Total Gun-Ban worked...

[jfields 0]

Heh. The truck would get plenty of deer, but buying new bumpers and quarter panels would get to be a drag.

I tend to provide for my family at the local grocery store too, rather than killing and butchering animals. Not that I'm some animal rights activist or anything. It is just so much more convenient to buy meat all prepared. Most people see it that way, but I suppose some will argue that it is a second amendment right to shoot enough animals to have a herd in the freezer. Whatever....

[flyingferret 0]

Quote

Sounds great to me, if the gun owners would leave me alone as well. I have no desire to interefere in people's lives. Equally, I would like to have a much smaller chance of being shot by someone that doesn't respect my right to be left alone.

I still think the main point that I disagree with you on is that you lump all gun owners together. The legal gun owners probably don't want to interfere with your life. It is the ones already carrying illegal guns that do. ANd gun control will not change them, because their guns are already illegal!

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[AggieDave 6]

I love deer season, since even if I don't get a chance to go, someone I know will bring me back some good sausage or something. And actually, hunting is good for the environment, in a lot of areas in Texas, if the deer aren't hunted, they over populate and reek hell on the ecosystem, ruining some ecologies.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jfields 0]

Quote

I still think the main point that I disagree with you on is that you lump all gun owners together. The legal gun owners probably don't want to interfere with your life. It is the ones already carrying illegal guns that do. ANd gun control will not change them, because their guns are already illegal!

We've been over this one in previous threads too.

To be somewhat sarcastic, I lump all gun owners together in regards to my safety because I can't be shot by someone that doesn't have a gun. I can be shot by someone that does.

I'm sure most people are very responsible with their guns. But the black and white distinction between "legal gun owners" and "criminals" is fictional if considered over time. There are numerous people that legally buy weapons, then end up killing innocent people with them. Law-abiding and criminal groups cannot be compared as if they were static entities. Of course the "criminals" do the crimes and "law-abiding citizens" don't. It is inherent to the definitions. But that doesn't take into account the migration between groups.

[jfields 0]

Quote

hunting is good for the environment

No arguement from me. Just stick to hunting the 4-legged animals, okay?

[AggieDave 6]

Now I can't hunt birds? Damn!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jfields 0]

Whatever. Just not people, okay?

And Clay will get pissed if you shoot his girlfriends, even if they are sheep.

[flyingferret 0]

Well that might be a fundamental difference then. I think the spirit of the law is more important. I think if you do not have a way of stopping criminals, they will attack you with or without a gun. By eliminating guns, you do not eliminate criminals. I feel that by allowing responsible citizens to carry guns, you go a step further and discourage/eliminate criminals.

You can at least see my logic right?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[Guest]

Quote

Mark,

I'll take some aspects one at a time.

Quote

my greatest objection to this discussion is the simplistic "One Size Fits All"

Quote

I'm fine with having laws that fit the regions. DC is different than Montana, without question. That applies to hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Handguns are pretty much the same everywhere, as they don't have much hunting use. Their targets are generally people.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about the right to hunt ducks.

Quote

Bleeding-heart liberals, in their hand-wringing zeal to "DO SOMETHING!" have usually ended up doing the wrong thing.

Quote

The pejorative adjectives do nothing to support your case. You would object to being called a "Gun-toting warmongering reckless Republican psycopath", so let's both leave the insults at home and talk about the issues.

Agreed. Demonizing one's opponents is cheap.

Quote

...the Second Amendment...

Quote

We've been over that in other threads about a million times. It depends on how you look at it. I'm happy to leave the interpretation of that to the Supreme Court and abide by the laws, rather than taking upon myself to disagree and act as if I had a personal exemption from our country's laws.

Do you smoke MJ for recreational purposes? If so, you're claiming a personal exemption. Stupid laws (like those being proposed in Britain) won't change anything on the street (or in the hearts of the evil), but those that do make and pass the laws will feel good about themselves for having "done something", no matter how stupid it ultimately is.

Quote

"Don't like guns? DON'T OWN ONE"

Both of these slogans have an implicit statement behind them - LEAVE ME ALONE.

Quote

Sounds great to me, if the gun owners would leave me alone as well. I have no desire to interefere in people's lives. Equally, I would like to have a much smaller chance of being shot by someone that doesn't respect my right to be left alone.

"The constitutional norms involved in the Second Amendment, unlike those elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, are undeniably controversial. No one scorns the freedom of religion or the freedom of the press; but the propositions that government should not have a monopoly of the means of violence and that "the people" should be entitled (if not obliged) to defend with arms their persons and communities--these are much against the grain of (and, as Sanford Levinson wrote, very much an embarrassment to) the cosseted intelligentsia of 1990s America. It is especially easy to empathize with the policy intuitions of this elite if one is a member of it. But our instincts about firearms are wrong. We upper-middle-class opinion leaders misunderstand the world; we abide in safety behind a ring of steel. Police officers and security guards keep and bear our arms for us, so that we do not remember how constantly we need them. The values and assumptions that gave rise to the Second Amendment come from a world different from the one we inhabit, a world full of irrational hatreds, mortal dangers, and armed enemies. It represents a serious failure of imagination not to recognize how temporary remissions from this dangerous world have been, and not to learn from the Bill of Rights what its drafters had to teach."
- Daniel D. Polsby (ddpolsby@nwu.edu), Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Northwestern University.

"Teddy Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns"

Quote

Finally, before you dismiss me as some kind of gun-nut whacko, please see This, and This.

Quote

I hate to say it, but those links actually reinforce the negative stereotypes people have about "gun-nut whacko" people. Most moderate, sensible folks probably find them fairly extremist and disturbing.

Please check out Pink Pistols, then. It might not change your mind, but it might make you see the argument a little differently...

Quote

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. I think it is highly arrogant of you to advocate the depriving of others of that right.

Quote

There are a number of issues with that. I'm not depriving you of your right to self defense. I would love to see sensible gun laws that weren't un-enforceable or impractical.

So wouldn't we all. I think all the people who have weighed in on this thread can agree that we'd all love to live in a world without fear or violence. This, however, is an imperfect world, and there are evil people in it. As long as they exist, self-defense will be needed.

Quote

But I question how far the need for firepower really applies to self-defense. In another thread, people questioned the "1 handgun per month" rule. How many handguns does it take to defend yourself?

A rhetorical question; and it sounds rational, yet the real agenda of gun control is people control.

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense"

- John Adams, in A Defense of the Constitution

"No free man shall ever be denied the use of arms"
- Thomas Jefferson, written as part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason when the Constitution was being debated

I challenge you to quote anything the Founders may have said to the contrary.

Quote

Earlier in the thread you challenged me on some children that died in a home violence incident with an intruder. I gave a number of examples of children killed by unsecured guns in the home. You never responded to those situations. How does the right to self-defense apply there?

I thought I did respond to it, with my anecdotal "Ten to One Ratio" remark. It take it you found this unsatisfactory, so I'll put an addendum on it.

Punishing inanimate objects for the conduct of inidividuals is nothing short of neurotic, yet I believe this is what must exist in the liberal mindset, once one has decided that an individual cannot be held accountable for his actions.

Freedom demands responsibility; indeed, it demands accountability. Those who misuse firearms (or leave a gas-operated nail gun where an adolescent can pin his playmate's head to a table with it) are irresponsible, for they have violated the compact of society, and should be duly punished.

Yet I, unlike some, do not advocate the curtailing of individual rights of all based upon the misconduct of the few.

That's the application of collective punishment, and that's tyranny.

The wealthy and powerful elite will always have armed bodyguards, no matter what the laws are for the RAMs (Raggedy-Assed Masses), because, don't you see, they're so much more important than us, and their safety is so much more important and special than ours.

If I ever die as a victim of gun control, at least I'll go to my grave content in the knowledge that the liberal elite are safe.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

I take my 9mm pig (boar) hunting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, there has GOT to be a better way to get laid!!!

He deals with what he has. When all you have is a short barrel, you use it.

[HOMER SIMPSON]

Doh!

[/HOMER SIMPSON]

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[jfields 0]

Quote

You can at least see my logic right?

Yes. I'm not that dense, despite what some people think.

Everyone always get stuck on the guns vs. no guns issue. I'd be happy to take my chances with looser gun laws, IF people who misused guns for criminal means were either killed or given life with no parole upon conviction. I agree that the criminal intent is a bigger fundamental problem than the means, of which guns are only one.

With a huge percentage of the population behind bars or 6 feet under, it would be a lot safer than it is now, without the restrictions on firearms. Of course, that won't happen. And if it started to, we'd all bitch about the tax burden imposed on the "law-abiding citizens" to support them in jail or the cost of their appeals process. Or we could just ship them all to Australia. Whoops, the Brits beat us to that one.

With a zero repeat-offender rate, I think we would be a lot safer. That is the other factor in the gun control debate. But since we can't be that Draconian about gun users, we'll have to address the guns themselves.

[flyingferret 0]

Quote

Quote

You can at least see my logic right?

Everyone always get stuck on the guns vs. no guns issue. I'd be happy to take my chances with looser gun laws, IF people who misused guns for criminal means were either killed or given life with no parole upon conviction. I agree that the criminal intent is a bigger fundamental problem than the means, of which guns are only one.

WOOOHOOO. Alright we agree on something.

Quote

But since we can't be that Draconian about gun users, we'll have to address the guns themselves.

I think we can get much more Draconian then we are. And I still think that banishing guns will only take them away from honest people. If responsible people defend themselves, you might start getting a lot closer to that zero repeat offender rate.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[Guest]

I refer you to the original editorial that started this thread:

"In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem."

Some of your young countrymen visited my area last Summer for a river float on the Yakima. All was kewl until we invited them to go shooting.

One of these young men was actually terrified to touch a rifle.

I would never draw a generalized conclusion from this, but I found it disquieting.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

Quote

but I suppose some will argue that it is a second amendment right to shoot enough animals to have a herd in the freezer. Whatever....

The Bill of Rights codifies those basic Rights of Man that we consider to be inalienable; that is, fundamental rights granted to us by the Almighty, and not by men. Therefore, they cannot be taken away by men.

There's something that always annoys me whenever I get involved in these debates - the silly notion that the Constitution somehow "gives" or "grants" our rights.

No. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution set forth what our government MAY NOT DO, not what they "allow" us to do.

If, however, you don't believe in the Almighty, that means you don't believe in inalienable rights (because the words "...and are endowed by their creator..." don't apply. Therefore, it is my belief, that none of it does.), because, after all, where do those rights come from? Why are they here? Because a piece of paper says so???

NO. Those rights have always existed, throughout time. The Constitution put those rights into words and into law.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[jfields 0]

Quote

I think we can get much more Draconian then we are. And I still think that banishing guns will only take them away from honest people. If responsible people defend themselves, you might start getting a lot closer to that zero repeat offender rate.

I think the laws and enforcement should be tougher. But not every responsible citizen wants to be put in the role of "armed defender of justice". I don't want to be forced to go to a range to hone my skills of marksmanship. I don't want to be forced to sink my money into firearms. I don't want to keep guns around the house when I have children. None of those are really necessary if the people with the guns could just refrain from trying to shoot me.

An individual non-police, non-military citizen's "Right to bear arms", which is debateable in itself, does not infer an obligation to bear arms. My right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has no strings that say I must arm myself to retain those rights. It is up to others not to infringe, as it is my duty not to infringe on the rights of others. It is really pretty simple, and much more fundamental than the morass of second amendment arguements we've been in on the forums.

[flyingferret 0]

True, and I do not think you should be obligated to bear arms, although some countries have done very well with that. However, by not opposing things like the concealed carry law, you allow people who are qualified, ie responsible citizens passing all requirements, off duty military personel, etc, and who feel confident to carry a weapon. I believe this will reduce the crime rate. Not everyone should carry. But if a criminal thinks there is even a 50% chance of getting shot during an armed burglary, etc, he might think twice. Even myself am not currently qualified to carry a firearm, but plan to be in the future. I am positive AggieDave is, and I would feel no hesitation being in a fast paced emergency situation with him.

I think the more people there are who are prepared to defend their freedoms, the more you will see crimes reduced. And if someone is still criminally deviant enough to risk it, he might not live to repeat the crime.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

I think we can get much more Draconian then we are. And I still think that banishing guns will only take them away from honest people. If responsible people defend themselves, you might start getting a lot closer to that zero repeat offender rate.

I think the laws and enforcement should be tougher. But not every responsible citizen wants to be put in the role of "armed defender of justice". I don't want to be forced to go to a range to hone my skills of marksmanship. I don't want to be forced to sink my money into firearms. I don't want to keep guns around the house when I have children. None of those are really necessary if the people with the guns could just refrain from trying to shoot me.

An individual non-police, non-military citizen's "Right to bear arms", which is debateable in itself, does not infer an obligation to bear arms. My right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has no strings that say I must arm myself to retain those rights. It is up to others not to infringe, as it is my duty not to infringe on the rights of others. It is really pretty simple, and much more fundamental than the morass of second amendment arguements we've been in on the forums.

Well and good! For after all, that is your right.

Just don't forget where you got your freedom from:

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

—Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

Remember that it wasn't US Army regulars who took on the British at Lexington Green. Those were citizen-soldiers (also known by the now-pejorative term "militia") who took on the best and most successful army in the world.

Yes, that was a long time ago, and things have changed...

But people haven't.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,120]

>If, however, you don't believe in the Almighty, that means you don't
> believe in inalienable rights, because, after all, where do those
> rights come from?

It is possible to believe that all people have fundamental rights without believing in an omnisicent, omnipotent, somewhat humanoid male deity.

>Why are they here? Because a piece of paper says so???

If you truly believe that ALL people have inherent rights, and they were not given to us by a piece of paper, then surely every war we have ever fought is wrong - for everyone has a right to life (and to due process before it is taken away from them.) And as far as I can remember, no one put any of the 350,000 innocent people in Hiroshima or Nagasaki on trial.

Or you could believe that the consitution and the bill of rights just apply to the US, that they are just pieces of paper, written by men, that we base our system of government on. Since it's just a document it can be, and has been, modified. It has even been modified incorrectly and modified back again. Surely if it was a 'divine document' such things would not be happening.

I happen to think that it works pretty well as a basis for government, but it is based far more on the Articles of Confederation and the Magna Carta than on any religious theme.

[kallend 2,153]

Quote

All I can say is that disarming a violent society like ours, without first reining in the violence, will result in anarchy. This is being seen in Britain now, where the subjects are at the mercy of predators, and the authorities are making that sad state of affairs possible.

I also noticed your crass ad hominem attack upon Ann Coulter, Bill. It appears that you are unable (or unwilling) to refute her argument on intellectual terms, therefore you condemn her on the personal level.

No he didn't - he simply paraphrased some of her recent statements that in most people's opinion classify her as an extremist.



Also, Mark, the homicide rate in the UK is still WAY lower than in the US even when Belfast is included. You know, the same Belfast that has had a US financed terrorist problem for 30+ years.

On the whole, having my pocket picked does not bother me quite so much as being murdered.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

This is being seen in Britain now, where the subjects are at the mercy of predators, and the authorities are making that sad state of affairs possible.

I live in Britain. I've been living in Britain for six years. Obviously there are places in London where I wouldn't go walking around at night on my own. But this probably holds true for most cities in the world. But to say that I am a subject at the mercy of predators???

I'm trying very hard to figure out whether this is a troll or just brain-dead rhetoric, either way its a load of bullshit.

Major Duncan Heyward: "And do you call yourself an Englishman and loyal subject of His Majesty?"

Hawkeye: "I do not call myself subject to much at all."

Quotes from The Last of the Mohicans

Call us "Colonials": uncultured, crude, provincial, ignorant. I don't recall any World Wars starting here.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kallend 2,153]

Quote

Yet I, unlike some, do not advocate the curtailing of individual rights of
all based upon the misconduct of the few.

So you don't support searches at airports without cause, or the indefinite detention without counsel of those whom AG Ashcroft suspects of being terrorists or associates of terrorists, or the new powers of the government to monitor your e-mail, credit card use etc. without warrant? And there I was thinking you were a Republican.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jfields 0]

Quote

If, however, you don't believe in the Almighty, that means you don't believe in inalienable rights, because, after all, where do those rights come from?

That is false. Plain and simple. You can't tell me what I believe in, based on an arbitrary decision you have made. You are not me.

I do not believe in God, or any form of supreme being, yet I believe in inalienable rights. Every person has the right to attempt to do whatever they want. The practical limitation of that is that there is more than one person on the planet, so they only have that right until it intereferes with another person's equal right to do what they want. The problem is that human interaction brings people together, and they don't always agree on things. That is human nature.

Our laws are a collective attempt at creating guidelines for behavior that protect our rights, while conversly limiting the impact we can have on the rights of others. When people violate the laws, the collective whole sees it appropriate to take some of the individual's rights away. Imprisoned felons don't see their rights, as codified by law, as inalienable, considering most of them have been taken away. And I have little objection to that. Their fundamental, inalienable human right to try to do what they want is unhindered. They might not be successful, but they can try. That is where rights as defined by laws interact with "inalienable human rights". The two sets of rights are not identical. The laws are a rough approximation of what we think the human rights should be, and vary over time, and by location.

Quote

Just don't forget where you got your freedom from

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.... "

No need to quote patriotic verses at me. I know how my rights were earned. I served in the military and took part in the maintenance of my rights.

I also believe, as does the Supreme Court, that the right to own a gun is linked to supporting those rights, be it in the military or the police. I agree that the term "militia" has changed in meaning. I don't believe the usage of the word in the second amendment means what it does today, nor does it mean every citizen. But we've been over the second amendment in detail before. We just disagree on that "right", as on many others.

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

Handguns are pretty much the same everywhere, as they don't have much hunting use. Their targets are generally people.

None of my handguns have ever shot a person.

Quote

The pejorative adjectives do nothing to support your case.

Here it is without them - "Well meaning but uninformed individuals disseminating misinformation to other uninformed individuals eventually wind up getting ineffective solutions implemented."

Quote

if the gun owners would leave me alone as well

In general, the only ones who will be affected by additional gun control laws will. GC laws affect people like me, who would rather skydive with you than rob you (or argue with you, for that matter).
The costs of disobeying those laws are much higher for people like me, so the effective penalties are higher. There is also a cost of compliance, however: my inability to participate in a sport that I love.

Second Amendment quote - "It depends on how you look at it."

It really should not. It says what it says. I think it is very sad that people disagree about this. It shows what people will believe if they hear it repeated enough.

Quote

Most moderate, sensible folks probably find them fairly extremist and disturbing.

"Moderate" has come to be defined as pretty liberal over time, don't you think?

Quote

I gave a number of examples of children killed by unsecured guns in the home. You never responded to those situations. How does the right to self-defense apply there?

This is similar to poisonings and drownings in the home, which are far more frequent. They are all tragic accidents, but they should not eliminate one's ability to keep a gun, or a gallon of bleach, or a 5-gallon bucket of water in their home.

Kids need supervision. Like household chemicals, firearms can be dangerous. Don't let your kids kill themselves or each other with either one.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[kallend 2,153]

Quote

I refer you to the original editorial that started this thread:

"In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem."

It was an EDITORIAL from a right wing newspaper intent on embarrassing Tony Blair. It was inaccurate; (1) no-one seems able to find these "statistics" besides the writer of the editorial, and even assuming they are correct, (2) it should say "reported crime rate". The USDOJ web site makes the point very strongly that reporting rates vary so much from country to country and community to community that comparisons are almost impossible except for homicides (which almost never go unreported).

How about you, Mark, tell us the homicide rates for Kensington and Harlem. Being that Kensington is a major tourist spot, I'll bet that a lot of the crime in Kensington is just petty thievery and shoplifting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[flyingferret 0]

Actually, everyone is whining about the recent provisions. BUt I saw a really neat response in the paper the other day: States Rights!! That is right, the beauty of a republic of independent states. Many states have already countered some provisions from the Patriot Act with laws that do not allow state employees to collaberate with US officials to enforce them. See that is the constructive approach and I think it is gorgeous, whether or not I agree even, because it is democracy in action.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.