January 3, 2008 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn feels certain things very deeply and holds them to be true, but until he can disengage reaction/emotions from thought... or at least understand that he's feeling something not thinking it...

This coming from you in response to Rue can only be answered with a quote from the dispassionate Finn "Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!! Hahahahahahah".

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2008 11:20 PM

Finn and I have been discussing issues far longer than you've been on the board. It's an opinion that I've come to after long consideration. Finn's approach is to try distill the essence of his beliefs, not to explore where they break down or contradict other beliefs. My style is to approach a question from different directions, or to toss a definition into in different contexts.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, January 3, 2008 11:35 PM

Oh, BTW Kirkules, the issue has been taken up by the Supreme Court. The argument made by the Circuit Court was that guns were available before the Constitution and therefore that fact should have precedence over the actual text of the Constitution. I guess we'll see how conservative v constitutional this Supreme Court is. Given their unprecedented and clearly illegal intervention in the Florida vote-counting and other sundry misdeeds I'm guessing they're more partisan than lawful.

***************************************************************
And as I think about it, I suspect you're in that category was well.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:23 AM

blah blah blah....

whining and crying....

legal crap from both sides....

yada yada...

The fact remains, you're not going to take my gun from me, and neither are you going to take it from the guy who is going to rob your house and rape your wife while the police take their time coming to your rescue.

So can we please just drop this already because, regardless of any opinion either side holds, it's a moot point.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 4, 2008 5:20 PM

Ahh....I live in D.C. You know, the place where any gun is outlawed? Where the gun control people have full sway? Its the safest city in all of America because of that....right?

Lol It always cracks me up how gun control folks would love to say that if noone had guns, everyone would be safer. Well, guess what? In this city of no guns, we have the highest murder rate in the country. We even have snipers that come by and shoot us.

Did I forget to mention South East D.C.? This place makes Iraq, lebanon, and Colombia look like vacation spots....

The truth of the matter is, in this area, you NEED a gun to protect yourself. Preferably two. And a bullet proof vest. Maybe a tank.

Yes the Wild West was crazy. It was dangerous. But guess what? A guy didnt have to worry about walking down to the local store to buy some milk. If someone tried to stick him up, or shoot him, or rape his wife, or take his horse, he could at least shoot back (or first).

D.C. is a hellish town. Most of it is a ghetto of one type or another. (So is Baltimore for that matter). So why, in one of the most dangerous cities in America, in places that angels fear to tread, are we not allowed to protect ourselves?

The truth is, we SHOULD return to Wild West ways. You SHOULD carry a gun on your hip. You SHOULD be able to shoot any animal that attacks you, (and not be punished for it).

In other words, YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR FRIENDS.

You are either a sheep, or a wolf that can protect itself.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:27 PM

6-ix

"The fact remains, you're not going to take my gun from me, and neither are you going to take it from the guy who is going to rob your house and rape your wife while the police take their time coming to your rescue."

I've lived in some very dangerous places. Had my residence broken into 3 times (once while I was at home), been assualted, stalked, had my car stolen and various other lawless acts. Never once did I feel the need to own a gun. And somehow I got through it all, still alive and well, and old enough to be your parent, if not your grandparent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:32 PM

Wulfenstar,

Did you never consider caution ? You know, leaving enough room between your car and the one in front of you to get out of line should someone attempt to carjack you, having home / apartment alarms and an escape route (I use IR b/c they're also good for fire detection), beefing up your doors, lock and door frames, and other very simple precautions ...

Oh, BTW, the fact that you own a gun is not going to stop that random drive-by bullet from coming through your wall.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, BTW, the fact that you own a gun is not going to stop that random drive-by bullet from coming through your wall.

And you think more gun control will?

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:42 PM

It worked in select Brazilian cities where they also had a major gun round-up. Murder rates in those areas dropped considerably - if I remember correctly, something like 20% in the first 6 months. You can't argue with success. Or maybe you'd still want to, but it would look pretty silly.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:55 PM

Welcome abaord Wulfenstar.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:01 PM

Caution? Thats my middle name. Yes, I do leave enough room between cars, just in case I get carjacked. Should I also consider armor plating? Yes, I do have strong locks at home and know where I would go if someone were trying to break in. (Straight to my gun vault, or to the shotgun I keep nearby.)

And no, a gun in my home would not stop the driveby bullet from flying through my home, hitting me and possibly killing me. Do you reccommend armor plating on my windows too? If so, where would I be able to purchase such an effect? Home Depot didn't seem to know what I was talking about when I called them.

In essence, what you reccommend is barricading myself in my home (like Will Smith in I AM LEGEND), with a phone in my hand for when the big bad thug comes calling? Wow.

But what happens when I want to go from my fort to my tank? Well, I do have a cell phone. So I guess as Im being robbed and/or shot I can call the cops. Great! But what if they take my cell phone too?

See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it.

Its easy to say "Guns kill people" or "Gun control will bring down crime/murder" when you've never had to face it one way or the other. Im sure that from on top of the hill, everything looks "shiney".

The problem is, criminals, rapists, killers ect carry guns. They carry illegal guns, stolen guns, guns they bought off the back of a truck, even guns they made themselves (Zipguns). They use these weapons to hurt, maim, rape and destroy.

My answer is simple. Fight back. Protect yourself. Have the means to counter the threat when the time comes (other than just using foul language and the fetal position). Have the means ON YOUR PERSON to fight back.

Also, it may be a cliche, but what about the grandmothers out there? The ones who watched their neighborhood deteriorate into animal filled ghettos? They don't possess the means to fortify their homes, or their cars.....so what should they do? I know in the animal kingdom, the young prey on the old, but throwing them to the dogs seems a bit cruel to me.

Shouldnt she have the right to shoot the miscreant in the face? You know, the one who is trying to rob her and maybe rape her to boot? Im sorry if that is too graphic for you, but it needs to be said. Doesnt she have the right, as a human being, as any living creature in the world does, to fight against her attackers?

But, I know. Gentrification will soon change these places. The rainbows will soon shine over all the Comptons, SE D.C's, Baltimores ect, and we will all live in peace and harmony. Until then, until this harmonious and magical day when the dogs will lay down with the cats, and all the SUV's will be in the trash heap and the hum of Prius can be heard everywhere...its still going to be a dangerous place. Shouldn't we all be prepared? Shouldn't we all have the right to carry in the open or not, a means of personal protection which has much more of deterent factor than Pepper Spray?

I think so. And until we lose the final battle for freedom, and they finally do take my gun away, I will always think so.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Did you never consider caution ? You know, leaving enough room between your car and the one in front of you to get out of line should someone attempt to carjack you, having home / apartment alarms and an escape route (I use IR b/c they're also good for fire detection), beefing up your doors, lock and door frames, and other very simple precautions ...

Oh, BTW, the fact that you own a gun is not going to stop that random drive-by bullet from coming through your wall.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:19 PM

Quote:
See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it.

Apparently you didn't read Rue's post?

At one time or another, MANY of us have lived in "bad" areas. I used to live in a neighborhood where the police helicopter hovered 2-3 times a week. I found a ditched purse in my front garden. A guy was arrested in front of me on my front sidewalk. My home was broken into (while I was in it. I met the robber in the dining room). One block down, I had to pass through a police barricade on my way to work. I was harrassed at the store at the end of my block. Some dirt-bag tried to get into my car with me one morning. (I slammed the door and threatened to run him over). And this wasn't a ten-year compilation of events- it all happened within one year. So you're not the only one who knows what's going on.

And BTW- We did have a gun. (Still do.) Shortest barrel legally possible shotgun. But I never felt the need to use it. (Except once when I was extra-jittery after the break-in and almost blew away the mail carrier. Gawd! If he only knew what was on the other side of that mail slot!)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:31 PM

"See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it."

Now see, that's what happens when you don't read posts and make erroneous assumptions. I lived a couple blocks from the County Hospital while at school, which is where I also worked for many years after I graduated and moved a couple of miles away. It was as bad an area as you could find in that city, which was pretty bad. There was at least one incident every week on my street, whether it was an assault or break-in or robbery. At lot of homes were abandoned, and the hood seemed to be a regular gathering place for gangs of young males. And that was in the days before cell phones and before I had a car, and got everywhere by walking, bicycle or bus (including my trips to and from school and work).
Did I mention I worked evenings, nights and weekends ?
So, to put lie to your silly assumptions, I DO know what it's like to live in a bad area, to have my residence broken into (even while I was at home), to have things stolen, to be stalked and threatened, to see people beaten-up and wandering the street. And I didn't have the most basic protections you seem to have - transportation and a cell phone. And I NEVER needed a gun. Never considered it, never wanted it. And I'm here today despite all that.

And you ? Why are YOU so scared ? Have you ever been stalked, assaulted or threatened ? Have you seen neighbors who have been ? Do you have roaming gangs on your street ? Had your place broken into ? Most people who think violence is a serious issue haven't experienced it first-hand but are assuming the TV version of life is true. Just curious.

And, no, I don't recommend barricading oneself. First of all I never personally had the opportunity - I lived in an apartment building that was half-empty and not kept in repair, had to go to work, shopping, school and such-like. So I was out there doing my stuff like everyone else. Second of all - as I tried to point out - it doesn't work.

What DOES work is developing street-smarts, taking basic precautions (which I couldn't afford at the time), and gun control along with gun-buy-backs.

***************************************************************
Oh, and control that adrenaline flow son - it gets you hyper-focused on the wrong things so you miss important details, and amped-up and liable to react stupidly. And if it doesn't kill you in the short-term the internal damage will do its work over time.

And have a nice day.

added: You seem like and OK person but on the 'fight' end of the spectrum rather than 'flight'. Maybe this will give you something to think about - if you confront you may come out ahead. If you escape, you will always come out ahead.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:58 PM

You are correct about erroneous assumptions. Both of you. Now, to be honest and friendly-like, I would like to apologize for assuming that neither of you had any idea of how bad thigns could possibly get.

I, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that I was speaking with folks whose sole claim to knowing of things was from watching them on television. (Ironic that Im saying this on a Firefly board)

But back to the matter at hand. Being unarmed may be what you consider the right thing, it maybe even a bit noble. As your way of showing the youth of today that its better to handle things with your fists rather than with a weapon.

I, however, see things a mite differently. I react a bit differently too (probably that adrenaline you were speaking of? Maybe some cojones thrown in to boot)

Should someone attack me, invade my home, threaten my wife (or even one of my pets) I will use any and all means available to stop them.

Now, a gun is a responsibility like any other. It carries with it certain obligations. One of them being to use it wisely, with caution, and not as a toy.

With that said, I believe we should ALL be allowed to have the protection a gun automatically insures. And to be able to take that protection with us wherever we go. How is that wrong?

You guys still havnt explained why protecting yourself form the evil in our society is wrong. Do you want the animals to win?

Oh, and as a P.S.....

Have a nice day.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Added... Yes, I am fight over flight. Id rather take a stand than crawl away on my knees. Now, you still havn't answered my question.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:11 PM

Since I added some stuff as a PS, here it is. I think it explains why running is better than fighting.

Oh, and control that adrenaline flow son - it gets you hyper-focused on the wrong things so you miss important details, and amped-up and liable to react stupidly. And if it doesn't kill you in the short-term the internal damage will do its work over time.

And have a nice day.

added: You seem like and OK person but on the 'fight' end of the spectrum rather than 'flight'. Maybe this will give you something to think about - if you confront you may come out ahead. If you escape, you will always come out ahead.

***************************************************************
I've had a lot of years to think about scenarios - both ones I've experienced and possibilities. When people I knew got a shotgun for home protection I seriously considered it. But I realized that a shotgun would get me nothing extra compared to an alarm and escape route. And I would risk shooting a family member, or getting shot myself if I chose confrontation. Detection plus escape is always the best choice, and I made a concerted effort to make it happen.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:19 PM

Yes, again I get the idea of running away to, well, run away again another day. But as I said, Id rather stand up than lay down and scuttle.

So, again, why is having the means to protect yourself wrong?

Also, yes. I have seen violence. Yes, I have seen roaming gangs. Yes, I have seen drug dealers. Yes, i have been jumped. Yes, I have been robbed. (My house has never been broken into tho. Thank God, as I wouldn't want to ever have to kill someone) I also got to be quite close to the local SWAT team. (I should, as they had to bust down the doors of the apartments on either side of mine. Twice.)

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:25 PM

"why protecting yourself from the evil in our society is wrong"

I see evil differently than you do. Even the gang-banger is a simply messed-up person - a sad product of their environment - and not the evil monster you seem to think. Plus avoidance is even better than 'defense'.

As far as I'm concerned, the evil monsters have money and run the country - callously lying to start wars, bombing hundreds of thousands - so they can get even more money, more power and more influence. Protecting yourself from that evil needs social action, not a shotgun.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:30 PM

Welcome to the party, Wulf.

For the record, I grew up in Southeast Baltimore, in the no-mans-land of corrupted, chemically poisoned hell down by 10th and Stohl, in fact my apartment was two blocks from "Ground Zero" as they call that intersection.

And even now, while I live in a podunk little burg where three vandalisms in a month constitutes a "crime wave" - I drive a cab part time in downtown Detroit, one of the few that'll still pick up in Cass Corridor, in fact.

And yeah, I carry, and believe everyone who wants to pack iron should - but I also believe anyone packing should be competent with what they're carryin, too.

But that's just not enough, and while defensive tactics go pretty far, de-escalation and incident prevention do well too.

Some links you might find handy, I have posted them before, but I won't make ya dig, hereyago.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm

That site is more intended for LEO, but given the nature of the ugly one runs up against in Bawlmore or DeathCity, this info is worth it's weight in platinum.

You might also have an intest in the advocacy work of Oleg Volk.
http://www.a-human-right.com/

What other folks wanna do is up to them, but anyone attempting to strip me of my primary defense against thugs and criminals, to my mind, belongs in the same mental category they do.

-Frem
(Not back to work yet, *sigh*, Jan 20th as a tenative, for that, damn this thing hurts.)

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:39 PM

Hi Frem !

As you can see we do disagree. Still, I hope you take with good spirit that I would be happy for you to feel better soon.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:40 PM

Amen Frem.

KIRKULES

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it.

You nailed me dead on. I've done my share of "slumming" but only in broad daylight. Grew up in small towns back in the days when parents didn't have to watch their kid every second. The neighborhood I currently live in has some minimal crime and that freaks me out so bad I've set up motion sensor lights around my perimeter and armed myself to the teeth.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:49 PM

Thanks Rue.

Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one prolly forever - but can we at least find the common ground in this one concept ?

If you're GOING to have one, have the decency to be competent, knowing proper safety, storage, cleaning, 1st and 2nd order malfunction clearing and a working knowledge of the law related to it's use, in combination with the ability to pass an actual on-range fire/no-fire decision making test.

Would you accept that as minimum level of competence for carry, if you HAD to accept that people carried ?

I figure competence-based testing would solve a lot of problems, I just don't want the Gov running it... don't trust em.

I say we make a deal with the manufacturers, require this level of competence training as a condition of sale, and offer them immunity from lawsuit regarding should they do so.

It's not a bad deal, given the realities of the situation, and would at least make a dent "impulse" based firearms incidents, cause a better trained person is FAR more likely to de-escalate than reach for iron when pressed.

Thoughts ?

As long as we seem to be gettin somewhere, I'm up for discussing it, I just bow out when we're banging heads and not accomplishing anything but pissin each other off, you must understand.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KIRKULES

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Would you accept that as minimum level of competence for carry, if you HAD to accept that people carried ?

Firearms are something like number seven on the list of leading causes of accidental death. Would you accept mandatory training in all of the other six causes of accidental death first.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:47 PM

Wulfenstar

Using the link Frem provided, clicking on "home page" and reading partway down you'll find this: "Even in these extreme circumstances, the most effective steps to ensure your personal safety are not necessarily confrontational."

What I get from your post is that you're not interested in safety, you're more interested in confrontation. What I get is that you'd rather satisfy your machismo by pounding the snot out of someone and teaching them a lesson, 'cause they're evil and they 'deserve it' and you're 'righteous' and brave.

In other words, to paraphrase the very link Frem posted, you're calculating that violence will get you something that you want.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:50 PM

Frem

I'd absolutely go with competency testing. We require it for drivers, manicurists and a high school diploma. Why not for guns ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:45 AM

Depends on what they are, Kirk.

I am of the opinion that outside of the most extreme emergency, you should never handle or use any powerful, dangerous tool which could harm you or others without a minimum level of competence with it.

Guns, Cars, Bandsaws, Drill Presses, it's all the same to me, only makes sense to have some idea of what yer doing, doesn't it ?

But I do not want the Gov that involved, is all - the manufacturers, in exchange for lawsuit protection, is a far better real-world option with less avenue of abuse, at least in my opinion.

Rue, I think Wulfs point is that there are some folks you CAN'T reason with, can not de-escalate, like lifestyle-violent offenders or someone so wired up on drugs they're practically in outer space, mentally... and you do run into a large proportion of those in Bawlmore or DeathCity.

He also sounds frustrated, which I can fully comprehend, but a little mercy for our new poster, if ya would... we run enough of em off as it is.

Reason might work with a lotta folk, but it's not a bad idea to have a more... substantial.. argument at hand for those it has no effect on.
(See also: Andrew Vachss, crossref, Lifestyle-Violent offenders)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Saturday, January 5, 2008 1:09 AM

Drat ! I was hoping my post wasn't too - er - confrontational. Just wanted to point out some of the logic he seemed to be following - plus waiting for some kind of reply.

Anyway, I know that you can't reason/ de-escalate every situation. Believe me, I've had enough opportunity and need to evaluate the security of many types of situations I've been in, in detail and at length. Which is why I'm a believer in avoidance and taking precautions and escape.

What I came to
- a pre-planned ambush attack with or without weapons and you're probably done for, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have
- overwhelming numbers with or without weapons and you're probably done for, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have
- attack at a distance (sniper or other l-d gun assault) and you're probably done for, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have
- grappling one-on-one and a gun probably won't help too much. However, in those situations when confronting either humans or four-legged animals I've always kept it in the back of my head that I may go down but they'll be blind for life.
- that leaves break-ins, where Wulf seems determined to go get the gun Martha, I'll hold 'em off. Personally, I think one's chances for a long and healthy life are better with detection and an escape route.
- car-jacking - avoidance and leaving enough room to maneuver away - you've GOT a one-ton weapon under your gas pedal.
- smaller (not overwhelming) numbers of unarmed people - well - avoidance is always my first choice, but that's one type of situation where you might scare them off or hold them at bay with a gun. But it would look bad if you shot any un-armed person at anything other than close range.

Have I got it covered ?

***************************************************************
BTW, people who mentally and/or physically practice (rehearse) using a gun in various situations are more likely to go for it as their first choice, not their last.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 5, 2008 2:14 AM

Hello,

I thought I'd jump in here for a bit.

1) A pre-planned ambush attack with or without weapons - This largely depends on the completeness of the planning and the resoluteness of the ambushers and ambushees. There are historically documented cases of people getting ambushed and successfully defending themselves or driving off attackers. In fact, the Western Expansion of the United States is replete with such stories. (For those who insist on cited examples, let me know if you really want me to look this up, but please feel free to do your own research.)

2) Attack at a distance - The attacker may be at a distance from me, but possibly not at a distance from others. A guy on the second level of a mall who is sniping people down on the first level of the mall probably won't be stopped by people on the first level... But armed people on the second level might be in a position to stop him.

3) Grappling one-on-one - If you don't have a free hand, no weapon is likely to do you any good. Hopefully your wrestling/striking talents are up to par. If you have a free hand, then any weapon could be useful. However, in a grappling match, it is possible to be disarmed. I am prepared to agree that weapons are of dubious value while you are being grappled.

3) Break Ins - It's fine to evacuate if you can do so safely and take all home occupants with you. I advocate using a firearm to cover your escape and the escape of loved ones. If your current location and/or the location of loved ones does not enable safe extraction, then I advocate using all necessary force to counter the intruder.

4) Car-Jacking - I agree, the car is a weapon AND an escape vehicle. Use it. Only pull a gun if you have been immobilized.

5) Small numbers of unarmed people - Presenting a weapon is likely to deter this threat, and allow you to make a safe escape.

6) Small numbers of armed people - This is a shootout. The results are uncertain, and dependent on many of the same factors as the ambush above.

Finally, there was this:

A) "people who mentally and/or physically practice (rehearse) using a gun in various situations are more likely to go for it as their first choice, not their last."

If the only thing you practice (rehearse) is violence, then I agree this is likely. However, if you mentally or physically practice staged responses including de-escalation tactics and evasion, this does not seem likely.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 5, 2008 2:46 AM

Well, acknowledged that some situations are gonna go south no matter what ya do, such is life... but from a tactical perspective, the increased alertness and training that comes with firearms ownership tends to prevent one from getting in more of those situations than otherwise, so we must factor that in.

I'm not big on the whole mall-commando kinda "training" some folk out there offer, you'll note that Cornered Cat and No-Nonsense are the only two I think worthy of posting, mind.

So I would say it depends a lot on the training, and for reasons not much beyond boredom (did I mention I am oh so totally BORED with naught to do ?) imma give a tactical perspective on those scenarios.

Pre-Planned ambush - depends much on your attackers discipline and abilities, sure, your chances aren't good, but street thugs are TERRIBLE at this, making noise, arguing amongst themselves, talking smack, smoking on the job (old army joke) etc, and being alert and catching it early might give you those few seconds that are all you need to get outta dodge.

Overwhemling numbers - yeah, you're screwed, but that kinda thing is really, really rare, even I only ran up against that once, pulling a friend out of a beatdown (for refusing to buy drugs when offered) that was soon to turn lethal.
They didn't push when the real steel came out, but they didn't run neither, I did get my buddy out of there and to the ER though - if they had rushed me, yah, that woulda been it, but the survivors woulda thought they'd walked into Thermopylae.

Distance/Sniper - screwed, yeah, but fairly rare.

Grappling - Toss up, could go either way, I will note from a technical standpoint that if you fire an automatic pistol while you've got muzzle contact, it's VERY likely to cycle out of battery and jam, so put that one shot somewhere important like the upper body mass if possible.

Breakins - That one's twitchy, basically the BEST idea is to take cover, haul out the iron and verbally inform the intruders they should leave, while calling the cops... no need to go rambo, just bunker down and defend yourself if needs be.

Really touchy about this one since over the holidays we've busted two rings of jerks using police uniforms and gear to stage fake no-knocks and then robbing folk at gunpoint, and really recently had some folk kick in the door of some folk (who did apparently manage to call the cops), rob them, then put them on their knees and shot them both execution style... one of them is still alive last I heard with a bullet in his neck.

In light of that, my SOP is one warning only, you understand that, I hope.

Carjacking - Actually, while punching the gas is the best opinion, it's not always available, and I really don't like the angles of the initial engagement, I am ambidextrous and set up for left handed draw to cover the back seat - you see.

If you're blocked in, a good SOP, unlatch the door, fall flat and kick it into the carjacker hard enough to put him on his ass, then pop up with your weapon in a two handed grip in case he decided to hang around - never had one do so, both of em took off after the door hit em anyway.

Smaller Numbers - Yeah, but that's the primary situation that's also most likely, one to three opportunistic punks who think you look like an easy mark or something, something you can usually avoid, or even de-escalate.

The ideal is avoiding the situation, just like you try to avoid having a fire or a flat tire - but you've got a fire extinguisher and a spare just in case, yes ?

I would say the training matters, but the quality of that training matters more than having it or not.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KIRKULES

Saturday, January 5, 2008 3:32 AM

I knew a guy years ago that carried a concealed handgun in an ankle holster at all times. Every once in a while it would come up in conversation and someone would inevitably point their finger at him and say "I've got the you covered don't move or I'll shoot". Then they would begin to tell him his gun would be of no use in a real situation. Before they could get a few words out of their mouth he would demonstrate for them what to do if someone has you covered with a gun. In a very well practiced manor he would begin to cower in the most convincing way, begging them not to shoot him. He would begin to whimper and offer to do anything if they just wouldn't shoot him. As he cowered he would take a step backward and trip over his own feet, falling backward to the ground in a clumsy way. As the person holding the finger on him was laughing at the pitiful sight he had made of himself he gets up still doing his act and points his loaded gun right at their face. He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did. He had his act down so good and had practiced drawing his weapon so much I believe he could have killed a large percentage of would be armed robbers.

In the case of overwhelming force I think in many cases one well trained man with a handgun is a good match for ten armed gangsters holding their guns sideways to look tough.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 5, 2008 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've lived in some very dangerous places. Had my residence broken into 3 times (once while I was at home), been assualted, stalked, had my car stolen and various other lawless acts. Never once did I feel the need to own a gun. And somehow I got through it all, still alive and well, and old enough to be your parent, if not your grandparent.

That's fine Rue. And as far as you've taken that meaning in that one individual paragraph, I cannot fault you for your decisions and choices in this matter. You don't want the right to bear arms.... you relinquish it. I get it.

Guess what... I've never shot anybody either. I've never even shot at anybody, for that matter. For me, gun ownership is more of the principal of the thing. The fact that, historically speaking, anytime a government has successfully banned its people from being able to protect themselves it then starts overstepping its boundaries is also key for me. I would think with our shared fear and loathing of the current administration and how much it's changed here stateside in the last 7 years that you could appreciate that sentiment.

Either way.... just please.... don't tell me that I should, by law, agree with your way of thinking or that I should not be able to choose protect myself and instead rely on the very police force that I have never once here hidden my contempt for.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, January 6, 2008 11:28 PM

Kirkules

"As the person holding the finger on him was laughing at the pitiful sight he had made of himself he gets up still doing his act and points his loaded gun right at their face. He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did."

Wow. Just wow. I hope you never try his plan, it's a great way to get killed.

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Sunday, January 6, 2008 11:38 PM

6-ix

"anytime a government has successfully banned its people from being able to protect themselves it then starts overstepping its boundaries"

I can think of many countries that regulate guns that don't have despotic governments - most of western and northern Europe; and many countries with despots and warlords that have no gun control - west and central Africa, and Somalia.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KIRKULES

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

Doesn't matter if you piss them off, the idea is just distract them for a few seconds to draw your weapon.

Quote:
And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

The guy I was talking about was a trained firearms expert. If someone was pointing anything other than a finger at him he would have shot them dead without hesitation. You're the "doofus" for pretending to know what your talking about.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 7, 2008 3:21 PM

Ok, folks. I think we are moving away from my original point. So let me rephrase it...

Weapons, be they guns, knives, teeth and claws, or a big rock are the inherant right of any living creature.

The use of them to defend ones life is also an inherant right.

The ability to have these weapons to defend ones life, on their person, SHOULD be an inherant right.

Discuss tactics, discuss the morality of guns, but can we please agree on the above ideas?

Also, a good point was made about the current administration. Whether you agree with its policies or not, why are some so quick to give up the last (worst-case) scenario of changing it?

It seems that everyday we give up our freedoms, an inch at a time. Whether its cameras on every corner, SpeedPass to monitor where you are driving, satelites over head, invasion of our bank accounts, monitoring our emails and blogs (ahem), or Passports that can now be read at a distance.

We are slowly giving up the freedom of annonymity.

Where does this lead? It may come to a point where noone can stand up against what the government is doing. Or theyll just (easily) hunt you down. Or take your money (which in this day and age is akin to breaking your back.)

Has anyone here ever seen "Enemy of the State"?

So why are some so quick to give up the last vestige of revolt? (And by the way, this IS a Firefly message board...small government, guns, and FREEDOM were the cornerstone of the series unless I missed my guess)

Thoughts?

SIGNYM

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:13 PM

Quote:
He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did. He had his act down so good and had practiced drawing his weapon so much I believe he could have killed a large percentage of would be armed robbers.

Unlike Mal who pulls his gun and shoots, damnit. This is the movie cliche of the man who talked too much before pulling the trigger. Usually it's the bad guy; you've seen it a million times. So has your friend, but he didn't learn not to speechify before firing.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:25 PM

Quote:
The use of them to defend ones life is also an inherant right. The ability to have these weapons to defend ones life, on their person, SHOULD be an inherant right. Discuss tactics, discuss the morality of guns, but can we please agree on the above ideas?

Every creature has the right to self defense. But sometimes that defense is fleeing, sometimes it's having lots and lots and lots of babies, sometimes it forming a herd, and sometimes it's outsmarting the aggressor. So while it may feel all manly and pumped up to to think about fighting your way through a situation, that is not the only option, nor is it always the best. I reserve the right to defend myself, but.... playing devil's advocate here... maybe the defense is through political action not individual self-defense. (To repeat: I DO own a defensive weapon.)

Quote:
Also, a good point was made about the current administration. Whether you agree with its policies or not, why are some so quick to give up the last (worst-case) scenario of changing it? It seems that everyday we give up our freedoms, an inch at a time. Whether its cameras on every corner, SpeedPass to monitor where you are driving, satelites over head, invasion of our bank accounts, monitoring our emails and blogs (ahem), or Passports that can now be read at a distance. We are slowly giving up the freedom of annonymity.

The BIGGEST barrier to fighting for our freedom is individualism. Before gun possession does any good whatsoever, you have to seriously think about organizing approximately 5% of the adult population into fighting force... that's about 1.5 million people who're able to strike in a coordinated fashion. AND you have to have another 10-15% or so of the remaining adult population to sustain them: Another 15-22 million. Otherwise you're just a nut with a gun standing off the SWAT team.

But yanno, given that we have the right to vote, isn't it just a whole lot more effective to vote in the candidate of your choice? Part of the problem here is that so many people think that guns are THE answer. They're not. They really aren't. They won't help you with an incompetent school board or oppressive laws or pot-holed roads and the theft of our money by corporations.

Before you change anything substantively, the first thing you have to change is your mind. And then you have to change the minds of others.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:33 PM

Thats my point exactly. These measures being set up, are to PREVENT someone from organizing 5% of the population.

I am of the opinion that it no longer matters WHO is in office.

ANTHONYT

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

Doesn't matter if you piss them off, the idea is just distract them for a few seconds to draw your weapon.

Quote:
And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

The guy I was talking about was a trained firearms expert. If someone was pointing anything other than a finger at him he would have shot them dead without hesitation. You're the "doofus" for pretending to know what your talking about.

Hello,

I have been avoiding commentary on this anectdote, but your final assertion here that the guy was a trained firearms expert is appalling.

The reason this is appalling to me, is that your friend ends his dramatic play by pointing a loaded gun at the other guy's face. This violates a fundamental rule of gun safety, i.e. Don't point your gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

Your ankle-holster expert seems to me to be immature and poorly trained. The correct thing to do would be to laugh and say, "You got me, all right," and move on with the party. Not enter into some kind of macho drama that ends with a loaded gun in some guy's face.

In real life, people's hands don't metamorph into guns. In real life, they draw their weapons from somewhere. In real life, your friends and acquaintences probably CAN kill you without much warning if they want to, but you're probably keeping your eye on strangers. In real life, you don't rely on a carefully rehearsed drama to cover your ass. In real life, an ankle holster is useless if someone IS standing in front of you, pointing a gun at you. And I hope to God in real life, trained firearms experts aren't as idiotic and immature as your example here.

I apologize if I sound caustic. I am a firearms advocate, and this story disturbed me on many levels.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:40 PM

"Weapons, be they guns, knives, teeth and claws, or a big rock are the inherant right of any living creature."

Damn it then ! I WANT MY NUKE ! WHY CAN'T I HAVE A NUKE ???!!!

***************************************************************
Even my DOG has a RIGHT to a NUKE !!!

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:46 PM

*sigh Lol You know the answer to that one, Rue. Because then there wouldnt be any more cats....and a lot of people like cats.....

ANTHONYT

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Weapons, be they guns, knives, teeth and claws, or a big rock are the inherant right of any living creature."

Damn it then ! I WANT MY NUKE ! WHY CAN'T I HAVE A NUKE ???!!!

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Hello,

Unlike some people, I am not prepared to advocate that the general populace be armed with missiles, bombs, rockets, etc.

IF the powers-that-be would agree that I have the right to arm myself in defense of my life and liberties, I would gladly work with them to enact reasonable training and destructive limits to the weapons I am allowed to carry.

I consider 'reasonable' to include force-matching to the local constabulary. My reasoning is that the constables and I must face the same criminal threats. They, by virtue of office, and me, by virtue of being the victim of criminal activity. Likewise, the constabulary is likely to be the front line in any effort to steal life and liberty from the citizenry.

I do not think it is practical or safe to force-match with the military.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Monday, January 7, 2008 4:57 PM

"Because then there wouldnt be any more cats....and a lot of people like cats....."
LOL That was funny !!

Just trying to point out the fallacy of that biologically-based argument.

There are all sorts of biological 'defenses' against predation that you (personally) don't recognize, and which have nothing at all to do with weapons. Breeding quickly, living where nothing else can, carrying around your own armor, being fast and running away, camouflage, losing then regenerating your body parts ... and so on.

And then of course, unless you specify which 'weapon' every living thing has a right to you could say a patch of moss has the 'right' to a 'nuke'. In fact, it makes the perfect example b/c they are so defensless on their own - just one little step below the helpless granny.

It's just, you know, not much of an argument.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:35 PM

Rue, thats circular logic and you know it. I wont spend the time debating whether lichen has the right to a nuke. (sheeesh)

I will say that every living thing has the right to whatever weapon is at hand (and best for any situation) in order to defend itself (up to, but NOT including mass genocide)

If a dog could handle a glock, and shot the dogcatcher....the dog would be in the right. But unfotunatly....no opposable thumb.

Now Rue, riddle me this....why is that so-called Liberals, are always clamboring for more government control? Shouldnt', as LIBERALS, you be crying for less? Or is it only for the things you want to have?

RUE

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:39 PM

Wulfen

I can't help that your logic falls apart. You made a statement that you tried to back up with non-existant facts. Further, b/c that 'logic' is unbounded, you take that 'logic' to such an extreme it clearly becomes unsupportable.

When you're willing to discuss facts with logic, I'll be happy to join in. Till then I'll just keep poking holes in your silliness.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:45 PM

But according to your ideas.....(1) Noone should be armed. (2) Running away is the only option. (3) We should rely soley on our government for our safety.

Do I need to even begin pointing out the holes in ALL of those?

RUE

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:53 PM

1) " Noone should be armed." Never said that. I was arguing against the silliness that guns solve everything - by pointing out really nice safe and free places with few guns, and really nasty violent and oppressed places with lots of guns. I've been waiting for a cogent argument FOR guns that hasn't shown up yet. I'll certainly give it a read should one be posted.

2) "Running away is the only option." Never said that either. If you're using 'self-protection' as a 'reason' for guns, I was pointing out that running away is actually the safest option and is most consistent with self-protection. If you're arguing for guns as the top pick for safety, then there are other reason besides safety for you to choose them.

3) "We should rely soley on our government for our safety." Didn't even come close to that. Have you not read any of my methods for keeping myself and family safe ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, January 7, 2008 10:32 PM

"I've been waiting for a cogent argument FOR guns that hasn't shown up yet. I'll certainly give it a read should one be posted."

Dealer takes one, stands pat and calls.
Time to show YOUR hand, M'lady.

Concealed weapons permits on the rise
Feared problems don't materialize, crime data show
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS01/80107032
5

The Lansing State Journal tried, and tried, and tried, for MONTHs, but somehow no matter how they skewed the result, they could NOT make the argument that allowing CCW here did anything BUT reduce crime and violence.

I use the LSJ as example cause the Detroit "Free" Press and Detroit "News" are rather rabidly pro-gun and not an objective source on just about anything, up to and including retaining on payroll columnists who have admitted to taking bribes to write shill pieces for the current administration.

Even if they made a better case (which they might, if they have the same initial data), I would not use it, could not use it, at least not without disclaimer - because they fail to meet any standard of journalistic integrity.

The irony is that this is a Freep (Free Press) reporter carrying the data to the LSJ for a more honest assessment instead of their own.

I am also skeptical about John Lott, while he makes a good case, some of his own deeds and excesses make me question his integrity also, so I don't take his word without the initial data in hand to compare it to.

Problem with this issue is that most of the folks doing the research have their own biases and tend to contaminate the data, something you as a scientist can understand annoys the piss outta me.

I would no more accept the unsupported word of Mr. Lott on gun ownership and violence than I would that of Sarah Brady, and for much the same reason.

Still, I think we can file this small bit from the LSJ into evidence as exhibit A and note that in spite of 1-in-65 folks packin (legally, that would admit to it) and 130,000 new CCW permits since 2001... Michigan has not become the wild west, and crime has actually DECREASED overall.

I would really love to know the crime trend of Flint in particular during that time, by the evidence of living right next to it at the time, my own eyes and perceptions from residency and keeping informed via the local police blotters, it SEEMED to drop like a rock, but I don't have any hard evidence on that to give you.

Oh, and please remember the fact that due to my bum leg (wheelchair till the 20th) and poor health, I ain't RUNNIN nowhere, and confronting a passenger IN my vehicle trying to rob me also doesn't really offer that option - so for me the safest thing to do is make THEM go away, quickly... or shoot them, and of the two, I prefer convincing them to flee for their lives, heart pounding in terror, and rarely do I have to actually draw to do it.

"GODS! Tis a madman I've hunted!" - Dwarf Assassin
"Yeah, and a real repressed one too..." - Lusiphur Malanche.

-F

KIRKULES

Monday, January 7, 2008 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

Doesn't matter if you piss them off, the idea is just distract them for a few seconds to draw your weapon.

Quote:
And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

The guy I was talking about was a trained firearms expert. If someone was pointing anything other than a finger at him he would have shot them dead without hesitation. You're the "doofus" for pretending to know what your talking about.

Hello,

I have been avoiding commentary on this anectdote, but your final assertion here that the guy was a trained firearms expert is appalling.

The reason this is appalling to me, is that your friend ends his dramatic play by pointing a loaded gun at the other guy's face. This violates a fundamental rule of gun safety, i.e. Don't point your gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

Your ankle-holster expert seems to me to be immature and poorly trained. The correct thing to do would be to laugh and say, "You got me, all right," and move on with the party. Not enter into some kind of macho drama that ends with a loaded gun in some guy's face.

In real life, people's hands don't metamorph into guns. In real life, they draw their weapons from somewhere. In real life, your friends and acquaintences probably CAN kill you without much warning if they want to, but you're probably keeping your eye on strangers. In real life, you don't rely on a carefully rehearsed drama to cover your ass. In real life, an ankle holster is useless if someone IS standing in front of you, pointing a gun at you. And I hope to God in real life, trained firearms experts aren't as idiotic and immature as your example here.

I apologize if I sound caustic. I am a firearms advocate, and this story disturbed me on many levels.

--Anthony

I knew when I posted my story that my written communication skills were not adequate to describe this demonstration of drawing from an ankle holster adiquitly. Your just dead wrong if you think an ankle holstered weapon is useless when someone is facing you with a gun. I would have believed the same thing if I hadn't seen it demonstrated in person. You are assuming that the person holding the gun on you is proficient with their weapon, this is not usually the case. The assumption is that the person on the other end of the gun is not as well trained and will hesitate just a second before firing if you act like you are being submissive.

Also I believe it was Rue not me that said that this guy was my friend. None of my friends would point a loaded gun at another person unless they intended to shoot them. The guy doing the demonstration was a firearms expert, not a firearms safety expert. I was as appalled as anyone that he would point a loaded gun at anyone. Unfortunately there are a lot of firearms experts that have been trained in efficient killing methods that believe that their expertise overrides the need for basic gun safety.

As far as being "caustic", don't worry about it, I can be an idiot at times.

LEADB

Monday, January 7, 2008 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
... None of my friends would point a loaded gun at another person unless they intended to shoot them. The guy doing the demonstration was a firearms expert, not a firearms safety expert. I was as appalled as anyone that he would point a loaded gun at anyone. ...

I award two points to Kirkules.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did. He had his act down so good and had practiced drawing his weapon so much I believe he could have killed a large percentage of would be armed robbers.
Unlike Mal who pulls his gun and shoots, damnit. This is the movie cliche of the man who talked too much before pulling the trigger. Usually it's the bad guy; you've seen it a million times. So has your friend, but he didn't learn not to speechify before firing.

You should actually read my post for a little context before you make an idiot out of yourself like Rue. As I said, this event happened in casual conversation and the person was pointing their finger at him not a gun. Are you saying he should have shot the unarmed person in a demonstration instead of telling them they were dead. I know I'm a poor writer but it might help if you actually read what I posted.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 6:59 AM

No I read it. Your friend was describing what he would do if he'd been confronted, right? Including laughing at the "bad guys"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:05 AM

Quote:
Thats my point exactly. These measures being set up, are to PREVENT someone from organizing 5% of the population. I am of the opinion that it no longer matters WHO is in office.

I agree, but... What does it take ot organize 5% of the population into armed resistance, and 10% of the population into supporting it? (According to various military manuals it takes at least 15% of the population to support a successful insurgency.)

Well, you have to control the media, at least get a word in edgewise, or develop your own media. Because most people sit in front of the boob toob day after day, saturated with the message that buying a new car is akin to buying freedom.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No I read it. Your friend was describing what he would do if he'd been confronted, right? Including laughing at the "bad guys"?

Try reading it again more slowly. What I said was "As the person holding the finger on him was laughing". In real life the person holding the gun on him might not laugh, but it doesn't matter if they hesitate even for a second.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE