What the Man Who Brought His Assault Rifle to Obama Townhall Heard the Day Before
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 20:40
VIEWED: 33164
PAGE 1 of 2
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gospel-hate-arizona-pastor-ste
ve-and
Excerpt from the above article:
Most disturbing of all, you can hear him, in his Aug. 16 sermon titled "I Hate Barack Obama," not only openly avow his complete and utter hatred of the president, but openly wish for his death -- because of his support for abortion rights and the "lewdness" he supposedly has brought to American society.
His key motif, inspired by one of King David's imprecatory prayers against his enemies, is to compare Obama to a slug or snail and wishing he could pour salt on him:
Quote:
Yeah, God appointed him to destroy this country for the wickedness of the United States of America. God appointed him because that's what our country has turned into. That's who we deserve as a president.
But let me tell you something: I don't love Barack Obama. I don't respect Barack Obama. I don't obey Barack Obama. And I'd like Barack Obama to melt like a snail tonight. Because he needs to recompense, he needs to reap what he's sown.
You see, any Christian will tell you that someone who commits murder should get the death penalty. Because that's what it says in Genesis Chapter 9, that's what it says in the Mosaic Law, that's what it teaches us throughout the Bible. 'Who so sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.' 'From the image of God created he Man.'
And when Barack Obama is gonna push his partial birth abortion, his salty saline solution abortion, hey, he deserves to be punished for what he's done. I'm not going to pray for God to bless Barack Obama. This is my prayer tonight to Barack Obama.
...Now, look, if somebody wants me, it somebody twisted my arm and tells me to pray for Barack Obama, this is what I'm going to pray, because this is the only prayer that applies to him: 'Break his teeth, O God, in his mouth. You know, as a snail which melteth, let him pass away. Like the untimely birth of a woman, that he thinks -- he calls it a woman's right to choose, you know, he thinks it's so wonderful. He ought to be aborted. It ought to be, 'Abort Obama.'
He goes on to equate Obama with Hitler, Stalin, and Jeffrey Dahmer. Then he explains:
Quote:
You say why are you preaching this, you know what? Because it makes me mad. I'm mad. I don't know about you, but I'm fed up tonight. I'm angry tonight. Because I'm angered by a bunch of preachers who want to sit back, and let America go to hell, let our freedoms go to hell, let the souls of Americans go to hell, and we all just sit back and just, we're comfortable, we're lazy, we're lukewarm, we're neither cold nor hot, and we want to come to church and have our ears tickled. Hey! This isn't to tickle your ears, it's to give you a swift kick in the pants tonight! 'Cuz that's what you need every once in awhile!
... But I'm here to tell you tonight, that God is a God of wrath and vengeance. And that's the message that oughta be thundering from every pulpit in America today. People oughta be trembling today. People in America oughta be scared to death and trembling! And saying, 'Oh God! What are you gonna do to our country?! Oh, God! Are we gonna be able to survive?! Oh, God! Are you gonna allow us to go into the depths of socialism, and communism with Barack Obama!?'
Anderson goes on to mangle Obama's personal history, buying whole into the "birther" mythology that Obama was actually born in Kenya (using a bevy of racist stereotypes along the way), and then says that people like Obama are "so wicked" that they become "animals" who are "not human" and "past feeling."
That leads to this:
Quote:
Let me tell you something: Barack Obama has wrought lewdness in America. America has become lewd. What does lewd mean? L-E-W-D? [Pause] Obscene. Right? Dirty. Filthy. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. All of the -- everything that's on the billboard, the TV. Sensuality. Lewdness! We don't even know what lewdness means anymore! We're just surrounded by it, inundated with it!
... And yet you're going to tell me that I'm supposedNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Y'all still think it's about the 2A???
You see a black man with a gun and immediately assume he's up to no good. That's kinda wrong.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08182009/news/nationalnews/protester_busts
_out_the_big_gun_for_obam_185147.htm
In fact is was not about the 2nd Amendement. It was about Arizona law that allows them to carry weapons. 2nd Amendment was not even a consideration.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"If we allow one American to exercise his Constitutional rights, then all Americans might want to exercise their Constitutional rights...."
Note that The Young Turks refers to genocide in Armenia by "Young Turks" (Khazar JEWS)...
www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html
www.khazaria.com
Good Turk Sibel Edmunds video depostion about 9/11 Truth and Armenian Genocide:
www.infowars.com/sibel-edmonds-deposition-video-and-transcript-release
d/
All gun owners should open carry at all times in all places, and file lawsuits to overturn illegal gun bans on govt property citing DC v Heller.
Yesterday on TV news in Knoxville TV, a "news" report (advertising placement or damage control?) discussed a protest against "genocide" by abortion doctors, by flying airplane banners and large trucks driving around with very large photos of aborted fetuses.
This is the same preacher beaten and tazed by US Border Patrol 100s of miles from the border.
I'd like to ride my motorcycle with an "assault" rifle strapped to my back. I'm going with the Mad Max Roadwarrior theme.
media.photobucket.com/image/motorcycle%20carry%20rifle/SouthLink/armedrider.jpg
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would much rather have this douch spewing his idiocy out in the open, then behind closed doors.
Seriously, Im ALL for the 1st amendment. That way you know who to avoid.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeaaaaaah, okay. I still say you can't say EVERYONE protesting health care reform is like this, or even everyone bringing guns to the debate are, but I'll definitely grant you that this pastor, and the man who listened to him, that wasn't about the 2nd Amendment.
I'd also like to note that it isn't very Christianly to pray for someone to die and go to hell, and that anyone who combines religion with politics (or vice versa) is an asswipe. I thought some things were supposed to be sacred.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Y'all still think it's about the 2A???
HK, I think you are reading it all wrong. He was actually *celebrating* his new freedom... in a life threatening manner.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not that I agree with the following statement...
"Be of the world, but not in it."
It seems to me that this is saying that religious folks should stay out of all politics...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"HK, I think you are reading it all wrong. He was actually *celebrating* his new freedom... in a life threatening manner."
Carrying a loaded firearm out in the open is "life threatening"? How so?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"HK, I think you are reading it all wrong. He was actually *celebrating* his new freedom... in a life threatening manner."
Carrying a loaded firearm out in the open is "life threatening"? How so?
Trip, bang, dead. Whoopsie!
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I think more about it, I admit there is a place for a religious leader in trying to offer moral advice to his congregation. That is one of their functions.
But I believe this is an example of that function being corrupted. In times of anger, fear, and anger, a priest should be offering a voice of calm. They may still call their flock to action, and by no means do they need to be a doormat, so long as they advocate determined resistance. A priest who supports violence... Can they really be considered a priest?
I think that combining politics and religion may inherently be dangerous, because it may lead the priest to endorsing a stance that may be clouded by his OWN anger.
I suppose I'm just more opposed to fire and brimstone and lepers than anything else.
But something I do, honestly hate seeing is people whose beliefs are NOT strong, using religion to shill out themselves or their ideas. You can tell people who are fakes, the people who seem to tack on God to their arguments, who lead into their testimony poorly, like they're just trying to work it in somehow to get a reaction from their audience. That is the worst form of manipulation, and that debases religion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Trip, bang, dead. Whoopsie!
That's more of an accident I think than an intentional threat, though an accident can be life-threatening.
I guess in this case you have to ask yourself where you draw the line. Everything really has some risk, waking up every morning could be deadly.
I can only consider someone a threat if there is intent to wound or kill. Drawing a firearm without intent to use it is not necessarily a threat. Intimidating by saying or showing that you have a gun is different from saying or showing that you have a gun and you plan to shoot.
A thing may only be a hazard, not a threat. A gun is a hazard. Just like a car is potentially a hazard.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
Trip, bang, dead. Whoopsie!
I can only consider someone a threat if there is intent to wound or kill. Drawing a firearm without intent to use it is not necessarily a threat. Intimidating by saying or showing that you have a gun is different from saying or showing that you have a gun and you plan to shoot.
A thing may only be a hazard, not a threat. A gun is a hazard. Just like a car is potentially a hazard.
I wasn't being real serious since it's pretty useless trying to debate with Wulf or other "gun folk."
Guns are designed to kill, and most of them to kill people, not many other uses really. Cars are not designed to kill people. And commence the silly arguments in 3... 2... 1...
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"He was actually *celebrating* his new freedom..."
Hello,
I can only imagine this is lobbed in my direction, and if I'm mistaken, my apologies. But if I'm not mistaken, it simply shows a willful disregard for my statements on the matter, and a re-interpretation of my words that makes for a witty, staw-stuffed one-liner.
In any event, I do have a singular concern.
If one of these gentlemen accidentally or on purpose fires off a round from one of their fine firearms, I am fairly sure the entire nation will rally to clamp down on my freedoms.
Of course, fear over losing my freedoms is not sufficient for me to pre-emptively surrender them, or take them from others.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
3...2...1...
Guns were originally designed to hunt....
Then someone realized... hey, if I can kill that charging bear, then I can ALSO kill that charging knight....
Btw Piz, ever been to a firing range? Or the NRA... safest place in the world....
3....2....1...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree about a lot of this. I think a bunch of people (because the numbers WILL grow, crowds are followers) all carrying guns is just plain stupid. It makes for more and more possibility of mayhem. An angry crowd can do a lot of damage WITHOUT guns; imagine one WITH!
Something else that's not been noted. For each person carrying a gun at a Presidential event, it takes several Secret Service to watch the guy and make sure he doesn't intend harm. How many Secret Service personnel does that require? How many will be otherwise engaged than watching the President? What DOES (because it's already happening) it cost us, the public, to keep all those guys active? There will be overtime, it will require hiring more Secret Service eventually, and on and on.
It's a threat, pure and simple, especially given so far the only people they've made note of are those with extreme viewpoints, ties to militias and churches advocating stuff like this.
You have only to look at the cases of drunks pulled over by police who fight back to know that it puts the police in just that more danger to have potential ARMED drunks running around. And there will be. Just as there are people driving around whose licenses have been suspended, in an open-carry place, you will have people running around with guns displayed openly who've had problems before and cannot legally carry a gun. It's inevitable.
What's totally inevitable is bad things happening, aside from Presidential events. Humans and guns inevitably lead to problems. It will only be a matter of time.
The last thing I want to see is a lot of people wandering around carrying guns. I have nothing against guns; I have a LOT against humans carrying them around openly.
I also abhor religious leaders such as this. I don't like organized religion, period, because of the power it gives a few to supposedly "interpret" the religion to their followers, who accept what they say as the "word of God". I'm buddhist myself, which is a philosophy more than a religion, and means we have no "god" and no "preachers". Religion throughout history has been misused to gain power, money, fame, etc., and too often reflects the prejudices of the authority figure, not the religion. You have only to look at Islam to see perfect examples.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"He was actually *celebrating* his new freedom..."
Hello,
I can only imagine this is lobbed in my direction, and if I'm mistaken, my apologies. But if I'm not mistaken, it simply shows a willful disregard for my statements on the matter, and a re-interpretation of my words that makes for a witty, staw-stuffed one-liner.
In any event, I do have a singular concern.
If one of these gentlemen accidentally or on purpose fires off a round from one of their fine firearms, I am fairly sure the entire nation will rally to clamp down on my freedoms.
Of course, fear over losing my freedoms is not sufficient for me to pre-emptively surrender them, or take them from others.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
On the nosie. I don't disregard your statements, I disagree with them, and I keep poking with a stick because I am honestly confounded by their imho lack of logic and perspective - and especially since I have considered the majority of your posts to be very insightful and levelheaded. That just seems to go a bit wonky when guns are introduced, as in "hater with a gun at Obama rally = new freedom."
I do understand your singular concern - if one of these folks, "on purpose fires off a round from one of their fine firearms, I am fairly sure the entire nation will rally to clamp down on my freedoms."
- I think it a bit broad for you to equate losing your gun with losing "freedoms." Maybe just syntax, but it sounds fake lofty.
- I find it telling that the first concern to the above scenario is how it will affect your gun ownership and not if anyone (say the president) had been shot and killed and how do we prevent that in the future.
I don't want to take your freedom to own guns. I would have cheered if pro gun folk went over to this knuckle dragger and "persuaded" him to remove his gun (at a health care rally) and show some respect and common sense. Can you imagine the PR points you would have scored?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think trying to argue that guns are not designed to kill is foolish. There are a few guns that are not designed to kill (target pistols, mostly) but the general technology of firearms is such that killing or maiming is very much the point. (Four-legged or two-legged animals, your choice.)
It is of course completely unimportant what something is designed to do. We all know that, barring nuclear armaments, you can do as much or more damage with devices NOT designed to kill. Vehicles are among these devices. A simple pocket lighter, $5 bicycle chain, and inexpensive lock will do as well.
It is equally true that the vast majority of guns in this country, designed to kill as they may be, will never be used for their designed purpose. The overwhelming majority of guns will never even be pointed at a living creature.
I continue to maintain that the real problem people have with firearms has nothing to do with the firearms themselves. It has to do with abject terror regarding their fellow human beings. This terror is ignorant of the manifold dangers that surround us, but rest assured that each time something is proved dangerous, these same people will step in to add safeguards, mandate new safety procedures, and limit who can purchase or operate the offending technology.
So one should not feel singled out, if one is a gun owner. In England, people can not carry knives with them. This is because knives can and have been used as weapons. In fact, you can not carry any object that could be construed as a weapon. If a lady stabs an assailant with her knitting needles, she is subject to potential penalty under the law. The need for safety, based on the inherent horrific dangers of human beings, knows no bounds.
There are consequently only two logical conclusions.
1) Constrain all human beings under such weighty blankets of laws, regulations, tests, and other safeguards and proofs of mental and physical competence that incidents of violence or accidental death are minimized. Tighten those laws, regulations, tests, safeguards, and proofs whenever a hole is found in the system. You must necessarily assign people to watch over these laws, regulations, tests, safeguards, and proofs who are, by law, partially exempt from them. A special class of citizen with special powers who can be trusted to protect us all. After extensive testing and training, of course.
2) Loosen such laws, regulations, tests, and other safeguards, and proofs. Certainly there will be dangerous humans amongst us, and certainly people will die. But there will generally be more safe humans than dangerous ones, and they will generally balance the equation. There will also need to be people who watch over even the loose laws, regulations, etc. However, their powers, rights, and responsibilities will be very similar to everyone else's.
Some may argue a third option, which is a healthy balance between 1 and 2. Perhaps option 1.5.
However, even option 1 tends to gravitate inexorably towards 2. Somewhere, sometime, someone bad does something bad with one thing or another, or someone good has a bad accident, and then the frighteners start up.
"You can't trust people to be responsible," they cry out, "there oughta be a law."
And then they rush to sell all our rights. Not out of fear of guns, my friends. Rather out of fear of you. And me. And all of us.
Herbert was onto something, in that weird little sci-fi opus of his.
Fear is the Mind-Killer.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
"I would have cheered if pro gun folk went over to this knuckle dragger and "persuaded" him to remove his gun (at a health care rally) and show some respect and common sense. Can you imagine the PR points you would have scored?"
The most I can do is tell you that the man is an idiot who is undermining his own point.
But 'persuading' (intimidating, forcing, using coercion) him to surrender his legal rights might win PR points with you, but it loses Just Action points with me. I mean honestly, Obama is smart enough not to 'persuade' this guy. Shall I be the idgit, then?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Btw Piz, ever been to a firing range? Or the NRA... safest place in the world....
Yep, fired guns, 22s, a 44 magnum (I was a Dirty Harry fan in high school) and a 10 gauge shotgun my dad owned.
Silly Wulf - People don't go to a target range to kill people - they go there to hone their skills so they can kill better.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So very true...
They don't fear the guns (or the knives) they fear the people operating them.
It comes down, I guess, to how you see humanity. Do you believe that people should be free, and that the light will balance the dark? That evil will always be challenged by good?
Or, are we ALL just dangerous animals, never to be trusted, never to be believed, and never to be any better?
I choose the former. But thats just me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
"I would have cheered if pro gun folk went over to this knuckle dragger and "persuaded" him to remove his gun (at a health care rally) and show some respect and common sense. Can you imagine the PR points you would have scored?"
The most I can do is tell you that the man is an idiot who is undermining his own point.
But 'persuading' (intimidating, forcing, using coercion) him to surrender his legal rights might win PR points with you, but it loses Just Action points with me. I mean honestly, Obama is smart enough not to 'persuade' this guy. Shall I be the idgit, then?
--Anthony
Talking some sense into him, ala "you are being an idiot and you are undermining your own and OUR point" is better, definitely. I would gladly spend some of those just action points if it meant the NRA shuffled this guy out - that would have been huge.
I think where you and I disagree is you see Freedoms as absolutes, black and white, and I see them being grayer, more open for interpretation.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I can only consider someone a threat if there is intent to wound or kill.
I take it then that you don't consider drunk drivers a threat? After all, if I drive home absolutely blitzed, it's not my INTENT to wound or kill - that's just an unintended byproduct, and as you say, accidents happen...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Or, are we ALL just dangerous animals, never to be trusted, never to be believed, and never to be any better?
I don't know - are we? Isn't that pretty much word for word how you described inner-city youth, as vile scum who can't be helped or educated?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think where you and I disagree is you see Freedoms as absolutes, black and white, and I see them being grayer, more open for interpretation."
That, right there, explains the HUGE divide between the right and the left. And to those for and against the right to bear arms. And the criminal justice system. And, hell, just about everything else.
(I'm the absolutes type, but I have to admit you just opened my eyes to why the points of freedom never get across to those of the more "liberal" standing.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A drunk driving incident is an accident as well, though I really see it more as a case for criminal neglect of the brain.
I never said there shouldn't be repercussions against accidents, only that trying to write laws to protect against any possible danger isn't worth it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Guns were originally designed to hunt....
And silly putty was designed as an explosive.
Things change.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Trip, bang, dead. Whoopsie!
Umm, you DO realize modern internal safeties make that all but impossible, right ?
You can toss most handguns off a ten story building and they STILL won't go bang when they land - most especially anything with a transfer bar safety unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_(firearms) <- Add manually
Anthony
Quote:
I continue to maintain that the real problem people have with firearms has nothing to do with the firearms themselves. It has to do with abject terror regarding their fellow human beings. This terror is ignorant of the manifold dangers that surround us, but rest assured that each time something is proved dangerous, these same people will step in to add safeguards, mandate new safety procedures, and limit who can purchase or operate the offending technology.
Exactly it, or WOULD be, if folks had any sense.
A pistol sitting on a table scares people - WHY?!
That's freakin STUPID, it's an OBJECT, inanimate matter with no will of it's own, a TOOL and no more.
And yet people focus their fears on the weapon, instead of the doofus holding it, who if he *really wanted to harm you*, wouldn't need the damn thing to accomplish it, would he now ?
Especially if YOU had no means but to stand him off other than politely requesting he hold his water while you call 911 and wait for the cops to maybe arrive, IF they don't just give you a report number for the record and hang up, pffth.
Me, I prefer a stronger argument at hand in such an eventuality, and having one, simply do not find threat in other people whatever, but I also don't feel fear in the conventional sense either, so your mileage may vary.
I ain't too concerned about a kitchen fire, or flat tire neither, and WHY ?
Cause I got something on hand to deal with it, and to me, a weapon is no more, and no less, a tool for an unlikely situation which over the course of a lifetime is likely enough to prepare for, cause should it occur, you'll very much WANT something to mitigate it.
Ponder this, especially those of you young enough to remember well when you were below the "magic number" and could NOT be legally armed...
If you found yourself out in the boonies fifteen miles from nowhere with a flat, dead cellphone battery and a broken jack - you'd make damn, DAMN sure that NEVER HAPPENED AGAIN, right ?
How many of you suffered a potentially fatal stompdown, or at least the very credible threat of one, while you were still below that "magic number" ?
Do you wanna live in that fear FOREVER ?
No, of course not, but look at your answers...
Disarm everyone ELSE for YOUR safety - what a selfish, malicious thought that is, when you strip the bullshit off.
Or allow folk the means to defend themselves ?
The evils of the world are going to do what they are going to do, your words on paper are no armor against their blows, your gun-free zone will not bend the laws of reality to protect you, all that they will do is force the unwilling compliance of the law abiding people that would never be a threat to you anyway, and provide a handy resource pool of unarmed and defenseless victims for predators - nature doesn't give a fuck what you THINK, what you BELIEVE....
You wanna test that, go find a couple of herds of prey animals in the wild, pick one and remove it's natural defenses - then write an order forbidding it's predators from preying on that herd, stick it to a tree, maybe hire a goon or two with a rifle to try enforcing it...
End result would be about as obvious as it is stupid.
WHEN your piece of paper can stop a creepers shiv, WHEN your gun-free zone can magically repel anyone carrying, THEN you can discuss this with me without being viciously insulted in much the same fashion I would insult someone who persists in telling me the earth is flat.
Till then, pound sand.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think where you and I disagree is you see Freedoms as absolutes, black and white, and I see them being grayer, more open for interpretation."
Hello,
I think you're right. Oh, I'm not quite as Libertarian as some of my Libertarian bretheren, mind you. I actually do believe in some laws that others might find distasteful. And, in a world where there wasn't opposition to the right to bear arms, I'd actually be willing to set up some common sense regulation for safety's sake. I've found, though, that every inch becomes a mile, and I wish it wasn't so. I'd much prefer to be reasonable than absolutist.
And I want you to know something. I respect people like you. I know you're not trying to hurt me. I know you simply think about the world in different ways than I do. If I loudly proclaim my disagreement, it isn't out of some wild-eyed hatred for you or even your position. It's just to make sure I'm heard and understood.
At the end of the day, I think we both want a better world. We just disagree on the route.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems to me there's something in the laws and tax codes regarding churches losing their tax-exempt status when they start electioneering and politicking.
Maybe it's time these socialists and societal leeches start ponying up and paying their fair share, eh?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally preached by some worthless douchebag:
"You see, any Christian will tell you that someone who commits murder should get the death penalty. Because that's what it says in Genesis Chapter 9, that's what it says in the Mosaic Law, that's what it teaches us throughout the Bible. 'Who so sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.' 'From the image of God created he Man.'
And when Barack Obama is gonna push his partial birth abortion, his salty saline solution abortion, hey, he deserves to be punished for what he's done. I'm not going to pray for God to bless Barack Obama. This is my prayer tonight to Barack Obama."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a perpetual-motion death machine? I mean, if you commit murder, you're to be put to death. What about the executioner? Who puts him to death?
Also, why is Dubya still breathing, if any of this is true? And why are the "pro-life" anti-choice crowd who urge people to murder doctors still alive? Why haven't they been put to death?
For that matter, why hasn't your "god" been put to death for murdering so many?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"God appointed him to destroy this country for the wickedness of the United States of America. God appointed him because that's what our country has turned into. That's who we deserve as a president."
Hello,
This was the singular most remarkable part of the speech/sermon, in my opinion.
The preacher has declared the Obama presidency to be the Will of God.
And all ye who oppose God's will shall surely be cast into the fire and darkness, yea. ;-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was gonna join this PR thread, except Com[]cast cut off my broadband when I typed the words Khaz[]ar and Arm[en]ian geno[c]ide. Note that all dictionaries defenee sem[]ite as ARAB not j[]ew.
During the Revolutionary War, all preachers required all men to bring their assault rifles to church. That was The Law.
Today most preachers are employed by the anti-semitic je[]wish babylonian kha[]zar ashke[n]azi private foreign "Federal" Reserve Bank scam, via 501c3 contract with its private IRS collection agency. This contract requires preachers to their sermons and censor the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, in order to keep their license to launder money as tax-exempt donations.
Over 40,000 preachers are now employed by salary from US Dept of Homeland Security, formerly run by khaz][ar j[]ew Michael "Son of the Devil" Chertoff. These preachers are required to lie to their sheeple that vaccines, gun-bans and martial law are good for you.
Most preachers are also Satanic Freemasons, which is a je[]wish weapon to infiltrate civilized nations and Christian churches (and all other religions) for the je[]wish banksters, after the Knights Templar banksters got burned at the stake. Christianity, Islam and Jud[]aism ban loansharking, so je[]ws banned the Torah and adopted the Baby[]lonian Talm[]ud, and were the only people allowed to be banksters in Europe.
Now those same banksters have stolen $25-trillion from the US Govt via the Pedophile Protection Bankster Bailout Act, and are overthrowing USA with gay Communist illegal alien drug-dealing terrorist Hussein Barry Sotoro who is NOT president of anything.
THIS
IS
WAR
Quote:
"Sh1t's gettin way too complicated for me. There are white folks, and then there are ignorant mutherfuc][kers like you! You can put lipstick on a pig. Sorry as$ mutherfuc[]ker's got nuttin on me. I inhaled frequently - that was the point. Pot helped, and booze. A little blow when you could afford it. Junkie, pothead. That's where I'd been headed. You ain't my bitch nig[]ger, git your own dam[n fries!"
-Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro, Dreams From My Father
www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/
PS: I do support concentration camps for all Obama voters, and all Bush voters, and all Clinton voters. Under US Code, the punishment for treason is death.
I think I'll go stand in my backyard and shoot my assault rifle now.
www.globemagazine.com/story/379
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jesus, dude... calm down.
Part of the war is image.... you go off half-cocked, youll end up giving us all a bad image.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I do get nervous when I imagine people like Piratenews showing up to presidential speeches and debates with firearms. But I wouldn't take his gun from him. There's no law against crazy, or saying stuff that is bat-guano nuts. As long as you're not a verifiable danger to yourself or others, you get to keep your rights. So I wouldn't even disarm Pirate, here. If that ain't a commitment to freedom, I don't know what is.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I think where you and I disagree is you see Freedoms as absolutes, black and white, and I see them being grayer, more open for interpretation."
That, right there, explains the HUGE divide between the right and the left. And to those for and against the right to bear arms. And the criminal justice system. And, hell, just about everything else.
(I'm the absolutes type, but I have to admit you just opened my eyes to why the points of freedom never get across to those of the more "liberal" standing.)
Most of the people who claim to balieve in "absolutes" absolutely don't believe in them, Wulfie. They're very much in the "pro-murder" category (as witnessed by their overwhelming supoport for the Iraq war), yet they abhor abortion as "murder", and say they value all life. Except they don't value life - they value SAYING they value life. They pay lip service to their "beliefs" on a daily basis around here. They love democracy, but they want to shoot the President because they didn't vote for him, or they want him deposed because he's "not American" enough for them, because he had different beliefs than they do on some things.
You value "freedom"? How about the freedom to decide whether or not to have children? How about the freedom to decide whether or not to have a national healthcare policy? No, Wulfie, you only value the freedoms that YOU value, and you absolutely (there's that pesky word again...) despise the idea of other people exercising THEIR freedoms to do things you don't like.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Jesus, dude... calm down.
Part of the war is image.... you go off half-cocked, youll end up giving us all a bad image.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Okay, that was just TOO funny!
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Many preachers made public prayors and sermons seeking the sudden death of George W Bush. Especially conservative Republican preachers, also citing Bushes' support for aborticide of $50-million murdered US citizens.
US Ambassador Alan Keyes got 999,801 views for calling Obama an "Obamination", Communist, genocidal maniac and illegal alien...
CIA agent Barry Sotoro also genocided 1,000 black people and burned down 900 Christian churches in his home nation of British Kenya, for his Communist terrorist cousin Odingo, using $1-million of his presidential campaign bribes.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But I wouldn't take his gun from him. There's no law against crazy...
But oddly enough, there ARE laws against crazies owning guns...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But oddly enough, there ARE laws against crazies owning guns...
Mike"
Hello Mike,
There aren't yet in most places that allow firearms at all, thank God.
You need to demonstrate that you are a danger to yourself or others to lose your rights, so far. Just being crazy ain't enough. You also have to be dangerous.
Unfortunately, the gun control crowd is plugging away at this. They want any mental illness put into a nationwide database that has to be checked before gun ownership. Not just the dangerous people. Anyone with any mental problem. I'm sure they'll get it sorted eventually. Then you can disarm anyone by declaring them to have any one of a thousand minor mental illnesses.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Trip, bang, dead. Whoopsie!
Umm, you DO realize modern internal safeties make that all but impossible, right ?
You can toss most handguns off a ten story building and they STILL won't go bang when they land - most especially anything with a transfer bar safety unit.
Yeah totally get that. Ask Plaxico Burris if he gets it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A pistol sitting on a table scares people - WHY?!
That's freakin STUPID, it's an OBJECT, inanimate matter with no will of it's own, a TOOL and no more.
And yet people focus their fears on the weapon, instead of the doofus holding it, who if he *really wanted to harm you*, wouldn't need the damn thing to accomplish it, would he now ?
I am completely focused on the doofus with a gun. A doofus without a gun is just a doofus, and a gun is just as you say, a tool - I'm right there with you. A doofus at an Obama rally with a gun... ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Especially if YOU had no means but to stand him off other than politely requesting he hold his water while you call 911 and wait for the cops to maybe arrive, IF they don't just give you a report number for the record and hang up, pffth.
Me, I prefer a stronger argument at hand in such an eventuality, and having one, simply do not find threat in other people whatever, but I also don't feel fear in the conventional sense either, so your mileage may vary.
I ain't too concerned about a kitchen fire, or flat tire neither, and WHY ?
Cause I got something on hand to deal with it, and to me, a weapon is no more, and no less, a tool for an unlikely situation which over the course of a lifetime is likely enough to prepare for, cause should it occur, you'll very much WANT something to mitigate it.
Our mileage does indeed vary - I have had a very different background that what I gather you have had - I live in place where I'm not so afraid for my safety that I feel the need to buy a gun, a dog is plenty. I wish you didn't feel the need too as well, but that's a fantasy, some places are just more dangerous than others. It's too bad all we can do in those places is arm ourselves and listen at the door.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Disarm everyone ELSE for YOUR safety - what a selfish, malicious thought that is, when you strip the bullshit off.
Or allow folk the means to defend themselves ?
The evils of the world are going to do what they are going to do, your words on paper are no armor against their blows, your gun-free zone will not bend the laws of reality to protect you, all that they will do is force the unwilling compliance of the law abiding people that would never be a threat to you anyway, and provide a handy resource pool of unarmed and defenseless victims for predators - nature doesn't give a fuck what you THINK, what you BELIEVE....
You wanna test that, go find a couple of herds of prey animals in the wild, pick one and remove it's natural defenses - then write an order forbidding it's predators from preying on that herd, stick it to a tree, maybe hire a goon or two with a rifle to try enforcing it...
End result would be about as obvious as it is stupid.
WHEN your piece of paper can stop a creepers shiv, WHEN your gun-free zone can magically repel anyone carrying, THEN you can discuss this with me without being viciously insulted in much the same fashion I would insult someone who persists in telling me the earth is flat.
Till then, pound sand.
-Frem
More rational debate from gun folk... "pound sand" super. This is usually where these discussions end.
Fwiw I absolutely agree with you elsewhere, "gun free" zones are a joke, something bureaucrats came up with to make it look like they're doing something about gun violence.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rights come from God, not a gubmint employee.
Open Carry laws by state
http://opencarry.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry
What is it about some guys that makes them pee their pants when they see a gun or a pretty girl?
www.girlsandguns.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Do you really think you can dismiss Frem's post as being illogical or unreasonable because he said 'pound sand?' Or that 'pound sand' is somehow indicative of gun advocate arguments general failure? It's an expression of frustration. It amounts to saying, "No." By God, man, you really do go at these things with tweezers and pull out the tiny bits you think you can criticize while disregarding the well reasoned whole.
The creation of Doofus Free Zones is of greater potential danger to freedom than Gun Free Zones. Plus a great many of the enforcers of such a zone wouldn't be allowed inside. Including quite a few Commanders In Chief. I doubt you are advocating a Doofus Free Zone. Are you?
If not, then you've expressed not an iota of actual difference of opinion with Frem's argument, other than, you know, you don't like 'pound sand.'
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
It is of course completely unimportant what something is designed to do. We all know that, barring nuclear armaments, you can do as much or more damage with devices NOT designed to kill. Vehicles are among these devices. A simple pocket lighter, $5 bicycle chain, and inexpensive lock will do as well.
Sorry I missed this originally - This is what I'm talking about, this kind of absolution of The Gun.
Sure, I can kill with a coat hanger, but it's a lot easier if I use a tool designed for the job. If killing someone is my desire, what am I going to choose most often?
It feels designed to deflect responsibility - if gun owners "owned it," instead of making these arguments, it might be the beginning of a real debate.
But I get it - not going to happen - you don't trust the other side, too risky.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, nice bikini.
I'm actually not that into guns, or girls, but she's pretty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony
I am still waitin for em to consider "not taking other peoples shit" as a mental disorder.
Oh, wait, they did, didn't they ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
And since I have a few minutes and a major axe to grind, hell, imma grind it.
Might wanna duck now.
Seriously.
*Channels Childhood*
Quote:
1. often loses temper
Gee, couldn't have anything to do with just how RIDICULOUS the adult world is from a childs point of view - why am I supposed to hate that person for the shade of their skin, why is our god better than theirs, why does everyone treat me like a housepet ?
2. often argues with adults
Oh yeah, cause adults are NEVER wrong, or immoral, or blame kids for stuff THEY do since they have force majeure, cause kids aren't PEOPLE, you know, they're not ALLOWED to have an opinion..
3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
Maybe they don't WANT to shun the darker/lighter person, maybe they think the pledge of allegiance is bullshit, maybe they don't WANT to meekly submit to being physically pounded on for some minor infraction cause their parent had a bad day and plans to take it out on them.
4. often deliberately annoys people
Oh yes, cause how dare they actually HAVE FUN, what a crime it is to MAKE NOISE, or even worse, a mess, oh noes, they're not a good little obedient, silent robot drone, what a tragedy.
5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
Oh yeah, sure, and "all children are lying manipulators" too, yep, evil right out of the cradle and those adults are never, ever wrong or immoral, besides, it's not like they get a say anyway, they're not HUMAN, not PEOPLE, just kids, right ?
6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
Well of course, can't have them thinking they have RIGHTS, that they might be entitled to personal space, or privacy, or simple common decency, they should know their place, right ?
7. is often angry and resentful
Yeah cause having the shit beaten out of you should make you happy, it's emotionally healthy don't you know, and being regarded as little more than a housepet isn't gonna upset anyone is it now ?
8. is often spiteful or vindictive
But oh heavens why ? I mean, what do they have to be upset about, besides, it's not like they're HUMAN is it, not like they have FEELINGS, they're just kids, they'll get over it, pffth!
And yet people wonder where the mass social psychosis that leads to these problems comes from.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Open Carry of loaded firearms is normal at govt meetings in Tennessee, and Congress critters dont pee their pants:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum50/29990.html
The creepiest part of open carry is gubmint employees brandishing loaded shotguns and pistols at police stations and court houses. Ever had a loaded gun put to your head for driving 65 mph on an interstate?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Of course people will choose the best available tool for a job. If that job is killing people, they will identify all available tools, and choose the best one. That tool will frequently be a gun. Not always. But frequently.
If I want to kill you clandestinely, I might not choose a gun. Silencers aren't always readily available, and they tend to be bulky. Some serial killers use guns, but a lot don't, and I think part of the reason for that is the noise of an un-silenced pistol and the bulkiness of a silenced one.
The point we are trying to make, and that you seem to be failing to own up to, is that when people can't get what they want, they frequently improvise. A 180 pound man can afford to improvise a brick to the head of a 100 pound woman. Or a lead pipe. Or a knife. Or, really, he could just use his bare hands and still be at a probable advantage. The person who truly and earnestly needs a weapon is the 100 pound woman. A gun is a good equalizer.
I mean, honestly, have you ever refused to eat something because you had a dull knife instead of a sharp one? Did you ever starve to death because of a lack of proper eating utensils?
Have you ever used a pair of pliers in lieu of a wrench? Did you ever make a funnel out of a piece of paper? Did you ever use anything as a hammer that wasn't a hammer? Pick up a towel and use it like an oven-mitt? Have you ever improvised an imperfect but suitable solution to a problem? Humans aren't just tool users. They are also tool makers and improvisers. You can't disarm foul intent. You can make someone work harder to achieve evil, but you can't do away with the evil itself.
Unfortunately, making the evildoer work harder also makes the law-abiding work harder. Harder than the evil-doer, since they aren't willing to break the rules.
Who is evading the point, here?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Do you really think you can dismiss Frem's post as being illogical or unreasonable because he said 'pound sand?' Or that 'pound sand' is somehow indicative of gun advocate arguments general failure? It's an expression of frustration. It amounts to saying, "No." By God, man, you really do go at these things with tweezers and pull out the tiny bits you think you can criticize while disregarding the well reasoned whole.
No, I don't dismiss his post because he said that. You hear "Pound sand" and I hear, "Go f*ck a duck." It seemed out of character for someone of his debate skills.
I included all of Frem's post in mine, and after each section that I had issues with I got to my points of contention. I don't want to bore people with a lot of talk - I hope I can make my point quickly.
I did have more issues - the other side of your coin is I could have listed them all (prey animal analogy) and you may have said I was just being a jerk.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Open Carry of loaded firearms is normal at govt meetings in Tennessee, and Congress critters dont pee their pants:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum50/29990.html
The creepiest part of open carry is gubmint employees brandishing loaded shotguns and pistols at police stations and court houses. Ever had a loaded gun put to your head for driving 65 mph on an interstate?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, Pirate.... totally unfair posting said HOT chick....I can't even think let alone write intelligently...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Of course people will choose the best available tool for a job. If that job is killing people, they will identify all available tools, and choose the best one. That tool will frequently be a gun. Not always. But frequently.
If I want to kill you clandestinely, I might not choose a gun. Silencers aren't always readily available, and they tend to be bulky. Some serial killers use guns, but a lot don't, and I think part of the reason for that is the noise of an un-silenced pistol and the bulkiness of a silenced one.
The point we are trying to make, and that you seem to be failing to own up to, is that when people can't get what they want, they frequently improvise. A 180 pound man can afford to improvise a brick to the head of a 100 pound woman. Or a lead pipe. Or a knife. Or, really, he could just use his bare hands and still be at a probable advantage. The person who truly and earnestly needs a weapon is the 100 pound woman. A gun is a good equalizer.
I mean, honestly, have you ever refused to eat something because you had a dull knife instead of a sharp one? Did you ever starve to death because of a lack of proper eating utensils?
Have you ever used a pair of pliers in lieu of a wrench? Did you ever make a funnel out of a piece of paper? Did you ever use anything as a hammer that wasn't a hammer? Pick up a towel and use it like an oven-mitt? Have you ever improvised an imperfect but suitable solution to a problem? Humans aren't just tool users. They are also tool makers and improvisers. You can't disarm foul intent. You can make someone work harder to achieve evil, but you can't do away with the evil itself.
Unfortunately, making the evildoer work harder also makes the law-abiding work harder. Harder than the evil-doer, since they aren't willing to break the rules.
Who is evading the point, here?
--Anthony
I'm not intentionally evading any point - just trying to respond to what seem like the salient ones .
I get your substitute idea. Guns make it easier to kill, much easier than a brick or a lead pipe.
Can't do away with evil - I agree, I get the evil in men's hearts thing, I do not dismiss it.
Maybe the way to approach the issue is to reverse engineer it - what's satisfactory to you? Smart, responsible folk with guns = great. Doofus at ANY President's rally with a weapon, I have a problem with that. I don't care if he has a brick or a lead pipe though.
Question: Do you fly? Should I be able to bring my gun on a plane?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I could have listed them all (prey animal analogy) and you may have said I was just being a jerk."
Hello,
No, I don't call people jerks for making good counter arguments on valid points. When have I ever done so? I'm insulted.
For instance, Frem's assertion that guns can't go off by accident is fallacious. Not only do some firearms lack 'modern safeties,' (I own one) but safeties don't prevent you from accidentally pulling the trigger. My father nearly died once when some yahoo with poor gun safety discipline tripped and fired his rifle over his shoulder. Absolutely accidents can happen, and absolutely idjits are more likely to have such accidents. There ain't been the safety mechanism invented yet that protects anyone from 'stupid.' But 'stupid people exist' isn't an argument to take away anyone's freedoms, either.
Frem's prey animal analogy was also a poor one, since shepherds basically do watch over defenseless animals, and are largely successful at protecting them from predators. Then the defenseless animals are sheared or eaten, which is perhaps a better point to make.
But of course none of us are going to have a shepherd within shouting distance throughout the entirety of our lives, either. In our real life world, the shepherd comes in after the defenseless animal is slain, to write up an incident report and hunt the wolf after the fact.
The only real intervention possible at the moment of violence is by supplying the sheep with claws.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The only real intervention possible at the moment of violence is by supplying the sheep with claws."
Or teeth.
As in... "finding your teeth"...
:)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Question: Do you fly? Should I be able to bring my gun on a plane?"
Hello,
I do fly to Florida about once a year to visit my family.
The ultimate decision would have to be with the airlines. It's their plane, and the rules they set may affect who wants to fly with them.
Me? I'd say bring on your pistols, but I'd require you to load them with low-velocity frangible ammunition designed to disintegrate on impact with a hard surface. I think one brand is called the Glaser safety slug. It's designed so that it doesn't penetrate walls. Ironically, my main concern would be screening for ammunition, not for firearms. I'd worry a bit that someone might smuggle in high-velocity FMJ ammo in their orifices. But, you know, if someone is determined, nothing's going to make you completely safe.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about a maniac opening fire. I suppose he might nail one or two people. But he won't get far along, and he probably won't ace the plane.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
This wins my "Holy %^&^&" award for newly created meaningless psychiatric disorder. I maintain that schitzophrenia is a meaningless diagnosis, let alone bipolar or ADHD. I honestly thought when you posted "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" that it was a joke.
If the Mayo clinic has devoted a whole website to treating it, than it's no joke, but it doesn't make it any less bull. $%^&*! ?! !!
I'll think of something more intelligent to say later. That's just stunning.
BM,
Quote:
Wow, nice bikini.
I'm actually not that into guns, or girls, but she's pretty.
Ooh. Yes, I really believe you ;)
Edit: yes, I see. Now there's a new psychiatric disorder calls Combined Hyperactive Intermittent Lethargy Disorder (CHILD) and associated Knowledge Impaired Disorder (KID) Merck and Pfizer are no doubt in a rush at this very moment for new drugs to treat them. Some promising candidates are Hypergeria, psychopathomine, and hypnosomaloyalsomnambulide
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't worry. You're very pretty too, DT.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh dear. Is it time to change my avatar before Wulfie offers to "take me in a manly fashion" again?
I guess that never stuck anyone that Kathy was an odd name for a black man, or that cats could write so well online ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wait, wait, wait wait wait. Have to sort this out now.
Christina Hendricks is a MAN?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Question: Do you fly? Should I be able to bring my gun on a plane?"
Hello,
I do fly to Florida about once a year to visit my family.
The ultimate decision would have to be with the airlines. It's their plane, and the rules they set may affect who wants to fly with them.
Me? I'd say bring on your pistols, but I'd require you to load them with low-velocity frangible ammunition designed to disintegrate on impact with a hard surface. I think one brand is called the Glaser safety slug. It's designed so that it doesn't penetrate walls. Ironically, my main concern would be screening for ammunition, not for firearms. I'd worry a bit that someone might smuggle in high-velocity FMJ ammo in their orifices. But, you know, if someone is determined, nothing's going to make you completely safe.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about a maniac opening fire. I suppose he might nail one or two people. But he won't get far along, and he probably won't ace the plane.
--Anthony
BAH! You got me! You've been joking the whole time! I thought you were being serious before with the "I'm insulted" and the "freedoms" stuff. It is good to know you have a sense of humor. 
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
*sigh* I see we're not going to come to any common ground on this one. Let's talk about something new, shall we? Make up a new thread or some such, and I'll join you on a new topic of interest.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
*sigh* I see we're not going to come to any common ground on this one. Let's talk about something new, shall we? Make up a new thread or some such, and I'll join you on a new topic of interest.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Sorry, clock is ticking and we have to have laws in place by noon tomorrow. We have to decide on a solution for 300 million people - they're counting on us!
Here's my initial proposal:
- no ban on any weapon equal to or below the lethality of an assault rifle (no grenade launchers, etc) - below that have as many as you like.
- Considering the serious responsibility of gun ownership I would like to enlist the expertise of the NRA to run mandatory training programs in gun safety for handgun and rifle categories. Respect it, learn how to use it, be safe.
- background checks, that's a duh right?
- use of a fire arm in a home invasion scenario - fine, grease the f*cker. I can honestly think of no better use for a gun (other than maybe using it to hunt for food). Even if it's someone steeling a bike... a person's home and family are the ultimate sacred land/humanity.
- designated gun use areas. I know, sounds like gun free zones, and I already said those are a joke, mainly though because they aren't big enough. My gun free zone is everywhere but the range and your house and designated hunting areas. Seriously, why do you need a gun anywhere else? I don't get, "I want to walk down the street packin'." Maybe it's that phantom Tyranny no one can seem to describe in detail.
That's my first pass Senator T. - looking forward to your thoughts.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"- designated gun use areas. I know, sounds like gun free zones, and I already said those are a joke, mainly though because they aren't big enough. My gun free zone is everywhere but the range and your house and designated hunting areas. Seriously, why do you need a gun anywhere else? I don't get, "I want to walk down the street packin'." Maybe it's that phantom Tyranny no one can seem to describe in detail."
Hello,
I heartily disagree with this one, I'm afraid. Having established mandatory training by an agency not interested in regulating gun ownership out of existence, you have already created gun owners who are aware of the proper use and handling of firearms.
Why should these trained, non-criminal (background check) responsible citizens be deprived of the self defense option wherever they happen to be?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, the absolutely ludicrous mythical belief that if you outlaw something, folks who have no respect for the law in the first place will suddenly obey THAT law, despite a demonstrable habit of not doing so.
Gee, why not just outlaw crime ?
Yeah, that'll work.
Laws are only so good as their enforcement, and when their enforcement inevitably becomes more important than what they were written to protect, you wind up with rabid stupidities of the "War on (some) Drugs" and "Zero Tolerance", and a culture of fear that actually feeds the frenzy because by demonising weapons and self defense, you give tremendous amounts of power to the thug with a gun by making folk more fearful of them then they should be.
Take it far enough, stupidly enough, demonise ALL self defense and resistance, and you wind up at a point where a handful of assholes with boxcutters can easily kill over a thousand people.
And those enforcers of the law are human, as well, and thus not only susceptible to corruption, but by giving them such power then absolving them of responsibility, we've created a corrupted environment and culture that has lead to a de-facto feudal dynamic in which many folk are actively beginning to wonder openly if perhaps we've done no more than legitimize and institutionalize interpersonal violence rather than reduce it.
For reference to the concept at hand, I cite Oleg Volks parable:
The Good Shepherd
http://www.a-human-right.com/fable.shtml
On the larger scale, one would find that in the end, Governments have killed far more people than criminals, and the first action taken in the doing of that is to criminalise resistance to them, and outlaw the means.
And as such, there is also that I have immediate suspicion of anyone who wants me disarmed, given the absolute admission of the folks doing the demonising that they'd like us ALL disarmed, which, historically, leads to some very ugly places - and a hefty suspicion of their own motives in the matter, leading to the question of...
"What is your intent towards me that you would prefer I not be able to resist it if I choose ?"
Answer me THAT question, if you will.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"- designated gun use areas. I know, sounds like gun free zones, and I already said those are a joke, mainly though because they aren't big enough. My gun free zone is everywhere but the range and your house and designated hunting areas. Seriously, why do you need a gun anywhere else? I don't get, "I want to walk down the street packin'." Maybe it's that phantom Tyranny no one can seem to describe in detail."
Hello,
I heartily disagree with this one, I'm afraid. Having established mandatory training by an agency not interested in regulating gun ownership out of existence, you have already created gun owners who are aware of the proper use and handling of firearms.
Why should these trained, non-criminal (background check) responsible citizens be deprived of the self defense option wherever they happen to be?
That's a great question - I think to answer fairly I want to see some statistics on gun violence outside of the home.
And I'm sorry but work calls - I want to return and answer your question more fully and certainly Frem's post as well.
Until then, some good info I did not know:
http://www.opposingviews.com/factual/u-s-gun-laws-by-state
same, diff layout mostly:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/Gun_Laws_by_State.htm
I'm looking forward to reading more of this site to see what's under the hood so to speak.
http://www.stategunlaws.org/
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Guns are designed to kill, and most of them to kill people, not many other uses really.
Slipping in a bit late, but...
Actually - except in wars - most guns aren't used at all. Those that are, are mostly used to make holes in paper. Others are used to turn clay disks into broken clay disks, or knock over steel plates. A smaller number are used to harvest game animals. About 2 million times a year, some are used (not usually - or even frequently - fired, but used just the same) in self-defense.
Use in homicide is way down the list (12791 in 2006, vs. 45316 for accidental death by motor vehicle), and accidental death by gun is even lower (642 in 2006).
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
I suspect that the anti-gun movement is brought to us by the same folks who gave us Prohibition and the War on Drugs - politicians. It's a good divisive issue with clear-cut sides and can play on the fear of the unknown that's so easy to engender with a little yelling, some propaganda, skewed statistics, and good-sounding but untrue soundbites such as "Guns are designed to kill, and most of them to kill people, not many other uses really".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
- no ban on any weapon equal to or below the lethality of an assault rifle (no grenade launchers, etc) - below that have as many as you like.
Actually, Piz, I have some issues with most of your proposals, but the devil is always in the details...
For instance, the above quoted part is problematic. Why? Easy: Define "assault rifle". It doesn't mean what I think you think it means. An ACTUAL "assault rifle" is defined as having "select-fire" capabilities. In other words, it's capable of semi-automatic fire OR fully-automatic fire. Also known as a "machine gun". Many modern "assault rifles" feature several modes: semi-auto (one shot for every pull of the trigger), full auto (pulling and holding the trigger fires the weapon repeatedly until the ammo runs out), and "burst" modes (a single trigger pull looses two, three, or four rounds).
Of all of those capabilities, only one is currently legal for your average citizen to have and use. Federal laws are in place to govern the ownership, use, and manufacture of firearms with the other modes of operation.
That's just one tiny example of how the best of intentions gets mucked up in the details of definitions.
Also, having "gun zones" where you CAN have a gun could be a problem when you say things like "at the gun range and at home". Presumably, you have to get the gun from your home to the range, and since you can't teleport it there just yet, that's going to involve traveling with it through some "gun free zones", in all likelihood. For instance, the shortest route to my local range passes by a school. I can't take that route, or I'm a felon (which is handy for law enforcement if they want to take away my rights to own a firearm) for having a gun in a gun-free zone. If you dig down into the minutiae of the laws, though, you can find some passages about it being okay to have a gun in your car if it's out in the open (not concealed, unless you have a permit for that) but NOT WITHIN REACH of the driver or any passengers. That's a neat trick to pull off if you drive a two-seater. How do you stash your gun in plain sight but out of reach?
My point in bringing all this up is just this: It's all well and good to have the best of intentions, but even when you do, you often make life harder for those who are simply trying to follow the laws to the best of their abilities. A career criminal doesn't care about gun-free zones or carrying his gun through them. But because of the good intentions of regular community-minded citizens trying to make things "better" for themselves, now I *DO* have to care, unless I want to become an unintentional felon.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to indicate how everyone having a gun will make this a paradise on earth:
"Eastleigh, Kenya – The streets of Eastleigh, a Somali enclave of Kenya's capital, Nairobi, are crowded and dirty. Sewage and rotting garbage flow through gullies. Police are virtually nonexistent; restaurants are locked, even when open, for safety reasons; and guns are readily available for sale at the market.
...
Militant and moderate Islamists are battling for control of the rubble-strewn streets of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, fighting that has forced more than 1.4 million people to flee their homes and caused what the United Nations on Wednesday called the country's worst humanitarian crisis in 18 years of war."
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh Wheezer
"About 2 million times a year, some are used (not usually - or even frequently - fired, but used just the same) in self-defense."
CITE PLEASE ? From a REPUTABLE source ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Rue,
A government-absent civil war zone is not quite what anybody has in mind.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's what some people have advocated on this board.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you may have misunderstood what we were advocating. Perhaps you believe that removing permanent power structure would inevitably result in violence and warfare, but that doesn't mean it's what we think would happen, or that we advocate it.
If not, my mistake, you may just be responding to Wulf's desires for a civil war or something.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"About 2 million times a year, some are used (not usually - or even frequently - fired, but used just the same) in self-defense."
CITE PLEASE ? From a REPUTABLE source ...
I could start with Kleck and Gertz, http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm which is the source of the 2 million figure, and also cites 13 other surveys which show between 800,000 and 3.5 million uses.
Then there's a 1997 National Institute of Justice report, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
See Page 8. Their survey came up with an estimate of 1.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) a year.
Of course, since this report was authored in the middle of the Clinton Administration, it reports its DGU survey stats in a half a page, and then spends two pages explaining how the survey results are meaningless, and pretty much concluding that all surveys are useless since so many respondents lie, are on drugs, or can't remember.
I can probably find some more, but that'll do for a start.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Eastleigh, Kenya – The streets of Eastleigh, a Somali enclave of Kenya's capital, Nairobi, are crowded and dirty. Sewage and rotting garbage flow through gullies. Police are virtually nonexistent; restaurants are locked, even when open, for safety reasons; and guns are readily available for sale at the market.
Would taking the guns out of the markets get rid of the sewage or rotting garbage? Would it make the streets and restaurants safer, even though the police would still be nonexistent? Sorry, Rue, but this piece seems to be walking into the situation looking for the worst.
Are the streets dangerous because of the guns, or because of the people who gather there?
I could argue that alcohol should be illegal because of the drunk driving problem - it's the drunks behind the wheel that ruined YOUR ability to drink responsibly. And it's not that you WOULD kill someone while you were drinking, or that you even want to kill someone - but you COULD, and therein lies all the danger, and that's why booze must be done away with. After all, it's designed to dull the senses and kill brain cells, so it's not like it serves any useful purpose in life, right?
For the longest time, guns were restricted in Washington, D.C. - yet it remained the murder capital of the nation. Shouldn't it be the SAFEST city in the country, what with all the police, secret service, and laws against "little people" owning guns? How far from the White House to you suppose you have to go to find rotting garbage and sewage? I'm guessing The Mall or the Lincoln Memorial would be a good place to start.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think you may have misunderstood what we were advocating. Perhaps you believe that removing permanent power structure would inevitably result in violence and warfare, but that doesn't mean it's what we think would happen, or that we advocate it.
If not, my mistake, you may just be responding to Wulf's desires for a civil war or something.
If I know Rue, it's probably more the latter.
Wulf lives in a fantasy world inside his own head, where a gun is ALWAYS the solution to a problem. Most of the rest of us live in a world that's rather more based in reality, where a gun is SOMETIMES a solution, and rarely the only solution. But taking all the guns away is, as far as I've ever been aware, NEVER the solution.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do I have to bring up Kennesaw and Morton Grove again ?
How conveniently folk forget.
Oh noes, blood in the streets, chaos and slaughter, a gunfight on every corner....
BULLSHIT.
Kennesaw Revisited
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie
w&id=285&Itemid=37
"While Morton Grove’s per capita crime rate took a dramatic jump, deviating substantially from regional and national averages, right after passage of their gun ban, Kennesaw’s crime rate did the opposite in an even more dramatic way. After Kennesaw’s gun law was enacted crime dropped dramatically – much faster than federal, state, or local trends – and leveled out well below national averages. In spite of a population increase from 5000 to almost 30,000 during the same period, Kennesaw’s crime rates remain significantly lower than national or area averages. And the people of Kennesaw didn’t have to use their mandated firearms to affect this dramatic change. The simple knowledge on the part of criminals that if they worked in Kennesaw they were choosing to work with an armed prospective victim pool was enough to convince them not to pursue their chosen professions there."
And there wasn't a single shooting till FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, and that one was idiocy rather than malice.
So unless you wanna consider Kennesaw Ga to be extra-earthly territory now to get around those unfortunate statistics, the mere existence of the place (pun intended) shoots that theory full of holes.
Tell me, what was the most crime ridden, violent, carnage laden place on the east coast for many years, and debateably still is ?
Washington D.C.
Imma get into some details here in a moment, on the other end, but first I wanna share this image with you, courtesy of Oleg Volk, used with permission.
http://www.a-human-right.com/
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now, the devil of the details.
I am not at all against the idea of folk needing some credential that proves they know what the hell they are doing in order to purchase a weapon, let's get that straight right up front.
Where I got a problem with it, is allowing the Government to involve itself in the matter directly, cause even the most cursory research into may-issue vs shall-issue will show they absolutely cannot be trusted to act in any fashion but demonstrable malice.
My solution would be for the manufacturers and dealers, in exchange for immunity to lawsuit, to require proof of competence as a condition of sale, possibly with discounts for more advanced courses cause as a general rule, the better the training, the safer the user.
That's simple common sense besides, one should NEVER operate a powerful, potentially dangerous tool without having core competence in it's operation, whether it be a bandsaw, jackhammer, forklift, or firearm - it's the same principle behind it.
There's even already a core competency class and certification - look up CCW classes, for example.
And if the CCW instructor has the firm belief that you will not act in a responsible or safe fashion with the weapon, he is NOT going to pass you, that's a fact.
And yes, admittedly you do still have some old farts who won't teach someone of color or young "hip hoppers" out of damn fool prejudice, but finding another instructor is simple enough that no one much cares, and those dinosaurs are an endangered species these days anyhows.
=============
Something else worth a mention, and one reason I've gotten more rabid about this since the city council fiasco.
Point of fact, although I carry, I ain't never needed to blow someone away, and very rarely had to pull iron at all, but when I did it was absolutely cause nothing less would serve, and might I remind you it was technically a law enforcement officer who was on the business end in the most recent instance.
I arrived slightly before the agent handling the forfeiture did cause he got snagged in traffic and didn't have enough signal to call my cell, and wound up face to face with a VERY pissed off soon to be ex cop who was on the receiving end of what him and his brethren had delightedly dished out to anyone else they could, a full and total asset forfeiture of pretty much all he owned as a result of his raiding the evidence room to supply himself and his buddies with cocaine.
Said cop announced very clear and unambiguous intent to commit deniable murder with his M26 Taser unit, under the excuse of self defense from a "hostile crazy" and the belief that even a disgraced cops word carried enough weight that no one would question it, particularly with no witnesses - at which point he put his hand on the unit...
And wound up looking at the business end of my weapon - oh, I never did mention I had a draw speed of 0.41 did I ?
I *DID* shoot USPSA, remember.
And STILL I did not wanna shoot him, not because of the obvious legal complications, or the mess, but because I simply did NOT want to kill the guy, and was going to do my level best to shoot that taser if he tried to get it out of his holster, and then physically bull him over before he went for the firearm on the other side.
Couldn't tell you how long that moment was, but it felt like an eternity, broken off by the agent showing up, who on approach saw the officer put his hand on the taser before I drew, and stated as much in the official report.
Where pray tell, do you think that might have gone if I had NOT been armed ?
Especially if he hit my jacket and realized his toy wouldn't work as advertised, given that while still driving a cab I had the thing lined with Thorshield ASD ?
http://www.thorshield.com/prod01.htm
Would he have given up, or having nothing left to lose gone whole hog and pulled his Glock ?
Dunno, don't NEED to know, cause it DIDN'T come to that due to the fact that I was comparably armed.
And yet was planning to do everything in my power to AVOID shooting him despite that, alt
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Edit: yes, I see. Now there's a new psychiatric disorder calls Combined Hyperactive Intermittent Lethargy Disorder (CHILD) and associated Knowledge Impaired Disorder (KID) Merck and Pfizer are no doubt in a rush at this very moment for new drugs to treat them. Some promising candidates are Hypergeria, psychopathomine, and hypnosomaloyalsomnambulide
DT: That was great!
Although most diagnosticians agree that, if left untreated, both maladies will eventually be outgrown, no one in the mental health community is willing to take any chances, and all strongly agree that these kinds of symptoms (CHILD and KID) *MUST* be treated, sooner rather than later, and with as powerful a drug as the industry can manufacture.
All also agree that while there MIGHT be side effects to medicating people so young for so long, those side effects are as yet unknown, and therefore not something we should be concerned with.
In other words, get your CHILD or KID on drugs NOW, just in case, and if there's any detrimental or deleterious side effects to those drugs later in life... well, we'll come up with a new drug to treat those side effects, won't we?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know Mikey ?
It still amazes me that folks wanna treat the SYMPTOMS of the problem, guns, violence, drug and alcohol abuse...
Instead of the root CAUSE, that being the mass psychosis we call a society.
In case no one got the subtle imagery I was goin for earlier...
That's Lucy, as a child, as the events around her began to shape her into the monster she became, which is my posting avatar.
People are what we, our society, makes them into - given the inputs, why the hell are we surprised at the result ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yikes... leave for a second... and now I'm way behind.
First - thx Mike for your considered response. By all means disagree at length. I'll get to your post in detail in a sec.
Second - This discussion from my perspective - was and still is in direct response to the numbnuts that decided to bring firearms to a presidental rally (see thread title). No one is saying the truck is coming for your guns. I swear. It swerved at the end a bit when it seemed about to die and I decided to play, "what if," but it's still about that to me. Gun owners call that freedom, I call it unnecessary idiocy.
Geezer - thx for the links - read them in a sec. I want to understand them more, what constitutes "self defense" in some of these for one.
Frem - I can't even tell if you're responding to something I said or you got an itch you just gotta scratch. I don't see anyone in this thread advocating gun destruction or removal - in fact, there's the suggestion of immunity for gun use in defense of one's home. To my (limited) understanding of most gun laws, that's a kind of win for gun owners.
You said; "My solution would be for the manufacturers and dealers, in exchange for immunity to lawsuit, to require proof of competence as a condition of sale, possibly with discounts for more advanced courses cause as a general rule, the better the training, the safer the user.
That's simple common sense besides, one should NEVER operate a powerful, potentially dangerous tool without having core competence in it's operation, whether it be a bandsaw, jackhammer, forklift, or firearm - it's the same principle behind it."
Totally agree - it's a great start in the right direction for everyone.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Rights come from God, not a gubmint employee.
Oh, so our rights come from Invisible Magical Sky Daddy. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just wanted to indicate how everyone having a gun will make this a paradise on earth:
Militant and moderate Islamists are battling for control of the rubble-strewn streets of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, fighting that has forced more than 1.4 million people to flee their homes and caused what the United Nations on Wednesday called the country's worst humanitarian crisis in 18 years of war."
I spoke with a security guard at the local multinational-newspaper. He was ex US Air Force Special Forces, which allowed him "rank" to boss cops (USAF Security Police) around. He had returned from Somalia, where he was rodered to bomb a "found mountain inside a sports stadium", to destroy the food donations for the starving people. He saw a 17-year-old female USAF SP machinegunner gunned down and killed in Somalia. He used his sniper rifle to "blow a little girl into 3 chunks" when she played with a dummy hand grenade. He "quit" combat at that point, and returned to USA, where his NCO supervisor was screwing his fiance, so he threw him out a window. He was "discharged" at that point.
THAT'S why Somalia is in deep foo.
Iraq was a peaceful place to live, until Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush paid Iraq and Iran to invade each other, then USA invaded Iraq 19 years ago. War is outmdated like cannibalism, human sacrifice and slavery, which are outlawed.
Gangster Government is your worst enemy, has murdered 200-million of its own sheeple in the past century, and is the #1 reason to never waive your right to own the most powereful weapons you can afford. BTW everyone can afford a 50-cal Barrett.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, damn.
I watched the posts piling up in this thread yesterday and hadda wonder: has this forum finally jumped the shark? (DT's snickering up his sleeve: what took ya so long, HK?)
Aside from Bytemite and a couple quotes from Kwicko, none of you so much as mentioned the topic of this thread. Instead we get the umpteenth ham-handed justification for grassroots martial law.
The question was the motive of the man who brought his assault rifle to visit the President. I read over and over in previous threads that his motive was somehow unclear to y'all (hard to believe that, but it's what I read) and the gun enthusiasts hereabouts wanted to paint this guy as their poster child. Well, here we have his motives writ large in the form of one of the ugliest, most malevolent sermons in recent memory (and boy, isn't that saying a lot!) advocating Presidential assassination and all you fools can see is some threat to your m.f. gun collections?
If anything happens to this President, it's not just your gorram toys that will be taken away. This whole country would bust open. Surely you see that. I have to wonder, therefore: are you all so far-freakin'-gone that, secretly, even to yourselves perhaps, you want that collapse?
I'm sorry, Anthony, Frem. You want your ideas about the 2A understood by people who don't already "get it," you're going to have to learn how to promote 'em.
Hey Pizmo. Here's their deal in plain English: The Second Amendment was designed to protect the people in case the government went bad, got too big and started kicking in doors. It's a final line of defense against tyrannical power. The founders understood the precariousness of the freedoms they were promoting on this continent and they believed an armed populace could rise up to put the government back in its place if it ever came to that. So the right to bear arms was an essential pillar of liberty.
Also, pro-gun ownership folk see all police as an incarnation of the standing army George Washington warned us against. The police are, fundamentally, conceptually, anti-freedom forces in this country. This is a real problem, 'cause if that's true, then the war against tyranny has been well and truly lost. A lot of the pro-gun folk feel this and that's where a lot of the desperate illogic comes from.
There is often an urban/rural divide between folks on either side of this issue. Folks from a strictly urban background don't tend to understand guns the way rural folk do. They already see guns in the hands of their neighbors (i.e.: gangsters) and that's their model of what a world where everyone had a gun would look like.
Meanwhile, folk from a rural environment also see guns in the hands of their neighbors, that is, as just another tool in the shed. So when they imagine a world where everyone had a gun, they see peaceful warriors not giving into power.
Another huge problem facing you gun-fans in getting your point across is the Statist gun-nuts who OWN this debate. What are you folks doing about the freakin' NRA? Because the NRA will never talk about safeguarding against tyranny--they wanna be that tyranny. They will, year after year, poison the well with their misguided emphasis on killin' deer and dark skinned criminals. What is a sane person to think when the NRA schedules its big meeting in Denver a week after the Columbine killings?
Is trying to scare folk with your statistics, really the best you got??? You guys need a new line, 'cause this ain't workin'.
And meanwhile, there are armed anti-abortion wackos who expressly want the President dead showing up at meetings about HEALTH CARE.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
- no ban on any weapon equal to or below the lethality of an assault rifle (no grenade launchers, etc) - below that have as many as you like.
Actually, Piz, I have some issues with most of your proposals, but the devil is always in the details...
For instance, the above quoted part is problematic. Why? Easy: Define "assault rifle". It doesn't mean what I think you think it means. An ACTUAL "assault rifle" is defined as having "select-fire" capabilities. In other words, it's capable of semi-automatic fire OR fully-automatic fire. Also known as a "machine gun". Many modern "assault rifles" feature several modes: semi-auto (one shot for every pull of the trigger), full auto (pulling and holding the trigger fires the weapon repeatedly until the ammo runs out), and "burst" modes (a single trigger pull looses two, three, or four rounds).
Of all of those capabilities, only one is currently legal for your average citizen to have and use. Federal laws are in place to govern the ownership, use, and manufacture of firearms with the other modes of operation.
That's just one tiny example of how the best of intentions gets mucked up in the details of definitions.
Yea - I was sketching a solution so it was with pretty broad strokes - I figured most people would get the meaning.
I totally get the trouble with establishing definitions (and how they have been manipulated in the AWB debate by both sides) - and not just as it pertains to firearms, but in ALL aspects of THE LAW. As you say, the devil is in the details and too many details, too many caveats and addendums, and no one knows what they can do. I think worse than that they can give lawmakers/citizens the sense that, "f*ck it, it's too hard, there's no solution so let's just keep what we have... whatever it is."
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My point in bringing all this up is just this: It's all well and good to have the best of intentions, but even when you do, you often make life harder for those who are simply trying to follow the laws to the best of their abilities. A career criminal doesn't care about gun-free zones or carrying his gun through them. But because of the good intentions of regular community-minded citizens trying to make things "better" for themselves, now I *DO* have to care, unless I want to become an unintentional felon.
Yep, seen best of intentions blow up a lot, I'm not from that school.
So how do you stop a career criminal? Besides having a gun on your hip.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Aside from Bytemite and a couple quotes from Kwicko, none of you so much as mentioned the topic of this thread.
Sorry. As to the topic of this thread, darn that First Amendment anyway. It lets whack-jobs you don't agree with say anything they want. That can't be right.
So what would you have the powers-that-be do with this guy?
While I consider this Reverend a blot on both the profession of preacher and humanity in general, the fact that he can rant against Obama in safety also means that when the ruling party changes again you can safely rant against them.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Aren't you just so damn cute, Geezer. You and BDM spend so much time willfully misconstruing all and sundry. You wear me out.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Sorry. As to the topic of this thread, darn that First Amendment anyway. It lets whack-jobs you don't agree with say anything they want. That can't be right.
So what would you have the powers-that-be do with this guy?
While I consider this Reverend a blot on both the profession of preacher and humanity in general, the fact that he can rant against Obama in safety also means that when the ruling party changes again you can safely rant against them.
It's the combination of the preacher preaching death to Obama as a less than human animal AND his fan showing up to the townhall with the assault rifle slung over his arm. The two separate are a mystery--the two together are motive and opportunity. You don't get that? It's their link and the history of anti-abortion gun violence in this country. It's got me pretty upset.
But not you. Somehow, this vivid threat to the person of our President bothers you not at all. You're all Mr.
Well, lucky you.And sorry, screw your "wack-jobs I don't agree with" line. You can't honestly think this is about a difference of opinion. It's about an evidently homicidally minded wack-job carrying a gun to an appearance by the President. The preacher was just his evident inspiration. Jeez, Geez.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“and the gun enthusiasts hereabouts wanted to paint this guy as their poster child.”
“What is a sane person to think when the NRA schedules its big meeting in Denver a week after the Columbine killings?”
Hello,
I am unaware of these two things having occurred.
I never painted this guy as my poster child, and I am a gun enthusiast hereabouts.
I am not aware of the NRA scheduling its big meeting in Denver a week after the Columbine killings.
The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.
At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.]
As the Rocky Mountain News reported:
“In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.
All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.
Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.
The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.
"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.”
--Anthony
Edited to add: Special thanks to David Hardy for his insightful and informative critique of Michael Moore's propaganda picture.
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCav ?
I'm not so much for the idea of them understanding the right, although that'd help a damn lot, as I am for them respecting it.
But primarily, and my latest post was an attempt to point this out, I am annoyed cause folk see something like that and their first knee-jerk response is over the weapon and it's possession, instead of the outright psychosis that breeds these wackos on a massive scale.
The weapon didn't make that guy a wacko, our society did, and that's WAY more dangerous than any man portable weapon he could possibly be carrying.
For the record, I do consider institutionalized religion to be part of the problem, but as a general rule individualized religion not only isn't, but in my experience has been an overall positive force.
Still, when folks say wackjob with a gun, everyone seems to go berserk at the "with a gun" part, and I am focused on the "wackjob" part, and this does get my ire up.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Anthony,
Thanks, for the information about the Denver NRA meeting. I try very hard not to get my news from skewed, hasty, partisan sources, but in this case, I think I was a victim of my mistrust of the NRA and media bias.
Thanks again, that's very encouraging to hear, actually. Gives me hope.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And that's where you's and me's is gonna have woids. It don't work like that, man! Respect without understanding? The only way to get to respect without understanding is through fear, and I KNOW you're not down with that.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
HKCav ?
I'm not so much for the idea of them understanding the right, although that'd help a damn lot, as I am for them respecting it.
It betrays a lack of empathy, a lack of a desire to understand on your part. How well does willful misunderstanding work for you, Frem? Pizmo is a very sensible guy. Don't you want him as an ally?
Quote:Yes, absolutely, you and I are on the same page here, you know. But don't you think it's worth your time to get at "why" folk would fear the gun, where that comes from and how to dismantle it?
But primarily, and my latest post was an attempt to point this out, I am annoyed cause folk see something like that and their first knee-jerk response is over the weapon and it's possession, instead of the outright psychosis that breeds these wackos on a massive scale.
Quote:Yeah, this is just blame, and blame is useless outside of the Principal's office. I'm looking at the whole package, homicidal wacko bringing a person-killing machine to an appearance by the President.
The weapon didn't make that guy a wacko, our society did, and that's WAY more dangerous than any man portable weapon he could possibly be carrying.
Quote:I'd call it individualistic religion, and I fully agree. People with a conscious, personal, tolerant spiritual perspective have self esteem and inner strength and are, therefore, trustworthy. People with an impersonal, knee-jerk, spiritually dominating perspective are bad freakin' news.
For the record, I do consider institutionalized religion to be part of the problem, but as a general rule individualized religion not only isn't, but in my experience has been an overall positive force.
Quote:Not me. Not Pizmo, as far as I can see. You directing that at anyone present to this conversation?
Still, when folks say wackjob with a gun, everyone seems to go berserk at the "with a gun" part, and I am focused on the "wackjob" part, and this does get my ire up.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's the combination of the preacher preaching death to Obama as a less than human animal AND his fan showing up to the townhall with the assault rifle slung over his arm. The two separate are a mystery--the two together are motive and opportunity.
But no crime was committed. The Secret Service, which you must agree is probably pretty serious about protecting the President, didn't consider the gun-toter enough of a threat to do anything about him (And you can bet they would if they thought it necessary). Is your judgement from afar better than theirs on-site?
So the question remains, what would you have the powers-that-be do about Rev. "Death to Obama" and Mr. "I have a legal right to carry a firearm"? Should they be jailed because they make you uncomfortable? Should their First Amendment rights be abridged because what they say is hateful and objectionable? Do you want that kind of precedent in place when administrations change and the new one finds what you say hateful and objectionable?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, Geezer. Just trying to pay attention. I think we're in trouble in this country and I think this entirely legal incident is an indicator.
I am a little surprised that the Secret Service didn't do more than they did--particularly in light of this new information about the guy's pastor (not that this should have factored into their decision, mind you--how could it?--only this piece of information suggests to me that the guy might have sent up some red flags for the professionals on the ground--I do fear, some times, that our servants in the government might be incompetent). But you are quite right. I don't expect the Secret Service to handle the situation any differently than they did. You seem to be worrying this particular issue of what the PTB should have done pretty hard. I'm not talking about that.
I think there's something wrong with this picture is all. And in several threads where the man with the assault rifle came up, folks didn't seem even to want to know why he brought the gun with him. "Well, it's his right, so who cares--do you hate guns?" was what I saw--not in so many words. Any idea that he harbored ill will toward our President specifically--a pretty obvious inference, to my mind--was met with baffled scorn. How could I know that???
So I posted what looked to me like a crucial piece of context.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCav, the problem with achieving that understanding is that whenever something like this happens, those with an agenda go running to dig up, fill out and revivify the same old strawman arguments that myself and others have cut to pieces again, and again, and again, and the needless distraction of having to do it AGAIN sets my teeth on edge - I don't believe that some folk don't understand, in fact I am pretty sure they do, but it sure doesn't seem to keep em from trying to insinuate that anyone who wants or possesses a weapon is a crackpot and wackjob, something that MUST be addressed and shot down, else they get to frame the argument in a fashion where weapon owners lack the credibility to make serious points.
I tire of having to deal with the zombie strawman horde before even getting to the problem, because often we don't get to the problem at ALL, cause that issue soaks up all the attention and effort.
As for Pizmo, while I can be a bit harsh, I do tend to be quite reasonable so long as it's reason, not agenda, driving the discussion.
And I got more to say, but that'll be another post cause I got rounds to do, here.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think we're in trouble in this country and I think this entirely legal incident is an indicator.
Consider that in 1804, the former Treasury Secretary and the sitting Vice-president shot it out, with Burr mortally wounding Hamilton.
Also consider that there have been four presidential assassinations and 13 attempts, beginning in 1835.
So if we're in trouble due to folk who want to kill the President (or politicians in general), we've been in trouble for quite some time. It's not a new thing.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And yet, Wheezer, despite your 'statistics' (the GALLUP POLL ??? is cited twice ??? wow - now that's certainly scientific) reference to actual effectiveness cites 'some' type of weapon - with no indication if it was a gun, a baseball bat, mace or sharp fingernails. Just b/c people have a gun doesn't make them any safer than people without a gun - and NONE of your cites show that it does.
IN FACT - people who own guns are more likely to die violent deaths than people who don't.
***************************************************************
Guns don't kill people - people who own guns do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
A few people (who I will not mention by name) think an fully armed society and no government is the ONLY way to a bright and happy future.
And, what I didn't mention before for lack of time - scratch the 'consitutional' argument made by many (again I won't mention them by name but there are a large number) and what you have is a group that wants violent overthrow of the government. We think it's a horrible idea if it's Eastleigh Muslims or Mogadishu factions but think the concept is just peachy keen for the good ole USofA. But the result is the same for all cases.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't play coy lady.
You bring your agenda laced garbage here and zombie strawman horde, and then pretend you weren't doing it to slam Wulf and Myself just cause you dance around names while making insinuations.
Like hell - I am flat calling you out, cause at ISSUE here is a whole package, and if you wanna discuss the matter itself, fine - if you wanna go on trying to "prove" that anyone who owns or wants a weapon for self defense is a lunatic, or that simply picking one up turns a person into a maniac, like you have countless times before...
Pound sand.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith (13 November 1787)
Salient points being...
Quote:
The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.
What one should NOT do, is pay danegeld to their fears by backing them into a corner, swiping at them repeatedly, and then acting all shocked out outraged, then calling for their destruction when they inevitably act out.
That force-resistance-more force model just ain't gonna work here, and whether it ever does at all is a conversation for another time.
And when I say pay danegeld to their fears, that's exactly what I mean, case in point: Waco - the actions of the authorities gave credence to Koresh's ramblings, justified those fears, in the worst manner possible, with tragic results.
I still say Ghandi had it right, TRY REASON FIRST, it's cheaper than bullets, in any way you can conceive that statement.
Are we so terrified of a weapon that none of us would approach the man to try and reason with him, perhaps discuss the matter while acknowledging his rights and respecting them ?
Something, mind you, I suggested more than once in previous discussions related to this.
And while some like to thrash Wulfenstar for his obvious occasions of boneheadedness, there's a difference between misperception, ignorance, personal issues, etc - and malice.
Just cause someones head ain't screwed on completely right doesn't mean their heart ain't in the right place - what else you gonna do, kill em ?
Lock em up forever ?
Or maybe, just maybe, step forward and try to show them a better way instead of paying danegeld to their fear and justifying it in a cycle of violence that leads to only one place - the grave.
I know this much, for my own part, I would have approached and tried to reason with him.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And yet, Wheezer, despite your 'statistics' (the GALLUP POLL ??? is cited twice ??? wow - now that's certainly scientific) reference to actual effectiveness cites 'some' type of weapon - with no indication if it was a gun, a baseball bat, mace or sharp fingernails.
Part of the description of the Kleck/Gertz survey, from the cite provided.
Quote:
The interviewers then asked the following question: "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU (defensive gun use) against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve [Page 162] months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?
Also, in Table 1 of the Kleck/Gertz report(showing the results of other surveys), the fifth line is headed "Gun Type Covered", and the various surveys listed as either "Handguns" or "All guns"
So, you're obviously not reading the cites I provided, just leaping to pre-conceived and erroneous conclusions.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think we're in trouble in this country and I think this entirely legal incident is an indicator.
Had another thought on this.
Every country has had hate-spouters, and every country probably always will.
But it's not the hate-spouters that define the country, it's the response of the rest of us to their retoric.
In some places, most folks buy into the hate, and Jihad, Holy War, etc. ensue.
In some places, most folks decide to control the hate-spouters, end up controlling the anything-we-don't-agree-with-spouters, and censorship, political prisoners, and 'disappearings' enuse.
(Rue and/or SignyM will be along shortly to claim either or both of the above describes the U.S., but I propose that the strong and vocal opposition (including an obviously un-muzzled Rue and SignyM) to any such policies which might exist in the U.S. supports my point.)
In some places, most folks decide that while the hate-spouters are objectionable, they have the same rights as the rest of us, and that our best response is to either ignore them or oppose them using the free-speech rights available to all. A lot of discussion, yelling, and general noise ensues.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So the question remains, what would you have the powers-that-be do about Rev. "Death to Obama" and Mr. "I have a legal right to carry a firearm"? Should they be jailed because they make you uncomfortable? Should their First Amendment rights be abridged because what they say is hateful and objectionable? Do you want that kind of precedent in place when administrations change and the new one finds what you say hateful and objectionable?
'Course, what the secret service COULD have done - and there's precedent for this, as Geezer will no doubt affirm - is round up all of the anti-Obama/anti-healthcare protesters and put them behind chain links a half mile or more away. Seems I remember that happening at Presidential "town hall" meetings before somewhere...
One thing that gets left behind in all the shouting and rhetoric is that Obama seems to have actually taken pains (and apparent personal risk) to make sure that his town hall appearances actually ARE more transparent and free, and not just for his supporters. Unless you're trying to convince me that the folks showing up with their guns are actually there to fire them into the air in celebration of Obama The Great descending from the heavens to grace them with his divine presence...
So, did the guy commit a crime? Was he pushed into taking his gun to the rally by a hate-spewing idiot who calls himself a "christian"? At what point did Tim McVeigh go from being just some guy spewing opinions and buying fuel oil and fertilizer - both of which ARE legal to own, yes? - to a criminal? At what point does a guy owning a rifle (and yes, it IS just a rifle - it's NOT an "assault weapon" despite what the media tells you. I actually heard Olbermann say the guy had a "machine gun".) become a would-be assassin?
I saw Anthony say earlier that he felt it should be up to the airlines whether or not to allow guns on flights. So would that be tantamount to saying that you'd be fine with town hall venues declaring themselves Gun Free Zones? After all, isn't it their choice whether to allow you to carry your guns to a Presidential appearance?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME