NationStates Jolt Archive

No they just want to make us "safer" by ensuring only the "right" people can get guns.

OK, why doesn't anyone ever ask the question: do you want to be safe, or free? Since you can't have both.

OK, why doesn't anyone ever ask the question: do you want to be safe, or free? Since you can't have both.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free nor secure."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Taken right from the ACLU of Northern California's web site...

http://aclunc.org/911/

because killing a human being with a gun is wrong

but killing a human being at an abortion clinic is okay :rolleyes:

thats a liberal's way of thinking
I don't believe that they're human beings until they can survive outside the mother. Until then it is a fetus. Killing a fetus is killing a POTENTIAL life. And I supported the ban on partial-birth abortions. And about your Michael Moore link, I don't like him very much. I'm among the more centrist, Clintonesque Democrats, and Moore thought Clinton ought to be a Republican. I like that Moore took on the Bush administration, but his views are too extreme for me.

OK, why doesn't anyone ever ask the question: do you want to be safe, or free? Since you can't have both.So true. Either you're a slave and completely safe, or have the absolute freedom to do whatever the fuck you want and live with the fact that you or anybody you know might get beaten/killed/raped any second, probably sooner than later. Yeah, that's how the world works.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free nor secure."
-- Benjamin Franklin

That's my 2nd favorite Ben Franklin quote. My favorite, of course, is:

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

OK, why doesn't anyone ever ask the question: do you want to be safe, or free? Since you can't have both.
Why are those mutually incompatible? It's definitely possible to have both.

Handguns can be used for self defense, from thugs and the like.

Don't tell me guns kill people. People kill people. Guns kill people like spoons made Michael Moore fat. There are plenty of things that people can kill people with, and banning guns will not prevent deaths, and even if they were banned, people would get guns through illegal trade, making gun trade a lucrative crime and make people unable to defend themselves.

Shotguns and semi automatic assault rifles are necessary to prevent totalitarianism in our government via armed militia. Every despotic state in history disallowed the common citizen to own weapons, for fear the people might resis brutal government action, like Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini. There was a reason the Federalists gave the right to bear arms. As for military grade weaponry, I think there should be "Private militias" which need to be granted permission by the state police to exist and own rockets and grenades and so forth. This militia stations would be overwatched by state police to ensure people dont missuse military grade weapons, but can function as munitions depots if our government should ever decide the constitution is not worth following anymore.

The right to bear arms is deep rooted in American tradition. It is a dependable way to defend yourself from criminal and governmental opression. The gun is a tool that is dangerous, and thus must be respected and carefully handled.

Times have changed. In pre-modern times, weapons used by the army were the same as those carried by civilians for protection, with the exception of the cannon, which i believe blacksmiths could still make if needed. In modern times however i the army uses more advanced guns, grenades, armor, tanks, aircrafts, missiles, advanced cannons, better communication... In this context, civilians with guns would not stand a chance against an organised and prepared army that is prepared to use whatever it takes to eliminate the resistance (US military in Iraq for example at least tries to be cautious with bombing civilian targets and tries to minimise losses, or so i hope).
thats bogus man havent you ever heard of the VC? using tactics such as the VC in vietnam a civilian population armed with assault rifles could infact inflict serious damage a major fighting force, especial if working with a regular military force(who said just because a country is invaded its army no longer exist?).

I don't believe that they're human beings until they can survive outside the mother. Until then it is a fetus. Killing a fetus is killing a POTENTIAL life. And I supported the ban on partial-birth abortions. And about your Michael Moore link, I don't like him very much. I'm among the more centrist, Clintonesque Democrats, and Moore thought Clinton ought to be a Republican. I like that Moore took on the Bush administration, but his views are too extreme for me.
oh really, so then let me ask you this question...
do you think that scott peterson should be charged with double homocide or just killing his wife? I mean after all, the fetus wasnt born yet :rolleyes:

Reality flows from the barrel of a gun. Without guns people would be truly free to create their own realities rather than having the reality of the state forced upon them at gun point. A law banning guns is as absurd as a law banning laws, it will never happen becuase it is ontologically unsound. Only when all people have abolished the will to force from their minds will guns truly become meaningless.

thats bogus man havent you ever heard of the VC? using tactics such as the VC in vietnam a civilian population armed with assault rifles could infact inflict serious damage a major fighting force, especial if working with a regular military force(who said just because a country is invaded its army no longer exist?).You mean the VC which had anti-tank weaponry, field artillery and tanks? Yeah, that was a great example of a fighting force armed with only assault rifles.

For the range, I'm running Sellier & Belloit (Czech made) FMJ .45 with a variety of clips. Generally good, though I don't carry with S&B as I do get some jamming -- maybe 3 rounds in 100. I'll never run Wolf -- awful!!
a clip is loaded into the breach from the top of the gun versus a magazine which is loaded from the bottom of the gun(just for those who may not know) :mp5: :D

Why are those mutually incompatible? It's definitely possible to have both.

I'd consider having a firearm to be mostly safe and free.

You mean the VC which had anti-tank weaponry, field artillery and tanks? Yeah, that was a great example of a fighting force armed with only assault rifles.
actually the vc didnt have artillery or tanks that was the north vietnamese regulars and the rpgs they did have were few and far between so yea they were almost entirely armed with assault rifles. hell the grenades they did have which werent alot dated back to ww2 and most of those were in the hands of the regular army any how.

Guns should just be more regulated. . . Getting them should require a background check, and psychological analysis and if you pass those you should have to take a gun safety class and pass that before getting a license to buy guns. Other than that, no semi automatics for no apparent reason would be kewl too.
Peace.

actually the vc didnt have artillery or tanks that was the north vietnamese regulars and the rpgs they did have were few and far between so yea they were almost entirely armed with assault rifles. hell the grenades they did have which werent alot dated back to ww2 and most of those were in the hands of the regular army any how.Urgh... Yes, most of their heavy weaponry was old, from around the WW2 era. That doesn't mean they didn't have them. Viet Cong used tanks, most notably T34/85s, though not in large numbers. The use of RPGs (mostly RPG-2 and some RPG-7) by the VC was prolific. They had plenty of light mortars (60mm's) for fire support. Read any of millions of combat reports from battles against the Viet Cong if you don't believe me.

Loaded with FMJs? From a short barrel, bullets that expand too rapidly might be a bad idea with a .45 ACP, but you absolutely should go for at least some expansion. The ability to penetrate two to four human corpses with a single shot isn't of much use in most situations, but the difference between a 0.4" and a 0.6" wound channel might be.

If I actually have to draw, I don't care what I'm putting holes into...

Guns should just be more regulated. . . Getting them should require a background check, and psychological analysis and if you pass those you should have to take a gun safety class and pass that before getting a license to buy guns. Other than that, no semi automatics for no apparent reason would be kewl too.
Peace.

I know you haven't read the thread, so...

* All guns sold in the US require a background check.
* There is no such thing as "passing" a psych exam. Same way you can never get the same score on the SAT twice.
* Depending on the state, you need to get a license, which usually requires a gun safety class, fingerprinting, and a clean record.

Me? I'm all for point 3 in every state. But in return, I want reciprocity: with a state (CT, in my case) license, I will be able to conceal carry in any of the 50 states. Just like a driver's license.

As for semi-automatics: 1 trigger pull = 1 round expended is no more dangerous than 1 trigger pull + working a mechanism (pump, lever,bolt, hammer, whatever) = 1 round expended.
In fact, I would posit that a pump action shotgun is faster and does much more damage than an M1911.

* There is no such thing as "passing" a psych exam. Same way you can never get the same score on the SAT twice.





Is the "psych exam" the new banner trick? Try and label people who want guns as sociopaths? I've heard the "make guns socially unnacceptable" angle before but this is relatively new to me.

No, not really. I can honestly say I would not be for legislation that would allow a civilian to own anything which does not directly infringe upon the liberty others by its mere existence.
Oh well. Then we don’t. C'est la vie.


Mostly because this would, for example, allow the nukes.
Actually, it would allow for legally owned nukes.


For any compromise solution, it completely depends on the society in question. I believe gun control in Finland is a good thing, although some of the fall-out is rather weird -- for example, the some Finnish police departments stopped issuing buckshot for their shotguns because some idiot thought it is "too lethal", as if that was somehow bad in a weapon that's supposed to kill. I will still not offer my exact opinion on gun control in the US because I feel it is of no worth.
That cultural divide strikes again! :)


Hardly a valid comparison.
I can only suppose, then, that you’ve never been to Miami. (Yes, I am being serious. Check any news site you want, Cubans *often* cross to the US in the flimsiest of “vessels”).


The shoulder-fired Stinger RMP Block II should have about a 60% chance of hitting an incoming, fast, low-flying aircraft. The chances of hitting a lumbering 747 as it's either preparing to land or is just taking off should be significantly better, and a 747 is not exactly designed to fly well with a wing ripped off. I challenge you to get that rate of success with sailing a packing crate from Cuba to Florida.

Sure, I’m game!
Now, I can’t give exact numbers, but consider the links below. (BTW, how’d you get 60%?)

Check out: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Srml3rPXZsoJ:www.lmtonline.com/news/archive/0618/pagea7.pdf+cubans+%2Bmiami+%2Bcoast+guard+%2Bflimsy+boat&hl=en\
Also:
http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/brothers.html
… but we’re not taking about odds here. (Or, at least I’m not.) But suffice it to say that many, many people have made the crossing. At least, more than passenger jets shot down by shoulder fired missiles. :D



In any case, the definition of SAM doesn't require it to be an extremely effective weapon.
I agree, it’s not about effectiveness. All I’m saying is that a Surface to Air Missile is a crewed, plat-formed weapon system, and that the Stinger/Milan/LAW/RPG is not a SAM, as their primary purpose is anti-tank/hardened positions. Further, I’d hope you’ll agree that if you look at a HAWK and look at a Stinger that they are different.


The Chauchat is ultracrappy, but it is nevertheless a machine gun.
The Chauchat is indeed ubercrappy, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat), but I’m more inclined to call it an early automatic rifle. If you want to call it a light machine gun, that’s fine too.


Sure it is. But it is a separate class of automobile from, say, sedans. In Finland, you need a separate driving license to be allowed to drive cars that weigh over 3,500kg, and yet another to drive buses -- which are all forms of automobiles, some simply are more strictly controlled.
Such legislation works wonderfully and is very rational, which again goes to prove that there can be good reasons to differentiate between rather similar technologies in law and such laws can function well. I think such laws exist in most of the western world. (?)

Ah. Here in the US (or, at least in Connecticut) it’s divided only for motorcycles and vehicles with air brakes and/or 26,000 lbs (~11793 kg).
Right, so would it be right to ban the SUV?

In any event, I agree that graduated laws are a good thing. I would *not* want someone going out and buying an AK-47 without having first gotten a pistol license. But by the same token, if a citizen has a clean record and has already done the pistol, he or she should not be denied however far they wish to advance their knowledge or skill.
We don't limit college to those who want to go and have the aptitude, why should anything be limited thus?


Toyota Sequoia and Nissan Pathfinder are Japanese 4WD SUVs. Add the M-B M-Class, and you've got just 4WD SUVs. Add Dodge/Chrysler Neon and you've got Cars. Add the M113 APC and you've got ICE Vehicles. Add a bicycle and and a train with an electric motor you've got just Vehicles. Etc etc. You might as well say it's unfair to take away guns but not hammers, because both are Metallic Personal Tools. For you, the group "firearms" might be a legally undivisible entity, but it is not for most people. It will be very hard for you to base your argument on this "technological argument" thing because of this.
That’s sort of it, but maybe I’m not conveying it clearly enough: I’m all for regulation of any and all items that are perceived to need them in a lawful society, but against banning any of them. It may be that in order to be licensed to own that LAW rocket that it takes a long time and considerable cost and expense. But it should not be outright denied.
Case in point are the Class 3 firearms licenses in the US.


The usual logic behind banning fully automatic weapon has nothing to do with their "advanced technology". First, some bolt action weapons are much more technologically advanced than the majority of fully automatic weapons available -- the AMP DSR-1 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn38-e.htm) is still legal in Finland while a Maxim '08 machinegun is not. Second, the issue with fully automatic weaponry in particular is that the reason why they exist is to kill people effectively.

I’m actually an irate duck hunter, and it would make it much easier. ;)

So, seriously then – should sniping weapons be illegal? For example, the US has never made the M14 (later, the M21) rifle available to the populace. It is unique in that sense. Heck, I can buy a Barrett M82A1 sniper rifle, but not an M14! Is the M82A1 not more dangerous than an M-16 (banned under the lapsed "1994 assault weapons ban".
http://www.geocities.com/landofsnipers/weapons/barrett82ENG.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82A1
...so here we have a bolt action (or semiauto, depending on the model) that IMHO is much "more dangerous" than most full autos!



Regardless of any secondary uses which might have popped up later, that's their point. The scientific worth of fully automatic firearms is at this point in time null. Fear of technology has, again, nothing to do with it.

I understand all that. My point is that society should (and maybe I’m being utopian here) be such that it’s citizens are able to do/have what they want (legally) so long as the rights of others are not directly affected.

It isn't fear of technology, so much as it is some misfounded belief that "things are different today".


Human societies have come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to limit the availability of killing tools (objects the primary purpose of which is to kill large animals/destroy property) where the legal use of the item does not offer a significant advantage over another item which is much more difficult to use in an illegal manner.

I get it, I just don’t agree with it is all. I also like neon tetras and hate disco.


You would like to try out an anarchistic utopia (dystopia?) where no such limitations exist, which is fine, but don't expect that to magically solve a lot of problems in the world.

I’m not against limitations, but I am for citizens being able to do/say/own whatever they want within the bounds of law.


There are solid reasons why many of these limitations are in effect, and historically many of them (and currently almost none of them) have nothing to do with governments strengthening their grip on the people.

That I disagree with. Most all registrations of firearms led directly to their confiscation, for example. And the US (despite it’s “gun culture”) is still a much safer place than most of South America today. What happened in Argentina in the 80s could never happen here, because the citizenry would fight back – and are able to do so. Ditto Cyprus in the 70s or even France during that Algerian unpleasantness.


Again, it's a matter of where do you want to draw the line. Many think the ownership of weaponry (and certainly heavy weaponry) is a greater responsibility than drinking. And, in a sense, many school systems do psychological screening already, in the form of interviews and recommendations.

I do as well. I just don’t think my government should automatically say that I can’t have it.
Yes, that’s true. But in larger systems (I worked for 3 years in a system with 20,000 students from 5-18 years of age), this breaks down in a hurry. It’s also not admissible in court after they turn 18.

If the Columbine kids weren’t tried as adults, they’d be able to buy guns the day after they got out of “juvenile detention”. Fortunately, that won’t happen, as the law saw fit to try them as adults. The system does work.


Most arguments related to guns, on either side, could be used for most other items. It's a matter of the threat posed to the society by the illegal use of such items, and how the society ranks the need to limit the illegal availability of the items vs. the need to legally own the items. Many feel the threat of illegal weapon use is a significant one, while the need to legally own weapons is less so.
Again, depends heavily on society -- in Finland, for example, it is incredibly unlikely to be the victim of a serious crime of a physical nature perpetrated by someone who you are not very familiar with, and so the need for firearms for self defense is far smaller than in the US.

Right. Now change the term “guns” to “discussing your idea” or “worship your god”. Free speech/assembly/bear arms are all inter-related.

How about in Sweden, then? Ms. Lindh didn't know her assailant...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3374979.stm

Of course, I'm not saying that everyone in Scandinavia needs to start packing a piece. But maybe, just maybe, it's a more dangerous world out there. (No, I won't take a cheap shot and ask if knives should be banned.) :)



Agreed, and likewise. The same can't be said for the whole of this thread, though.

Yep. But some of these posts by others make me happy that we have an Electoral College and don’t elect the President directly…

Is the "psych exam" the new banner trick? Try and label people who want guns as sociopaths? I've heard the "make guns socially unnacceptable" angle before but this is relatively new to me.

It appears to be so. Same way some folks blame evangelicals for re-electing Bush... Or that the US deserved Pearl Harbor for cutting off oil to Japan. :(

Instead we see the left calling those who DO agree with it "Warmongers" and "Nut-Jobs"

If the shoe fits....


I do. Campaign Finance reform laws aimed at limiting select advocacy groups from campaigning near election time. That came out of LEFT field. And by the way, Senator McCain is NOT Right Wing anymore.
That came out of the desire to give the government BACK to the people, and take it out of the hands of the giant multi-national corporations, who want only to screw people over for their own selfish profit interests.


I do. Go to www.protestwarrior.com and see what happens when conservative counterprotesters dare to show up near a LEFT wing rally.
then don't go WHERE YOU AREN'T WANTED. Sorry, but we damn well have a right to protest the President. It's called right to peaceful assembly. And it's called right to petition government for redress of grievances. but the current Administration refuses to even hear us. They pen us up a mile away from the object of protest, so he can continue to exist in his little fantasy world that everyone loves him. Well, some folks, like me, hate his fucking guts! and we want to be able to TELL him so...right in his face, where he can't ignore it!

Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."

Yes... it IS pre-emptive. It's hard to PREVENT bullets from killing people AFTER they have been fired... much easier to stop dangerous elements from owning weapons to start with.

Thank you. That is the point I have been TRYING to make for ages, now.

So - your response to someone else's real pain and real concern, is to mock, insult and bully them...



Exactly. What else did you expect from a gun nut? Why do you think he's on my ignore list now. Because he can do nothing but mock my real pain and concern...and then go about making accusations that I would hurt my dog. Oh, I forget...he also attemoted to psychoanalyze me. and has yet to show me a Ph.D. to show he is QUALIFIED to psychoanayze me.

That's just retarded. ;)

A 12 gauge pump action makes a much louder more distinctive sound when chambering a round.

Just another reason WHY I chose the gun I did. Because I hope I never have to USE it. I hope to scare the bastard off before I ever HAVE to use the damn thing. wish I didn't have to own it... But, seeing as I can't count on the police to do thier damn job...

Birdshot at the distance you might encounter within a medium-sized house is most probably going to spread very little - it will likely be close enough to strike as a single mass - and will be extremely lethal. Very likely unoperable, if the target survives the trip to the hospital.

A 9mm will penetrate more walls than a 45 ACP. It has a well justified reputation for being a round with a lot of penetration.

Getting shot by virtually anything is a potentially lethal situation. The question that most gun owners want to know is "will it stop them in their tracks". Whether or not the target dies is not an issue for them. You can be shot, and live long enough to kill your attacker if not hit hard in the right place. You can be shot, and fall down and lay there until you expire. In either case, the shot is lethal, but the desired result is the "stop".

As soon as they invent the phaser with stun setting, and it works like the trek version, I'll happily trade in my 45.

They have. It's called a Taser.

if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

I actually don't really believe that... i just threw it out as a talking point... I agree if you're not part of a local militia you don't have the right to own a gun.. at least not an assault weapon or military grade militia... a hunting grade or small pistol for personal protection might be a different story

By denying her the equal right to weapons that you collectively wish to be allowed?

You have no idea if she is more likely to fly off the handle than you are... and neither does anyone else... because their is no screening. If she had to undertake a basic psych test, and so did you, then you might have some basis for that claim. At the moment, though, it is just self-serving propoganda.

It was a hurtful post... perceived by me - and I am not even the person it was posted to. I did toy with the idea of reporting it for moderation, but settled for pointing out how offensive and immature it was within the thread.

I do find myself wondering (and you may well take this as an insult) if you are actually old enough to own a gun yet?

Actually, as someone who has seen the harm guns can do...and has felt the real pain of having someone they love taken from them by a gun...I am FAR LESS LIKELY to, as someone put it "fly off the handle" and shoot someone else. I will only do it if I am put into a situation where I have no other choice to defend myself. Given ANY other choice, I would not shoot. But damned if I'll stand there and let someone hurt me or mine, ever again!

if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

That's only true if the guns are outlawed by a government. If the people "outlaw" guns by destroying the need for them, and destroying that part of the social conscious that wants them, then they will cease to be used entirely.

If we were to take that argument as sound then every law is bad because the things they seek to prohibit will continue to happen but will be "bad" by definition of the state. In other words, "if marijuana is outlawed, only outlaws will have marijuana," is as logically sound as "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," but I think we can all agree that it's silly to say that.

If by immature you mean startling insight into the way her thought processes seem to work, given her posts in this thread, and then blatantly using her own logic against her than yes it was immature. I will, however, that the post was hurtful, at least to her. If it served to shock her into thinking along a different path rather then the deep carven rut she seems to be in I would deem it worth the hurtfulness.

No, if anything, you caused me to think even FURTHER the way I already do. And you didn't advance your cause one iota in my eyes. You came across as a bully, an arrogant, selfish person with no feelings or compassion for anyone but your own self. But, again, what else do you expect from a gun nut?

if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

By the definition of outlaw i think it makes perfect sense. If everyone agreed guns are wrong and got rid of them that's not outlawing guns.
But outlawing something which does not have the consent of an entire population will only have this end. Law abiding citizens will be hurt because they can no longer defend themselves from those who don't abide the law.

What you are throwing back is your emotional response to the perceived threat of a limitation of a 'right'.

Which is, of course, only a 'right' until it is Amended or removed... and the current Conservative regime is happy to Amend the constitution on much LESS life-threatening platforms...

Yeah. Like gay marriage. Big fucking deal. Who the hell does it hurt if Bob and Steve are allowed to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and are viewed, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW...the same as any hetero coiuple? No one is saying any church would, or should, have to perform gay marriages, or recognize them as valid.

Show me what the compelling state interest is in fucking with the lives, and families, of people just because their lifestyle happens to make YOU feel "icky."

But they are all-fired up about Amending the Constitution on that one. since when did two gay men marrying one another cause anyone to DIE??

You could probably reduce or eliminate a significant percentage of gun violence in the US by legalizing drugs.

Now that is the first thing any gun nut has said YET...that I agree with. Kinda creeps me out that I would hold ANY opinion in common...

But I agree that legalising drugs would definitely lower street crime significantly.

And, no, just because you legalise them, it doesnt't follow that more people will suddenly decide to use them. In fact, the reverse has been shown to be true...because many people who use drugs use them BECAUSE they are illegal.

This person assumes I'm going to go out and kill people, insults me, rants about how innefficient the police are and refuses to answer most of my questions all the while admitting she knows little about guns and that she would kill anyone on her property she percieves as hostile. She wants checks on people she "assumes" MAY be dangerous which she is, BY HER OWN DEFINITIONs AND ARGUEMENTS.

You say she is the "only" one w/ a valid reason? Have you met her? Have you met me? Do you know every detail of my life? No? Then Piss off.

Try reading her previous posts before you have to gall to call me a hypocrite. She started out by using vulgar language and attacking people who defend gun rights

I tried to be reasonable w/ her and she went off the handle.

Correction: I used vulgar language to describe criminals and guns...not any posting person on this board. I attacked your viewpoint, yes, but not you, personally. Or anyone else, personally. YOU, however, DID attack ME personally, psychoanalyzing me (and still haven't shown me a Ph.D. to show you are QUALIFIED to psychoanalyze me)

I did not attack people who defend gun rights. I attacked their viewpoints. Let's make that perfectly clear.

This person assumes I'm going to go out and kill people, insults me, rants about how innefficient the police are and refuses to answer most of my questions all the while admitting she knows little about guns and that she would kill anyone on her property she percieves as hostile. She wants checks on people she "assumes" MAY be dangerous which she is, BY HER OWN DEFINITIONs AND ARGUEMENTS.

You say she is the "only" one w/ a valid reason? Have you met her? Have you met me? Do you know every detail of my life? No? Then Piss off.

Try reading her previous posts before you have to gall to call me a hypocrite. She started out by using vulgar language and attacking people who defend gun rights

I tried to be reasonable w/ her and she went off the handle.

Oh, and your definition of "reasonable" is to psychoanalyze me, and mock my real pain and suffering. Yeah, real reasonable. How about you take your own advice, and "piss off" yourself?

because killing a human being with a gun is wrong

but killing a human being at an abortion clinic is okay :rolleyes:

thats a liberal's way of thinking

And supporting the death penalty is okay.
And supporting the South American death squads is okay.
And being against gun control and nuclear weapons control is okay.
But a woman, forced to make what is never an easy choice...is NOT okay.

And, of course, they will scream like hell when the woman, forced to have a baby she cannot economically support...turns to welfare!

No, they are "right to life" until that life costs THEM something.

THAT is a conservative's way of thinking.

They love the life in the womb...and give that same life a giant middle finger once it's out of the womb...by cutting welfare, Head Start, No Child Left Behind, by cutting education, and school lunches...by cutting program to help needy families in the Northeast obtain heating oil in the cold winter (LIHEAP) yeah...they support life, so long as that life doesn't cost THEM anything!! Soon as it does, they scream.

THAT is a conservative's way of thinking.

Conservatism = selfishness.

If we were to take that argument as sound then every law is bad because the things they seek to prohibit will continue to happen but will be "bad" by definition of the state. In other words, "if marijuana is outlawed, only outlaws will have marijuana," is as logically sound as "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," but I think we can all agree that it's silly to say that.[/QUOTE]
This statement is made from the stand point of someone who is trying, and failing, to make a point. Of course, logically, if guns were outlawed then obviously the owners would be outlaws. That is not what is ment by that statement. Take Marijuana for example. It is not sold over the counter or by any corporation to the general public and yet it is still a drug that many people can buy. That would make them "outlaws". That is what is meant. If Guns were totally destroyed, and removed from the country the only people able to get their hands on them would be those with connections to a black market. These would most likely be purchased for the reasons of what is considered to be evil. Thus if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will own guns.

Next point: why the hell is everyone so hung up on this guns killing people business? A martial artist can kill people. Do we ban martial arts? A cop can kill someone even without a gun. Should we liquify the police force? A steak knife can kill someone, should we too ban all knives? NO!!!! That would be absolutely ludacris! Humans,by their very nature, are fragile creatures that can die or be killed my a multitude of actions. You want one that will really jerk your chain? If you purchase an item assembled in a third world country, you are (in a round-about way) supporting the use of child labor because that is what is done. Young children are worked, some to death, in other nations to make the products we use in America.

My final point: to all those "liberals" out there. I, being liberal, see you as hypocrites. Owning a gun is a free choice. No one is saying that everyone must own a gun! The farther left we ascend the more freedoms we recieve. Why then ban guns? That is saying that someone is being denied the freedom of choice. Oh sure, Pro-choice abortion is fine. Let the teenage girl who went to a party, got drunk (or otherwise), and then ends up pregnant have the choice to abort the child. I realise that this is not always the case and I am all for abortion, but a statement like that is just as insane as saying that only guns kill people. So we should strip the freedom to choose how we live our lives because criminals (not all mind you) own a gun and use it for evil. That is sheer madness.

I love at how people always use the word "liberal" as an insult. It's like a buzzword for the right-wing. :rolleyes: I would say more but since getting personal wont solve anything I wont.
You are right as a conservative I prefer to call "liberals" leftist...It is more accurate....

There's only one way to stop guns: bigger guns.

Correction: I used vulgar language to describe criminals and guns...not any posting person on this board. I attacked your viewpoint, yes, but not you, personally. Or anyone else, personally. YOU, however, DID attack ME personally, psychoanalyzing me (and still haven't shown me a Ph.D. to show you are QUALIFIED to psychoanalyze me)

I did not attack people who defend gun rights. I attacked their viewpoints. Let's make that perfectly clear.

This is my last post to you. Here is a collection of your own quotes from this thread:

"you're a crackpot

I question the motives of ANYONE who wants a fucking assault rifle

gun nuts

I have a right to be safe FROM YOU

I don't trust you, or your intentions, and it is just that simple

I DO NOT ASSUME YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Utopian Libertarian gun nut.

I AM SCARED OF YOU!!

Anyone that obsessed with AVOIDING a background check probably DOES have something to hide.

before you are allowed to acquire an item that makes it easier for you to commit crime.

I assume your intentions, on buying a gun, are hostile

so you get to blow my fucking head off FIRST.

This makes me wonder what, exactly, is it that you have to hide.

you MAY be planning on using your gun to deprive me of my rights.

you're a gun nut, nothing I do or say will make a shred of difference to you, you care only for yourself, and not for anyone else, so fuck it,

what else do you expect from a gun nut"

After all this, Zaxon and I replied w/ :

You have a severe emotional trauma in your background that you need serious counseling for. It won't bring back your friend, but it could help you. You will never feel safe unless the entire world is disarmed except you. You assume everyone is out to commit a crime or has the potential to if they happen to own a firearm and have this quirk about privacy.

I am truly sorry for your loss, but you have to find a way to deal with the wounds left by a VERY tragic time.

This is even before GNI threw his two cents worth in w/:

"You just missed out on Kecibukia (spell?) and Zaxon showing the rest of the world where the gun lobbyists get their reputations for maturity and compassion...."

and calling me a hyprocrite.

Yet you admit that :

My perceptions have been fucked up

MY perceptions don't conform to YOUR reality

I do believe the worst in everyone



You attack the police :
"I can't count on the police to do thier damn job..."

and the Patriot Act yet want to put more power and authority in the hands of the Gov't. You scream for your 1st amendment rights while screaming about them being restricted:

"they pen us up a mile away from the object of protest",

Yet tell others to "don't go WHERE YOU AREN'T WANTED" when they want to utilize thier rights and push for restrictions on others.

You attack people on this board for analyzing you w/o a PHD but consider everyone else a potential serial killer/rapist/thief.

You know virtually nothing about constitutional history or firearms yet rant about different types of firearms and rights.

I turned your arguements around on you and you and GNI then screamed about me being insensetive and mean to you. While I feel sorry for the death of your friend, I no longer feel any sympathy for you. You are using her death as a crutch to vent your anger and hatred towards the world.

Goodbye. I hope you manage to find some sort of happiness in your life.

So, seriously then – should sniping weapons be illegal? For example, the US has never made the M14 (later, the M21) rifle available to the populace. It is unique in that sense. Heck, I can buy a Barrett M82A1 sniper rifle, but not an M14! Is the M82A1 not more dangerous than an M-16 (banned under the lapsed "1994 assault weapons ban".
http://www.geocities.com/landofsnipers/weapons/barrett82ENG.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82A1
...so here we have a bolt action (or semiauto, depending on the model) that IMHO is much "more dangerous" than most full autos!


http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a-stan.shtml

Yes it is.

Exactly. What else did you expect from a gun nut? Why do you think he's on my ignore list now. Because he can do nothing but mock my real pain and concern...and then go about making accusations that I would hurt my dog. Oh, I forget...he also attemoted to psychoanalyze me. and has yet to show me a Ph.D. to show he is QUALIFIED to psychoanayze me.

Look, I did not mock your pain. You and several others took it that way. I was pointing out what was actually driving your hatred of guns and distrust of people, as well as use your own logic process "against" you, so you'd see how it wasn't logical at all, and what you were actually doing.

I'm sure I could have done it in a "softer" fashion, for that I apologize (and yes, I mean it--I'm not proud of the heavy-handed tactics), but I'm betting someone with that vaunted Ph.D., that you seem to think makes people qualified, would come to the exact same conclusion. (Just because someone doesn't have a school saying they're qualified doesn't make it any less real or valid--and I think psychologists can actually practice with a masters.)

Your pain is real. Your emotions are real. They're both valid.

Emotions are not the basis of logic, however, nor are they supposed to be used in creating laws--rational thought is for that. I'm not saying you don't have the capacity for rational thought (you've proved that you do in your posts)--I'm just saying you have a very large wound that is affecting a great deal of your life still. You will do what you will do, as you are a free-willed human being. You can try to mend it, or not. I can't do anything about it, nor would I try to physically.

Someone please repost this for Bucksnort, since I'm on her ignore list. I'm pretty sure it's not what she wants, but it's as far as I can go.

Now that is the first thing any gun nut has said YET...that I agree with. Kinda creeps me out that I would hold ANY opinion in common...

But I agree that legalising drugs would definitely lower street crime significantly.

And, no, just because you legalise them, it doesnt't follow that more people will suddenly decide to use them. In fact, the reverse has been shown to be true...because many people who use drugs use them BECAUSE they are illegal.

Libertarians are for legalizing drugs (what I am--don't know if the other poster is or not). Is it so scary that you and I might actually have a comman point to agree on? We are both human, so it stands to reason that we wouldn't disagree on everything.

Some of that logic for legalizing drugs that you just used applies to firearms as well. Note, we haven't had an erruption of gun crime since the AWB (as the media called it) expired. No one has gone out and bought a bunch of Ar-15s with collapsible stocks and gone on a spree.

BTW, how’d you get 60%?That was the original goal of the FIM-92 Stinger system, which failed. After the upgrades, the Stinger RMP Block II is claimed to have been tested to perform by those standards, ie a 60% hit chance for incoming, low-flying aircraft (much faster than passenger jets).

But suffice it to say that many, many people have made the crossing. At least, more than passenger jets shot down by shoulder fired missiles. :DYep, there are only a few cases of the latter. Obviously it's a huge fear, though. A (http://www.emergency.com/2002/manpad_update02.htm) short (http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2002/1206.htm) collection (http://www.dailypundit.com/archives/007802.php) of (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_MissileDef,,00.html) articles (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/crs/rl-31741.pdf) on (http://www.airsafe.com/journal/v1num18.htm) the matter. You can find many more where those came from with a Google search for 'passenger aircraft missile fired'.

I agree, it’s not about effectiveness. All I’m saying is that a Surface to Air Missile is a crewed, plat-formed weapon system, and that the Stinger/Milan/LAW/RPG is not a SAM, as their primary purpose is anti-tank/hardened positions. Further, I’d hope you’ll agree that if you look at a HAWK and look at a Stinger that they are different.Sorry to say this, but you are way off. A Stinger's primary purpose, in fact its only purpose, is to shoot down aircraft. It is completely useless against armor, and cannot even be locked on to most ground targets -- unless you drop an incendiary grenade or an IR flare on it first. Did you actually read the article on FAS.Org/MAN that you linked about the Stinger earlier?

As Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile) concisely puts it, "A surface-to-air missile (SAM) is a missile designed to be launched from the ground to destroy aircraft." The Stinger MANPADS is a SAM by every definition of the word. There are subclasses of SAMs, some being crew-served, some not. But, crucially, they are all SAMs. An M249 and an M2HB are different, but they are both machineguns. A Stinger and a HAWK are different, but they are both SAMs.

Milans (and other ATGMs), LAWs and RPGs have nothing to do with this, because those are (in most cases) meant to be fired at armored/hardened ground targets. LAWs and RPGs fire rockets anyway, not guided missiles, so they only fit the criteria by being "launched from the ground".

The Chauchat is indeed ubercrappy, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat), but I’m more inclined to call it an early automatic rifle. If you want to call it a light machine gun, that’s fine too.The people who made it called it a machinegun. The people who used it called it a machinegun. The people who fought against it called a machinegun. All major gun magazines, as well as all defense technology magazines and reputable authors on the matter call it a machinegun. You can call it an automatic rifle if you wish, but realize that you are in a minority, and an extremely small one.

Right, so would it be right to ban the SUV?In what society, based on what, by whose standards? I can't think of any reason to ban SUVs, mostly because they don't fit any of the Risk of Illegal Use/Ease of Preventing Illegal Use criteria I put forward.

That’s sort of it, but maybe I’m not conveying it clearly enough: I’m all for regulation of any and all items that are perceived to need them in a lawful society, but against banning any of them. It may be that in order to be licensed to own that LAW rocket that it takes a long time and considerable cost and expense. But it should not be outright denied.Then the "technological argument" thing was quite pointless. It just boils down to your principle that no item should be outright banned unless its existence infringes on the freedoms of others.

I’m actually an irate duck hunter, and it would make it much easier. ;)Ever tried hitting a small, fast and almost irrationally moving target at significant range with a macinegun which has a slow cyclic RoF? Trying to hit a small object going 2m/s on a track at 100 meters is pretty damn tough with a LMG with a 1000rpm RoF, I shudder to think about hitting birds. A minigun might help, but then you've got the hundreds of bullets raining down 5km away to worry about, not to mention ripping the bird into tiny little pieces.

So, seriously then – should sniping weapons be illegal?I don't believe I even hinted they should. I offered the DSR-1 as proof that technology has nothing to do with it.

For example, the US has never made the M14 (later, the M21) rifle available to the populace. It is unique in that sense. Heck, I can buy a Barrett M82A1 sniper rifle, but not an M14! Is the M82A1 not more dangerous than an M-16 (banned under the lapsed "1994 assault weapons ban".First of all, the M82 is strictly semi-auto, there are other Barrett models (M95 (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_95.htm) and M99 (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_99.htm)) which are bolt action.

You are correct, however, that the same principles I mentioned about fully automatic weapons could be applied to very large caliber semi-automatic or bolt-action weapons. Arguably, they do not offer any real improvement over smaller caliber weapons for any legal use -- there is no land-bound animal in the world which would require the penetrating potential of the .50BMG to bag in any circumstance, it's horribly expensive and quite uncomfortable to just shoot with, and it's useless for self defence. However, they do not offer much improvement for illegal use either. Penetrating armored vehicles for assassination purposes is the only thing I can think of, and that's hardly useful for any self-respecting assassin. You are still mostly limited to one kill per shot, but your rate of fire and ease of handling decrease significantly along with accessibility and ease of infiltration.

I get it, I just don’t agree with it is all.Then we can stop with the analogies and questions about what should or should not be banned according to someone.

That I disagree with. Most all registrations of firearms led directly to their confiscation, for example. And the US (despite it’s “gun culture”) is still a much safer place than most of South America today.Gun registration did not lead to confiscation in Finland or Sweden AFAIK, and I can't think of any examples in (non-Eastern) Europe where that would have happened within the last, say, 50 years. And Finland (with strict gun control) is a much safer place than the US. Any differences between Finland and the US you can point to to explain the difference I can also point out between South America and the US (culture, history, social issues).

Right. Now change the term “guns” to “discussing your idea” or “worship your god”. Free speech/assembly/bear arms are all inter-related.Indeed. I believe it is illegal to urge someone to commit a crime (providing a breaking point for freedom of speech), and religions(/religious cults) which teach human sacrifice or mass suicide, etc, have been broken up (same for freedom of religion).

How about in Sweden, then? Ms. Lindh didn't know her assailant...Are you familiar with what actually happened in that instance? The assailant rushed at Lindh in a crowded mall, landing several blows to her head, dropping her to the floor, before she had a chance to react. Then the assailant started to stab her. By the time Lindh was able to defend herself, drawing a gun would have more likely given her assailant an extra weapon, not to mention that the stab wound in her abdomen (which punctured her liver and eventually killed her) would have occurred by then. The Anna Lindh case certainly doesn't help the pro-gun group.

It should also be noted that Anna Lindh was a well-known politician, a media figure. For such people, the threat of attack by someone unknown is orders of magnitude greater. I'm not against (possibly armed) bodyguards, either.

Yep. But some of these posts by others make me happy that we have an Electoral College and don’t elect the President directly…You'd currently have the same president, whose government follows an active policy of stripping people of civil liberties in order to increase safety. This might not be as clear in the issue of gun control, but surely you consider most(/all) civil liberties as important?

Yeah. Like gay marriage. Big fucking deal. Who the hell does it hurt if Bob and Steve are allowed to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and are viewed, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW...the same as any hetero coiuple? No one is saying any church would, or should, have to perform gay marriages, or recognize them as valid.

Show me what the compelling state interest is in fucking with the lives, and families, of people just because their lifestyle happens to make YOU feel "icky."

But they are all-fired up about Amending the Constitution on that one. since when did two gay men marrying one another cause anyone to DIE??

Never. Which is why I don't support amending the constitution to prohibit that. You seem to have a great many assumptions about what I stand for, since I fully support gun rights.

Here's my major political views:

I'm pro-choice
I want religion out of the government
I like the ability to defend myself with firearms (or any other tool)
I'm for the death penalty
Social issues like sexuality and drug use are up to the individual--and no one else. There should be no laws governing those things.
I want a much smaller government taking a lot less of my hard-earned money
There should be no conscription

Shake up any assumptions?

Indeed. I believe it is illegal to urge someone to commit a crime (providing a breaking point for freedom of speech), and religions(/religious cults) which teach human sacrifice or mass suicide, etc, have been broken up (same for freedom of religion).
Not exactly the case. It is illegal to cospire to injure someone, but just saying something stupid once or twice is not near enough to get a conviction on that. And it actually is perfectly legal to teach a religion that promotes such but you cannot actually act upon it's teachings.

Actually, as someone who has seen the harm guns can do...and has felt the real pain of having someone they love taken from them by a gun...I am FAR LESS LIKELY to, as someone put it "fly off the handle" and shoot someone else. I will only do it if I am put into a situation where I have no other choice to defend myself. Given ANY other choice, I would not shoot. But damned if I'll stand there and let someone hurt me or mine, ever again!

And it took a violent crime to get you to see what we as "gun nuts" knew already. THAT is the exact reason why those of us who claim self-defense purposes for firearms do so.

We learned from others' experiences that the world is not, nor will it ever be, a safe place. We want to be able to defend those that we love and care about from those that want to hurt them.

I would shoot as a last resort as well. In Wisconsin, if they're running from you, you CAN'T shoot. Not so in Texas, if they're still on your property at night.

I'm sorry it took something so awful to get you to realize it.

If the shoe fits....

then don't go WHERE YOU AREN'T WANTED. Sorry, but we damn well have a right to protest the President. It's called right to peaceful assembly. And it's called right to petition government for redress of grievances. but the current Administration refuses to even hear us. They pen us up a mile away from the object of protest, so he can continue to exist in his little fantasy world that everyone loves him. Well, some folks, like me, hate his fucking guts! and we want to be able to TELL him so...right in his face, where he can't ignore it!

Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."

Yup it sure is. How about that Democratic National Convention? Same thing happened there. Big governmental machines are fairly alike in a great many things....

Not exactly the case. It is illegal to cospire to injure someone, but just saying something stupid once or twice is not near enough to get a conviction on that. And it actually is perfectly legal to teach a religion that promotes such but you cannot actually act upon it's teachings.So, if Jim Jones (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/reverend-jim-jones/) suddenly reappeared from Africa and wanted to re-establish the People's Temple, the government wouldn't intervene? And I believe it's illegal to "incite racial hatred" by constantly urging the listeners of a radio show, for example, to "kill some niggers". "Saying some thing stupid once or twice" has certainly managed to get the attention of the Secret Service, getting someone who is obviously no threat to anybody detained, quite often following messages to the president (or The White House) which happen to include a phrase like "kill the president". Isn't just telling the president you want to kill him a crime?

In the US, that is. It certainly isn't a crime for me to tell my president I want to/am going to kill her, unless it is obvious I am an actual threat.

It always confuses me when people claim to be libertarians (for example), or to espouse freedom, and then discuss socialism like it is anathema to libertarianism, and, to compound it, advocate the Republican Party.

socialism != libertarianism

Hell you could say (socialism == ~(libertarianism)), which is a really geeky way to say socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Yes, I know there are people like Noam Chomsky who claim to be "left-libertarians" or anarcho-communists, but that is misuse of the term. Normally, libertarianism a pro-private property ideology. Socialism is anti-private property. It is quite frustrating that there are so many of you folks who wish to mix these two conflicting concepts. The only sort of socialism a true libertarian can tolerate is the voluntary variety, which is hardly fits any normal definition of socialism.

I have to agree with Battery Charger in that the most common meaning of the word "socialism" includes the idea of no private ownership, which runs counter to basic libertarian ideals. However, I can't think of a major political party or movement in a civilized Western nation that actually espouse the abolishment of private ownership. Pure, Marxist socialism is more or less dead as a real political system. Current social democratic (and even socialist) parties in the Western world fully support private ownership; their defining ideas are active financial policy to counter the cyclical nature of economies and extensive transfer payments, neither of which I see as being opposite to what libertarians go for.

Gun registration did not lead to confiscation in Finland or Sweden AFAIK, and I can't think of any examples in (non-Eastern) Europe where that would have happened within the last, say, 50 years. And Finland (with strict gun control) is a much safer place than the US. Any differences between Finland and the US you can point to to explain the difference I can also point out between South America and the US (culture, history, social issues).

You'd currently have the same president, whose government follows an active policy of stripping people of civil liberties in order to increase safety. This might not be as clear in the issue of gun control, but surely you consider most(/all) civil liberties as important?

England registered then banned/consfiscated most guns. Legislation is pending in Scotland to ban "assault knives". Australia as well (although not WE, same general culture).

In Finland, what are the instances of violent crime (gun related or otherwise) in the urban areas in comparison to rural areas? In the US, if you remove inner city gang-related violence, the stats drop down to near or below other industrialized nations.

I, for one, oppose the Patriot Act and applaud the Supreme Court striking it down section by section.

If the shoe fits....
Hypocrisy... the other white meat.

That came out of the desire to give the government BACK to the people, and take it out of the hands of the giant multi-national corporations, who want only to screw people over for their own selfish profit interests.
No, it came out of a desire by the left to prevent right wing organizations like the NRA and right to life from being able to advertise, while th eleft biased media could run anything they wanted.

then don't go WHERE YOU AREN'T WANTED. Sorry, but we damn well have a right to protest the President. It's called right to peaceful assembly. And it's called right to petition government for redress of grievances.
So what you're saying is that you can protest the President, but the counterprotestars can't publicly support him?

You just said "don't go where you aren't wanted" and you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in that statement? Zaxon was right... you are irrational.
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."Unless you're Conservative, right?

Hypocrisy... the other white meat.
No, it came out of a desire by the left to prevent right wing organizations like the NRA and right to life from being able to advertise, while th eleft biased media could run anything they wanted.

So what you're saying is that you can protest the President, but the counterprotestars can't publicly support him?

You just said "don't go where you aren't wanted" and you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in that statement? Zaxon was right... you are irrational.
Unless you're Conservative, right?

Careful Koldor, you're being insensetive to her. You must be a gun nut.

Careful Koldor, you're being insensetive to her. You must be a gun nut.

I know you're saying that tongue in cheek, but I do feel a little badly about it. Normally I don't call people outright irrational, especially when there's no need to as everyone else knows it.

But what do I know, I'm just a gun nut, right? ;)

And yes, I have a collection of military style weapons, including a couple of assault rifles. And yes, they all work.

England registered then banned/consfiscated most guns.And then the question is: Were they actually planning to confiscate all those weapons back when they were registered? If not, that has nothing to do with what was discussed.

Legislation is pending in Scotland to ban "assault knives".Were "assault knives" very recently registered in Scotland? If not, see above.

In Finland, what are the instances of violent crime (gun related or otherwise) in the urban areas in comparison to rural areas?I wouldn't know. Probably much higher rates of violent crime in urban areas, just like everywhere else in the world, regardless of gun ownership.

Hmm. Not sure what part of Finland you're from, but I seem to remember on my last visit, it was a LOT easier for someone to buy a fully automatic machinegun and a noise suppressor (silencer) than it is here in the US.

A LOT EASIER.

Plus, it's a lot easier to find a place to shoot. A LOT of Finns seem to enjoy recreational shooting, even with machineguns.

And I don't see them with a high rate of crime and murder. In fact, if you look at detailed crime statistics in the US, if you exclude certain minority groups from the statistics (or, to be more politically correct, we alternatively exclude people below a certain socioeconomic status), the average majority US citizen enjoys a gun violence rate better than that of Switzerland.

Or, as my dad used to say, "stay out of that bad neighborhood".

It's not the guns that cause crime. It's the people holding the guns. There are a couple of alternatives.

1. Enforce the laws we already have. Heck, murder and armed robbery are already against the law, with bigger penalties than illegal firearm possession, and people still commit those crimes with guns. Maybe they aren't convinced that they're going to be caught or punished. (this is the Republican "hang them high" proposal).
2. Restrict ownership to people of a higher socioeconomic class (this is the Democrat "no cheap guns" or "tax guns" proposal).

Banning firearms or severely restricting them doesn't work in the US. Places that have the highest restrictions on firearm possession have the highest violent and personal crime in the US - 40 years running. Places that encourage concealed weapon permits have the lowest.

Restricting handguns recently in the UK has resulted in the greatest increase in handgun firearm violence in UK history. So why isn't it working?

I know you're saying that tongue in cheek, but I do feel a little badly about it. Normally I don't call people outright irrational, especially when there's no need to as everyone else knows it.

But what do I know, I'm just a gun nut, right? ;)

And yes, I have a collection of military style weapons, including a couple of assault rifles. And yes, they all work.

I felt bad at first. That changed after I was continually insulted for being "insensetive and mean" to her when I turned her logic around. Being called a hypocrite didn't help either.

About half of my guns are old military style. I own one "assault weapon" (but several others could be classified as such by anti-gunners).

I felt bad at first. That changed after I was continually insulted for being "insensetive and mean" to her when I turned her logic around. Being called a hypocrite didn't help either.

About half of my guns are old military style. I own one "assault weapon" (but several others could be classified as such by anti-gunners).

One young liberal here. I own one 20-gage shotgun and use it to hunt. (I'm no veggie-head) I have no problem with normal guns. What I believe is that

1. Nobody with a felony should be able to own an assault class gun.
2. Assualt class guns should be registered, but not neccesarily banned.

Hmm. Not sure what part of Finland you're from, but I seem to remember on my last visit, it was a LOT easier for someone to buy a fully automatic machinegun and a noise suppressor (silencer) than it is here in the US.

A LOT EASIER.I haven't got a clue how you got that kind of idea. Under the Firearms Act, the following firearms are defined as specially dangerous firearms: grenade launchers; mortars; breech-loading cannon and firearms corresponding to these in structure and purpose; missile and rocket-launcher systems; automatic firearms; and firearms disguised as other objects.

The acquisition of specially dangerous firearms and firearm components is generally forbidden. In exceptional cases, however, the Gaming and Weapon Administration of the Ministry of the Interior may grant an acquisition, manufacturing or parallel permit for specially dangerous firearms to be held in a firearm collection, or used in a demonstration, filming or other similar presentation, and, if there are special reasons, for work purposes, should the firearm in question be necessary for the performance of the work.
http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/B40D3A0041C79ED5C2256C450039F83FIn other words, unless the fully automatic weapon is to be acquired for a collection (in which case it will be non-functional in nearly all cases) or it is used for a presentation (and then gotten rid of), it is more or less impossible for a civilian to get your hands on one.

Sound suppressors for firearms are not particularly restricted in Finland, that much is true. Good thing I didn't claim they were, eh?
Plus, it's a lot easier to find a place to shoot. A LOT of Finns seem to enjoy recreational shooting, even with machineguns.WTF? Uhh, yeah, recreational shooting is a significant hobby for several in the rural areas of Finland. Hell no, machineguns aren't common. You can take part in reserve training (similar to a Nat'l Guard or Reserve training in the US) or a demonstration (similar to the firearms industry shoot-outs in the US) to fire one, but other than that it's almost impossible to get to fire a fully automatic weapon.

And I don't see them with a high rate of crime and murder. In fact, if you look at detailed crime statistics in the US, if you exclude certain minority groups from the statistics (or, to be more politically correct, we alternatively exclude people below a certain socioeconomic status), the average majority US citizen enjoys a gun violence rate better than that of Switzerland.A great excercise in manipulating statistics. Not a very subtle one, but arguably effective. Not much use for anything else, though.

And what, pray tell, is an assault class gun?

The previous legal definition is a complete joke.

The "assault weapons" definition in use is a cosmetic description. In fact, an assault weapon is by definition using an underpowered cartridge (compared the the far more lethal and penetrating hunting rounds - it's illegal to use the round for the M-16 on deer because it's very unreliable at killing them).

If you think that assault weapons are commonly used by criminals, or that they are the weapon of choice for killers, or that they are exceptionally lethal and make targets easy to hit, you watch too many movies and have your head lodged in your rectum.

Most bolt action hunting rifles, even though they aren't painted black, don't have a pistol grip, don't have a bayonet lug, and don't have a removable magazine, are at least as accurate as a military sniper rifle, and in some cases, have more range and are shot by civilians who have far more marksmanship skill than the typical infantryman.

I know that the typical prarie dog hunter is probably far more dangerous with a bolt action than they are with an M-16.

"Assault" weapons were intended to answer the problem of providing "volume of fire" while keeping the carry weight of ammunition down. It was determined through scientific study that most people are hit by accident in combat, and that volume of fire influenced the outcome of combat even if no one gets hit. So, provide a cheap, lightweight weapon with lightweight weak cartridges that are also cheap, and we can make more of them. Throw more bullets, influence more combat. Not necessarily hit anyone.

I suggest that people who think assault rifles are lethal should read Project SALVO.

I have a single shot rifle that I have shot at the range with some friends who are on a state police team. They have M-16s. Guess who hits further out, more often than all of them put together, and with a cartridge that has many times the retained striking energy? I do. It's a rifle perfectly suited for elk hunting.

In fact, an assault weapon is by definition using an underpowered cartridge (compared the the far more lethal and penetrating hunting rounds - it's illegal to use the round for the M-16 on deer because it's very unreliable at killing them).An assault rifle is defined partly by firing a cartridge that is less powerful than full rifle cartridges. That is not necessarily true if one wants to extend the "assault" group of weapons into SMGs, shotguns, etc. Not that I would want to define such things.

I have a single shot rifle that I have shot at the range with some friends who are on a state police team. They have M-16s. Guess who hits further out, more often than all of them put together, and with a cartridge that has many times the retained striking energy? I do. It's a rifle perfectly suited for elk hunting.Gun crime happens more often in urban terrain, at close ranges, against targets that aren't just waiting around to get shot. Humans in general are much easier to kill than deer, let alone elk -- either an M193 (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg) or an M855 (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg) fired out of a 20" barrel is plenty lethal against humans. I'd definitely choose an M4A1 (loaded with M193) for all my killing-spree action over a bolt-action hunting rifle in any caliber.

I'll be the first one to admit I've watched too many action movies, but I've also fired several fully automatic firearms a few thousand times, so I'm not only talking out of my ass.

One young liberal here. I own one 20-gage shotgun and use it to hunt. (I'm no veggie-head) I have no problem with normal guns. What I believe is that

1. Nobody with a felony should be able to own an assault class gun.
2. Assualt class guns should be registered, but not neccesarily banned.

I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why an assault weapon should be registered, and not other types.

Given the fact that they are rarely used in crimes in the US, typically an assault rifle, unlike the true military counterpart does NOT have the ability to go fu ll auto or fire bursts, and the fact that generally, assault rifles are less accurate than a bolt action rifle.

Given the fact that they are rarely used in crimes in the US, typically an assault rifle, unlike the true military counterpart does NOT have the ability to go fu ll auto or fire bursts, and the fact that generally, assault rifles are less accurate than a bolt action rifle.An "assault weapon" that happens to be a rifle is not the same thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is the term used for weapons that (among other things) are capable of fully automatic or burst fire.

Like I mentioned above, long range accuracy is not particularly useful in a weapon used for crime. Fast follow-up shots are more so. Still, a semi-automatic rifle that is not based on an assault rifle might be a better choice, because assault rifles do tend to be less accurate than semi-automatic rifles in generaly (because of price and reliability issues, among tother things).

An "assault weapon" that happens to be a rifle is not the same thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is the term used for weapons that (among other things) are capable of fully automatic or burst fire.

Like I mentioned above, long range accuracy is not particularly useful in a weapon used for crime. Fast follow-up shots are more so. Still, a semi-automatic rifle that is not based on an assault rifle might be a better choice, because assault rifles do tend to be less accurate than semi-automatic rifles in generaly (because of price and reliability issues, among tother things).

And I guess I should take this opportunity to point out that the US and it's crazy terms and definitions counts a weapon as an assault weapon if it has a certain number of features found in a "typical" assault weapon. Examples would include a pistol grip, flash suppresor, muzzle brake, ammo clip, etc.

Mine are semi auto only.

People who are not looking at me on the firing line with a bolt action rifle have a hard time believing that I'm not shooting a semi-auto.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a-stan.shtml

Yes it is.

Yes, I know about the Springfield version.
I'm talking about the genuine article though. My buddy has bought "suplus" M1s, M2s, and M16s, along with M1911s and some USAF revolver. But no actual M14s.

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M14.htm
(not his site, but a good resource)

People who are not looking at me on the firing line with a bolt action rifle have a hard time believing that I'm not shooting a semi-auto.

There was a guy before WWII, while the British were deciding whether or not to go with a semi-auto rifle, who put 38 rounds into the 10X in one minute with a .303 Enfield. Remember that the SMLE has a 10 round magazine, so he stopped to reload three times. Yeow! So much for a semi-auto.

Both Kennedy and the guy from Austin both did thier shooting with a bolt action rifle, and the USMC standard sniper rifle is a bolt action based on the Remington 700.

When the shot needs to count, it's probably going to come from a bolt action rifle.

There was a guy before WWII, while the British were deciding whether or not to go with a semi-auto rifle, who put 38 rounds into the 10X in one minute with a .303 Enfield. Remember that the SMLE has a 10 round magazine, so he stopped to reload three times. Yeow! So much for a semi-auto.

Both Kennedy and the guy from Austin both did thier shooting with a bolt action rifle, and the USMC standard sniper rifle is a bolt action based on the Remington 700.

When the shot needs to count, it's probably going to come from a bolt action rifle.

If you've ever read anything about WW1... esp. Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August"...

During an early encounter of the war, a small British detachment encountered a German detachment (if I recall correctly) near a railway station or crossing. The rate and accuracy of the British riflemen was such that the Germans were utterly convinced that they were up against machineguns.

The pity, of course, being that these were professionals of the British Army and that they were almost all gone by 1915. :(

The fact that fully automatic weapons of the era generally managed around 400-500rpm and were very rare probably helped make that impression.

Sure, you can fire bolt action weapons pretty fast. No, you can't shoot them as fast as semi-automatic weapons, unless you happen to have superhuman hand coordination and a straight-pull .22.

For fire that entails any real aiming, a semi-auto isn't any faster than I am with a bolt. :sniper:

If you just want to impress the uninitiated with the sound of gunfire, you can pull the trigger a lot faster. :mp5:

If you just want to impress the uninitiated with the sound of gunfire, you can pull the trigger a lot faster.Or, you know, if you want to engage a large number of potentially hostile, moving enemies at close range.

Or, you know, if you want to engage a large number of potentially hostile, moving enemies at close range.

triggered claymores would be much better for that, but alas, they're illegal. Damn you Brady Bill!!

This person assumes I'm going to go out and kill people, insults me, rants about how innefficient the police are and refuses to answer most of my questions all the while admitting she knows little about guns and that she would kill anyone on her property she percieves as hostile. She wants checks on people she "assumes" MAY be dangerous which she is, BY HER OWN DEFINITIONs AND ARGUEMENTS.

You say she is the "only" one w/ a valid reason? Have you met her? Have you met me? Do you know every detail of my life? No? Then Piss off.

Try reading her previous posts before you have to gall to call me a hypocrite. She started out by using vulgar language and attacking people who defend gun rights

I tried to be reasonable w/ her and she went off the handle.

Yes, I guess you are not a hypocrit at all.

You were totally justified in your attacks, because she used vulgar language, and has a different opinion on what the requirements should be for owning weapons.

Oh, wait - you have different opinions to mine, and just told me to 'piss off'...

Hypocrisy.

Exactly. What else did you expect from a gun nut? Why do you think he's on my ignore list now. Because he can do nothing but mock my real pain and concern...and then go about making accusations that I would hurt my dog. Oh, I forget...he also attemoted to psychoanalyze me. and has yet to show me a Ph.D. to show he is QUALIFIED to psychoanayze me.

Unfortunately, it is a recognised debate technique.

When one had no ability to attack the person on logic or facts, they attack the person on personality or perception.

Bush used that particular technique to great effect in the last election.

The way I figure it, anyone who uses the 'ad hominem' branch of debate, is admitting that they have already lost, in terms of actual debate.

So, just tell him "welcome to my iggy bin", and rest easy in the knowledge that his low-blows are your vindication.

Hey now, you guys are a tad off topic.

The psychology thread is over, uh, someplace else. Let's get back to the liberal conspiracy that is trying to usurp our constitutional rights to massive firepower. :D

Unfortunately, it is a recognised debate technique.

When one had no ability to attack the person on logic or facts, they attack the person on personality or perception.

Bush used that particular technique to great effect in the last election.

The way I figure it, anyone who uses the 'ad hominem' branch of debate, is admitting that they have already lost, in terms of actual debate.

So, just tell him "welcome to my iggy bin", and rest easy in the knowledge that his low-blows are your vindication.
If I remember correctly she was the one who first brought forth baseless attacks against the others in this thread. Actually baseless doesn't quite do them justice, but they were very emotional attacks based in the past upon a single incident that was obviously extremely emotionally traumatizing. And before you continue to say stupid crap concerning the election, Kerry was in no way different. In fact, I can probably find more instances of him doing that than Bush. She has no actual statistics that truly support her position, however and that is why people responded the way they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."

Unless you're Conservative, right?

I don't see conservo-creeps being penned up, forced to voice their protest a mile or more from the object of their protest, and, until you DO see that...the way you see LIBERALS penned up a mile or more from the object of protest, you haven't a leg to stand on.

And I quite frankly don't want to hear from conservo-creeps anyway. They are all just a bunch of mean-spirited, selfish, greedy people. I honestly believe conservatives ENJOY screwing with other people, and making other people's lives miserable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."



I don't see conservo-creeps being penned up, forced to voice their protest a mile or more from the object of their protest, and, until you DO see that...the way you see LIBERALS penned up a mile or more from the object of protest, you haven't a leg to stand on.

And I quite frankly don't want to hear from conservo-creeps anyway. They are all just a bunch of mean-spirited, selfish, greedy people. I honestly believe conservatives ENJOY screwing with other people, and making other people's lives miserable. The same damned thing that occurred at the RNC occurred at the DNC. It also happened at the debates where no other parties were allowed to participate. Now quit your damned whining.

There was a guy before WWII, while the British were deciding whether or not to go with a semi-auto rifle, who put 38 rounds into the 10X in one minute with a .303 Enfield. Remember that the SMLE has a 10 round magazine, so he stopped to reload three times. Yeow! So much for a semi-auto.

Both Kennedy and the guy from Austin both did thier shooting with a bolt action rifle, and the USMC standard sniper rifle is a bolt action based on the Remington 700.

When the shot needs to count, it's probably going to come from a bolt action rifle.

The guy from Austin...you mean Charles Whitfield, right? I am an Austinite here, and to this day, his name is infamous in this town, forty years after the incident. You are, I assume, refering to the UT Tower shooting incident.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.
Not true. As a moderate Republican, even I can say that heavy background checks and wait moratoriums are vital. However, if a person checks out as a responsible citizen, he or she should have nothing to worry about and should be allowed to own weapons of a non-military nature.

Hey now, you guys are a tad off topic.

The psychology thread is over, uh, someplace else. Let's get back to the liberal conspiracy that is trying to usurp our constitutional rights to massive firepower. :D

WTF do you NEED with "massive firepower?" Unless, of course, you are planning to pull anothe McDonald's Massacre, or UT Tower shooting, or some such shit. Massive firepower has but one use...hunting humans.

Not true. As a moderate Republican, even I can say that heavy background checks and wait moratoriums are vital. However, if a person checks out as a responsible citizen, he or she should have nothing to worry about and should be allowed to own weapons of a non-military nature.
And I, as a full-tilt radical lefty liberal pinko-commie, call me what you will...absolutely agree with the above.

And, if standing up for the little guy, the worker, the disenfranchised and the poor...the ones who work the hardest to put into the system...and get the least out of it...if that is what it means to be a liberal, then yes, I'm a liberal, and proud of it!

High time someone stood up for the little guy in this goddamn country.

WTF do you NEED with "massive firepower?" Unless, of course, you are planning to pull anothe McDonald's Massacre, or UT Tower shooting, or some such shit. Massive firepower has but one use...hunting humans.
Actually there wasn't "massive firepower" in the UT incident. Instead you had a highly trained marksman that for some reason or another decided to wack out. This was also before the major development of things like SWAT teams. "massive firepower" as you so eloquently put it, is rarely used unless the person in question has nothing to live for.

And I, as a full-tilt radical lefty liberal pinko-commie, call me what you will...absolutely agree with the above.

And, if standing up for the little guy, the worker, the disenfranchised and the poor...the ones who work the hardest to put into the system...and get the least out of it...if that is what it means to be a liberal, then yes, I'm a liberal, and proud of it!

High time someone stood up for the little guy in this goddamn country.
The only difference between military and non-military weapons is that military weapons can have a few more asthetic features and legally have the capability to fire full auto. I also fail to see how your last inane statement has anything to do with the topic at hand, but whatever.

Actually thinking on it I find your second statement to be quite laughable, especially considering that the general ownership of guns is in the end the ULTIMATE defense of the little guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."

I hope that's also for folks that don't always agree with your side.


I don't see conservo-creeps being penned up, forced to voice their protest a mile or more from the object of their protest, and, until you DO see that...the way you see LIBERALS penned up a mile or more from the object of protest, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Um... I was *in* Boston during the DNC.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/07/21/protest_zone_draws_ire/

...and since the DEMS did it first, I think that we can say that NEITHER party has a leg to stand on.


And I quite frankly don't want to hear from conservo-creeps anyway. They are all just a bunch of mean-spirited, selfish, greedy people. I honestly believe conservatives ENJOY screwing with other people, and making other people's lives miserable.

This would bring me back to your first point, about the First Amendment Zone and people that don't necessarily agree with your side...

Why licensing wouldn't work for guns.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041201-122434-2243r.htm

Why licensing wouldn't work for guns.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041201-122434-2243r.htm

I'm assuming that you're talking about illegal aliens getting licensed guns via illegal licenses?

http://www.nevadafamilies.org/1003driver.htm
and
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2533237

http://www.nevadafamilies.org/1003driver.htmWhat a nice site. I love the complete lack of bias, and I commend whoever it was that took the 30 seconds off from bombing abortion clinics to edit that driver's license picture to include as much xenophobic attitude as possible.

Hey now, you guys are a tad off topic.

The psychology thread is over, uh, someplace else. Let's get back to the liberal conspiracy that is trying to usurp our constitutional rights to massive firepower. :D

I'm with you on that. I'm on her ignore list. I've apologized as much as I'm going to, so let's move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."



I don't see conservo-creeps being penned up, forced to voice their protest a mile or more from the object of their protest, and, until you DO see that...the way you see LIBERALS penned up a mile or more from the object of protest, you haven't a leg to stand on.

And I quite frankly don't want to hear from conservo-creeps anyway. They are all just a bunch of mean-spirited, selfish, greedy people. I honestly believe conservatives ENJOY screwing with other people, and making other people's lives miserable.

Again, I'll point to the Democratic National Convention.

And not all of us who support gun rights are conservative.

And I, as a full-tilt radical lefty liberal pinko-commie, call me what you will...absolutely agree with the above.

And, if standing up for the little guy, the worker, the disenfranchised and the poor...the ones who work the hardest to put into the system...and get the least out of it...if that is what it means to be a liberal, then yes, I'm a liberal, and proud of it!

High time someone stood up for the little guy in this goddamn country.

By having gun controls in place, you only allow those in power to stay in power. The little guy won't gain anything, when the powerful can already ignore the laws.

Actually there wasn't "massive firepower" in the UT incident. Instead you had a highly trained marksman that for some reason or another decided to wack out. This was also before the major development of things like SWAT teams. "massive firepower" as you so eloquently put it, is rarely used unless the person in question has nothing to live for.

It was a hunting rifle that shot .35 Reminton, if I recall correctly. Not an assault rifle, not a machine gun, not really a sniper rifle, either. Just a hunting rifle.

No massive firepower, no military-type rounds, nothing armor piercing or mercury tipped.....just a hunting gun. The least dangerous according to the anti-gunners. It had wood on it. It wasn't all scary-black.

plinking

I have to agree with Battery Charger in that the most common meaning of the word "socialism" includes the idea of no private ownership, which runs counter to basic libertarian ideals. However, I can't think of a major political party or movement in a civilized Western nation that actually espouse the abolishment of private ownership. Pure, Marxist socialism is more or less dead as a real political system. Current social democratic (and even socialist) parties in the Western world fully support private ownership; their defining ideas are active financial policy to counter the cyclical nature of economies and extensive transfer payments, neither of which I see as being opposite to what libertarians go for.

I know of no political parties in all of Europe and only one in the US that could reasonably be said to fully support private ownership. And I've never heard of anyone calling himself a socialist who actually fully supports private property rights. Socialist ideas like advocating wealth-redistribution or transfer of ownership of the means of production is as anti-private property as one can possibly be.

The flavor of libertarianism that I subscribe to is rooted in Austrian-school economics. The Austrian economic theory itself is simply a theory of economic mechanics. IMO, it can be used to accurately describe the the cause & effect relationships in any given economic phoenomenon, including the so-called business cycle. Austrian economic theory itself doesn't render moral judgements, however embracing it generally leads one to support limited de-centralized government and to despise economic intervention by government.

What a nice site. I love the complete lack of bias, and I commend whoever it was that took the 30 seconds off from bombing abortion clinics to edit that driver's license picture to include as much xenophobic attitude as possible.

a) I didn't say it was a great site, I was just asking if this was what he was on about.

b) No comment on the CT news site? ;)

The only difference between military and non-military weapons is that military weapons can have a few more asthetic features and legally have the capability to fire full auto. I also fail to see how your last inane statement has anything to do with the topic at hand, but whatever.

Actually thinking on it I find your second statement to be quite laughable, especially considering that the general ownership of guns is in the end the ULTIMATE defense of the little guy.

No it isn't. Do you think you can LEGALLY shoot the people who oppress you economically?
This is what I mean when I am talking about standing up for the little guy...the disenfranchised...the poor workers who put the most into the system, and get the least out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."

Reply:
I hope that's also for folks that don't always agree with your side.

As long as you are peaceful about it, and do not incite violence, yes. We'd rather you just shut up, but, you do have a right to an opposite opinion, no matter how stupid it may be. what you do NOT have a right to do is to incite violence, by attempting to infiltrate the group that has the opposite opinion, or hurling personal insults...or projectiles at those who disagree with you.

If you remain peaceful, and do not incite violence, then, yes.

The problem is...that isn't how you guys work. You DO incite violence.

Ah, wait a minute...now maybe I think I understand why your types want "massive firepower. so you can disperse and kill large groups of liberals who oppose your ideals and agenda.

No, no, wait...I found it!!

This song, from 1989, by Peter Schilling, perfectly describes the country we are living in now. Please make special note of the bolded verse...

(LET'S PLAY) U.S.A. - by Peter Schilling

Where, oh where, is Mickey Mouse?
Alive and well in the White House.
What's the word on common sense?
It's been sitting on the fence.

Have you seen the mastermind?
Someone's bashed it from behind.
Leaders, saints and honest men,
What's become of them today?

Let's play...
U.S.A.
Let's play...
U.S.A.
How I love the life I lead.
Can not think and can not read.
Watch our values slip away,
Play the game of U.S.A.

Even though we lost the race
To get the first man into space,
We will be the first country
To run automatically.
Soon the robots we create
Will be starring on the Great White Way.

Let's play...
U.S.A.
Let's play...
U.S.A.
How I love the life I lead.
Can not think and can not read.
Watch our values slip away,
Play the game of U.S.A.

Won't it be a lot of fun,
every man would own a gun.
Shoot the ones whose point of view
makes a point that bothers you.

Go on and pollute the land,
Clean air will be sold in cans.
Did you hear the masterplan?
One nation under DisneyLand.

Let's play...
U.S.A.
Let's play...
U.S.A.
How I love the life I lead.
Can not think and can not read.
Watch our values slip away,
Play the game of U.S.A.

No it isn't. Do you think you can LEGALLY shoot the people who oppress you economically?
This is what I mean when I am talking about standing up for the little guy...the disenfranchised...the poor workers who put the most into the system, and get the least out of it.
Hmmm, Let's look at the fact that most of the "poor" in the US live as good as the average person in most other countries. Also, it can be argued that one of the big reasons for the amount of poverty in the US is welfare itself.

If you remain peaceful, and do not incite violence, then, yes.

The problem is...that isn't how you guys work. You DO incite violence.

Ah, wait a minute...now maybe I think I understand why your types want "massive firepower. so you can disperse and kill large groups of liberals who oppose your ideals and agenda.
Actually in the past election the only side to actually use firearms against the other was Kerry supporters. They fired upon a republican political office of some sort after dark.

I turned your arguements around on you and you and GNI then screamed about me being insensetive and mean to you. While I feel sorry for the death of your friend, I no longer feel any sympathy for you. You are using her death as a crutch to vent your anger and hatred towards the world.

Goodbye. I hope you manage to find some sort of happiness in your life.

Or, alternatively, an apology. That could have worked, too.

Screamed? I screamed at you? Here we go back into paranoia...

I would say that you don't feel sorry for the death of the friend, at all. In fact, judging by your posts, I would imagine you have never actually given it a second of consideration - because otherwise, you would (one hopes) not have acted as you have.

I would assume that you view the 'dead friend' as a statistic... and spent more time typing about her than you did thinking about an actual loss of life.

Perhaps you have never experienced a death. Perhaps you have never experienced a sudden or violent death of someone close to you. In which case you are very lucky - but, unfortunately, it means you have no frame of reference.

But, your closing sentence was good. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the rest of your post, so I guess it wasn't sincere. Which is a shame, because it was the one worthwhile sentence in the post.

Actually in the past election the only side to actually use firearms against the other was Kerry supporters. They fired upon a republican political office of some sort after dark.

Really? I didn't hear about that... can you cite a reference?

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=20241

a seperate incident

http://www.local6.com/politics/3785861/detail.html

socialism != libertarianism

Hell you could say (socialism == ~(libertarianism)), which is a really geeky way to say socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Yes, I know there are people like Noam Chomsky who claim to be "left-libertarians" or anarcho-communists, but that is misuse of the term. Normally, libertarianism a pro-private property ideology. Socialism is anti-private property. It is quite frustrating that there are so many of you folks who wish to mix these two conflicting concepts. The only sort of socialism a true libertarian can tolerate is the voluntary variety, which is hardly fits any normal definition of socialism.

Interesting. I don't agree with your post, or with your definitions.

Socialism does imply a lack of private property - but what DEFINES socialism as a politcal/economic structure, is that the means of production/distribution are put into the hands of those who produce/distribute.

It would, therefore, be possible to have a capitalist socialism or a communist socialism - although a communist socialism seems more logical - after all, if you collectively share the means and labour of production, why limit the ownership. What it means, though, is that socialism doesn't equate to anti-private property.

Similarly, you describe libertarianism as though it were diametrically opposite... which, of course, it isn't... since 'libertarianism' is a political 'model' and socialism is an economic model.

In point of fact, the 'true' libertarian model, would be one with NO external government. The only 'true' libertarian cultures that exist today, are anarchies... and anarchies tend towards socialism as an economic model.

I have to agree with Battery Charger in that the most common meaning of the word "socialism" includes the idea of no private ownership, which runs counter to basic libertarian ideals. However, I can't think of a major political party or movement in a civilized Western nation that actually espouse the abolishment of private ownership. Pure, Marxist socialism is more or less dead as a real political system. Current social democratic (and even socialist) parties in the Western world fully support private ownership; their defining ideas are active financial policy to counter the cyclical nature of economies and extensive transfer payments, neither of which I see as being opposite to what libertarians go for.

The ONLY way in which the 'most common' meaning of socialism opposes libertarian ideals, is in the way that the 'most common' usage of socialism is by Americans who still haven't recovered from a campaign of hate against the communist 'threat'.

Why do people keep saying that socialism is a 'political system'?

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.


The second Amendment is :A well funded Militia being neccisary to the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to carry and bear arms shall not be infringed. (i think thats it

Do we need a militia ? No we have a National Guard wich takes the place of that so there is no need for a person to own a gune to go join a militia. The only need for a gun is to kill whether an animal out of cold blood or a human out of revenge. What non-malicious purpose do they serve ? And to the peros who claimed that the only people who wanted to ban guns were far leftists , that is untrue what does the economic beleifs of some have to do with any social issues ?

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=20241

a seperate incident

http://www.local6.com/politics/3785861/detail.html


Okay - I have a problem here.

You stated as fact that Kerry supporters used guns at rallies... or words to that effect.

You WBIR article quite clearly states that "An unknown suspect fired multiple shots", "There were no witnesses to the shooting" and "they have no clues as to who might have committed the crime".

Furthermore, the article shows that they don't even know for certain that shots were fired AT the campaign office... they just know that shots HIT the office - but they have no evidence the office was the target.

It even says that they are unsure of where the shots came from, or when. "it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am."

Your other source mentions no shootings, in fact, it just describes a rather messy protest. And, it says that the protestors were AFL-CIO, and were protesting overtime restrictions which they claimed Bush was threatening.

That doesn't necessarily make them Kerry supporters, either.

Not sure how either of those two sources backed up your claim?

Actually in the past election the only side to actually use firearms against the other was Kerry supporters. They fired upon a republican political office of some sort after dark.

Actually, no one knows WHO did that...or if the Republican HQ was even the target.
And, though it is an old reference, and nothing to do with this most recent election, I will say this...

Kent State, anyone??

Or, more recent...what about all the clubbings and beatings liberals have gotten at the hands of NYC cops during protests against Bush that have been held in NYC?

sometimes, these beatings were because protesters did not follow directions of cops...but, often, the people who didn't follow directions were UNABLE to follow those directions, because of the press of the crowd...these unfortunates, due to the press of the crowd, were not able to follow the directions, and went the only way they could...and that earned them clubbing and beating.

No, it is only LIBERALS who are subjected to violence from opposition when they gather to protest.

Conservo-creeps sit there and picket abortion cliinics, and directly attack the women who come to the clinics, sometimes physically, more often verbally, calling them "fucking baby killers," etc.

This is not peaceful protest, and you are NOT allowed, under the First Amendment, to take those sorts of actions.

Your conservative, so-called "protests" are actually intimidation campaigns, and use intimidation tactics, psychological warfare, or outright physical violence.

If ANYONE ought to be penned up in order to be allowed to protest, it should be those who picket abortion clinics. And that is strictly a Republican undertaking.

And, as long as we are on the subject...how about the bombings of clinics, and the shooting of doctors by conservatives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Last I checked, this whole damn country was supposed to be a "First Amendment Zone."
Reply:
I hope that's also for folks that don't always agree with your side.

As long as you are peaceful about it, and do not incite violence, yes.
Aha. As opposed to the folks in Seattle to protest the WTO?
How about the DNC in Chicago 1968?
*Any* group can turn violent, due to the feelings involved at a protest and mob mentality. Sheesh.


We'd rather you just shut up, but, you do have a right to an opposite opinion, no matter how stupid it may be.

Aha. So any opinion that isn't yours is a stupid one. This is why liberalism is currently in deep trouble in the US.


what you do NOT have a right to do is to incite violence, by attempting to infiltrate the group that has the opposite opinion, or hurling personal insults...or projectiles at those who disagree with you.

Um, aside from the obvious conspiratorial nature of that statement... Any projectiles fired are a matter for law enforcement officials.
As for infiltration, what do you call Michael Moore at the RNC?


If you remain peaceful, and do not incite violence, then, yes.

Thanks. Now stop trashing Starbucks and McDonalds whenever you "protest".


The problem is...that isn't how you guys work. You DO incite violence.
Um... HOW? And, for that matter, who are *we*?


Ah, wait a minute...now maybe I think I understand why your types want "massive firepower. so you can disperse and kill large groups of liberals who oppose your ideals and agenda.

Wrong person, boyo. I'm all about *personal freedom*. IMHO, ALL the Amendments are equal, and everyone has a right to exercise them in whatever manner they want so long as they do not take rights away from another. Which is why I support your right to freedom of speech right up until the point it takes away my right to own firearms. Or assemble peacefully. Etc.

Kill large groups of liberals?? What kind of inflamitory, crazy talk is that?

Okay - I have a problem here.

You stated as fact that Kerry supporters used guns at rallies... or words to that effect.

You WBIR article quite clearly states that "An unknown suspect fired multiple shots", "There were no witnesses to the shooting" and "they have no clues as to who might have committed the crime".


Ummm, no? All I said was that Kerry supporters fired upon a republican office after dark, although I should have said early morning. And you're right, they may have been a Nader supporter instead. Unless they are just really really bad shots and were shooting at someone but missed. Possible I suppose.

Your other source mentions no shootings, in fact, it just describes a rather messy protest. And, it says that the protestors were AFL-CIO, and were protesting overtime restrictions which they claimed Bush was threatening.

That doesn't necessarily make them Kerry supporters, either.

I'm sorry, I should have said separate incident w/o gunfire. Although I'm pretty damned certain that most unions were firmly on Kerry's side.

I consider myself a liberal. I'm for gun ownership. Actually, I think that there should be a gun in every household, kinda like Switzerland.

Really, you see kids walking around with ak-47s and not shooting everybody there.

Ummm, no? All I said was that Kerry supporters fired upon a republican office after dark, although I should have said early morning. And you're right, they may have been a Nader supporter instead. Unless they are just really really bad shots and were shooting at someone but missed. Possible I suppose.

I'm sorry, I should have said separate incident w/o gunfire. Although I'm pretty damned certain that most unions were firmly on Kerry's side.

What you said was: "Actually in the past election the only side to actually use firearms against the other was Kerry supporters."

The article doesn't show 'one side' using firearms against 'the other'. It describes an event where an UNKNOWN assailent MAY HAVE deliberately fired on an unoccupied building.... which MAY HAVE been because it was a political building.

Could have just been some drunk rednecks out shooting beercans, and hitting windows. Of course, they didn't find any beercans... but, then, they didn't find ANY evidence... except for bullet damage.

Also - you make an assumption about the unions. You ASSUME they were Kerry supporters, it wasn't stated. But, anyway... even if they WERE, they were protesting overtime restriction - not politics.

Or, would you use the argument that all Republicans have gay daughters? We know one does, and he's a Republican - so, all Republicans MUST have gay daughters.

Do all Democrats get oral sex from the office assistant?

etc.

Kent State, anyone??

Um...what? The four people killed are tragic. But do you call the torching of a building, the smashing of shop windows, and challenging the police "peacefully assembly"?
It was also obvious that the shootings were most likely an ACCIDENT, and were clearly NOT ordered by anyone.

http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html and
http://columbusoh.about.com/library/weekly/aa040401b.htm



Or, more recent...what about all the clubbings and beatings liberals have gotten at the hands of NYC cops during protests against Bush that have been held in NYC?
sometimes, these beatings were because protesters did not follow directions of cops...but, often, the people who didn't follow directions were UNABLE to follow those directions, because of the press of the crowd...these unfortunates, due to the press of the crowd, were not able to follow the directions, and went the only way they could...and that earned them clubbing and beating.

Unless you're there, it is hard to say one way or another. While I'm sure that some police excesses occurred, I'm also sure that some of the protestors were out of line. As usual in life, things like this are not black & white.


No, it is only LIBERALS who are subjected to violence from opposition when they gather to protest.

Ever heard of PETA? Greenpeace?
How about the AFL-CIO action in Orlando, Florida?http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005741

Oh, wait. You're thinking that none of those are Liberals cracking down on Conservative protestors. And you're right. They're just Liberal crimes against Conservatives going about their daily business.
Please try to get it though your head that BOTH sides do the same shit. :(



Conservo-creeps sit there and picket abortion cliinics, and directly attack the women who come to the clinics, sometimes physically, more often verbally, calling them "fucking baby killers," etc.
This is not peaceful protest, and you are NOT allowed, under the First Amendment, to take those sorts of actions.

Yelling in public is allowed -- you do not have the right to not be offended. Any physical detention/harm is not, of course, and anyone doing so should be arrested.


Your conservative, so-called "protests" are actually intimidation campaigns, and use intimidation tactics, psychological warfare, or outright physical violence.


Right. And Farenheight 9-11 wasn't a blatent attempt and mass-brainwashing/history rewriting (read: psych warfare). Seattle 99 was peaceful.


If ANYONE ought to be penned up in order to be allowed to protest, it should be those who picket abortion clinics. And that is strictly a Republican undertaking.


Yep. And Democrats were solely responsible for the LA Riots. :rolleyes:


And, as long as we are on the subject...how about the bombings of clinics, and the shooting of doctors by conservatives?

To label these idiots as conservatives is a painting in very broad strokes. Akin to me saying that Democrats are solely responsible for urban blight due to the excesses of the Great Society.
And, while its tragic that even one doctor was shot, it definitely not a common occurance. Thank God.

Or, would you use the argument that all Republicans have gay daughters? We know one does, and he's a Republican - so, all Republicans MUST have gay daughters.

Do all Democrats get oral sex from the office assistant?

etc.

Good point -- it is never good when we stereotype.

However, as for the oral sex comment, yes, if you're only counting Democratic Presidents elected after Carter. ;)

Overtime resrictions are definitely part of politics, and in all likelyhood it was a drunk Kerry supporter. And given THIS page http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/bushwatch/index.cfm I would assume they are Kerry supporters.

Aha. As opposed to the folks in Seattle to protest the WTO?

*Any* group can turn violent, due to the feelings involved at a protest and mob mentality. Sheesh.

which is why having a mob of guys armed with guns and wearing storm trooper outfits is a bad idea.

oh, you meant the protestors in seattle...

i'll let you in on a little open secret; the cops attacked first on n30, hours before the black bloc formed. the other open secrets are that the cops almost always attack first, and that we almost always win our lawsuits against them for their blatant violations of their own laws and procedures, and they only rarely get any convictions at all (and almost all of those are petty offences on par with a parking ticket, with the occasional misdemeanor or two that are on par with public drunkeness).

I am always confused about why so many other LIBERALS want to get rid of guns. I am very liberal and I am opposed to gun control. I am an American, and I absolutely love the Bill of Rights-all 10 amendments. The point of the second amendment is to allow the citizens to fight an oppressive government. Why oppose that? The right to bear arms seems to me to be the type of issue liberals ought to support, and conservatives ought to oppose.

which is why having a mob of guys armed with guns and wearing storm trooper outfits is a bad idea.

oh, you meant the protestors in seattle...

i'll let you in on a little open secret; the cops attacked first on n30, hours before the black bloc formed. the other open secrets are that the cops almost always attack first, and that we almost always win our lawsuits against them for their blatant violations of their own laws and procedures, and they only rarely get any convictions at all (and almost all of those are petty offences on par with a parking ticket, with the occasional misdemeanor or two that are on par with public drunkeness).
This would be because actually proving stuff like what they accuse you of, especially when you have plenty of witnesses who may or may not lie for you, I'm not saying this always happens bt it does happen, means that proving it in a court of law is extremely hard.

This would be because actually proving stuff like what they accuse you of, especially when you have plenty of witnesses who may or may not lie for you, I'm not saying this always happens bt it does happen, means that proving it in a court of law is extremely hard.

what really lowers their conviction count is that they aren't actually using arrests to get convictions, just to keep people from protesting. mostly they just 'lose' the paper work or fail to show up in court. they've actually admitted that this is policy several times; they use mass arrests as a way to control crowd sizes in the following days, rather than because anything particularly illegal was going on.

provided they do things properly, cop testimony typically outweighs any amount of protestor testimony - except maybe with that one judge who went on record as saying he personally witnessed dozens of felonies commited by the police during the anti-ftaa mobolization in miami.

what's funny is that most of the times they actually do try to press major charges against somebody arrested at a protest it will wind up either being about something else entirely (the sherman austin case, for example) or involve gross police misconduct (for example, we've caught them on film planting evidence multiple times, sometimes in the form of explosive devices - that's right, we've caught cops planting bombs and molotovs and then trying to claim it was us).

every once in awhile they do decide to lay the smack down on somebody, and when they do they are sometimes quite effective - sherman got a year because he hosted some other guy's website which had a copy of some information that is easily available in your local library (he's now on rather strict probation for a couple more years), free got 23 years for a crime which in other (non-political) cases gets people less than 8, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
And, as long as we are on the subject...how about the bombings of clinics, and the shooting of doctors by conservatives?


REPLY:
To label these idiots as conservatives is a painting in very broad strokes. Akin to me saying that Democrats are solely responsible for urban blight due to the excesses of the Great Society.
And, while its tragic that even one doctor was shot, it definitely not a common occurance. Thank God.

True enough, I am painting in broad strokes. Perhaps I should clear up what I meant. I didn't mean that ALL coservatives were bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors...but I DID MEAN that all the people who ARE bombing clinics and shooting doctors ARE Republican/conservatives. You sure as hell don't think it is LIBERALS doing this, do you?

Finally, I agree with your last statement, thank God doctor shooting isn't more common. but it DOES happen. And evey time they nail someone who did it, you find that they are a rabid religious-right whackjob, a gun-nut, and an arch-conservative. I rest my case.

Why do people keep saying that socialism is a 'political system'?Because they aren't thinking clearly? That's the excuse I use when I do that. What I should have said was "a political movement". Political parties (or other organizations) whose goal is the creation of an economy functioning on principles of socialism through political means are seen as a fringe group, at least where I'm from. The meaning of the term "social democracy" has changed, it is no longer used (around here anyway) about those who actually seek the establishment of a system of socialism. Also, the inclusion of the name Marx usually means you're talking more about the political issues connected to the birth of socialism than about the economical issues.

Socialist ideas like advocating wealth-redistribution or transfer of ownership of the means of production is as anti-private property as one can possibly be.Ah, OK, you view income as property, yes? So that in order for private ownership to exist, the government (or any other collective entity) must not in any way interfere with the ownership or transfer of factors of production, goods or money?

Indeed in that case there are no political systems other than (some implementations of) anarchy which allow private ownership, and I am personally not aware of a significant political party or movement which calls for anarchy and socialism either. However, I am aware of individuals that do, and such systems have been attempted in the past in small communities (and, philosophically speaking, such a system is no more inherently flawed than an anarchocapitalistic system). Surprisingly, those attempts, along with all other attempts at anarchical societies, have failed, for one reason or another.

which is why having a mob of guys armed with guns and wearing storm trooper outfits is a bad idea.

oh, you meant the protestors in seattle...

i'll let you in on a little open secret; the cops attacked first on n30, hours before the black bloc formed. the other open secrets are that the cops almost always attack first, and that we almost always win our lawsuits against them for their blatant violations of their own laws and procedures, and they only rarely get any convictions at all (and almost all of those are petty offences on par with a parking ticket, with the occasional misdemeanor or two that are on par with public drunkeness).

Open secret 2:
And the mob almost always ransacks the city and when it is out of control.

Open secret 2:
And the mob almost always ransacks the city

incorrect.

please name these 'ransacked' cities, and how long it was before they were made safe for human habitation and shopping again?

we ain't ransacked shit (and too bad too, some things could use a good ransacking). had a couple of good runs of vandalism against some criminal capitalist firms and government agencies, but nothing that wasn't fixed the day after the protest ended.

No, no, wait...I found it!!

This song, from 1989, by Peter Schilling, perfectly describes the country we are living in now. Please make special note of the bolded verse...


It's off the album "The Different Story". I bought it while I was in college, so in 91-95. It's the album's closer, and is a pretty weak song on a weak album. It does have Major Tom on it, and The Different Story (which actually had a pretty cool video). City of Night was kind of cool, but the Noah Plan was gayer than Mad Max 2. ;)

Anyway... I've always seen it as an oddball. The song doesn't fit the rest of the album, being it is the only one without a sci-fi/dark future feel to it. I've always felt that it was thrown on "as filler".

Quote:

True enough, I am painting in broad strokes. Perhaps I should clear up what I meant. I didn't mean that ALL coservatives were bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors...but I DID MEAN that all the people who ARE bombing clinics and shooting doctors ARE Republican/conservatives. You sure as hell don't think it is LIBERALS doing this, do you?

Finally, I agree with your last statement, thank God doctor shooting isn't more common. but it DOES happen. And evey time they nail someone who did it, you find that they are a rabid religious-right whackjob, a gun-nut, and an arch-conservative. I rest my case.

I don't think they're Liberals or Conservatives. I think they are sociopaths. Were the ELFs who burned the Hummers in California last year liberals, or criminals? http://www.nbcsandiego.com/automotive/2428268/detail.html
IMHO, I hope they're *not* sane. Setting a fire in California (with how dry its been) is MAJOR negligence and shows a total disregard for life as well as other people's property.

And the Right has to contend with the Bruce Springsteens and Susan Sarandons of the world. Remember Ricky Martin? Ever wonder why his career suddenly tanked? He was one of the very few celebs that played Bush's inauguration in 2000.

True, the guy who shoots the doctor is usually a Rightist Religious Nutcase. And almost every riot involves folks that wear Birkenstocks. The anti-globalists are an especially obvious group.
I don't consider that the extreme side of one group tends to act in one way and the other in another as proof that either side is any better. :(

incorrect.

please name these 'ransacked' cities, and how long it was before they were made safe for human habitation and shopping again?

we ain't ransacked shit (and too bad too, some things could use a good ransacking). had a couple of good runs of vandalism against some criminal capitalist firms and government agencies, but nothing that wasn't fixed the day after the protest ended.

The point is that a mob will ransack a city if allowed to go out of control:

Chicago 1919 - Race riot
Newark 1967 - Race riot
Chicago 1968 - Democratic National Convention
LA 1992 - Rodney King
Seattle 1999 - Anti WTO
Cincinatti 2001 - Police Excessive Force Riot
Barcelona, Spain 2003 - Anti globalizationists

...there are more, these are just the ones that spring to mind.

I don't think they're Liberals or Conservatives. I think they are sociopaths. Were the ELFs who burned the Hummers in California last year liberals, or criminals?
I don't consider that the extreme side of one group tends to act in one way and the other in another as proof that either side is any better. :(

But you are comparing apples to oranges! Shooting doctors and bombing clinics harms ACTUAL PEOPLE!! burning fucking Hummers just ruins STUFF. Not PEOPLE.

Hummers don't fucking bleed. People do.

LA 1992 - Rodney King

God damn he pisses me off. There is no way in hell he wasn't on PCP.

But you are comparing apples to oranges! Shooting doctors and bombing clinics harms ACTUAL PEOPLE!! burning fucking Hummers just ruins STUFF. Not PEOPLE.

Hummers don't fucking bleed. People do.
Your talking religious nut when talking about those that bomb abortion clinics, so I'd say the Muslims, biggest religious group that voted Dem., and their actions would be your equivilent. Speaking of stuipid religion references, that stupid Old Navy commercial just came on again. Whoever thought that POS up needs to be kicked in the balls.

As long as you are peaceful about it, and do not incite violence, yes. We'd rather you just shut up, but, you do have a right to an opposite opinion, no matter how stupid it may be. what you do NOT have a right to do is to incite violence, by attempting to infiltrate the group that has the opposite opinion, or hurling personal insults...or projectiles at those who disagree with you.

If you remain peaceful, and do not incite violence, then, yes.

The problem is...that isn't how you guys work. You DO incite violence.

Ah, wait a minute...now maybe I think I understand why your types want "massive firepower. so you can disperse and kill large groups of liberals who oppose your ideals and agenda.

Okay, she's accusing us of inciting violence. I don't know of any pro-gun activist that has actually started a violent confrontation. Can you name any? People can get angry at words. That's human nature. You cannot, however get physical without being attacked physically first.

I get nailed for "mocking pain", and yet she can call us all violent gun nuts (IE insane) and demand psychological exams for each one of us?

I see how this works--since she's had trauma (last I checked, most people have had at least some in their lives--I had an aunt murdered myself by an insane crack pot that killied himself right after he killed her--difference is, I don't blame the gun!), she's exempt from being criticized.

That's utter bullshit. She gets to continue to fling insults, while the "gun-nuts" have to remain silent and take it? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

You wanna discuss the definition of hypocrisy and double-standard? There's a GREAT example of it.

But you are comparing apples to oranges! Shooting doctors and bombing clinics harms ACTUAL PEOPLE!! burning fucking Hummers just ruins STUFF. Not PEOPLE.

Hummers don't fucking bleed. People do.

Violence is violence. Regardelss of the context, neither is acceptable.

But you are comparing apples to oranges! Shooting doctors and bombing clinics harms ACTUAL PEOPLE!! burning fucking Hummers just ruins STUFF. Not PEOPLE.

Hummers don't fucking bleed. People do.

It *may* just ruin stuff:

a) What if people had been on the lot at the time? We'll never know, as the fire (at it's centre) destroyed everything to cinders. There are no KNOWN deaths, thank goodness.

b) What if the fire had not been contained and set 50,000 acres on fire? In much of California, fire is the WORST THING POSSIBLE. It destroys homes, displaces and kills people.

c) It's okay to destroy another man's property? If so, the bombing of clinics with no one in them is perfectly acceptable by your point of view.

I'm not lamenting the person vs. machine. Obviously, human life is more valuable. But this is NOT apples to oranges -- both are highly disgusting crimes.

God damn he pisses me off. There is no way in hell he wasn't on PCP.

Yeah... and interestingly enough, one of the few "untouched" neighborhoods in/near the "riot zone" was Koreatown! Hmm...

http://www.cphv.com/artorder.htm

"On March 31, 1995, David Joo, owner of a gun shop in LA, testified before the House Commttee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime. He'd been on the front lines of the war against order. "That night," he said, "I stood on the roof of the Lucky Electronics [store] across the street from our gun shop, along with several other neighbors.
I had a 12-guage riot shotgun and a Beretta 92F pistol. Another employee had a Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle. We called the police for help, but they never came. Some looters tried to break down the door of the gun store, but we fired warning shots that drove them away. This happened many times, and before it was over, we fired 200 rounds of ammunition." "

"In the end, there were sections of Los Angeles where only Korean buinesses survived the looting and burning. And many Koreans were still alive because they had the fire-power needed to stop the mob."

Okay, she's accusing us of inciting violence. I don't know of any pro-gun activist that has actually started a violent confrontation. Can you name any? People can get angry at words. That's human nature. You cannot, however get physical without being attacked physically first.

I get nailed for "mocking pain", and yet she can call us all violent gun nuts (IE insane) and demand psychological exams for each one of us?

I see how this works--since she's had trauma (last I checked, most people have had at least some in their lives--I had an aunt murdered myself by an insane crack pot that killied himself right after he killed her--difference is, I don't blame the gun!), she's exempt from being criticized.

That's utter bullshit. She gets to continue to fling insults, while the "gun-nuts" have to remain silent and take it? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

You wanna discuss the definition of hypocrisy and double-standard? There's a GREAT example of it.

Reposted for obvious reasons.

God damn he pisses me off. There is no way in hell he wasn't on PCP.

even if he was on PCP, you can't mean to tell me you think the cops were justified in beating the piss outta him like that!! He was already down, and they kept whaling on him.

Maybe you'd be allright if they did it to you, you insensitive jerk? Oh, I know...Rodney was black, that's why you don't care that he was pounded on like that...am I right? Do I win the cigar? I bet I do, but I also bet you'll never cop to it. i bet I'm right, but you will also never openly admit to it on this Forum, because you know you will get jumped on.

But, at least be honest with yourself. The major reason why you are okay with Rodney getting the piss beat outta him is becase he was black.

(and I'm a white person making this accusation..)

Interesting. I don't agree with your post, or with your definitions.

Socialism does imply a lack of private property - but what DEFINES socialism as a politcal/economic structure, is that the means of production/distribution are put into the hands of those who produce/distribute.

These two things are not seperate related items, they're the same damn thing. When the right to own private property is observed, the means of production are never "put" into anyone's hands. In short, the right to private property says that what I create with my own two hands and whatever other tools I already own belongs to me. If I build a factory, the factory is mine.


It would, therefore, be possible to have a capitalist socialism or a communist socialism - although a communist socialism seems more logical - after all, if you collectively share the means and labour of production, why limit the ownership. What it means, though, is that socialism doesn't equate to anti-private property.
Can you describe at all what capitalist socialism is?
And what do you mean by "limit the ownership"?


Similarly, you describe libertarianism as though it were diametrically opposite... which, of course, it isn't... since 'libertarianism' is a political 'model' and socialism is an economic model.
I disagree. Socialism and libertarianism are both political ideologies rooted in economics. It's difficult to make a lot of distinctions though, since both words are subject to various definitions.


In point of fact, the 'true' libertarian model, would be one with NO external government. The only 'true' libertarian cultures that exist today, are anarchies... and anarchies tend towards socialism as an economic model.One difference between what socialism and libertarianism are is that while you can define a socialist system or model, it's kind of pointless to try and define a libertarian model. While the goal of a socialist may be to achieve a system where the workers own the means of production or some such thing, a libertarian's goal is generally more abstract. I don't care all that much about the mechanical details of a government or system. What's important to me is the level of freedom the people enjoy and how limited the state's power is. No system is perfect, but some are more or less tolerable.

even if he was on PCP, you can't mean to tell me you think the cops were justified in beating the piss outta him like that!! He was already down, and they kept whaling on him.

Maybe you'd be allright if they did it to you, you insensitive jerk? Oh, I know...Rodney was black, that's why you don't care that he was pounded on like that...am I right? Do I win the cigar? I bet I do, but I also bet you'll never cop to it. i bet I'm right, but you will also never openly admit to it on this Forum, because you know you will get jumped on.

But, at least be honest with yourself. The major reason why you are okay with Rodney getting the piss beat outta him is becase he was black.

(and I'm a white person making this accusation..)

and now all "gun nuts" are racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
But you are comparing apples to oranges! Shooting doctors and bombing clinics harms ACTUAL PEOPLE!! burning fucking Hummers just ruins STUFF. Not PEOPLE.

Hummers don't fucking bleed. People do.

REPLY:
Your talking religious nut when talking about those that bomb abortion clinics, so I'd say the Muslims, biggest religious group that voted Dem., and their actions would be your equivilent. Speaking of stuipid religion references, that stupid Old Navy commercial just came on again. Whoever thought that POS up needs to be kicked in the balls.


And your justification for calling Muslims "religious nuts" is what, exactly? You do know MOST Muslims do not believe as the terrorists do, right? You do know most Muslims have done nothing against anyone...and privately (and some publicaly) condemn the actions taken by terrorists in the name of Islam?You are aware that the terrorists, and radical clerics, like OBL, Zarqawi, et al are, in fact, very fundamentalist Muslims, not even Muslims, really, they are Wahabanists. They have hijacked the Muslim faith, perverted it, and used it to justify atorcities, in the name of a political agenda. Not unlike the Christian right of this country, come to think of it.

You do know who P.J. O'Rourke is, right? You ought to, since he is a right-wing conservative commentator. I used to enjoy reading him in rolling Stone, back in the day. but I heard him, recently, on the radio, make a comment to Jim Bohannan, and I couldn't agree more with the comment.

Quoting P.J. O'Rourke: You know, we are going about this War On Terror all the wrong way. Instead of concentrating on differences, we should be looking for common ground. We could go to these guys and say, hey...we have a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!

And I don't understand the last sentence of your reply...dunno what dumb Old Navy commercial you are talking about, and the last sentence makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. I know POS means "piece of shit" but even so, the last sentence still makes no grammatical sense.

Oh, and Jews voted heavily for Kerry, too. I guess you'd like to malign them and their religion too, now? hey, while you're at it, how about if you malign MY religion, too? Unitarian Universalists almost to a man voted Kerry. In fact, of all religions in the nation, I'd say that UU's, as a group, had the highest percentage of Kerry voters. So are we UU's also whackjobs in your eyes? Just because we hold a different political opinion than you do?

It *may* just ruin stuff:

a) What if people had been on the lot at the time? We'll never know, as the fire (at it's centre) destroyed everything to cinders. There are no KNOWN deaths, thank goodness.

b) What if the fire had not been contained and set 50,000 acres on fire? In much of California, fire is the WORST THING POSSIBLE. It destroys homes, displaces and kills people.

c) It's okay to destroy another man's property? If so, the bombing of clinics with no one in them is perfectly acceptable by your point of view.

I'm not lamenting the person vs. machine. Obviously, human life is more valuable. But this is NOT apples to oranges -- both are highly disgusting crimes.

A. There woulda been some bone fragments if any people had gotten killed in that. Even cremated corpses still have bone chips in with the ashes. so there were no human casualties.

B. What if I had a beard made of green spinach? What if, what if what if? It didn't happen. Stop tryiing to paint it worse than it was to justify your whackjobs.

C. Didn't say that. But it is far less disgusting to destroy another man's PROPERTY than to take another man's LIFE!!! Property can be replaced.

D. This IS apples to oranges. One if far more a highly disgusting crime. I'll let you and your conscience decide which one is more highly disgusting. given your obviously-stated political beliefs, I think I know which one YOU think is more hideous, not that you'll ever own up to it, because you know you'd get jumped on. But I'd bet you are more angered over the Hummers being burned than you are about REAL PEOPLE being shot and blown to smithereens, just because they provide a service that you may be morally opposed to.

Ah, OK, you view income as property, yes?
Of course. You don't? I'm really sure what I said about income though. Anything "ownable" is property, and I'm not sure what the point of earning income would be if you didn't get to own it.

So that in order for private ownership to exist, the government (or any other collective entity) must not in any way interfere with the ownership or transfer of factors of production, goods or money? No exactly, but the less intervention there is the more you own your own property. Example: If you are requried to pay property taxes on your home, you don't really own it as much as you would if you didn't have to pay them. Basically, private property rights can be observed to varying degrees. It's virtually impossible to have absolute private property and even more impossible to have absolutely none.

BTW, you shouldn't be suprised when any attempt to create a any socio-economic system from scratch fails. IMO, the only systems that really work evolve slowly over time. You must work patiently with (human) nature, not against it.

BTW, you shouldn't be suprised when any attempt to create a any socio-economic system from scratch fails. IMO, the only systems that really work evolve slowly over time. You must work patiently with (human) nature, not against it.
that's a very good point. i just felt like sharing my approval. :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxon
Okay, she's accusing us of inciting violence. I don't know of any pro-gun activist that has actually started a violent confrontation. Can you name any? People can get angry at words. That's human nature. You cannot, however get physical without being attacked physically first.

Is that so, Zaxon? I only saw this 'cuz someone else re-posted, but this demands a response. In your world, then...no violent crime ever happens, because "you cannot, however get physical without being attacked physically first." so I guess all the dead convenience store clerks that got shot in a robbery of fifty bucks and a Mars bar didn't really happen...because, of course, the perp wasn't physically attacked first, therefore, by your logic, the perp didn't get physical, either. and the stories we hear on the news about those convenience-store clerks are just complete bullshit...right? (sarcasm off)

and now all "gun nuts" are racist.

I didn't say that. You are the one who brought Rodney King up, buster...not me. and I can only think of one reason why someone might be okay with the beating Rodney got at the hands of the cops. You do the math. (sarcasm on) You seem a bright sort. (sarcasm off)

I didn't say that. You are the one who brought Rodney King up, buster...not me. and I can only think of one reason why someone might be okay with the beating Rodney got at the hands of the cops. You do the math. (sarcasm on) You seem a bright sort. (sarcasm off)

in comparison, yes.

"I" didn't bring up Rodney King and you were the first one to play the race card.

"I" didn't bring up Rodney King and you were the first one to play the race card.
My comment was directed at whoever made the comment about Rodney King. If it was not you, then you needn't stick YOUR oar in. If, on the other hand, it was you, then all I can say is...if the shoe fits....

Hey, you give me ONE good reason why the beating of Rodney was an okay thing. The man was defenseless, on the ground, and those fucking stormtooper LAPD buttholes kept whaling on him. i only wish someone would whale on those cops the way they whaled on Rodney. what they did was totally unneccessary, and it reduced them to mere thugs and stormtroopers in my eye...not respectable law-enforcement agents anymore.

There is a fine line between a law-enforcement officer and a thug. They crossed that line.

Only people I ever heard say they were okay with Rodney's beating turned out later to be racists. So I put two and two together.

Again, if the shoe fits....

My comment was directed at whoever made the comment about Rodney King. If it was not you, then you needn't stick YOUR oar in. If, on the other hand, it was you, then all I can say is...if the shoe fits....

Hey, you give me ONE good reason why the beating of Rodney was an okay thing. The man was defenseless, on the ground, and those fucking stormtooper LAPD buttholes kept whaling on him. i only wish someone would whale on those cops the way they whaled on Rodney. what they did was totally unneccessary, and it reduced them to mere thugs and stormtroopers in my eye...not respectable law-enforcement agents anymore.

There is a fine line between a law-enforcement officer and a thug. They crossed that line.

Only people I ever heard say they were okay with Rodney's beating turned out later to be racists. So I put two and two together.

Again, if the shoe fits....

You put them together and get pie.

So that's three people you assume are racist.

I do think the police crossed the line. However, if you've ever seen more of the video than the clips ussually shown on TV, you would have seen King attack the police, resist arrest, and continually attempt to rise after being told to stay down. You just assume racism.

Once again you refer to the police as "those fucking stormtooper LAPD buttholes" and yet you want to put more power into their hands to control the populace.

Of course. You don't? I'm really sure what I said about income though. Anything "ownable" is property, and I'm not sure what the point of earning income would be if you didn't get to own it.My problem is defining transactions as property. In strict terms, you don't own income, you own what you get through income. Thus a sales tax is less clearly a "violation" of private property than straight property tax.

Still, I have never had to work much with definitions of private ownership except for the obvious, so correct me if I'm wrong. In introductory level economics, absolutes on the "Laissez-faire" scale work more as silly and not particularly useful theoretical models.

BTW, you shouldn't be suprised when any attempt to create a any socio-economic system from scratch fails. IMO, the only systems that really work evolve slowly over time. You must work patiently with (human) nature, not against it.Completely agreed. This is part of why I find arguments on the details of how economies work more interesting than major ideological conflicts.

even if he was on PCP, you can't mean to tell me you think the cops were justified in beating the piss outta him like that!! He was already down, and they kept whaling on him.

Yes. He*kept*getting*up*.
When the cops tell you to do something and you resist arrest, you DO deserve to be beat on. You think they carry truncheons as fashion accessories?


Maybe you'd be allright if they did it to you, you insensitive jerk?

Yes. If*I*kept*getting*up*.

Oh, I know...Rodney was black, that's why you don't care that he was pounded on like that...am I right? Do I win the cigar? I bet I do, but I also bet you'll never cop to it. i bet I'm right, but you will also never openly admit to it on this Forum, because you know you will get jumped on.

Accusing someone of being a racist is no way to make friends.

But, at least be honest with yourself. The major reason why you are okay with Rodney getting the piss beat outta him is becase he was black.

(and I'm a white person making this accusation..)

No, you're not making an accusation, you're making an interpretive flame. At no time was race brought into this by anyone but you.

Is that so, Zaxon? I only saw this 'cuz someone else re-posted, but this demands a response. In your world, then...no violent crime ever happens, because "you cannot, however get physical without being attacked physically first." so I guess all the dead convenience store clerks that got shot in a robbery of fifty bucks and a Mars bar didn't really happen...because, of course, the perp wasn't physically attacked first, therefore, by your logic, the perp didn't get physical, either. and the stories we hear on the news about those convenience-store clerks are just complete bullshit...right? (sarcasm off)

Actually, my point was that you MAY not LEGALLY initiate physical violence. You MAY only LEGALLY respond to it.

Of COURSE criminals are going to initiate it--that's why they are criminals. They break laws.

I'm saying that anyone that was "incited" to riot, wasn't forced by any means. They ILLEGALLY initiated the violence themselves--conservative, liberal, or whatever criminal it was. A word is not enough cause for violence--at least in any legal sense.

It was my bad for using can instead of may. Anything CAN happen. Jesus, nice semantics discussion. I was using "can" in the colloquial sense of "may".

How about staying on the topic, instead of try to take off on tangents?

And if you are indeed going to argue with me, maybe you should take me off your ignore list, and see ALL my responses, so you can actually make an informed decision.

My problem is defining transactions as property. In strict terms, you don't own income, you own what you get through income. Thus a sales tax is less clearly a "violation" of private property than straight property tax.


Wait. So the money that you have in the bank isn't yours? Income is money, when you get down to it. Just because you haven't used it on anything yet doesn't mean it's not yours.

And if you have your check electronically deposited, at what point does the income become yours? When the electrons hit the bank's firewall? When the program decides that the numbers in your account change? You never see the actual bills, if you were going for a check or cash in your hand for property...

Now, I may have misunderstood you, but that's what I took away from your statement.

Wait. So the money that you have in the bank isn't yours? Income is money, when you get down to it. Just because you haven't used it on anything yet doesn't mean it's not yours.There is a difference between "income" and "money". As you implied with your electronic money example, drawing a line between the two is very difficult in reality, but there is one in semantics. Income is something that's not in your possession yet, it's something coming in.

There is a difference between "income" and "money". As you implied with your electronic money example, drawing a line between the two is very difficult in reality, but there is one in semantics. Income is something that's not in your possession yet, it's something coming in.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

In accounting, income is counted as part of the individual's assets already. This is where I'm getting my definition from.

Taking it in that sense, it already is owned by the individual, and that's how I see it, as already being owned.

A. There woulda been some bone fragments if any people had gotten killed in that. Even cremated corpses still have bone chips in with the ashes. so there were no human casualties.

Yes. This time.
Not always. Fires blaze at different temperatures. For example: http://www.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/2002/1125/1466486.html

Surely you aren't denying that it COULD happen? Are you giving legitimacy to what was done?


B. What if I had a beard made of green spinach? What if, what if what if? It didn't happen. Stop tryiing to paint it worse than it was to justify your whackjobs.

Okay, I have several retorts to that one:
1. MY whackjobs? I am very, very insulted by that one. Because...
2. You are stating that anyone whom is "pro gun" is not only "anti abortion" but also a vigilante!
3. IT HAS happened before, just not at that particular terrorist activity.
4. I never said it was worse. I said that it was equally bad.


C. Didn't say that. But it is far less disgusting to destroy another man's PROPERTY than to take another man's LIFE!!! Property can be replaced.

Good. So we agree that it is NOT okay to destroy another's property.
And no, property cannot always be replaced.


D. This IS apples to oranges. One if far more a highly disgusting crime.
I'll let you and your conscience decide which one is more highly disgusting. given your obviously-stated political beliefs, I think I know which one YOU think is more hideous, not that you'll ever own up to it, because you know you'd get jumped on.

You're big on this whole jumping thing, aren't you?

Anyway, my point here was that there ARE people out there that consider the murder of a doctor as saving innocent children.
While I am not one of those, THEIR oppinions are no less valid than yours.


But I'd bet you are more angered over the Hummers being burned than you are about REAL PEOPLE being shot and blown to smithereens, just because they provide a service that you may be morally opposed to.

I'm impressed. You have no idea who I am. I'm fairly sure you just respond to me, Zaxon, Kecibukia or anyone who debates you as some faceless, "right-wing" entity.

And this is not the first time you've done this, CF:
Your slander of Kecibukua being racist. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7630440&postcount=645).
Your slander of Armed Bookworms being racist.http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7630259&postcount=637
"Now that is the first thing any gun nut has said YET"http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7611513&postcount=534

BTW - I'm of Polish descent. I've been to Aushwitz and have seen Katyn. You figure it out. I am, right now stifiling a great deal of rage in order to be civil with you.

*NO ONE HAS EVER SAID IT WAS OKAY TO KILL ANYONE IN THIS THREAD. EVER.*

By what you've posted in this one, you've proven yourself to not only be immoderate, but also to be a vengeful, hypocritical provocateur.

In all the posts on this (or any other that I know of) thread, I've never tried to categorize you, and have never insulted you. Except, perhaps, for the line above this one.

In short, the way you respond to my post is way out of line.

For you people who claim that "OMG Teh Founding Fathers didn't think that we'd develop such powerful weapons when they wrote the 2nd Amendment so semi-auto rifles should be b7!!!11!1"

How about this then:

"OMG Teh Founding Fathers didn't thihnk that we'd be able to access so much information when they wrote the 1st Amendment so anything except the printing press should be banned!!!!11!1"

It's the same 'logic' :rolleyes:

You put them together and get pie.

So that's three people you assume are racist.

I do think the police crossed the line. However, if you've ever seen more of the video than the clips ussually shown on TV, you would have seen King attack the police, resist arrest, and continually attempt to rise after being told to stay down. You just assume racism.

Once again you refer to the police as "those fucking stormtooper LAPD buttholes" and yet you want to put more power into their hands to control the populace.

Did I ever say I wanted to give more power to the police? I think they oughta damn well be thoroughly background-checked, too, before being issued firearms.

Yes. He*kept*getting*up*.
When the cops tell you to do something and you resist arrest, you DO deserve to be beat on. You think they carry truncheons as fashion accessories?
.
He wasn't trying to get up...he was trying to DEFEND himself, and ward off the blows. christ, what did you expect him to do, lay there and let them beat on him? Fuck, I'd be raising my hands to ward off the blows, too!

Okay, I have several retorts to that one:
1. MY whackjobs? I am very, very insulted by that one. Because...
2. You are stating that anyone whom is "pro gun" is not only "anti abortion" but also a vigilante!
3. IT HAS happened before, just not at that particular terrorist activity.
4. I never said it was worse. I said that it was equally bad.


1. You adopted them as your whackjobs when you spoke up to defend them.
2. I did not say that. What I DID say is that EVERY VIGILANTE is pro-gun, and anti-abortion.
3. so, burning Hummers is a "terrorist activity" and bombing clinics and shooting doctors isn't? Interesting take.
4. I say it ISN'T equally as bad, and never could be. One is a crime against STUFF...against INANIMATE OBJECTS. the other is a crime against humans...against human life. One does not take human lives, the other does. No comparison.

I stand by my statement. your words bear out my initial reaction...you truly ARE more angered over the burning of the Hummers, than you are about clinic bombings and doctor shootings. You truly ARE more angered over a crime against STUFF than a crime against PEOPLE.

To elevate a crime against stuff to the level of a crime against humans...that tells me everything I NEED to know about you. You obviously value property over life. Sorry to hear that.

even if he was on PCP, you can't mean to tell me you think the cops were justified in beating the piss outta him like that!! He was already down, and they kept whaling on him.

Maybe you'd be allright if they did it to you, you insensitive jerk? Oh, I know...Rodney was black, that's why you don't care that he was pounded on like that...am I right? Do I win the cigar? I bet I do, but I also bet you'll never cop to it. i bet I'm right, but you will also never openly admit to it on this Forum, because you know you will get jumped on.

But, at least be honest with yourself. The major reason why you are okay with Rodney getting the piss beat outta him is becase he was black.

(and I'm a white person making this accusation..)
Ah, how fun. The old race card. Actually, I'm for the shit beating of anyone stupid enough in the first place to take PCP and then assault the cops.

And if I remember the incident correctly, he had already been "taken down" at least once before the tape, so they were leaving no room for error.

I think I'm alone in the liberal world, when I say that guns dont' kill people, people kill people. However, if guns were to be banned, it would make it harder for people to kill other people. And if people want to own automatic weapons, that's rediculous, and shouldn't be alowed. Hunting with an AK-47? I think not.

"Liberals" as in "sane people"?

And if people want to own automatic weapons, that's rediculous, and shouldn't be alowed. Hunting with an AK-47? I think not.

well yeah, hunting with them would be. but what about for resisting fascists?

you cant cure a headache by cutting off the head. people will still kill people whether there are guns or not. then again, some guns are designed specifically for the purpose of shooting people (handguns, automatic weapons, etc.) and even if you ban them, people will still be able to get them. most handguns used in murders aren't registered anyways. so find a way to lower murder rates in the US w/o taking away my 12 gauge.

if guns were to be banned, it would make it harder for people to kill other people.

Then how come in Britain, where gun ownership is illegal, the rate of violent crime is steadily rising? :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
But you are comparing apples to oranges! Shooting doctors and bombing clinics harms ACTUAL PEOPLE!! burning fucking Hummers just ruins STUFF. Not PEOPLE.

Hummers don't fucking bleed. People do.

REPLY:
Your talking religious nut when talking about those that bomb abortion clinics, so I'd say the Muslims, biggest religious group that voted Dem., and their actions would be your equivilent. Speaking of stuipid religion references, that stupid Old Navy commercial just came on again. Whoever thought that POS up needs to be kicked in the balls.


And your justification for calling Muslims "religious nuts" is what, exactly? You do know MOST Muslims do not believe as the terrorists do, right? You do know most Muslims have done nothing against anyone...and privately (and some publicaly) condemn the actions taken by terrorists in the name of Islam?You are aware that the terrorists, and radical clerics, like OBL, Zarqawi, et al are, in fact, very fundamentalist Muslims, not even Muslims, really, they are Wahabanists. They have hijacked the Muslim faith, perverted it, and used it to justify atorcities, in the name of a political agenda. Not unlike the Christian right of this country, come to think of it.

You do know who P.J. O'Rourke is, right? You ought to, since he is a right-wing conservative commentator. I used to enjoy reading him in rolling Stone, back in the day. but I heard him, recently, on the radio, make a comment to Jim Bohannan, and I couldn't agree more with the comment.

Quoting P.J. O'Rourke: You know, we are going about this War On Terror all the wrong way. Instead of concentrating on differences, we should be looking for common ground. We could go to these guys and say, hey...we have a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!

And I don't understand the last sentence of your reply...dunno what dumb Old Navy commercial you are talking about, and the last sentence makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. I know POS means "piece of shit" but even so, the last sentence still makes no grammatical sense.

Oh, and Jews voted heavily for Kerry, too. I guess you'd like to malign them and their religion too, now? hey, while you're at it, how about if you malign MY religion, too? Unitarian Universalists almost to a man voted Kerry. In fact, of all religions in the nation, I'd say that UU's, as a group, had the highest percentage of Kerry voters. So are we UU's also whackjobs in your eyes? Just because we hold a different political opinion than you do?
Are you purposely trying to bait me? My point was that the christians have their religious whacjobs and so do the muslims. Of course, there is a greater percentage of said nutjobs in Islam, but we can't let little things like facts enter the conversation. That and you seem to think I'm extremely right-wing, which I'm really not. But whatever. As for the Old Navy commercial it's a stupis peice of PC crap that is simpering in it's malodious attempt to blend a bunch of religions together in an attempt to get everyone buying more of their clothes. As for the fact that I think about 75% or so of american jews voted Kerry, I don't really care. You seem to think that I'm christian. Let me dispel this illusion. I'm an agnostic, so your comparisons of christianity, judaism, and Islam really aren't helping your cause when applied to me. That and I would think Quakers would also have voted completely Kerry if they voted at all, but again, I don't care.

Did I ever say I wanted to give more power to the police? I think they oughta damn well be thoroughly background-checked, too, before being issued firearms.

He didn't say firearms. He said power. Which is what them giving American citizens psych exams is.

Then how come in Britain, where gun ownership is illegal, the rate of violent crime is steadily rising? :rolleyes:

It is? S'funny, seeing how I live there I'd have thought I'd notice a significant increase...

And bear in mind she(he? I dunno.) said kill. I certainly haven't heard of steady and dramatic increases in our murder rates.

2. I did not say that. What I DID say is that EVERY VIGILANTE is pro-gun, and anti-abortion.


And what exactly are PETA and GreenPeace? I do believe they fall under the category of vigilante--they are righting perceived wrongs, yes?


4. I say it ISN'T equally as bad, and never could be. One is a crime against STUFF...against INANIMATE OBJECTS. the other is a crime against humans...against human life. One does not take human lives, the other does. No comparison.


One is an assault against another human's hard-earned efforts. Not just "stuff". Some of it is irreplaceable. He's already said that he thinks that both crimes are bad. He never said crimes against "stuff" is worse than murder. You are putting words in his mouth.


I stand by my statement. your words bear out my initial reaction...you truly ARE more angered over the burning of the Hummers, than you are about clinic bombings and doctor shootings. You truly ARE more angered over a crime against STUFF than a crime against PEOPLE.


Well, if you were actually reading and comprehending, as opposed to assuming, then, no, his words don't bear out what you were thinking. He said they were both bad.


To elevate a crime against stuff to the level of a crime against humans...that tells me everything I NEED to know about you. You obviously value property over life. Sorry to hear that.

No, he values his efforts over the years. Not more than anyone's life. You are making that particular jump all on your own, without any evidence.

"Liberals" as in "sane people"?

It's a nice, big generalization. Where a select few are blowing it for the reputations of the rest of the group. Same happens with conservatives.

Neither faction is any more sane or insane.

I think I'm alone in the liberal world, when I say that guns dont' kill people, people kill people. However, if guns were to be banned, it would make it harder for people to kill other people. And if people want to own automatic weapons, that's rediculous, and shouldn't be alowed. Hunting with an AK-47? I think not.

No, you aren't alone. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, but I get painted as one who wants to take guns away from people.

No, I want to take CERTAIN guns, like AK-47's, which have but one purpose. And, as you say, I have been saying from jump street...
IF GUNS WERE BANNED IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!!

well yeah, hunting with them would be. but what about for resisting fascists?

You mean, like Conservatives? Republicans?
They are fascists.

It's a nice, big generalization. Where a select few are blowing it for the reputations of the rest of the group. Same happens with conservatives.

Neither faction is any more sane or insane.
"I want to be able to shoot a person"... sounds pretty insane to me

you cant cure a headache by cutting off the head. people will still kill people whether there are guns or not. then again, some guns are designed specifically for the purpose of shooting people (handguns, automatic weapons, etc.) and even if you ban them, people will still be able to get them. most handguns used in murders aren't registered anyways. so find a way to lower murder rates in the US w/o taking away my 12 gauge.

True enough...but those other things have other purposes, too. A gun has but one purpose...to kill things.
I can kill you with a steak knife...but I can also cut my steak with it. Can't cut my steak with the gun.

No, you aren't alone. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, but I get painted as one who wants to take guns away from people.

No, I want to take CERTAIN guns, like AK-47's, which have but one purpose. And, as you say, I have been saying from jump street...
IF GUNS WERE BANNED IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!!
How many AK's have been involved in crime again? Ohhh, that's right. Barely any at all. I think more people have died from choking on chewing gum than being shot by assault rifles inside this country.

"I want to be able to shoot a person"... sounds pretty insane to me
Nope, just realistic. Now "I want to go out and shoot random people just because I can for no particular reason" would be insane.

Nope, just realistic. Now "I want to go out and shoot random people just because I can for no particular reason" would be insane.
why is it realistic? :confused:

Are you purposely trying to bait me? My point was that the christians have their religious whacjobs and so do the muslims. Of course, there is a greater percentage of said nutjobs in Islam, but we can't let little things like facts enter the conversation. That and you seem to think I'm extremely right-wing, which I'm really not. But whatever. As for the Old Navy commercial it's a stupis peice of PC crap that is simpering in it's malodious attempt to blend a bunch of religions together in an attempt to get everyone buying more of their clothes. As for the fact that I think about 75% or so of american jews voted Kerry, I don't really care. You seem to think that I'm christian. Let me dispel this illusion. I'm an agnostic, so your comparisons of christianity, judaism, and Islam really aren't helping your cause when applied to me. That and I would think Quakers would also have voted completely Kerry if they voted at all, but again, I don't care.

No. I was not trying to bait you. I was asking you to justify your classification of all Muslims as whackjobs. You said it...I didn't. i just asked you to justify it. Because better than 85% of Muslims do not subscribe to the whackjob theories espoused by the vocal minority of Wahabanist Muslims. In much the same way most Christians do not subscribe to some of the more radical elements of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

And I made no assumptions about your religion. just asked you to back up your classification of all Muslims as whackjobs. Again, you said it...I just asked you to back it up. If that is baiting you, then I guess, yes, I am baiting you.

If asking you to justify a statement you made is baiting you, then, yes...I am baiting you.

why is it realistic? :confused:
Because if someone is coming to do harm to someone I know or even for that matter, innocent people I don't know, I wanna be able to give him the choice to go away or to be seriously wounded/die.

"I want to be able to shoot a person if they're a clear threat to me or my nearest and dearest." - Reasonable / Realistic.

"I want to be able to shoot a person." - OK, backing away slowly...

"I want to go out and shoot random people just because I can for no particular reason." - Screw this! *Runs for the hills*

We don't need to brand all liberals, do we ladies and gentlemen? No, we conservatives don't have to stoop to those levels. The right to bear arms dictated by the 2nd Amendment has no less credence than it did 215 years ago.
We can all debate as long as we want how immoral or superlative it is to own different kinds of guns, but in my opinion all small arms should be legally allowed. We cannot take them away just because they are designed with a specific purpose, because any deadly weapon of any design can be used to kill. Infringements upon this amendment must be kept to a bare minimum. If we continue to remove rights from this amendment it may be illegal to carry a pocketknife in 50 years. I don't own a gun, and would probably never own one myself, but this is my position only, and it is fully the right of others to own these weapons for home defense, hunting, collection, etc.

How many AK's have been involved in crime again? Ohhh, that's right. Barely any at all. I think more people have died from choking on chewing gum than being shot by assault rifles inside this country.

Only because, until recently, assault weapons were banned in this country. Until a certain whackjob President claimed, during campaigning, to support extending the ban, then, once elected, let the ban expire.

Oops, I meant 213 years. The Bill of Rights was drafted in 1791.

No. I was not trying to bait you. I was asking you to justify your classification of all Muslims as whackjobs. You said it...I didn't. i just asked you to justify it. Because better than 85% of Muslims do not subscribe to the whackjob theories espoused by the vocal minority of Wahabanist Muslims. In much the same way most Christians do not subscribe to some of the more radical elements of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

And I made no assumptions about your religion. just asked you to back up your classification of all Muslims as whackjobs. Again, you said it...I just asked you to back it up. If that is baiting you, then I guess, yes, I am baiting you.

If asking you to justify a statement you made is baiting you, then, yes...I am baiting you.
My point was that muslims occupy the same equivalent on the Dems side that fundie christians do on the Repubs side. As such, they get their own cadre of nutjobs.

Because if someone is coming to do harm to someone I know or even for that matter, innocent people I don't know, I wanna be able to give him the choice to go away or to be seriously wounded/die.
Who died and make you judge and jury?

You don't make the world better by shooting people

And before I go any further, let me clear up a basic misunderstanding many pro-gun people seem to have about my views...
I do NOT think that most people who want guns want them IN ORDER TO KILL PEOPLE.
BUT, having the gun makes it easier for the owner, in the heat of anger or argument, to use the gun to kill someone. MOST murders ARE committed in the heat of the moment, in anger, and usually as a result of an argument.

Giving free license to ANYONE to have a gun will increase the number of murders committed as a result of arguments, and one of them finally pulls out a gun, and shoots the other in anger.

And what exactly are PETA and GreenPeace? I do believe they fall under the category of vigilante--they are righting perceived wrongs, yes?

lobbying groups and activists. not even close to being vigilantes. you might have a case with elf or alf as vigilantes - and maybe with anti-racist action. but even there it isn't about private enforcement of the law.

"I want to be able to shoot a person if they're a clear threat to me or my nearest and dearest." - Reasonable / Realistic.

"I want to be able to shoot a person." - OK, backing away slowly...

"I want to go out and shoot random people just because I can for no particular reason." - Screw this! *Runs for the hills*

Now this is actually a pretty reasonable take....

Only because, until recently, assault weapons were banned in this country. Until a certain whackjob President claimed, during campaigning, to support extending the ban, then, once elected, let the ban expire.
IT was NOT the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. it was the SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BAN. The guns that were outlawed were still legal to buy if they were pre-ban ,and the manufacturers just changed the names and a few COSMETIC features of the gun. Then they were able to sell them again. The SAW ban did jack shit.

Oops, I meant 213 years. The Bill of Rights was drafted in 1791.

I was about to correct you, but you beat me to it and corrected yourself first...but, then again, not quite...

215 years. The Bill of Rights was drafted in 1789. It was not ratified until 1791.

Prior to 1789, this country had no Constitution, we were a Confederal government, and were goverened by The Articles of Confederation.

A Confederal government is what, I believe, most libertarians want. A Confederal government concerns itself mostly with defense of the nation, and that is all...leaving all else to the individual states.

Sorry, Political Science major here.

My point was that muslims occupy the same equivalent on the Dems side that fundie christians do on the Repubs side. As such, they get their own cadre of nutjobs.

No, they don't, because not all Muslims are fundamentalist Wahabanist Muslims. you painted all Muslims as extermist with your statement, so I asked you to justify the statement. Again, if that is baiting you, then, yes...I am baiting you. Asking you to back up a rather general statement you made, painting a whole group of people with a really broad brush...I don't see how that is baiting, but, if you see it as baiting you...

Who died and make you judge and jury?

You don't make the world better by shooting people
I beg to differ. If someone had had the balls to stand up to hitler right before WW2 it never would have happened. Actually strike that, WW2 just would probably have been fought against the Russkies at some point later in time. Same thing one does with guns since they allow you to stand up against someone with the realistic threat of force. Most criminals confronted that way will turn and run, or drop their weapon.

Who died and make you judge and jury?

You don't make the world better by shooting people

I agree. But you don't stand by and let someone take the life of people you love. The perp made him the judge and jury, by threatening the lives of those he loved. In this case, I'm afraid I must agree with the original poster...sorry, Legless...in this one, you are legless...as in, you haven't a leg to stand on.

lobbying groups and activists. not even close to being vigilantes. you might have a case with elf or alf as vigilantes - and maybe with anti-racist action. but even there it isn't about private enforcement of the law.
Nope, private enforcement of ideals. Which in the end is what most vigilantes are, especially since many laws are just ideals that have been codified.

Nope, private enforcement of ideals. Which in the end is what most vigilantes are, especially since many laws are just ideals that have been codified.

No. not "MANY laws are just ideals that have been codified."

Try again.

ALL laws are just ideals that have been codified.

I beg to differ. If someone had had the balls to stand up to hitler right before WW2 it never would have happened. Actually strike that, WW2 just would probably have been fought against the Russkies at some point later in time. Same thing one does with guns since they allow you to stand up against someone with the realistic threat of force. Most criminals confronted that way will turn and run, or drop their weapon.
...or bring a gun theirselves next time, and what will you have accomplished?

No. not "MANY laws are just ideals that have been codified."

Try again.

ALL laws are just ideals that have been codified.
Hmmm, yes and no. Many laws are ideals held by a great many people that have been codified. The rest are ideals held by smaller and smaller groups of people. And some laws don't enforce what people think they would so it no longer supports the ideal it was meant to. Like if you want to reduce the murder rate and crime, legislating guns is not the way to do it, even though many people think it is.

...or bring a gun theirselves next time, and what will you have accomplished?
Maybe getting blown away himself will be what he accomplished. That's one less voter for the ideals diametrically opposed to ours, Legless. :evilgrin:

...or bring a gun theirselves next time, and what will you have accomplished?
Most won't mainly because criminals are in it for direct gain, and if the possibility of their death/injury is sufficiently high they will avoid commiting that particular crime like the plague.

ALL laws are just ideals that have been codified.

bah. most laws are nothing of the sort. you ever read the various laws out there?

Hmmm, yes and no. Many laws are ideals held by a great many people that have been codified. The rest are ideals held by smaller and smaller groups of people. And some laws don't enforce what people think they would so it no longer supports the ideal it was meant to. Like if you want to reduce the murder rate and crime, legislating guns is not the way to do it, even though many people think it is.

Well, I believe it was Otto von Bismarck who said..."Those who like laws and good sausage should watch neither one being made."

Actually, for sufficiently motivated people like drug barons/druggies this wouldn't matter, but if one were to quit legislaing many drugs the drug trade would collapse, thus solving most of the problem.

Most won't mainly because criminals are in it for direct gain, and if the possibility of their death/injury is sufficiently high they will avoid commiting that particular crime like the plague.
I'm in the streets.
I want to rob you.
You could well have a gun.
So I bring my own.
I pull out the gun.
"Give me your wallet."

would you give me the wallet?

Hmmmmmm...

Difficult to say.

Now imagine I didn't have the gun?

Yeah right... criminals gain less if they carry guns

I'm in the streets.
I want to rob you.
You could well have a gun.
So I bring my own.
I pull out the gun.
"Give me your wallet."

would you give me the wallet?
Since my dad has a back holster and I'm planning on getting one for myself when I turn 21 and can legally own a handgun I would turn around, give him my wallet, pull out my own gun, aim at his head and tell him to drop the fucking gun. If I didn't have my gun I would turn around, give him my wallet and then since I have rudimentary martial arts training I would probably try to shatter his elbow or break the wrist of the arm holding the gun. Since I'm over 6' tall and male, however, I'm statistically unlikely to be mugged, even at gunpoint.

Since my dad has a back holster and I'm planning on getting one for myself when I turn 21 and can legally own a handgun I would turn around, give him my wallet, pull out my own gun, aim at his head and tell him to drop the fucking gun. If I didn't have my gun I would turn around, give him my wallet and then since I have rudimentary martial arts training I would probably try to shatter his elbow or break the wrist of the arm holding the gun. Since I'm over 6' tall and male, however, I'm statistically unlikely to be mugged, even at gunpoint.
Really smart... attacking and armed assailant

We (United States) need a firearms policy like England has. Well, more relaxed but similar in policy. Ive learned many things from reading this Straight Dope topic (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284964&page=1). :)

Handguns are banned. The gun murder rate is low and a vast majority of the gun murders are criminal on criminal. Rifles and shotguns are legal but not many people have them.

We (United States) need a firearms policy like England has. Well, more relaxed but similar in policy. Ive learned many things from reading this Straight Dope topic (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284964&page=1). :)

Handguns are banned. The gun murder rate is low and a vast majority of the gun murders are criminal on criminal. Rifles and shotguns are legal but not many people have them.
Ah. a common misassumption. The great majority of murders in the US are gang/drug/drug gang related.

Really smart... attacking and armed assailant
An armed assailant who is more than likely to be preoccupied by the wallet I just gave him. Unless he is a professional I would most certainly have the drop on him and my objective would be to seriously injure him whereas his was to mug me. There is a big difference.

I was about to correct you, but you beat me to it and corrected yourself first...but, then again, not quite...

215 years. The Bill of Rights was drafted in 1789. It was not ratified until 1791.

Prior to 1789, this country had no Constitution, we were a Confederal government, and were goverened by The Articles of Confederation.

A Confederal government is what, I believe, most libertarians want. A Confederal government concerns itself mostly with defense of the nation, and that is all...leaving all else to the individual states.

Sorry, Political Science major here.

Reply- Well, I won't disagree with that logic, and I am a history buff myself, but I didn't remember how long ago it had been drafted, and opted for the date of ratification, not drafting. I know that Madison had been supporting it for a while and managed to draw states into the proposed Union under the Constitution by promising an effort to make a Bill of Rights. Otherwise, many states would not have relinquished their sovereignty that the Confederation granted. I would certainly disagree that a confederation is desirable, as in looking at the Congress under the Articles it got almost nothing done between the war and the Constitution. The Constitution saved the US from annihilation, because although it had weathered the Revolution with help from France, it couldn't have survived the coming years of the wily Napoleon and the seamen-stealing British unless it was united and could have a strong central government.

Ah. a common misassumption. The great majority of murders in the US are gang/drug/drug gang related.
I'm talking about England here. :rolleyes: And yes the same thing was said about England too. Gang and drug related.

I happen to believe in the 2nd Amendment, and think that individual people have the right to own guns.

Great, except that's not what the 2nd amendment says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"well regulated" means government regulation. The words "militia" and "the people" do NOT refer to "individuals". So, call me a Liberal-whatever but, I tend to agree with the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, not those who choose to repeat the last section of the statement. It's funny (not ha-ha) that the NRA only mentions the last part of the sentence, and as it turns out, a lot of Americans are poorly educated as to the intention of the amendment.

LMAO alot of the people who have called themself liberal have said not alot of liberals want to ban guns, just the far left. is this the same group that want to ban guns but allow abortion?

so dont kill anyone, except for babies

I'm talking about England here. :rolleyes: And yes the same thing was said about England too. Gang and drug related.
I realize that, but the association proves that it doesn't work. The problem is the gang, and any doctor can tell you that in many diseases, treating the symptoms is not the answer.

Great, except that's not what the 2nd amendment says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"well regulated" means government regulation. The words "militia" and "the people" do NOT refer to "individuals". So, call me a Liberal-whatever but, I tend to agree with the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, not those who choose to repeat the last section of the statement. It's funny (not ha-ha) that the NRA only mentions the last part of the sentence, and as it turns out, a lot of Americans are poorly educated as to the intention of the amendment.
Actually I would assume "well regulated" means non-criminals, "militia" means any male over age 17/18 depending on who you talk to that knows what they are talking about, and "people" pretty much means people.

LMAO alot of the people who have called themself liberal have said not alot of liberals want to ban guns, just the far left. is this the same group that want to ban guns but allow abortion?
so dont kill anyone, except for babies

The issue of abortion, as you may well know, is quite a bit more complicated than just "killing babies". I've never in my life met anyone who thinks killing babies is a good idea. Well, a have read about and seen some folks in the news, who think bombing villages and cities regardless of the number of cute little babies are killed, is a really really great idea, but of course that's a pretty complicated issue too. Are the two issues parallel? Nope. Is the death penalty an exact parallel? Nope. They're all very different and complicated issues. So to say that anyone who has an opinion on one issue, should apply the same reasoning on every other issue that might come up, is naive.

Actually I would assume "well regulated" means non-criminals, "militia" means any male over age 17/18 depending on who you talk to that knows what they are talking about, and "people" pretty much means people.

I don't agree:
1) "people" is plural in this case.
2) "militia" means: "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."
3) "well" means: "In a good or proper manner"
4) "regulated" means: "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."

I don't agree:
1) "people" is plural in this case.
2) "militia" means: "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."
3) "well" means: "In a good or proper manner"
4) "regulated" means: "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."
1. People is always plural, it is the plural of person.
2. And the founding fathers have been quoted as saying that the militia in this country is composed of all males over the age of 17. You are by default in the militia in this country if you a.) own a gun, and b.) are a male over age 17.
3. In the context it was written, wel regulated probably means itt doesn't have the authority to demand unnecessary things of the rest of the citizenry.

1. People is always plural, it is the plural of person.
2. And the founding fathers have been quoted as saying that the militia in this country is composed of all males over the age of 17. You are by default in the militia in this country if you a.) own a gun, and b.) are a male over age 17.
3. In the context it was written, wel regulated probably means itt doesn't have the authority to demand unnecessary things of the rest of the citizenry.

LOL, yes, you're correct, technically "people" is always plural! The difference and of course my point, is that the amendment states "the people" which implies a group, not individuals.

Let's talk about context, since you brought it up:

In a January 26, 1811, letter to Destutt de Tracy, Jefferson wrote that the governor of each state is " constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State."

In other words, the "well regulated Militia" of the Second Amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the Constitution. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers (1) gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the state militias and (2) made the President Commander in Chief of the Militia.

In 1916 the National Defence Act provided for drafting the state militias, which we now call the National Guard, into United States service under certain circumstances and under authority granted by the Constitution as approved by the states in 1788.

LMAO alot of the people who have called themself liberal have said not alot of liberals want to ban guns, just the far left. is this the same group that want to ban guns but allow abortion?

so dont kill anyone, except for babies :rolleyes: Oh sure you can kill babies, just don't shoot 'em.

Like this thread doesn't have enough false assumptions without your idiot input.

No it isn't. Do you think you can LEGALLY shoot the people who oppress you economically?
This is what I mean when I am talking about standing up for the little guy...the disenfranchised...the poor workers who put the most into the system, and get the least out of it.

Ig you were seriously for the 'little guy' as you say, corporations are legal entities that can legally purchade just about any weapon they can afford. Any officer of the corporation can then legally possess and use such a weapon for the 'protection of corporate assets' and any employees of that company can be bonded to use and carry that weapon in the course of his job function.

So, read that law, and try again.

No, I want to take CERTAIN guns, like AK-47's, which have but one purpose. And, as you say, I have been saying from jump street...
IF GUNS WERE BANNED IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!!

How about my Winchester model 94?

Sure people use it for hunting now, but it was originally designed for military and law enforcement use.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. But don't go around advocating a ban on something you obviously have no knowlege about.

P.S. I would argue that more people have been shot with a Winchester 94 as with an Isreali Galil, arguably one of the best 'assault rifles' ever made. Hmmm.

I'm in the streets.
I want to rob you.
You could well have a gun.
So I bring my own.
I pull out the gun.
"Give me your wallet."

would you give me the wallet?

Been there, had the gun, and still have the wallet.

P.S. I would argue that more people have been shot with a Winchester 94 as with an Isreali Galil, arguably one of the best 'assault rifles' ever made. Hmmm.And that surely has nothing to do with the amounts of the two weapons that have historically been in battlefield use by militaries, right? Or, if you were referring to homicides committed with the two weapons, then we can safely conclude that availability is not a factor, right?

He wasn't trying to get up...he was trying to DEFEND himself, and ward off the blows. christ, what did you expect him to do, lay there and let them beat on him? Fuck, I'd be raising my hands to ward off
the blows, too!

Um, no. He approached the police car when he was instructed not to and would NOT stay still while the cuffs were put on. Do you think the police travel around in a "whacking quartet"? There were that many cops there because he was so unruly that they had to call in BACKUP. Never mind he was flagarantly breaking the law to begin with.

Raise hands? How about taking a swing at an officer and kicking?

1. You adopted them as your whackjobs when you spoke up to defend them.

1. Ok, wiseacre: I challenge you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. I want you to quote me defending somebody assassinating someone. I want you to quote the post #. Go for it.
YOU SAID IT, I DID NOT!!
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7630380&postcount=641 http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7630129&postcount=634

Can you tell me how on EARTH you took "b) What if the fire had not been contained and set 50,000 acres on fire? In much of California, fire is the WORST THING POSSIBLE. It destroys homes, displaces and kills people."
to
"B. What if I had a beard made of green spinach? What if, what if what if? It didn't happen. Stop tryiing to paint it worse than it was to justify your whackjobs."

Do you know how to debate something without making up the other person's platform for them?!? :rolleyes:


2. I did not say that. What I DID say is that EVERY VIGILANTE is pro-gun, and anti-abortion.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7625683&postcount=622
"And evey time they nail someone who did it, you find that they are a rabid religious-right whackjob, a gun-nut, and an arch-conservative. I rest my case."
My reply is "True, the guy who shoots the doctor is usually a Rightist Religious Nutcase. And almost every riot involves folks that wear Birkenstocks. The anti-globalists are an especially obvious group.
I don't consider that the extreme side of one group tends to act in one way and the other in another as proof that either side is any better."
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7627234&postcount=627

... and I keep saying that it ain't so. There ARE leftist vigilante groups out there. I despise BOTH.


3. so, burning Hummers is a "terrorist activity" and bombing clinics and shooting doctors isn't? Interesting take.


Fine. Name every bombed abortion building in the past 10 years. Heck, name 3. I can name DOZENS of attacks and riots by ELF/Greenpeace/PETA/WTO.

Really? In that case, I AGAIN challenge you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. I want you to quote me where I SAID that bombing clinics was not terrorist activity. I want you to quote the post #.


4. I say it ISN'T equally as bad, and never could be. One is a crime against STUFF...against INANIMATE OBJECTS. the other is a crime against humans...against human life. One does not take human lives, the other does. No comparison.

And who owns those objects? Who's livelihood/family gets ruined?
There are *countless* cases in history of people committing suicide or murder because they lost everything due to such crimes. And you say that isn't as tragic?


I stand by my statement. your words bear out my initial reaction...you truly ARE more angered over the burning of the Hummers, than you are about clinic bombings and doctor shootings. You truly ARE more angered over a crime against STUFF than a crime against PEOPLE.

Um... no. How on Earth can you say what I feel? I said MULTIPLE TIMES that it isn't worse, but that it CAN be as bad.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7630129&postcount=634
"I'm not lamenting the person vs. machine. Obviously, human life is more valuable. But this is NOT apples to oranges -- both are highly disgusting crimes. "

I *am* angered at your total inability to actually read what I post.


To elevate a crime against stuff to the level of a crime against humans...that tells me everything I NEED to know about you. You obviously value property over life. Sorry to hear that.

Actually, it tells me that you cannot read, as BY REPOSTING my posts, I've proven that you can't even follow a simple debate. Sorry to hear that.

For you people who claim that "OMG Teh Founding Fathers didn't think that we'd develop such powerful weapons when they wrote the 2nd Amendment so semi-auto rifles should be b7!!!11!1"

How about this then:

"OMG Teh Founding Fathers didn't thihnk that we'd be able to access so much information when they wrote the 1st Amendment so anything except the printing press should be banned!!!!11!1"

It's the same 'logic' :rolleyes:

I agree. In fact, a number of American news media personalities continue to express concern over the internet's potential for "misuse", as if you can really only trust people on TV to accurately report the news.

"A well-read populous, being necessary for the prosperity of the republic, the right of the people to keep and read newspapers shall not be infringed"

I think I'm alone in the liberal world, when I say that guns dont' kill people, people kill people. However, if guns were to be banned, it would make it harder for people to kill other people. And if people want to own automatic weapons, that's rediculous, and shouldn't be alowed. Hunting with an AK-47? I think not.

Hunting? How about whaling? I remember reading about Siberian villagers who use full-auto Kalishnikovs in combination with harpoons to kill whales. They would use higher caliber rifles, but they're not allowed to have them. Full auto weapons might also be useful versus other large animals in an emergency situation. Let's say you're nutty enough go "camping" in the Alaskan tundra for some reason. 30 rounds of 7.62 could come in handy if you get a wake-up call from a polar bear. Generally, it's rare that anyone would ever "need" such firepower to defend against a non-human threat, but it's certainly possible.

The point of the right to keep and bear arms, however, is primarily for dealing with the human threat.

No, you aren't alone. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, but I get painted as one who wants to take guns away from people.

No, I want to take CERTAIN guns, like AK-47's, which have but one purpose. And, as you say, I have been saying from jump street...
IF GUNS WERE BANNED IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!!
AK-47's can be used to fight wars, commit crimes, hunt, defend property, protect lives, or cut down trees. What one purpose are you thinking of?

If you could magically destory all guns in existence, murdering people would generally require a lot more effort, but it would also be a lot less risky.

Guns level the playing field. A store clerk with a gun has a good shot at defending himself and his property from a group 5 thugs intent on robbing him, even if they're armed with guns themselves. However, if the clerk and the thugs are all armed with clubs instead of guns, the clerk doesn't have a prayer unless he's Jackie Chan.

Every jurisdiction in the US that has banned handguns has a higher crime rate after the ban, as well as a higher crime rate than jurisdictions that favor concealed carry.

In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, violent gun crime increased by double digit percentages after the implementation of gun bans. To date, the gun crime rate in the UK has still not gone down.

Could it be that criminals would rather attack someone they know to be unarmed? Criminals in the US are far more likely to choose a property crime rather than a personal crime. Criminals in the UK are far more likely to choose a personal crime - it may be noted that rape is a far more likely outcome of a woman being accosted in London than it is anywhere in the US.

Of course, not only do they ban guns in the UK, they forbid self defense. Even if you were Jackie Chan, if you subdued five men who were intent on beating you to death with clubs, and you struck any of the men, even once, you would be looking at years in prison. If any of the men were seriously injured or died, you would be looking at decades in prison.

So, it pays to be a criminal in the UK. No one will resist, and no victim will be able to defend themselves even if they wanted to.

You mean, like Conservatives? Republicans?
They are fascists.
Technically, no. Well, some Republicans or self-described conservatives may indeed be facists. Generally, it's innacurate to label the current neo-con leadership as facists. Not to say they're necessarily any better.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried67.html

Hunting? How about whaling? I remember reading about Siberian villagers who use full-auto Kalishnikovs in combination with harpoons to kill whales.Do they shoot the whale in the eyes? A 7.62x39mm FMJ will penetrate all of 70cm into the whale, which for most whales is similar to trying to kill a human with tacks. The surface layers of the whale will turn into mincemeat before the whale dies...

Let's say you're nutty enough go "camping" in the Alaskan tundra for some reason. 30 rounds of 7.62 could come in handy if you get a wake-up call from a polar bear.If you've got time to empty the 30 rounds, it might. Still much less handy than, say, a lever-action .450 Marlin. An expanding 7.62x39mm won't get deep enough inside the bear to manage more than making it angrier, and a FMJ 7.62x39mm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg) causes a wound cavity too small to bother the bear too much. A .45" 400gr JFP at 1900fps, now that might inconvenience the bear quite a bit.

Because of the inaccuracy and very limited penetration/size of wound cavity, fully automatic weapons simply suck at hunting, except perhaps for certain types of small, dangerous game -- mountain lions, humans, etc.

Only because, until recently, assault weapons were banned in this country. Until a certain whackjob President claimed, during campaigning, to support extending the ban, then, once elected, let the ban expire.
He said he would sign the ban if it crossed his desk. It didn't, but I'm sure he would've if it did. That's one of the many reasons I don't care for the man. And the ban didn't have anything to do with full-auto weapons which are traditionally considered "assault weapons." If you really liked the "assault weapon ban", you can always live in California. Their ban doesn't expire.

Who died and make you judge and jury?

You don't make the world better by shooting people

You do when you prevent a murder or rape.

...or bring a gun theirselves next time, and what will you have accomplished?
Assuming you mean the criminal will fight instead of run... Hopefully, you will have made the world a safer place by preventing your own murder and eliminating the person who attempted it.

Since my dad has a back holster and I'm planning on getting one for myself when I turn 21 and can legally own a handgun I would turn around, give him my wallet, pull out my own gun, aim at his head and tell him to drop the fucking gun. If I didn't have my gun I would turn around, give him my wallet and then since I have rudimentary martial arts training I would probably try to shatter his elbow or break the wrist of the arm holding the gun. Since I'm over 6' tall and male, however, I'm statistically unlikely to be mugged, even at gunpoint.

I wouldn't be so "gung-ho", if I were you. I won't fault you should you ever put yourself at risk for the sake of you wallet, but do try and calculate risks as they present themselves.

It is interesting too that those more likely to carry a gun (men) are the least likely to need one. I think there's some interesting psychology going on there. I knew a big 6'6" tall guy who got nervous whenever he saw someone larger than him, which was obviously rare. OTOH a 5' tall woman probably doesn't think much about the fact that almost all adults are potential physical threats. Now that I think about, I remember a large guy once who was whining about people carrying guns because it diminished his "presence".

No, you aren't alone. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, but I get painted as one who wants to take guns away from people.

No, I want to take CERTAIN guns, like AK-47's, which have but one purpose. And, as you say, I have been saying from jump street...
IF GUNS WERE BANNED IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!!

Murder happened just as much before guns were invented. The tools don't make the difference.

"I want to be able to shoot a person"... sounds pretty insane to me

Hoo boy. We want to be able to defend ourselves, and if that comes to brandishing, aiming, and eventually shooting at them, if they haven't stopped, then yes.

It is any human's right to defend themselves. That's not an insane proposition.

It's not first choice, nor first option.

You're the one putting the insane spin on it.

Great, except that's not what the 2nd amendment says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"well regulated" means government regulation. The words "militia" and "the people" do NOT refer to "individuals". So, call me a Liberal-whatever but, I tend to agree with the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, not those who choose to repeat the last section of the statement. It's funny (not ha-ha) that the NRA only mentions the last part of the sentence, and as it turns out, a lot of Americans are poorly educated as to the intention of the amendment.
"The people" means "the people", or perhaps "the persons" in modern lawyer-ease. I'm not sure how many Americans misunderstand the intentions of the 2A, but you're certainly one of them. I strongly suggest you take a look at the federalist and/or anti-federalist papers.

"I want to be able to shoot a person if they're a clear threat to me or my nearest and dearest." - Reasonable / Realistic.

"I want to be able to shoot a person." - OK, backing away slowly...

"I want to go out and shoot random people just because I can for no particular reason." - Screw this! *Runs for the hills*

The first is pretty much how the majority of gun owners think.

Only because, until recently, assault weapons were banned in this country. Until a certain whackjob President claimed, during campaigning, to support extending the ban, then, once elected, let the ban expire.

Oh boy...history lesson. Automatic weapons were REGULATED in the mid 1930s--no ban.

The so called Assault Weapons Ban actually only banned COSMETIC features found in several accepted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns--and combinations of those features. It didn't keep anything from anybody, in reality.

You really should bone up on your knowledge of what actually went on.

Who died and make you judge and jury?

You don't make the world better by shooting people

Um, the laws that say we have a right to defend ourselves....Yes, you still have to prove it in a court of law--there's your judge and jury.

And before I go any further, let me clear up a basic misunderstanding many pro-gun people seem to have about my views...
I do NOT think that most people who want guns want them IN ORDER TO KILL PEOPLE.
BUT, having the gun makes it easier for the owner, in the heat of anger or argument, to use the gun to kill someone. MOST murders ARE committed in the heat of the moment, in anger, and usually as a result of an argument.

Giving free license to ANYONE to have a gun will increase the number of murders committed as a result of arguments, and one of them finally pulls out a gun, and shoots the other in anger.

Please point us to the statistics that say murders by firearms are mostly in the heat of the moment. I would like proof. You've already proven you don't know much about the topic at hand, so from now on, I'd like sustantiation for all your "factual" statements, please.

Well, if "the people" means the militia, and not the individual people, then "the people" don't have any other rights under the Constitution, including any other rights enumerated.

You'll notice that the rights are apportioned amongts three entities: the States, the Federal Government, and the People.

Also, the militia are legally defined as *all* adult males between the ages of 18 and 45. So start handing those guns out now.

lobbying groups and activists. not even close to being vigilantes. you might have a case with elf or alf as vigilantes - and maybe with anti-racist action. but even there it isn't about private enforcement of the law.

I seem to recall PETA going around and doing damage to private property--things like paintballng fur coats and such. I call that operating outside the law (IE breaking it, and therefore those that do so are criminals), and not a peaceful activist role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
1. You adopted them as your whackjobs when you spoke up to defend them.

Reply:
1. Ok, wiseacre: I challenge you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. I want you to quote me defending somebody assassinating someone. I want you to quote the post #. Go for it.
YOU SAID IT, I DID NOT!!
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....0&postcount=641 http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....9&postcount=634

Can you tell me how on EARTH you took "b) What if the fire had not been contained and set 50,000 acres on fire? In much of California, fire is the WORST THING POSSIBLE. It destroys homes, displaces and kills people."
to
"B. What if I had a beard made of green spinach? What if, what if what if? It didn't happen. Stop tryiing to paint it worse than it was to justify your whackjobs."

Do you know how to debate something without making up the other person's platform for them?!?

My Answer:
When you had the AUDACITY to compare property crimes with crimes against ACTUAL HUMANS, you defended the guys committing crimes against humans. You did so by say, yes, they do that but, but, but...YOUR guys do THIS...as if that is supposed to make the other guys okay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
3. so, burning Hummers is a "terrorist activity" and bombing clinics and shooting doctors isn't? Interesting take.


Reply:
Fine. Name every bombed abortion building in the past 10 years. Heck, name 3. I can name DOZENS of attacks and riots by ELF/Greenpeace/PETA/WTO.

My Answer:
The fact that you CAN only proves my point, once again, that you are more angered over crimes against property than you are angered over crimes against people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
4. I say it ISN'T equally as bad, and never could be. One is a crime against STUFF...against INANIMATE OBJECTS. the other is a crime against humans...against human life. One does not take human lives, the other does. No comparison.

Reply:
And who owns those objects? Who's livelihood/family gets ruined?
There are *countless* cases in history of people committing suicide or murder because they lost everything due to such crimes. And you say that isn't as tragic?

My Answer:
Yes, I say it is not as tragic. Property CAN be replaced. Whose fault is it if the people who bought the stuff didn't insure it? And you can't compare committing suicide, regardless of reason, with someone being MURDERED. One is committed by one's own hand. the other is committed by the hand of someone else! Again, your very words indicate that your anger over the property crimes exceeds your anger over the crimes committed against humans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort

I stand by my statement. your words bear out my initial reaction...you truly ARE more angered over the burning of the Hummers, than you are about clinic bombings and doctor shootings. You truly ARE more angered over a crime against STUFF than a crime against PEOPLE.

Reply:
Um... no. How on Earth can you say what I feel? I said MULTIPLE TIMES that it isn't worse, but that it CAN be as bad.

My Answer:
No you DID say it was as bad, on several occasions...not that it CAN be as bad...YOU ASSERTED THAT IT WAS AS BAD!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
To elevate a crime against stuff to the level of a crime against humans...that tells me everything I NEED to know about you. You obviously value property over life. Sorry to hear that.

Reply:
Actually, it tells me that you cannot read, as BY REPOSTING my posts, I've proven that you can't even follow a simple debate. Sorry to hear that.

My Answer: No, actually, you have proven my case for me. Thank you. Anyone reading this stuff can CLEARLY see you are more angered over crimes against property than you are crimes against humans.
I rest my case.

I'm in the streets.
I want to rob you.
You could well have a gun.
So I bring my own.
I pull out the gun.
"Give me your wallet."

would you give me the wallet?

If you're already pointing it at me because I wan't aware enough to notice you in the first place, yup.

It's a tool to HELP defend yourself. It's not a cure all, or silver bullet (couldn't resist the pun). It's there to improve your chances. Your brain is still your best defensive weapon you can have.

AK-47's can be used to fight wars, commit crimes, hunt, defend property, protect lives, or cut down trees. What one purpose are you thinking of?

If you could magically destory all guns in existence, murdering people would generally require a lot more effort, but it would also be a lot less risky.

Guns level the playing field. A store clerk with a gun has a good shot at defending himself and his property from a group 5 thugs intent on robbing him, even if they're armed with guns themselves. However, if the clerk and the thugs are all armed with clubs instead of guns, the clerk doesn't have a prayer unless he's Jackie Chan.

Wrong. The criminal wants to get in, and get out as quickly as possible, with the cash he came for. They are far more likely to leave the clerk, in your scenario, alive, but incapacitated long enough for them to get away. The convenience store robber generally wants quick cash, not to kill someone. the gun, however, causes the death. If they had only a club, it is far harder, more time consuming, and more noisy to kill the clerk. More likely, they'd whack him upside the head two or three good licks until the clerk went down and stayed down...then they would empty the till and leave. the clerk would wake up maybe an hour later with a splitting headache, and in need of medical attention, but he'd LIVE.
That's the difference.

Great, except that's not what the 2nd amendment says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"well regulated" means government regulation. The words "militia" and "the people" do NOT refer to "individuals". So, call me a Liberal-whatever but, I tend to agree with the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, not those who choose to repeat the last section of the statement. It's funny (not ha-ha) that the NRA only mentions the last part of the sentence, and as it turns out, a lot of Americans are poorly educated as to the intention of the amendment.

Actually, if you had read the Federalist Papers (all the discussions behind the scenes of the constitution), you would have realized that "well regulated" means practiced--not governmentally controlled. Ask any English language historian.

And yes, "the People" means just that. You, me (if you're a citizen of the US), and every other citizen in the US.