NationStates Jolt Archive

Washington, Apr 18 - WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 18) — In the aftermath of Monday’s deadly shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is proposing a comprehensive, three-point plan to deal with the violence plaguing America, including a ban on handguns.

“The tragic events in Blacksburg, Virginia which took 33 lives are not an isolated example of the effects of gun violence in America. In fact, about 32 people perish each and every day in America in hand gun related incidents,” Kucinich said in a speech to Congress today.

“It is becoming painfully obvious that the easy availability of handguns constituents a growing national crisis of public health and safety, one that calls for a powerful, wide-ranging response from Congress.

“The level of violence in our society constitutes a national emergency. I’m offering an approach to change America’s direction away from death and disintegration and toward life and social cohesiveness.”

Already this Congress, Kucinich has introduced HR 808 and HR 676—two bills that directly relate to the events of Blacksburg. HR 808, legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence, addresses the issue of domestic violence, gang violence, and violence in the schools, which is reflected in the current homicide rates. HR 808 has 62 cosponsors.

“The bill provides hope for a transformation through education of our children in principles of nonviolence and support for existing community groups and professionals whose dedication would be empowered by a national commitment to peace and nonviolence,” Kucinich said.

A recent study indicates that many perpetrators of murder had histories of mental illness. The lack of parity for mental healthcare remains one of the most serious deficiencies in healthcare in the United States – the system has long been lacking in substantive support of mental health. HR 676, Medicare for All, would establish a universal not-for-profit healthcare system, which would provide full and comprehensive mental healthcare. More than 14,000 physicians support HR 676 and it is cosponsored by 63 Members of Congress.

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

“America is being engulfed in violence every day. Let’s show them we have the wisdom and the courage to come from our hearts to meet this challenge,” Kucinich said.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819


Can we say "fascism?"

Banning handguns doesn't strike me as "fascism."

Dangerous and unjustified state intervention, yes. But not much more.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819


Can we say "fascism?"

This bill will not go anywhere. There will be to much opposition to this and it will effectively kill the Democratic Party if they go along with this.

:eek: My government bans handguns, so I must live in a fascist state!

The bill provides hope for a transformation through education of our children in principles of nonviolence and support for existing community groups and professionals whose dedication would be empowered by a national commitment to peace and nonviolence,
That is not fascism. Yes, he's anti-private gun ownership, but, and I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, there's a lot more to the ideology of fascism than that.

In any case, Kuchinich is one of the few politicians todays that really understand the trustee principles that are required in a decent republic.

Banning handguns doesn't strike me as "fascism."

What better way to control a population than by disarming them? The Soviets, Nazis, fascists, and totalitarians of every political stripe have proven this time and time again.

He's an irrelevant fool is what he is.

Yes, he's anti-private gun ownership, but, and I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, there's a lot more to the ideology of fascism than that.

I know that, but anti-gun ownership is one of the major tenets of totalitarianism. Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.

:eek: My government bans handguns, so I must live in a fascist state!

No, but your PM (I assume you live in the U.K.) is a fascist.

Yes...because the UK is the first thing people think of when you mention Fascism.

And that's a serious allegation to make...proof that Tony Blair is a fascist please.

I know that, but anti-gun ownership is one of the major tenets of totalitarianism. Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.

No, no they really aren't. God, people really need to stop throwing that word around. It does have an actual meaning.

The Soviets, Nazis, fascists, and totalitarians of every political stripe have proven this time and time again.

The Nazis actually loosened the gun control laws in Germany.

And plenty of non-totalitarian states have banned handguns... several European countries, for instance, and the District of Columbia, for that matter.

He's an irrelevant fool is what he is.

QFT

HR 808, legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence

What the heck is this Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Is it going to be cabinetal or part of the executive Branch?

I know that, but anti-gun ownership is one of the major tenets of totalitarianism. Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.

Well, the UK government does that. I imagine an exaggerated Blair's Britain would have secret police bursting into someone's house because they own a kitchen knife. Then they confiscate the knife, give the person a good talking to and leave.

I know that, but anti-gun ownership is one of the major tenets of totalitarianism. Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.
An absurd myth made up by the gun lobby and emotionalists. And I wasn't aware all guns were handguns.

The Nazis actually loosened the gun control laws in Germany.

And plenty of non-totalitarian states have banned handguns... several European countries, for instance, and the District of Columbia, for that matter.

And yet DC still has a gun problem, including handguns.

And yet DC still has a gun problem, including handguns.
DC, an area bordering one of the most pro-gun states in the Union with proven lacking gun control laws.

And yet DC still has a gun problem, including handguns.

Yeah, it worked shittily.

I'm not a fan of gun control... quite the contrary.

I know that, but anti-gun ownership is one of the major tenets of totalitarianism. Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.

no, there is much more to fascism than that.
and there are a lot of other and worse things that governments can do to control their population.

What better way to control a population than by disarming them? The Soviets, Nazis, fascists, and totalitarians of every political stripe have proven this time and time again.

While the French, Brittish, Swedes, Norwegians, Belgians and many others have proven that having a disarmed public in no way means that you will have a fascist state. There are plenty of countries that have severe arms control that are in every other way free countries. I might also add that an armed population in the US does not prevent the government from using the military to take over because even if everyone on your street was armed the Marines would blow you all to shit probably without so much as a scratch. Unless we are willing to extend the freedom to own arms to include stinger missiles, anti-tank weapons and RPGs then you are no match for the military.

And his chances of winning the presidency just dropped from .0000000001% to 0%. Sucks for him.

Maybe if someone more important or more respected had proposed it, I would be concerned. Kucinich is reaching the end of his political career, and can essentially champion anything he wants right now, it's not like it can make him less likely to be president.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819


Can we say "fascism?"

Calm down, Congo. Yes, this is completely unjustified and outrageous state action, but it is not fascism...not yet. Now, if he starts talking about patriotism as if it's one of the most important things and blaming problems on a specific sector of the populace, then I would agree with you. Right now Bush is more fascist than Kucinich.

No...Kucinich strikes me more as an idealistiic hippie.

The Mungo Gnome Kicincrotch is going to grab all our guns with his little gnome hands and munch them all up with this little gnome teeth.

EDIT:
A REAL photo of Mungo Gnome Kicincrotch:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/kickyick/kucinich2.jpg

The sky is falling :rolleyes:

I know that, but anti-gun ownership is one of the major tenets of totalitarianism. Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.Oh, absolutely. Contemporary Europe, the hotbed of totalitarian fascism.

Oh, absolutely. Contemporary Europe, the hotbed of totalitarian fascism.

*Hides plans to conquer Europe*

OMG!!! Lookit! He's presenting a piece of legislation that we all know will never ever pass, and nothing even close to it will ever be made into law! Aaah! The fascists are coming, the fascists are actually here!

Lookout, he'll remove that second commandment as soon as you blink your eyes, and if we're not careful then he'll use his mighty one-man legislative powers to ban assault weapons - and the next thing you know, the police and the military won't be allowed weapons because knives and rocks are outlawed! And then what'll you do, when Joe Commie-Muslim is standing in your living room?

'course, on the other hand, if we ban all guns the hole in the ozone layer will be fixed and there will be no crime, like Australia before America. And children will be singing in the streets, dancing with the rainbow. And there was much rejoicing. That is, until the criminals discover that they are criminals and take over the WORLD! And believe you me, those criminals are fascists! Because that word can be used to describe everything!!

If we don't ban guns, everybody will shoot everybody else, and if we ban guns, the fascist and criminals and the government will kill us all! What to choose, what to choose...

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/ohnoesiy6.gif


Yes, these hysterical gun threads are indeed getting on my nerves...

DC, an area bordering one of the most pro-gun states in the Union with proven lacking gun control laws.

Right. One gun a month. Double background check. And yet just as many come from very restrictive Maryland. Shock.

The Nazis actually loosened the gun control laws in Germany.




For Nazi party members.

Hmmm wouldn't it have been better to restore funding to mental heath programs and the rehabilitation programs in the prison system?

Right. One gun a month. Double background check. And yet just as many come from very restrictive Maryland. Shock.
Trust me when I say that store owners ignore those laws. All the time. At least here.

Trust me when I say that store owners ignore those laws. All the time. At least here.

Really? And you've reported them to the BATFE?

He's an irrelevant fool is what he is.

I gotta agree with ya there, man.

Everyone was a Nazi party member. You had to be to get anywhere.

Actually, no not everyone was a party member.

For Nazi party members.

Everyone was a Nazi party member. You had to be to get anywhere.

What a little facist. Good thing it'll never pass. But just for the fun of it:
http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/98/Gun_control_works.jpg
All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.

Perhaps more of knee jerk reaction, or an attempt to exploit heightened public sensibilities to appease his own principles, however, fascist appears completely misused, of not used for outright effect as opposed to accuracy.

Really? And you've reported them to the BATFE?

Who?

No. Millions of corpses weren't, and neither were those who were oppressed, downtrodden and generally abused.However, those who sought prosperityy, advancement or security for their families tended to be so.

Right! That is why many of the "party members" were looked down upon.

Actually, no not everyone was a party member.

No. Millions of corpses weren't, and neither were those who were oppressed, downtrodden and generally abused.However, those who sought prosperityy, advancement or security for their families tended to be so.

You left off all the totalitarian countries with armed populaces.
And what about all those modern totalitarian countries with gun control? Britain, France, Japan...

Some times it's tough. Singapore is about as totalitarian as you can get.

I didn't feel unsafe walking about in the wee hours of the morning.....

Who?

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The ones who inspect the firearm dealers at least once a year.

What a little facist. Good thing it'll never pass. But just for the fun of it:
*snip bullshit*
All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.
You left off all the totalitarian countries with armed populaces.
And what about all those modern totalitarian countries with gun control? Britain, France, Japan...

Trust me when I say that store owners ignore those laws. All the time. At least here.

If you know of Federal Firearms Licensee dealers who are violating the law by selling guns illegally, you have a pretty strong ethical duty to report them...

If you know of Federal Firearms Licensee dealers who are violating the law by selling guns illegally, you have a pretty strong ethical duty to report them...

Agreed.

What a little facist. Good thing it'll never pass. But just for the fun of it:
http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/98/Gun_control_works.jpg
All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.

And the proper response to that would be...

“F—- you Brady,” Eric Harris wrote in his journal about the Brady gun law. “All I want is a couple of guns and thanks to your f——— bill I will probably not get any! Come on, I’ll have a clean record and I only want them for personal protection. It’s not like I’m some psycho who would go on a shooting spree.”

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/b/bb/Kid1.gif/100px-Kid1.gif (http://powerreporting.com/files/shoot.pdf)

Anyone who wants to deny people the right to defend themselves is a fascist.
No, someone who believes that the corporations and the state should be one and the same is a fascist. It might amaze you to learn this, but words actually have meanings. You can't use them to mean whatever the fuck you want.

Noted "fascist" Dennis Kucinich was also one of a very few to vote against the PATRIOT Act.

Oh no, civilians can't own hand guns! How will you keep your home and country safe?!

How will you keep your home and country safe?!

How will you?

Trust the racist, murderous gangster-state that claims to have the right to rule you?

How will you?

Trust the racist, murderous gangster-state that claims to have the right to rule you?
So when civilians can't buy hand guns, murderous gangsters will take over the country? Your logic is irrefutable. Also, the "Patriot" act was a bunch of BS.

So when civilians can't buy hand guns, murderous gangsters will take over the country?

No. Murderous gangsters already control the country.

Frankly, I'd rather trust myself and my civilian associates.

Also, the "Patriot" act was a bunch of BS.

Indeed.

No. Murderous gangsters already control the country.

Frankly, I'd rather trust myself and my civilian associates.
I haven't had any police or murderous agents of the racist state (or whatever) stroll up to my house and beat me up because I don't own a gun.


Edit: This only bans the buying of hand guns, its not like you will not be able to satisfy your paranoia, you will still be able to buy a hunting rifle or shotgun.

I haven't had any police or murderous agents of the racist state (or whatever) stroll up to my house and beat me up because I don't own a gun.

I didn't say you would... not unless the population gets into a revolutionary mood, anyway.

But when the state has shown repeatedly a callous disregard for human life, and tends overwhelmingly to prioritize the desires of its powerful constituents over the needs of the poor and minorities, I'm not too keen on trusting it to provide adequate police protection to everyone.

I didn't say you would... not unless the population gets into a revolutionary mood, anyway.

But when the state has shown repeatedly a callous disregard for human life, and tends overwhelmingly to prioritize the desires of its powerful constituents over the needs of the poor and minorities, I'm not too keen on trusting it to provide adequate police protection to everyone.
Revolution? We Americans are fat and content with being ruled by people who prioritize the rich, I don't think we would ever rise up.

Also, in an everyday situtation I would rather have the current level of police around than some idiot who thinks he can take the law into his own hands while in the middle of a group of innocent people.

Also, in an everyday situtation I would rather have the current level of police around than some idiot who thinks he can take the law into his own hands while in the middle of a group of innocent people.Well I'd rather have Batman, but I guess the police will have to do. :(

So...Dennis Kucinich has decided once again that he doesn't want to be President?

No surprise there, really.

Every time we have one of these shooting sprees, politicians get all riled up...

"It's the guns!"
"It's the movies!"
"It's the video games"

I myself would look first at the parents...but that's too sensitive a subject to a lot of people, so we look for a different scapegoat.

Nothing the government can do will prevent this from happening again...they ought to find something more important to do.

What the heck is this Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Is it going to be cabinetal or part of the executive Branch?

Kucinich plans to integrate it into the cabinet, in between his new Departments of Building Lands of Bread and Honey and Defeating Entropy.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819


Can we say "fascism?"



Let me put on my shocked face...........:rolleyes:

So...Dennis Kucinich has decided once again that he doesn't want to be President?



Not that it's really up to him to begin with, I suppose.

He is after all a four-foot Mungo Gnome named Kicincrotch

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v383/kickyick/?action=view&current=kucinich2.jpg

Every time we have one of these shooting sprees, politicians get all riled up...

"It's the guns!"
"It's the movies!"
"It's the video games"

I myself would look first at the parents...but that's too sensitive a subject to a lot of people, so we look for a different scapegoat.
Actually it's the people who choose to pick up the weapon and go on the spree. Harris and Klebolds parents were not what crove them to what they did, it was the treatment they got from their peers.

This behavior is typical though, every time someone gets shot some will say the gun made them do it or that it was the weapon and not the person using it, others will say that the shootees could have stopped most of the violence had they been armed. Nobody looks at the cause of school shootings which is almost abuse by peers combined with mental illness. You kids in school take heed, don't pester the pill popper.

Actually it's the people who choose to pick up the weapon and go on the spree. Harris and Klebolds parents were not what crove them to what they did, it was the treatment they got from their peers.

This behavior is typical though, every time someone gets shot some will say the gun made them do it or that it was the weapon and not the person using it, others will say that the shootees could have stopped most of the violence had they been armed. Nobody looks at the cause of school shootings which is almost abuse by peers combined with mental illness. You kids in school take heed, don't pester the pill popper.

I'm not saying the parents are the direct cause of such incidents, but their actions (or lack thereof), have far more impact on the situation than the availabllity of firearms or the content of media.

My final thoughts on the subject of gun control:

People have a right to protect their lives, their family, and their domicile with deadly force.

Citizens have a right to bear arms per the Constitution.

Because it is in the Constitution, this right must be abrogated very carefully, lest we give the government powers to trim/twist other rights too easily. As an example, look at the controversy over limiting abortion even slightly, even though it is NOT an <i>enumerated</i> right and was discerned only in "penumbras" of privacy. What I am saying is that something annunciated clearly must not be restricted lightly.

Options: Amend the Constitution (not likely) or carefully regulate purchases in such a manner that they restrict purchases by individuals who are otherwise restricted from fully participating in the rights of citizenship (ie, convicted felons cannot vote in federal elections usually - therefore apply that model to gun purchases).

A potential problem arises: if we say that mentally ill persons cannot own guns, can/should they be allowed to vote? Should they have freedom of speech?

Potential problem number two: in the effort to restrict gun purchases, will government be convinced to "liberally diagnose" mental illness? Could religious conservatism be called a mental illness? Monotheism? Fervor? Loneliness?

Can we say "fascism?"

Yeah, I live in a fascist country like that where gun sales are heavily restricted and it makes me feel so unsafe knowing that a psycho can't get hold of a gun as easy as he can purchase alcohol.

No, but your PM (I assume you live in the U.K.) is a fascist.
Now hold on a second. Blair might not be hot on the civil liberties front, but calling him a fascist is just hyperbole. And for the recond, it wasn't his government that brought in the hand gun ban, either.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.

I really don't agree with teaching pacifism in schools, but I say strict control of guns. Of course, you can't just take them away in America, because criminals wont hand them in, that's obvious, but if we could make them all instantly vanish into thin air, I'd be all for it.

Bite me. I'm a Brit.

So...Dennis Kucinich has decided once again that he doesn't want to be President?

No surprise there, really.

Every time we have one of these shooting sprees, politicians get all riled up...

"It's the guns!"
"It's the movies!"
"It's the video games"

That, btw, was Hillary and Lieberman, not (to my knowledge) Kucinich.

This is one of the reasons I am not voting for Hillary.

Several points. Gun control is not fascism, nor does it have any relationship to it. The claims that every totalitarian regime in history has had strict gun control are ill-founded and essentially mythological. (In the case of the Nazis, for example, entirely fabricated.)

Second, it's next to impossible to go on a killing spree without a gun. Like it or not, guns make rampages possible.

Third, self defense is an inappropriate argument and not part of the motivation for the second amendment. Nor is hunting, competitive shooting, or anything else along those sorts of everyday, practical considerations.

The purposes of the second amendment are twofold: First, provide for the defense of the nation against foreign conquerors. Second, reserve the right to have another revolution. Both of these are undermined by the US's choice to have a standing professional army (IMO, both points against standing armies rather than the amendment in question.)

Handguns have very little to do with either of these proper roles. Handguns are for convenient killing of people.

While the French, Brittish, Swedes, Norwegians, Belgians and many others have proven that having a disarmed public in no way means that you will have a fascist state. There are plenty of countries that have severe arms control that are in every other way free countries. I might also add that an armed population in the US does not prevent the government from using the military to take over because even if everyone on your street was armed the Marines would blow you all to shit probably without so much as a scratch. Unless we are willing to extend the freedom to own arms to include stinger missiles, anti-tank weapons and RPGs then you are no match for the military.

True but you have to be pretty stupid to want to fight the USMC in open battle. But if you wanted to run a Maoist-type "people's war" against the United States--the amount of small arms in the US could do a nice job along those lines.

But who really cares what crazy Dennis tries to do anyway?

First the bill will never pass, second, if it did it would never pass the senate and if it did it would never get pass the President's desk without being vetoed. Oh and if it did become law it would probably be viewed as unconstitutional.

Also be aware that even if handguns were banned--criminals would still be able to get them. Organized crime types seem to get guns fairly easily in both Taiwan and Japan where there is a total ban on all private ownership of guns.

Fascism was characterised by the extensive possession of firearms in the hands of private, non-military citizens. Specifically in the hands of politically extreme thugs.

Taking guns away from the politicised thugs sounds pretty anti-fascist to me.

Several points. Gun control is not fascism, nor does it have any relationship to it. The claims that every totalitarian regime in history has had strict gun control are ill-founded and essentially mythological. (In the case of the Nazis, for example, entirely fabricated.)

The Nazi's already had gun control from the Weimar Republic but modified it to allow "dependable people" (ie sturdy party members) to own.

Second, it's next to impossible to go on a killing spree without a gun. Like it or not, guns make rampages possible.

Hutu/Tutsi

Third, self defense is an inappropriate argument and not part of the motivation for the second amendment. Nor is hunting, competitive shooting, or anything else along those sorts of everyday, practical considerations.

The defense of the individual WAS part of the motivation of the 2nd. John Adams and numerous state Consitutions recognized this if not expressly set out in the Federal BOR.

The purposes of the second amendment are twofold: First, provide for the defense of the nation against foreign conquerors. Second, reserve the right to have another revolution. Both of these are undermined by the US's choice to have a standing professional army (IMO, both points against standing armies rather than the amendment in question.)

Niether are undermined but the first has less of an effect.

Handguns have very little to do with either of these proper roles. Handguns are for convenient killing of people.

Handguns are for various uses. Stating they're only for "Convenient killing of people" is just emotional hyperbole.

Handguns have very little to do with either of these proper roles. Handguns are for convenient killing of people.

And the stopping of crimes. Guns (usually handguns) are used thousands of times a year in the US defensively (and most of these times never even fired) to stop a number of violent crimes such as robbery and rape among others.

Edit: This only bans the buying of hand guns, its not like you will not be able to satisfy your paranoia, you will still be able to buy a hunting rifle or shotgun.

Which is silly because if you really wanted to cause great amount of carnage nothing beats a 10-ga pump with double alt buck for killing at close range if you cut the stock and saw it off you can reduce the size so it would be easily concealed. Of course a sawed off shoutgun is illegal--but so is carrying a gun on VT campus--didn't stop some nutjob from bringing them on campus did it?

:mp5:

What better way to control a population than by disarming them? The Soviets, Nazis, fascists, and totalitarians of every political stripe have proven this time and time again.

More liberal countries than the US have banned handguns.

Try again.

Also, in an everyday situtation I would rather have the current level of police around than some idiot who thinks he can take the law into his own hands while in the middle of a group of innocent people.

One such person who took the law into his own hands did so in Georgia in Cobb County on US 41 who saw a man struggling with a woman..he ran a red light and got t-boned killing the woman--sadly the driver of the car remained alive. He gave chase as the man in the car escaped and ran toward a local gas station, the "take the law into his own hands" ordered the man to stop, he instead pulled his own weapon at which point the man giving chase shot him dead. The now dead man turned out to be a convicted rapist. If he had not been shot and killed how many other women would have been abducted or raped like poor Kimberly Boyd (the woman killed in the car)?

A Cobb County Grand Jury refused to indict the man that killed him. Too bad they weren't empowered to give him a medal as well.

Banning handguns isn't necessarily fascist. Fascism is more comprehensive a political system than can be boiled down into simply, pro- vs anti- ownership of firearms.

Although I certainly agree that fascist, totalitarian, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in general have been against private ownership of firearms, specifically because a disarmed populace is much easier to subdue through force.

However, it's entirely possible to have a non-fascist state that bans gun ownership, and to have a fascist state that allows it.

Hmmm wouldn't it have been better to restore funding to mental heath programs and the rehabilitation programs in the prison system?

Or build more mental hospitals so nuts like Cho would never see the light of day.

... errr...

Does that make most of Europe fascist?

One such person who took the law into his own hands did so in Georgia in Cobb County on US 41 who saw a man struggling with a woman..he ran a red light and got t-boned killing the woman--sadly the driver of the car remained alive. He gave chase as the man in the car escaped and ran toward a local gas station, the "take the law into his own hands" ordered the man to stop, he instead pulled his own weapon at which point the man giving chase shot him dead. The now dead man turned out to be a convicted rapist. If he had not been shot and killed how many other women would have been abducted or raped like poor Kimberly Boyd (the woman killed in the car)?

A Cobb County Grand Jury refused to indict the man that killed him. Too bad they weren't empowered to give him a medal as well.

And what if he wasn't?

If you are in situation where struggling with a woman and running away from a man with a gun is enough to warrant a death sentence - then you are in a very bad situation indeed.

Who?

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms—usually known as the ATF. Well known for their "brilliant raid" on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. The NRA president calling them a "bunch of jack booted thug" was at the time very accuare.

Oh, absolutely. Contemporary Europe, the hotbed of totalitarian fascism.

No big brother socialism would be a better description.

And what if he wasn't?

If you are in situation where struggling with a woman and running away from a man with a gun is enough to warrant a death sentence - then you are in a very bad situation indeed.

If you would read more closely, the rapist turned and pointed his weapon at the man giving chase and at that point he was shot dead. In which I say that is very good news. If he had not aimed his weapon he would sadly still be alive--in prison, but alive.

What better way to control a population than by disarming them?
Seeing as your own nation did absolutely fuck all when their voting rights were abused and an election was stolen, I don't really see much proof that an armed populace is anything to stop real injustice.
The Soviets
Had the same situation that the Tsarists did and for largely similar reasons. If you gave guns out in the USSR, you'd have ethnic conflicts on a grand scale - see Chechnya and some bits of Georgia, which basically exists because Russia says it can.
Nazis
Liberalised weapons to the status they were before the Weimar Government, which was a true democracy between two totalitarian eras, and yet made guns hard to obtain. That must be a bit confusing for you, eh?
fascists
The BNP say that every house in Britain will have a standard issue rifle if they come to power. How's that controlling weapons?

And they're certainly fascists.
and totalitarians of every political stripe
See Iraq... oh... no...wait...

No big brother socialism would be a better description.
Don't be a retard.

It's not "big brother socialism" at all. It's "a hybrid economy, which tries not to let its citizens do anything too stupid" - yes, that means :

Paying higher taxes than the US (and getting more services) :eek:
and
Not having as many guns around as the US (and having armed robberies) :eek:

Seeing as your own nation did absolutely fuck all when their voting rights were abused and an election was stolen, I don't really see much proof that an armed populace is anything to stop real injustice.

Election was stolen? I'm sorry you disagree with the electoral college system, but that doesn't mean it was stolen nor that our answer should have been armed revolution. It has nothing to do with gun rights.

The BNP say that every house in Britain will have a standard issue rifle if they come to power. How's that controlling weapons?

And they're certainly fascists.

I think we all know they mean every "British" house. Like, the ones who meet certain criteria for "Britishness." I.E, not immigrants or anyone opposed to the BNP.

In fact, fascism doesn't tend to mean gun-lessness, just that guns are concentrated in the hands of those who are ... preferred...

Can we say "fascism?"

Can we say "using a horrible crime to boost one's political presence"? Kucinich is being an opportunistic asshat.

Can we say "using a horrible crime to boost one's political presence"? Kucinich is being an opportunistic asshat.

I agree with you entirely.

Election was stolen? I'm sorry you disagree with the electoral college system, but that doesn't mean it was stolen nor that our answer should have been armed revolution. It has nothing to do with gun rights.
Since several thousand people in Florida were actually not allowed to go to the polls because they were going to vote Democrat, I'd call it a fairly stolen election, really.
I think we all know they mean every "British" house. Like, the ones who meet certain criteria for "Britishness." I.E, not immigrants or anyone opposed to the BNP.
That doesn't even the beginnings of matter to me, or to the argument. They'd be putting, doubtless, automatic weapons into peoples' houses, and since Britain has had some of the toughest gun laws around for around seventy years, a fascist state would certainly be doing the exact opposite of gun control.
In fact, fascism doesn't tend to mean gun-lessness, just that guns are concentrated in the hands of those who are ... preferred...
Right. That's sometimes true, although not always (see Nazi Germany, which you'd have to agree was pretty fascistic).

The original "argument" still dies a messy death under the fast-moving train of logic.

The Nazi's already had gun control from the Weimar Republic but modified it to allow "dependable people" (ie sturdy party members) to own.
I.e., loosened gun control. Party membership? Pretty much mandatory. Participation in the Hitler Youth? Pretty much mandatory.

You can be assured that the people of Germany became better (not worse) armed under the Nazis. Fascists are - if anything - inherently militaristic.
Hutu/Tutsi
Those aren't individual killing sprees. Not to mention, those massacres (a whole different use of the word) were generally carried out with firearms.

What, you didn't think there were guns in Africa? The last major African conflict I can think of that didn't involve them was that one with Shaka. Organized genocide, large scale violence - sure, those predate firearms.

Individual random killing sprees by essentially random and otherwise normal people? No.
The defense of the individual WAS part of the motivation of the 2nd. John Adams and numerous state Consitutions recognized this if not expressly set out in the Federal BOR.
The defense of the individual against the state, and incidentally against foreign foes living nearby (e.g., "those Injuns") who could raid at any time. Not against muggers on the street with box cutters.
Niether are undermined but the first has less of an effect.
No, both are undermined quite thoroughly. The militia lose the role of defense of sovereignity when a standing army takes over (and, accordingly, is not organized any more except as a formality during disaster relief efforts; when was your last state militia training session?); the militia can be effectively suppressed in combat by a sufficiently large, well armed, and well trained professional army.
Handguns are for various uses. Stating they're only for "Convenient killing of people" is just emotional hyperbole.
No, it's a quite accurate and (as far as those go) relatively neutral description.

A handgun is a tool. What purpose does it serve? Firing bullets. For what purpose are bullets fired? To kill people.

What differentiates a handgun from other firearms? Convenience. Size and concealability, to be more particular; they are generally poor for hunting animals, and against a military force, rifles would usually be preferred.

Ergo, handguns are for the convenient killing of people; dress it up in whatever euphemistic phrases you like, but there's very little else a handgun is a decent tool for.

Since several thousand people in Florida were actually not allowed to go to the polls because they were going to vote Democrat, I'd call it a fairly stolen election, really.

Even if we assume your statement to be 100% accurate, it is no just reason to wage armed revolution. My point remains.

That doesn't even the beginnings of matter to me, or to the argument. They'd be putting, doubtless, automatic weapons into peoples' houses, and since Britain has had some of the toughest gun laws around for around seventy years, a fascist state would certainly be doing the exact opposite of gun control.

Not at all. Gun control just means that - control. It doesn't mean gunlessness.
Arming one segment of the population (particularly based on say, ethnicity or race) and not the others is in fact more fascist than total disarmament of everyone. And it's also every bit as regulated - it's not like the BNP is actually arguing for gun freedom as I would define it, with this little plan of theirs.

Right. That's sometimes true, although not always (see Nazi Germany, which you'd have to agree was pretty fascistic).

I'd have to do more research, but I'm pretty sure nazi Germany frowned violently on private gun ownership by, say, Jews. Nazi party members, their families? "True Germans?" Probably allowed. But the point was, disarmament was a key factor in helping establish control as they preferred it. Whether it's total disaramentn of all citizens to centralize power to the military and government, or partial disarmament of "undesirable" sectors to centralize power to military, government and "desirable" supporters... it's still a gun control situation.

The original "argument" still dies a messy death under the fast-moving train of logic.

I think saying Kucinich is a fascist is hyperbole, not a statement of logical argument. It does highlight the strong feelings many Americans have against gun banning, and thus this Kucinich fellow and his latest gaffe.

As an Ohio voter, there is no denying the fact that Denny K. is a total, freakin' nutter. He's brought nothing but embarrassment to Northeast Ohio. Between his far-left policy proposals that go nowhere, his quadrennial failed Presidential campaigns and his absurdist "Who wants to Marry the President" gimmick as some sort of sick trick to get himself laid, I'm ashamed he's from the same region of the country as me.

I.e., loosened gun control. Party membership? Pretty much mandatory. Participation in the Hitler Youth? Pretty much mandatory.

Actual membership was less than 10% during the 30's. It only became close to mandatory later when those kids started growing up.

You can be assured that the people of Germany became better (not worse) armed under the Nazis. Fascists are - if anything - inherently militaristic.

I can be assured that certain party members were better armed. Not the populace.

Those aren't individual killing sprees. Not to mention, those massacres (a whole different use of the word) were generally carried out with firearms.

What, you didn't think there were guns in Africa? The last major African conflict I can think of that didn't involve them was that one with Shaka. Organized genocide, large scale violence - sure, those predate firearms.

Individual random killing sprees by essentially random and otherwise normal people? No.

The Tutsi/hutu massacres were alost exlusively done w/o firearms against completely unarmed people.

As for "individual killing sprees", there have been numerous w/o firearms as well. Now if you want to move the goalposts some more and redefine it as "sprees w/ guns", go ahead.

The defense of the individual against the state, and incidentally against foreign foes living nearby (e.g., "those Injuns") who could raid at any time. Not against muggers on the street with box cutters.

Yes it was for personal security. If you can find evidence showing that, feel free.

No, both are undermined quite thoroughly. The militia lose the role of defense of sovereignity when a standing army takes over (and, accordingly, is not organized any more except as a formality during disaster relief efforts; when was your last state militia training session?); the militia can be effectively suppressed in combat by a sufficiently large, well armed, and well trained professional army.

Like in Iraq and Afganistan? All males 17-45 are part of the Militia and most state constitutions include the populace as well.

No, it's a quite accurate and (as far as those go) relatively neutral description.

You mean biased, stereotyped, innaccureate description.

A handgun is a tool. What purpose does it serve? Firing bullets. For what purpose are bullets fired? To kill people.

Please, stretch the hyperbole a bit more.

What differentiates a handgun from other firearms? Convenience. Size and concealability, to be more particular; they are generally poor for hunting animals, and against a military force, rifles would usually be preferred.

"Preffered" perhaps in most situations, but not all. There's also pistols for target shooting, hunting, even skeet.

Ergo, handguns are for the convenient killing of people; dress it up in whatever euphemistic phrases you like, but there's very little else a handgun is a decent tool for.

Ergo, your generalized descriptions are just as innaccurate the second time around as the first. Just because you don't want to recognize that handguns aren't "just for killing" doesn't make it any truer.

Actual membership was less than 10% during the 30's. It only became close to mandatory later when those kids started growing up.
Mandatory as of 1938.
I can be assured that certain party members were better armed. Not the populace.
The populace as a whole was not in any cases disarmed, and in many cases became armed - i.e., the populace became somewhat more heavily armed.
The Tutsi/hutu massacres were alost exlusively done w/o firearms against completely unarmed people.
Source that... because every hit I'm pulling up online references gunmen.
As for "individual killing sprees", there have been numerous w/o firearms as well.
No there have not. Nothing of the sort of happening as occurred at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or anything else has occurred in recent years without firearms. Multi-murders without firearms are extraordinarily rare.
Yes it was for personal security. If you can find evidence showing that, feel free.
The original text is fairly clear about the stated reason:
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.
I may also choose to quote Noah Webster - one of many period quotes from assorted prominent figures of the time:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
There are very many such indicators that the second amendment was intended as a check against military oppression against the populace. There are no indicators that it was intended as a check upon crime. The simple fact of the matter is that "self defense," as we understand the term, was not a part of the considerations of the vast majority of those involved in authoring and approving the second amendment.

Your claim that personal defense was in mind is what needs to be explained. You've claimed that John Adams said so explicitly; now provide your source.
Like in Iraq and Afganistan? All males 17-45 are part of the Militia and most state constitutions include the populace as well.
That militia was not invoked in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the militia is not legally invoked - to my knowledge - except on occasions of disaster relief, in which case the militia is invoked as a legal excuse to make use of volunteers.
You mean biased, stereotyped, innaccureate description.
Not at all. Find one thing I said that is not accurate. Find one function for which a handgun is the optimum tool that does not meet my description.
"Preffered" perhaps in most situations, but not all.
"Preferred": Another device is better at this.
There's also pistols for target shooting, hunting, even skeet.
I.e., rifles are better tools for these... and in those cases, you're talking about specialized pistols marketed to a particular niche, rather than the more general varieties of handgun that people are concerned about regulating.

There are few US legislators worried about regulating the sort of high-precision pistol used in Olympic shooting events. Your argument is specious at best; the primary function of the tool is killing, plain and simple, and in most cases this is its only intended function.
Ergo, your generalized descriptions are just as innaccurate the second time around as the first. Just because you don't want to recognize that handguns aren't "just for killing" doesn't make it any truer.
Perhaps I should add some secondary functions that you didn't mention: Threatening to kill people by means of a bullet. Suicide, if you don't count that as a killing. A realistic stage prop loaded with blanks for entertainment purposes. Starting races. Celebrating weddings (please shoot into the ground, not the air... thank you...)

For all of these, there is either a better and more appropriate tool than a lethal handgun, or the function is intrinsically tied to its primary purpose of killing people. The only function that a handgun in particular excels at is that of a convenient portable and concealable killing device, and such is the function the vast majority of consumers have in mind when they purchase them. Denying that only makes you wrong on more counts - not only on the reasons for the second amendment, but also on the nature of handguns.

I keep reading "Deep Kimchi is a damned fascist" every time I skim by this thread.

Mandatory as of 1938.

The populace as a whole was not in any cases disarmed, and in many cases became armed - i.e., the populace became somewhat more heavily armed.

And I'ld like a source for that.
Source that... because every hit I'm pulling up online references gunmen.


http://www.ruminator.com/?p=103

No there have not. Nothing of the sort of happening as occurred at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or anything else has occurred in recent years without firearms. Multi-murders without firearms are extraordinarily rare.

9/11, Oklahoma city, anthrax, UK, Spain, All the roadside bombs in Iraq.


The original text is fairly clear about the stated reason:

And you selectively ignore the second part.

I may also choose to quote Noah Webster - one of many period quotes from assorted prominent figures of the time:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Your claim that personal defense was in mind is what needs to be explained. You've claimed that John Adams said so explicitly; now provide your source.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

That militia was not invoked in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the militia is not legally invoked - to my knowledge - except on occasions of disaster relief, in which case the militia is invoked as a legal excuse to make use of volunteers.

Oh, please. What would you call the irregulars that armed to defend their homes? They are the same as a militia. Move those goalposts some more.

Not at all. Find one thing I said that is not accurate. Find one function for which a handgun is the optimum tool that does not meet my description.

What? That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that there are hundreds of different types of firearms designed for different purposes, right? They don't all do the same thing.

"Preferred": Another device is better at this.

I.e., rifles are better tools for these... and in those cases, you're talking about specialized pistols marketed to a particular niche, rather than the more general varieties of handgun that people are concerned about regulating.

There are few US legislators worried about regulating the sort of high-precision pistol used in Olympic shooting events. Your argument is specious at best; the primary function of the tool is killing, plain and simple, and in most cases this is its only intended function.[/quote]


Once again, you are showing your ignorance of firearms. I'm not talking about "olympic quality" pistols. A large number are made for plinking or amatueur target shooting.

Perhaps I should add some secondary functions that you didn't mention: Threatening to kill people by means of a bullet. Suicide, if you don't count that as a killing. A realistic stage prop loaded with blanks for entertainment purposes. Starting races. Celebrating weddings (please shoot into the ground, not the air... thank you...)

For all of these, there is either a better and more appropriate tool than a lethal handgun, or the function is intrinsically tied to its primary purpose of killing people. The only function that a handgun in particular excels at is that of a convenient portable and concealable killing device, and such is the function the vast majority of consumers have in mind when they purchase them. Denying that only makes you wrong on more counts - not only on the reasons for the second amendment, but also on the nature of handguns.

More emotional based ignorant hyperbole, thank you. Like I said before, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it still doesn't make it correct. You can make all the assumptions you want as to why the "vast majority" buy handguns all you want, it makes it even less true unless you have some sort of evidence.

I keep reading "Deep Kimchi is a damned fascist" every time I skim by this thread.

I keep doing that too. :p

Some more on self defense:

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision, undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose, but this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."

--Thomas Cooley,Principles of Constitutional Law,1898.


"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803.

Can we say "fascism?"

You might say it as easily as I say "it's about bloody time".

You might say it as easily as I say "it's about bloody time".

Except for that little thing in the Constitution about the right to bear arms.

Except for that little thing in the Constitution about the right to bear arms.Your forgetting that the Constitution is no longer relevant. ;)

And I'ld like a source for that.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=557183[/url] or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.557183]First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power.
http://www.ruminator.com/?p=103
The title of a book means nothing compared to, say, news reports (http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/topten/hutu/burundi.html) covering the issue.
9/11,
Not an individual killing spree, nor random.
Oklahoma city,
One. Assuming you ignore the fact that McVeigh had at least one co-conspirator, which is close enough to the model of the random killing spree for me to grant it to you.

Now how many multiple murders carried out with guns in the same time period? Hundreds of sprees, easily.
anthrax,
Bullshit.
UK, Spain, All the roadside bombs in Iraq.
See again note on 9/11, and previous comments on war in general.
And you selectively ignore the second part.
Not at all. The first part provides the reason, the second part provides the right.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
Which has what to do with what I quoted you? As I said, there are legion quotes of this sort.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
You read into Adams what is not there. He's saying that self defense is the only action which could be undertaken at individual discretion without leading to anarchy. Nothing is said or implied about the right to self defense being a motivation for creating or approving of the second amendment, as is the case in 90+% of all available quotations from those politicians engaged in the matter.
Oh, please. What would you call the irregulars that armed to defend their homes? They are the same as a militia. Move those goalposts some more.
I haven't moved them. Those stay within the scope of motivating factors I already outlined.
What? That doesn't make any sense. You do realize that there are hundreds of different types of firearms designed for different purposes, right? They don't all do the same thing.
Actually, they do all do the same thing (shoot bullets), which is the defining characteristic of firearms. Try your bullshit on someone more easily confused next time.
Once again, you are showing your ignorance of firearms. I'm not talking about "olympic quality" pistols. A large number are made for plinking or amatueur target shooting.
A "large number"? Relative to the number of pistols on the market? I call bullshit on that, too - not that target shooting matters in the least bit.

If I buy a functional longsword, I may say that its purpose is in performing training katas for the middle ages German equivalent to Kendo (yes, there are longsword practitioners out there), but that does not shift the intrinsic fact that the longsword remains a weapon with the primary purpose of causing injury or death. As with a gun, the only "legitimate" purposes are in killing (or, in the case of the sword, maiming) and the simulation of that activity (e.g., training exercises).

And don't think I don't know about the notion of martial arts, from shooting to fencing, as sports, or how popular those are.
More emotional based ignorant hyperbole, thank you. Like I said before, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it still doesn't make it correct. You can make all the assumptions you want as to why the "vast majority" buy handguns all you want, it makes it even less true unless you have some sort of evidence.
I see you still have no argument as to the function of handguns not being that of killing, and no defense at all that doesn't rely on you claiming (without grounds) some kind of emotional fervor on my part. Good day to you, but please don't bother replying to what I say unless you intend to supply some variety of logical argument and discussion of fact rather than attacking my argument as "emotional hyperbole."

Even if we assume your statement to be 100% accurate, it is no just reason to wage armed revolution. My point remains.
Aha, a difference in ideology, eh?

Ah well...
Not at all. Gun control just means that - control. It doesn't mean gunlessness.
Arming one segment of the population (particularly based on say, ethnicity or race) and not the others is in fact more fascist than total disarmament of everyone. And it's also every bit as regulated - it's not like the BNP is actually arguing for gun freedom as I would define it, with this little plan of theirs.
It's a lot more gun freedom than we have at the moment, and IIRC they'd basically go for the Swiss system (here, have a rifle! Oh and go on, buy a pistol too just for the kicks and giggles!)


I'd have to do more research, but I'm pretty sure nazi Germany frowned violently on private gun ownership by, say, Jews.
Until 1938 they had more rights for gun ownership than they did under Weimar.
Nazi party members, their families? "True Germans?" Probably allowed.
Absolutely everyone other than Jews and the mentally insane.
But the point was, disarmament was a key factor in helping establish control as they preferred it. Whether it's total disaramentn of all citizens to centralize power to the military and government, or partial disarmament of "undesirable" sectors to centralize power to military, government and "desirable" supporters... it's still a gun control situation.
And my point still stands that the public was better armed under Hitler than under Hindenburg. It's less control on guns than there was before.
I think saying Kucinich is a fascist is hyperbole, not a statement of logical argument.
Nah, honest?
It does highlight the strong feelings many Americans have against gun banning, and thus this Kucinich fellow and his latest gaffe.
Yes. This is true.

It's a lot more gun freedom than we have at the moment, and IIRC they'd basically go for the Swiss system (here, have a rifle! Oh and go on, buy a pistol too just for the kicks and giggles!)

I suppose pointing out the extremely low gun crime rate in Switzerland would just open up a new can of worms here?


Absolutely everyone other than Jews and the mentally insane.


There you go.


And my point still stands that the public was better armed under Hitler than under Hindenburg. It's less control on guns than there was before.

Of course there was more control. No Jews, remember? And what was the Nazi legal system's treatment of gun criminals, or any other criminals for that matter?

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819


Can we say "fascism?"

Apparently while we can say it we don't know it's definition. And by we I mean you.

OMG!!! Lookit! He's presenting a piece of legislation that we all know will never ever pass, and nothing even close to it will ever be made into law! Aaah! The fascists are coming, the fascists are actually here!

Lookout, he'll remove that second commandment as soon as you blink your eyes, and if we're not careful then he'll use his mighty one-man legislative powers to ban assault weapons - and the next thing you know, the police and the military won't be allowed weapons because knives and rocks are outlawed! And then what'll you do, when Joe Commie-Muslim is standing in your living room?

'course, on the other hand, if we ban all guns the hole in the ozone layer will be fixed and there will be no crime, like Australia before America. And children will be singing in the streets, dancing with the rainbow. And there was much rejoicing. That is, until the criminals discover that they are criminals and take over the WORLD! And believe you me, those criminals are fascists! Because that word can be used to describe everything!!

If we don't ban guns, everybody will shoot everybody else, and if we ban guns, the fascist and criminals and the government will kill us all! What to choose, what to choose...

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/ohnoesiy6.gif


Yes, these hysterical gun threads are indeed getting on my nerves...

*sigh* true, true

<3

The title of a book means nothing compared to, say, news reports (http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/topten/hutu/burundi.html) covering the issue.

So you provide a book title then probve a book title. If youwould actually read about the Rwanda massacres, your article mentions 300 people. There were hundreds of thousands killed. The synopsis provided states what the primary weapon was.

Not an individual killing spree, nor random.

And the posts are moved. Yet thousands were killed

One. Assuming you ignore the fact that McVeigh had at least one co-conspirator, which is close enough to the model of the random killing spree for me to grant it to you.

Oh, how generous.

Now how many multiple murders carried out with guns in the same time period? Hundreds of sprees, easily.

And legally owned ones? These don't happen in countries where they're banned?

Bullshit.

Same back. Don't remember post 9/11?

See again note on 9/11, and previous comments on war in general.

Dodge, dodge.

Not at all. The first part provides the reason, the second part provides the right.

Of the people to keep and bear arms. That's right.

Which has what to do with what I quoted you? As I said, there are legion quotes of this sort.

Do so then.

You read into Adams what is not there. He's saying that self defense is the only action which could be undertaken at individual discretion without leading to anarchy. Nothing is said or implied about the right to self defense being a motivation for creating or approving of the second amendment, as is the case in 90+% of all available quotations from those politicians engaged in the matter.

So provide them saying it wasn't part of it. I just presented you Adams and you completely refused to acknowledge what he said.

I haven't moved them. Those stay within the scope of motivating factors I already outlined.

You outlined no "factors". Try again.

Actually, they do all do the same thing (shoot bullets), which is the defining characteristic of firearms. Try your bullshit on someone more easily confused next time.

Speaking of BS, nice that your resort to personal attacks when you don't have an answer. "Shooting a bullet" /= "killing people".

A "large number"? Relative to the number of pistols on the market? I call bullshit on that, too - not that target shooting matters in the least bit.
Of course you do, because you have no clue what you;re talking about and just want to continue to move the goalposts and demonize firearms. You first claimed they were "all" for killing. Now that I've called your BS, your dodging around.

If I buy a functional longsword, I may say that its purpose is in performing training katas for the middle ages German equivalent to Kendo (yes, there are longsword practitioners out there), but that does not shift the intrinsic fact that the longsword remains a weapon with the primary purpose of causing injury or death. As with a gun, the only "legitimate" purposes are in killing (or, in the case of the sword, maiming) and the simulation of that activity (e.g., training exercises).

And don't think I don't know about the notion of martial arts, from shooting to fencing, as sports, or how popular those are.

Obviously you don't as you don't use a "functional longsword" for training. Nice red herring there. If you bought a designed "training sword", would you claim it was also for killing people?

I see you still have no argument as to the function of handguns not being that of killing, and no defense at all that doesn't rely on you claiming (without grounds) some kind of emotional fervor on my part. Good day to you, but please don't bother replying to what I say unless you intend to supply some variety of logical argument and discussion of fact rather than attacking my argument as "emotional hyperbole."

When you start talking about "killing machine" or whatever nonsense phrases you use, those are prime examples of "emotional hyperbole". Now that you've shown yourself to not have much in the way of actual arguement except for innacurate examples, you try and claim that I haven't provided anything and refuse to respond. Cute.

So you provide a book title then probve a book title. If youwould actually read about the Rwanda massacres, your article mentions 300 people. There were hundreds of thousands killed. The synopsis provided states what the primary weapon was.
Actually, it does not, and everything else I've read indicates the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi were armed with firearms. These are armies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/288937.stm) (or "rebel militia," if you prefer) in every sense of the word, so you'll need to provide something solid if you're going to even try to advance your red herring to worthwhile status.
And the posts are moved.
My posts haven't moved once. I started off talking about something which I described as "killing sprees" and "rampages." The two terms together only apply to, as I explained in my very next post, an individual (or occasionally a couple of them) basically going berserk, and almost always are accomplished through use of firearms.

You've been trying to introduce all sorts of irrelevant examples, which for the most part involve not individual acts of slaughter (e.g., ala Columbine, Virginia Tech, or (very arguably) the bombing of a federal building by a fellow on the fringe) but warfare.
And legally owned ones? These don't happen in countries where they're banned?
They are quite a bit rarer in countries where handgun bans are enforced, actually.
Of the people to keep and bear arms. That's right.
So what part of "Because of Y, the people have right X" is not appropriately couched as "the stated reason for X is Y" as I did earlier?
Do so then.
I already quoted Webster, and I showed how Adams is talking about precisely the same thing.

So...
A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.
Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
... as I said, the vast proponderance of evidence indicates that crime control was not a motivation for adopting the second amendment, but - in fact - preventing government tyranny and foreign invasion.
So provide them saying it wasn't part of it. I just presented you Adams and you completely refused to acknowledge what he said.
You completely re-interpreted his statement. All he said regarding self defense was that self defense wasn't problematic and wouldn't lead to anarchy. Everything else he said was a recommendation for the militia.
Speaking of BS, nice that your resort to personal attacks when you don't have an answer. "Shooting a bullet" /= "killing people".
What is the purpose of firing a bullet at high velocity?

Killing things. Usually, in the US, either people or deer. The former usually with handguns, the latter usually with rifles.
Of course you do, because you have no clue what you;re talking about and just want to continue to move the goalposts and demonize firearms.
I haven't moved the goalposts once - and I'm not "demonizing" firearms. I'm simply saying that they are for killing.
Obviously you don't as you don't use a "functional longsword" for training.
Actually, you do in some forms of training. Most of those involved in reconstructing fully the German art of the longsword will at some points want to make use of a "live steel" blade - that is, a functional longsword - although not in sparring.
Nice red herring there. If you bought a designed "training sword", would you claim it was also for killing people?
A training sword is analagous to a paintball gun.

And there's a reason you haven't brought up paintball to defend guns - because a paintball gun isn't a functional gun as we talk about it, and isn't classed as a firearm. The Colt .45 you bring down to the shooting range is.

In many cases (i.e., epees), the swords used in competitive fencing are only a sharpening away from a fairly deadly weapon. (A few particularly paranoid and quirky fencers keep a blade of that sort around. I should know.) Their primary function as protected and blunt fencing blades was simulating killing people; minor alterations change that to actually killing people.

In the case of the rare and specialized targeting pistol, no such alterations are necessary in order to use it to kill people in any case.

According to the NRA, Americans accumulate 4.5 million guns per year. Competitive target shooting barely involves more people than competitive fencing; it's a more popular sport here (thanks to the large number of guns around and the weak US sword tradition), but still not a remotely important factor in talking about handguns in a general sense.

It's like saying that some hammers are used for throwing, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_throw) but the simple fact is that hammers have the purpose of banging on things.
When you start talking about "killing machine" or whatever nonsense phrases you use, those are prime examples of "emotional hyperbole". Now that you've shown yourself to not have much in the way of actual arguement except for innacurate examples, you try and claim that I haven't provided anything and refuse to respond. Cute.
You still haven't provided jack in support of your contentions - historically or materially - and most of your red herrings don't even pan out as accurate.

The intentions of the second amendment had nothing to do with backing muggers down on the street, and the function of a handgun is killing people. These are facts, plain and simple.

Actually, it does not, and everything else I've read indicates the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi were armed with firearms. These are armies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/288937.stm) (or "rebel militia," if you prefer) in every sense of the word, so you'll need to provide something solid if you're going to even try to advance your red herring to worthwhile status.

Like you did? You now have ignored the request for factual information on the Nazi's yet demand I provide more "proof". The earlier article you linked to mentioned 300 people. The one here has nothing to do w/ the 1994 massacres except for saying they committed "mass killings" then.

My posts haven't moved once. I started off talking about something which I described as "killing sprees" and "rampages." The two terms together only apply to, as I explained in my very next post, an individual (or occasionally a couple of them) basically going berserk, and almost always are accomplished through use of firearms.

Right, you moved the posts. Thank you for admitting it then ignoring everything else outside your selectively chosen limits.

You've been trying to introduce all sorts of irrelevant examples, which for the most part involve not individual acts of slaughter (e.g., ala Columbine, Virginia Tech, or (very arguably) the bombing of a federal building by a fellow on the fringe) but warfare.

Now you're trying to say that my examples were "warfare". No, they were mostly small groups or individuals killing people.

They are quite a bit rarer in countries where handgun bans are enforced, actually.

Evidence. Show all the countries and their complete history.

So what part of "Because of Y, the people have right X" is not appropriately couched as "the stated reason for X is Y" as I did earlier?

I already quoted Webster, and I showed how Adams is talking about precisely the same thing.

So...

And not a single one of those states it's only for that purpose. Which is what you claimed. I've shown numerous quotes stating that's part of what "bear arms meant.





... as I said, the vast proponderance of evidence indicates that crime control was not a motivation for adopting the second amendment, but - in fact - preventing government tyranny and foreign invasion.

You've tried to prove a negative and moved the posts again. Now you've gone to "vast preponderance" yet nowhere have you shown ANYTHING that said is wasn't a factor.


You completely re-interpreted his statement. All he said regarding self defense was that self defense wasn't problematic and wouldn't lead to anarchy. Everything else he said was a recommendation for the militia.

For people bearing arms. Not militia's. You know, that pesty "right of the people" thing again.

What is the purpose of firing a bullet at high velocity?

[QUOTE=TJHairball;12581054]Killing things. Usually, in the US, either people or deer. The former usually with handguns, the latter usually with rifles.

One potential use. As usual, you ignore the rest.

I haven't moved the goalposts once - and I'm not "demonizing" firearms. I'm simply saying that they are for killing.

Yes you are. Your very statement is such.

Actually, you do in some forms of training. Most of those involved in reconstructing fully the German art of the longsword will at some points want to make use of a "live steel" blade - that is, a functional longsword - although not in sparring.

"Some forms". So there are other uses? Really?

A training sword is analagous to a paintball gun.

No, it's not.

And there's a reason you haven't brought up paintball to defend guns - because a paintball gun isn't a functional gun as we talk about it, and isn't classed as a firearm. The Colt .45 you bring down to the shooting range is.

And yet you are the one who brought them up. They are not the same in any way except to propel a small object.

In many cases (i.e., epees), the swords used in competitive fencing are only a sharpening away from a fairly deadly weapon. (A few particularly paranoid and quirky fencers keep a blade of that sort around. I should know.) Their primary function as protected and blunt fencing blades was simulating killing people; minor alterations change that to actually killing people.

Fencing. Now we've gone from longswords to fencing.

In the case of the rare and specialized targeting pistol, no such alterations are necessary in order to use it to kill people in any case.

You keep throwing out that "rare and specialized" meme. Try googling Target or Match firearms. I've fenced. Someone could be run through w/o sharpening.

According to the NRA, Americans accumulate 4.5 million guns per year. Competitive target shooting barely involves more people than competitive fencing; it's a more popular sport here (thanks to the large number of guns around and the weak US sword tradition), but still not a remotely important factor in talking about handguns in a general sense.

Really? Show some evidence for that please.

It's like saying that some hammers are used for throwing, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_throw) but the simple fact is that hammers have the purpose of banging on things.

Some are. Others are not. Nice way to throw another red herring into it.

You still haven't provided jack in support of your contentions - historically or materially - and most of your red herrings don't even pan out as accurate.
The intentions of the second amendment had nothing to do with backing muggers down on the street, and the function of a handgun is killing people. These are facts, plain and simple.

I have shown evidence. Just because you refuse to even bothered to read it isn't my problem. You've yet to show an accurate representation of history, the uses of firearms, or the use of logic.

Keep trying though.

I suppose pointing out the extremely low gun crime rate in Switzerland would just open up a new can of worms here?
... OK, maybe you don't understand the basically principles of Being Swiss.

They have an extremely low gun crime rate in Switzerland because you're perfectly allowed to own pretty much any kind of weaponry up to automatic rifles, so there's not much you can't legally own.

Which is why there's very little gun crime.
There you go.
Errr... know of many states which allow the insane to own weaponry of any kind?

And yes, the Jews weren't allowed weapons. On the other hand, since this made up 500,000 people out of 60,000,000 people, this meant that over 59 million people were allowed to be considerably better armed than in the Weimar Government's times.
Of course there was more control. No Jews, remember?
See above.
And what was the Nazi legal system's treatment of gun criminals, or any other criminals for that matter?
Pretty harsh. A few years in jail, hard labour maybe. But on the other hand, this is completely comparable to anywhere else at the time. Or even now.

I hate it when threads turn into essay-long rebuttals between a couple of people.

I hate it when threads turn into essay-long rebuttals between a couple of people.

I can agree with that.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819


Can we say "fascism?"

Say it? Yes.

Understand it? Apparently not. Fascists are very pro-gun. Even the Nazi's only banned guns for non-citizens. That is, their idea of non-citizens, no ours.

Like you did? You now have ignored the request for factual information on the Nazi's yet demand I provide more "proof".
I provided you a citation to a paper in progress by someone at the University of Chicago law school.

Factual information.
The earlier article you linked to mentioned 300 people. The one here has nothing to do w/ the 1994 massacres except for saying they committed "mass killings" then.
It is precisely relevant for that precise reason. Those two militia groups are considered largely responsible for the mass killings of that time.
Right, you moved the posts. Thank you for admitting it then ignoring everything else outside your selectively chosen limits.
I have not moved the posts. Don't lie.

Try instead to find something that lies within the scope of what I was talking about.
Now you're trying to say that my examples were "warfare". No, they were mostly small groups or individuals killing people.
9/11 attacks? Warfare. Iraqi insurgents? Warfare. Hutu/Tutsi? Warfare.

Not acts of simple homicide, but acts of war.
Evidence. Show all the countries and their complete history.
No need to go that far. Murder rates around the globe. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) Position of the US: #24.

Consider First, Second, and Third World countries, the primary classic division of industrialized nations, which applies primarily to their prosperity and position within history. No First World nation ranks above the US; the nearest is Finland, which has barely over half the homicide rate.

Within the First World, the culturally closest to the US are the largely Anglo-American Commonwealth nations, i.e., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; also suspect and subject to comparison are Japan, which was reconstructed after WWII almost entirely by the US. These statistics are not of debatable status; (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) the rate of killings overall correlates reasonably well with the number of guns present within these otherwise similar countries.
And not a single one of those states it's only for that purpose. Which is what you claimed. I've shown numerous quotes stating that's part of what "bear arms meant.
You've misinterpreted one quote that simply mentioned self defense as being OK, and are now asking me to prove a negative that I have fairly demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.

The simple fact that 90+% of all recorded period discussion of the second amendment does not even mention self defense, whereas almost all bring up either defense against foreign enemies or against the state itself, presents the strongest possible case for the latter being the purpose of the second amendment, and the former simply an allowable side effect.
You've tried to prove a negative and moved the posts again. Now you've gone to "vast preponderance" yet nowhere have you shown ANYTHING that said is wasn't a factor.
I haven't changed a single standard. You've simply cited examples that were red herrings; I've called you on it; you've complained.
For people bearing arms. Not militia's. You know, that pesty "right of the people" thing again.
Not in the least bit does this make mine a mischaracterization of the motivation for the second amendment.

The militia is to be composed of the people. Therefore, the people being armed enables ready activation of the militia in defense of nation (or of their own liberty against nation.)
One potential use. As usual, you ignore the rest.
By "rest," you mean, of course, "firing at a target that isn't a living creature in order to get better at shooting things."
Yes you are. Your very statement is such.
If you think my calling a handgun a tool for killing people is demonization, then you have skin thinner than rice paper. A tool for killing is about the most neutral phraseology you can get in describing what a handgun is built to be. "Tool" is not value laden, nor is "killing." You kill deer; you kill gnats; if you gun down a crazed man with an axe battering down your door, you kill him, too - that's not considered murder because it's self defense, but it's still killing.
"Some forms". So there are other uses? Really?
Secondary ones, ultimately, intimately related with the primary purpose of the tool that is a functional longsword.

As far as the other purposes, I can use a handgun to nail together 2x4s, just as I can hang that longsword on display in a museum.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
And yet you are the one who brought them up. They are not the same in any way except to propel a small object.
Seeing as propelling a small object happens to be the defining characteristic of a gun, that happens to show a great deal of similarity. They are also quite similar in terms of form, and paintball could be considered an interactive sport simulating gunfighting, just as fencing simulated dueling.
You keep throwing out that "rare and specialized" meme. Try googling Target or Match firearms.
I did before writing my last post, actually, to double check. "Target pistol" pulls up only 65,000 hits on Google; "match pistol" pulls up under 10,000. A surprising number of those hits tend to be for air guns (or even paintball markers) rather than some "fully functional" gun, i.e., what some people would say aren't really guns.

By contrast, if I search for "fencing equipment," I pull up 148,000 hits. The USFA, which you must be a member of in order to compete in any real tournament in the US, has only 25,000 members. In my experience, probably fewer than half those are actually active members engaged in the sport, i.e., around 10,000. (And yet most of the top hits for "fencing equipment" are sites primarily selling to US customers.)
I've fenced. Someone could be run through w/o sharpening.
I've fenced ... for years. This is only a real danger when the weapon breaks or loses the button tip. Of course, it could go right through an eye socket, and you could manage to kill someone with a practice foil if you tried hard enough, but it's not a lethal killing device the way a sharpened epee is.

Now, of course, just because I could go grab a sharpened epee, walk outside with it, and kill someone randomly doesn't mean I can go on a killing spree with it - even with years of training and the physical fitness required to chase down people, I'm extremely unlikely to get more than one or two people that way. I would have to put on a remarkable athletic performance by any standard to get a death count that would be newsworthy from a gunman.

With handguns, however, you could have a hundredth the experience I do with swords - heck, a thousandth, and distinctly sub-average physical fitness - and gun down a half dozen people if you're willing to squeeze the triggers fast enough. It's part of the democratization of violence inherent to guns. The same reason applies to why guns caused a military revolution, brought low elite military classes from knights to samurai, etc.
Some are. Others are not. Nice way to throw another red herring into it.
Precisely analagous to your comparison to target shooting.
I have shown evidence.
You have shown no evidence that actually supports any of your points. I've cited law professors, Founding Fathers, homicide statistics, gun ownership and acquisition statistics, etc etc etc.