NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's one I like.

It's about guns! Hey, you know, guns!

One of the hot topics on NS General that doesn't involve Christians, Muslims, or Communism (except where they end up using them).

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

Hard to believe this actually aired on TV, but then again, ABCNews isn't CBS or CNN or NBC.

Oh, and this ISN'T Fox...

And while we're at it, here's the man who bankrolled the destruction in court of the DC gun laws (held recently by a Federal appeals court to be unconstitutional on the basis that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html

Note that he is not a member of the NRA, nor does he own a gun.

I'm quota-conscious, so can you gimmie the gist?

I'm quota-conscious, so can you gimmie the gist?

No.

Here's why I won't.

If you try to summarize a link, people come back immediately and say you didn't read the linked article.

So, have fun reading.

So, have fun reading.

No.

No.

Here's why I won't.

If you try to summarize a link, people come back immediately and say you didn't read the linked article.

So, have fun reading.

I meant for the video. Articles tend not to chew up that much quota.

A gun nut sprouting rubbish propaganda in an effort to sell his book doesn't stop being rubbish propaganda if it's aired on national TV.

A gun nut sprouting rubbish propaganda in an effort to sell his book doesn't stop being rubbish propaganda if it's aired on national TV.

John Stossel is not a gun nut...

John Stossel is not a gun nut...

Sounds like one to me.

Baring in mind I'm the only one who's watched your video, and know nothing about the people in it, you could at least humour me. :p

Sounds like one to me.

Baring in mind I'm the only one who's watched your video, and know nothing about the people in it, you could at least humour me. :p

Don't know about gun nut, but he's a bit of a right wing loon, kinda like Deep Online here.

I so don't care for guns.

Hard to believe this actually aired on TV, but then again, ABCNews isn't CBS or CNN or NBC.

Oh, and this ISN'T Fox...When it comes to facts, you'll be hard pressed finding any quality on the American News Channel market. They're all just different degrees of bad, so, no, it's not all that hard to believe that this could be aired on TV.

When it comes to facts, you'll be hard pressed finding any quality on the American News Channel market. They're all just different degrees of bad, so, no, it's not all that hard to believe that this could be aired on TV.

Nothing inaccurate about the report...

Here's one I like.

It's about guns! Hey, you know, guns!

One of the hot topics on NS General that doesn't involve Christians, Muslims, or Communism (except where they end up using them).

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

Hard to believe this actually aired on TV, but then again, ABCNews isn't CBS or CNN or NBC.

Oh, and this ISN'T Fox...

And while we're at it, here's the man who bankrolled the destruction in court of the DC gun laws (held recently by a Federal appeals court to be unconstitutional on the basis that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html

Note that he is not a member of the NRA, nor does he own a gun.


How come you didn't post this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=

:D

I remember when that program first aired a few years ago. It was very well made.

Along this tangent, did anyone hear about the Roanoke (VA) journalist that got the list of all people with CCW permits (through the FOIA) in the area and published the entire list online?

Nothing inaccurate about the report...Not the issue either.

i'd watch the video if i wasn't listening to Joe Satriani blow my mind.

man, i should get some pot....

who cares?

I believe the 2nd Amendment provides for militias only, however you can sufficiently argue that you are a one-man militia. Also, if everyone had a gun, MAD would apply. If you shoot someone, you better kill them and everyone who is watching.

I believe the 2nd Amendment provides for militias only, however you can sufficiently argue that you are a one-man militia. Also, if everyone had a gun, MAD would apply. If you shoot someone, you better kill them and everyone who is watching.

Technically, all males ages 17-45 are part of the Unorganized Militia.

Technically, all males ages 17-45 are part of the Unorganized Militia.

For your reference:

US Code Title 10- Subtitle A

For your reference:

US Code Title 10- Subtitle A

...Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311, Paragraph A

Got it bookmarked.

...Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311, Paragraph A

Got it bookmarked.

wow...ok.

But on another note, I never understood how private gun ownership was a "right-wing" issue. Sure, most of the proponents happen to be right-wing, but by definition- allowing private citizens the right to own weapons instead of seizing them all- seems anything but right-wing. A purely right-wing government would never want or allow private citizens to own guns.

who cares?

Oh wow. You're so cool. Everyone here is in awe at your apathetic facade.

To answer you're question, how about the people who get shot? I'm sure this issue raises an eyebrow from them. That is unless they haven't already been killed by this stupid, insecure obsession with boomsticks.

wow...ok.

But on another note, I never understood how private gun ownership was a "right-wing" issue. Sure, most of the proponents happen to be right-wing, but by definition- allowing private citizens the right to own weapons instead of seizing them all- seems anything but right-wing. A purely right-wing government would never want or allow private citizens to own guns.

Who the hell knows.

Gun Control (in the United States) is one of those issues that can't simply be determined by asking if someone's a "Liberal" or a "Conservative". Heck, my Grandmother is a lifelong Republican, and she would like nothing better than all firearms being banned.

I believe the 2nd Amendment provides for militias only, however you can sufficiently argue that you are a one-man militia. Also, if everyone had a gun, MAD would apply. If you shoot someone, you better kill them and everyone who is watching.

"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."

Note the comma. Basically what it's talking about is the people themselves--that is, your average person, like you or me--regulating the militias and the military--or keeping them in check--by owning weapons ourselves, to prevent something like the British gobsmack of the eighteenth century from happening to us again. it's an important distinction.

I believe the 2nd Amendment provides for militias only, however you can sufficiently argue that you are a one-man militia. Also, if everyone had a gun, MAD would apply. If you shoot someone, you better kill them and everyone who is watching.

A federal appeals court just struck down the DC ban based on the opinion that the second amendment is an individual right.

Who the hell knows.

Gun Control (in the United States) is one of those issues that can't simply be determined by asking if someone's a "Liberal" or a "Conservative". Heck, my Grandmother is a lifelong Republican, and she would like nothing better than all firearms being banned.

Actually, technically speaking, gun control would be a tad more conservative, whereas non-gun control is more a liberal ideal. Just tends to show you misconceptions of the political system, really. And to say that gun control is a purely Democrat platform is idiotic, really.

Really, the axom "If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns" is true. The last thing a criminal would want to do is get a gun legally-it can be traced far easier than illegally obtained guns. And hell, if people were properly trained in the use and storage of guns, the amount of accidental injuries and deaths caused by them would plummet, but of course they aren't, as they are idiots who don't want to take the time to do so. You know, common sense stuff: Never keep your gun loaded in storage, never store ammunition with the gun, keep your gun locked in a secure place. Never point at anything you aren't willing to shoot. Easy things, that to most should be common sense.

I'm in favor of waiting periods and background checks, however, due to violent criminals and mentally unstable people having access to them is not a good idea.

Another thing is, most murders are infact crimes of passion, that is not premeditated. Not having a gun really isn't going to change the deaths that much-there are plenty of other weapons available. Guns just make it a tad easier to do.

This coming from a more or less social liberal, people.

Actually, technically speaking, gun control would be a tad more conservative, whereas non-gun control is more a liberal ideal. Just tends to show you misconceptions of the political system, really. And to say that gun control is a purely Democrat platform is idiotic, really.

Really, the axom "If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns" is true. The last thing a criminal would want to do is get a gun legally-it can be traced far easier than illegally obtained guns. And hell, if people were properly trained in the use and storage of guns, the amount of accidental injuries and deaths caused by them would plummet, but of course they aren't, as they are idiots who don't want to take the time to do so. You know, common sense stuff: Never keep your gun loaded in storage, never store ammunition with the gun, keep your gun locked in a secure place. Never point at anything you aren't willing to shoot. Easy things, that to most should be common sense.

I'm in favor of waiting periods and background checks, however, due to violent criminals and mentally unstable people having access to them is not a good idea.

Another thing is, most murders are infact crimes of passion, that is not premeditated. Not having a gun really isn't going to change the deaths that much-there are plenty of other weapons available. Guns just make it a tad easier to do.

This coming from a more or less social liberal, people.
I'm a social libertarian and I agree with you completely, with the added bonus of the fact that guns in the hands of people means a government can't oppress its people as easily. Those who state that our military is too "technologically advanced" for that kind of rebellion need only to look to Iraq and Afghanistan for why that argument is flawed.

And if anyone mistakes social libertarian for identifying with the nutjobs that are the American Libertarian Party I will be rather annoyed.

A federal appeals court just struck down the DC ban based on the opinion that the second amendment is an individual right.
Which is why it's likely to end up in the Supreme Court. That ruling went against the rulings in 9 other Circuits, and that's usually a recipe for certiorari.

Another thing is, most murders are infact crimes of passion, that is not premeditated. Not having a gun really isn't going to change the deaths that much-there are plenty of other weapons available. Guns just make it a tad easier to do.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is there any way to verify this? It would be difficult since comparing murder rates of two nations with and without guns laws or varying degrees of restrictions is ignoring the other factors that might contribute to the murder rate. But is it possible to actually know whether or not these 'crimes of passion' would be as common without a gun? From instinct I assume they'd go down as people might be less willing or able to murder with a knife or blunt object or whatever. Not sure about any of this though...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is there any way to verify this? It would be difficult since comparing murder rates of two nations with and without guns laws or varying degrees of restrictions is ignoring the other factors that might contribute to the murder rate. But is it possible to actually know whether or not these 'crimes of passion' would be as common without a gun? From instinct I assume they'd go down as people might be less willing or able to murder with a knife or blunt object or whatever. Not sure about any of this though...

It's not so much that most murders are crimes of passion as it is that some are, and the other murders are either planned by people who simply don't care--or sociopaths--and/or by people who are convinced they will not be caught. In other words, it's a mindset that won't be changed by removing the weapon used. The weapon simply makes it easier for certain types--such as the crimes of passion--to be comitted more easily, but as anyone who has ever trained in any martial art or defensive art can tell you, you can kill people with your body just as easily. Usually the crimes of passion bit is used as an argument for why the death penalty does not deter crime(along with the other two parts) but it also applies here.

The point is being safe with a gun. If you're going to own one, you'd damn well better know how to use it properly, know how to store it properly, know how to keep it safe from others, and to never use it threateningly unless you are prepared to shoot whatever you're pointing that weapon at. That's why for self-defense I prefer my bo staff, if only because it's a lot easier to simply knock someone unconscious with it rather than kill them. I do intend to own at least one gun someday, however, and I think if you can't be safe with a gun then you don't deserve to own one. I have no problem with restrictions on ensuring gun SAFETY. What I have a problem with is the restriction on owning any gun at all.

Interesting that the Supreme Court finally recognized the implied right to gun ownership that we've always had. I actually encountered someone here on NS who maintained there was no right to gun ownership because the Supreme Court hadn't specifically proclaimed it, despite addressing several cases involving guns without any comment on the legality of the same. Guess I don't have a right to own a lawnmower until the Supreme Court says so either. :p

Anyway, gun ownership in my experience is more related to where you live and whether you hunt than who you vote for. If you live in Boyle Heights, Commerce or Culver City, you're more likely to own one than if you live in Palos Verdes or Brentwood.. etc.

That's why for self-defense I prefer my bo staff, if only because it's a lot easier to simply knock someone unconscious with it rather than kill them.

Umm... You carry around a Bo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_staff) Ever needed to use it? Where are you going that you need to take a weapon anyway?

Umm... You carry around a Bo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_staff) Ever needed to use it? Where are you going that you need to take a weapon anyway?

For a couple years I lived in Oxnard, California, and went to John C Filmore Middle School and Oxnard High School. During those couple years I was jumped repeatedly and had several knifes pulled on me. Since then I've kept a bo staff for defense. Mine is made of oak. Nice and strong. 72" long with tapered ends.

As for where...eh, it's more something I keep around my person whenever I talk walks or something. I was attacked once by a mountain lion last year that had been sighted around the area. The poor lion was half-starving because the elk and deer had run off earlier than they normally did. I fended it off but after I was done I spoke with the department of wildlife here in Colorado about it. Unfortunately the lion was euthanized rather than captured and taken care of in captivity till it could be released back into the wild like I had wanted it to be. :(

Interesting that the Supreme Court finally recognized the implied right to gun ownership that we've always had. I actually encountered someone here on NS who maintained there was no right to gun ownership because the Supreme Court hadn't specifically proclaimed it, despite addressing several cases involving guns without any comment on the legality of the same. Guess I don't have a right to own a lawnmower until the Supreme Court says so either. :p

Anyway, gun ownership in my experience is more related to where you live and whether you hunt than who you vote for. If you live in Boyle Heights, Commerce or Culver City, you're more likely to own one than if you live in Palos Verdes or Brentwood.. etc.
Not the Supreme Court yet.

For a couple years I lived in Oxnard, California, and went to John C Filmore Middle School and Oxnard High School. During those couple years I was jumped repeatedly and had several knifes pulled on me. Since then I've kept a bo staff for defense. Mine is made of oak. Nice and strong. 72" long with tapered ends.

As for where...eh, it's more something I keep around my person whenever I talk walks or something. I was attacked once by a mountain lion last year that had been sighted around the area. The poor lion was half-starving because the elk and deer had run off earlier than they normally did. I fended it off but after I was done I spoke with the department of wildlife here in Colorado about it. Unfortunately the lion was euthanized rather than captured and taken care of in captivity till it could be released back into the wild like I had wanted it to be. :(

:( You made me sad.

Anyway, 72"? Do you carry it by itself in your hand or something or do you conceal it somehow (I don't see how though)? I imagine you'd get some strange looks.

:( You made me sad.

Anyway, 72"? Do you carry it by itself in your hand or something or do you conceal it somehow (I don't see how though)? I imagine you'd get some strange looks.

Sometimes I carry it as a walking stick, yes, but usually I keep it strapped to my back. I don't ever bother concealing it, since to do so would be illegal without a concealed carry permit...or I would think it would be, anyway, and I'm not exactly going to try finding out.

I live in a rural mountain area so I don't get as many looks as you might think. I might get one or two occasionally but that's only if I carry it around the supermarkets over in Conifer/Aspen Park, and I rarely do that unless I'm going there at night for some reason.

Sometimes I carry it as a walking stick, yes, but usually I keep it strapped to my back. I don't ever bother concealing it, since to do so would be illegal without a concealed carry permit...or I would think it would be, anyway, and I'm not exactly going to try finding out.

I live in a rural mountain area so I don't get as many looks as you might think. I might get one or two occasionally but that's only if I carry it around the supermarkets over in Conifer/Aspen Park, and I rarely do that unless I'm going there at night for some reason.


I'm 90% sure that CCWs only apply to Firearms. You don't need one to carry pepper spray, for example.

I'm 90% sure that CCWs only apply to Firearms. You don't need one to carry pepper spray, for example.

Even so...it's not like I can conceal a staff taller than I am on my person anywhere...so the point is moot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html

Note that he is not a member of the NRA, nor does he own a gun.
That guy is the shit.