Recommended Posts
Quote
I think the issue is with high volume semi-autos. I know I am going to get ripped apart for saying this but if the two columbine guys had been using bolt action rifles that hold five rounds there might have been more survivors. Does a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting?
It's a pain in the ass reloading every 5 rounds for target practice. (For that matter, it's a pain in the ass reloading 9mm guns every 8-10 rounds (last one is a bitch to get in the mag) when it can easily hold 15.
And as for Columbine, you deserve a reaming. More survivors if [blank] were true is a stupid what if game.
If there were no guns at all (Brady nirvana), then a hundred or more could have died. When their bomb in the cafeteria fails, they go in and fix it. Restrict them from using semis? They practice using (and reloading) a pump action shotgun which is one of the most lethal long arms available. Shorter range, but plenty for indoors.
People use the tools available. It is naive fantasy of many (and you) to presume that removing a single tool won't result in an adaptation of behavior to compensate.
QuoteStatistically, I believe your odds of being killed by a gun in America are about the same as your odds of being killed on a skydive.
Those aren't very good odds. Were it that bad, we might have to think about these radical proposals more seriously. The risk reward balance wouldn't be very balanced.
Thankfully true odds are much better.
40,000 (rounded down) killed in cars. ~10,000 killed by guns (excluding suicides). 1/4th the odds. And despite people's continuous attempts to prove otherwise, skydiving is more dangerous than driving.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuote
HINT. If gun homicides are excluded, the USA's homicide rate is almost the same as Australia's and not much different than the rates in Canada and the UK. It's gun homicides that make all the difference.
So is your thesis point that were all the guns removed, people in these otherwise fatal situations would resolve their problems nonlethally?
Does that pass any common sense test?
Or more likely, merely show our homicide rate is several times other countries, so if you remove the most common tool, the rates look similar?
That's the definition of crappy data mining.
I was answering his question.
Explain why the US has similar rates of non handgun homicides as other western nations with similar culture, similar rates of other violent crimes as other western nations with similar culture, but way more handgun homicides than other western nations with similar culture. See if you can spot a pattern. Make sure your answer passes the common sense test.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Richards 0
QuoteAnd as for Columbine, you deserve a reaming. More survivors if [blank] were true is a stupid what if game.
If there were no guns at all (Brady nirvana), then a hundred or more could have died. When their bomb in the cafeteria fails, they go in and fix it. Restrict them from using semis? They practice using (and reloading) a pump action shotgun which is one of the most lethal long arms available. Shorter range, but plenty for indoors.
People use the tools available. It is naive fantasy of many (and you) to presume that removing a single tool won't result in an adaptation of behavior to compensate.
I am sure that without assault rifles some guys may come up with other methods, but removing the most simple means might confound the less motivated nutbar. You cannot tell me that semi-auto assault rifles are not more effective for violence than bolt actions. If that were the case our troops (not just snipers) would go into battle with bolt actions and pump shotguns. Either way I am not offering a normative perspective here just an observable fact.
I think you are positioning my argument as being one of anti gun. I personally do not have a strong position one way or another. I like guns and would love to be able to shoot anything without restriction, however I am not going to have a heart attack over any new rules. The whole point of my argument was one of trying to point out that there is a radical element in the gun community that tarnishes the many. I am not sure why so many people are trying to straw man my position into that of an anti-gun leftie. This is the very thing that makes people in the middle see the pro-gun crowd as militant, and subsequently causes them to err on the side of the anti-gun crowd. When someone is saying something regarding gun control that you disagree with and you go on the attack you come across as the very stereotype that the anti-gun crowd try to perpetuate.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Douva 0
QuoteQuoteAnd as for Columbine, you deserve a reaming. More survivors if [blank] were true is a stupid what if game.
If there were no guns at all (Brady nirvana), then a hundred or more could have died. When their bomb in the cafeteria fails, they go in and fix it. Restrict them from using semis? They practice using (and reloading) a pump action shotgun which is one of the most lethal long arms available. Shorter range, but plenty for indoors.
People use the tools available. It is naive fantasy of many (and you) to presume that removing a single tool won't result in an adaptation of behavior to compensate.
I am sure that without assault rifles some guys may come up with other methods, but removing the most simple means might confound the less motivated nutbar. You cannot tell me that semi-auto assault rifles are not more effective for violence than bolt actions. If that were the case our troops (not just snipers) would go into battle with bolt actions and pump shotguns. Either way I am not offering a normative perspective here just an observable fact.
I think you are positioning my argument as being one of anti gun. I personally do not have a strong position one way or another. I like guns and would love to be able to shoot anything without restriction, however I am not going to have a heart attack over any new rules. The whole point of my argument was one of trying to point out that there is a radical element in the gun community that tarnishes the many. I am not sure why so many people are trying to straw man my position into that of an anti-gun leftie. This is the very thing that makes people in the middle see the pro-gun crowd as militant, and subsequently causes them to err on the side of the anti-gun crowd. When someone is saying something regarding gun control that you disagree with and you go on the attack you come across as the very stereotype that the anti-gun crowd try to perpetuate.
You keep telling us you support our right to own guns, but then, in the same breath, you tell us we should consent to only having the guns that are, by your own admission, less effective for certain applications. Also, you continue to erroneously lump all hunting rifles into the bolt action category and all semi-automatics into the military rifle category. I happen to own a semi-automatic .308 hunting rifle that accepts detachable magazines. Into which category does it fit?
For those of us who desire to own firearms for more than hunting, bolt action rifles are simply not adequate. If they were, as you keep pointing out, our troops would use them in combat.
We've repeatedly pointed out to you that "assault weapons" are involved in an infinitesimally small fraction of American shootings, and yet you keep accusing us of being extremists for not consenting to the banning of such weapons. Why are we extremists for resisting the banning of something that really isn't a problem? Should we agree to a baseless reduction of our rights simply to appease the anti-gun lobby? Is that really your idea of "meeting in the middle?" And then next year should we agree to another baseless ban? And another the year after that? How long should we let this go on?
Or is your real point that YOU don't see a reason for us to own these weapons; therefore, you don't see any reason why we shouldn't just let them be banned, in order for gun owners as a whole to appear more centrist?
Being a moderate isn't about trying to meet in the middle on every issue. A true moderate looks at each issue based on the facts and picks the position, left, right, or center, supported by the facts. Trying to appease both sides simply for the sake of avoiding conflict accomplishes nothing, and giving up rights, without cause, simply to make one side happy is beyond foolish.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
Richards 0
QuoteYou keep telling us you support our right to own guns, but then, in the same breath, you tell us we should consent to only having the guns that are, by your own admission, less effective for certain applications.
I have never stated that we needed to ban assault rifles. I simply brought that up as an example. I have stated in prior posts that I would enjoy shooting assault rifles.
QuoteAlso, you continue to erroneously lump all hunting rifles into the bolt action category and all semi-automatics into the military rifle category. I happen to own a semi-automatic .308 hunting rifle that accepts detachable magazines. Into which category does it fit?
I am quite aware that standard hunting rifles come in semi-auto.
QuoteWe've repeatedly pointed out to you that "assault weapons" are involved in an infinitesimally small fraction of American shootings,
I have never suggested otherwise.
Quoteyou keep accusing us of being extremists
I have never addressed you or anyone on this thread as an extremist. I have been quite polite to you throughout so it is unfortunate that you have interpreted my comments as a personal attack. I on the other hand have been accused of being a leftie gun-o-phobe, having alterior motives, and such simply because I tried to put the other side of the argument into perspective.
Quotefor not consenting to the banning of such weapons. Why are we extremists for resisting the banning of something that really isn't a problem?
It is not on that one micro issue that I was addressing the NRA leadership (not you) as extremists. The issues I have commented on included the statement implying intent to shoot it out with authorities "my cold dead hands", and the fact that people who have pushed for gun legislation (Wendy Cukier) have received numerous death threats for doing so. I contemplated NRA membership once because I am into shooting and I beleive in gun owners rights but I happen to think they go too far with their antics.
QuoteShould we agree to a baseless reduction of our rights simply to appease the anti-gun lobby? Is that really your idea of "meeting in the middle?" And then next year should we agree to another baseless ban? And another the year after that? How long should we let this go on?
No. My idea of meeting in the middle meant at least being willing to talk to the other side about the issue (in non-paramilitary clothing) in a non-confrontational manner. Beleive in the right to own assault rifles? Fine, but don't go labelling everyone who has a different point of view as a gun-o-phobe. Again, I have no personal problem with assault rifles. I am simply pointing out that some do and the standard name calling and confrontational approach used by so many on the pro-gun side do not help the issue.
QuoteOr is your real point that YOU don't see a reason for us to own these weapons; therefore, you don't see any reason why we shouldn't just let them be banned, in order for gun owners as a whole to appear more centrist?
No. I do not ignore another persons rights simply because I do not have a strong personal interest in that right.
QuoteBeing a moderate isn't about trying to meet in the middle on every issue.
No one has ever accused me of that before.
*** A true moderate looks at each issue based on the facts and picks the position, left, right, or center, supported by the facts. ***
That is what i am trying to do. Unfortunately I am being accused of being at worst a gun-o-phobe or at least an appeaser. I do beleive in standing up for rights based on the facts. Occasionally I choose discretion as to which battles I will pick but in general I look at each issue independantly.
Anyway I somehow seem to have provoked some people with my choice of words (I have a remarkable talent for this), but that was not my intent. My point initially was to make the issue that the I do not feel the NRA are using the best approach to promoting the rights of gun owners. Somehow this spiraled into a million tangent arguments.
I must admit that I find amusement in the fact that this is the first time on this site where I have ever angered anyone by appearing too far to the left .
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
I am sure that without assault rifles some guys may come up with other methods, but removing the most simple means might confound the less motivated nutbar.
Legislation that takes away rights needs to meet a much higher burden of proof than "might" work.
The NRA has taken a hard stance of late because it's quite clear that the other side has little interest in compromise and define the notion of the slippery slope. Don't negotiate with terrorists. It was quite clear where the Brady folks were going in the late 90s, up till the point where they cost Gore the White House.
So long as the Feds refuse to prosecute Brady violators, why the fuck should we support more rules and limitations that only the law abiding will have to deal with? For "might save a person or two?"
I dropped my NRA membership not for reasons of stance, but because they spent so much in postage mailing me asking for more money. Makes more sense to just send it the the ILA wing.
I don't know where you really stand on this, but you strike me much the same as McCains AGS. Pretends to be gun owners for a balance on the issue, but every action suggests otherwise.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteYou keep telling us you support our right to own guns, but then, in the same breath, you tell us we should consent to only having the guns that are, by your own admission, less effective for certain applications.
I have never stated that we needed to ban assault rifles. I simply brought that up as an example. I have stated in prior posts that I would enjoy shooting assault rifles.
.....
.
Seems to me that "assault" rifles make good militia weapons. A ban on militia weaponry is a clear violation of the 2nd Amdt., isn't it?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteIn my mind, the question of gun ownership is much larger than defending oneself against common criminals or having the ability engage in recreational hunting. Firearms are a survival tool, and to remove that tool from the hands of citizens is to handicap those citizens and impair their ability to handle situations that both they and the government may not currently envision.
We could go back and forth all day, debating who needs guns and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is that we'd be discussing it in the context of the known, not the unknown. There is a huge difference between being paranoid and being prepared, and preparing oneself for the unknown should never be casually dismissed as paranoia. By telling its citizens that they do not need and cannot own guns, a government is promising that it will always be ready, willing, and able to defend their lives, liberty, and property. I don't have enough confidence in any government to accept that promise. If tomorrow there is an earthquake or a hurricane or if, God forbid, the nuclear bombs start falling, is the government going to protect each survivor? Is it going to defend each person's food supply? Is it going to protect each citizen from looters? Is it going to defend each woman from the predators and rapists seeking to take advantage of the situation? Is it going to hunt wild game for starving families when supply lines are cut off? Is it ALWAYS going to be there when it is needed? Anyone who believes unquestioningly that their government will always be there for them, in every situation, needs to take a long, hard look at history, particularly recent history, and then they need to wake up to reality.
More than likely, I'll go through my entire life without ever pointing a gun at another human being and without ever hunting game for survival, but until my government can indisputably guarantee me that outcome, I'll be hanging onto my firearms.
Good argument, in many ways I agree. Just a couple of questions:
Should a citizen be allowed to own chemical weapons to protect themselves from an invading force, or a rogue government?
How about nuclear weapons?
How about RPGs or mines?
What about jet planes with laser guided missiles?
How about short range missiles to protect your neighbourhood from a rogue government?
Don't you think your average citizen should be able to own all those? If not, why not?
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteIn my mind, the question of gun ownership is much larger than defending oneself against common criminals or having the ability engage in recreational hunting. Firearms are a survival tool, and to remove that tool from the hands of citizens is to handicap those citizens and impair their ability to handle situations that both they and the government may not currently envision.
We could go back and forth all day, debating who needs guns and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is that we'd be discussing it in the context of the known, not the unknown. There is a huge difference between being paranoid and being prepared, and preparing oneself for the unknown should never be casually dismissed as paranoia. By telling its citizens that they do not need and cannot own guns, a government is promising that it will always be ready, willing, and able to defend their lives, liberty, and property. I don't have enough confidence in any government to accept that promise. If tomorrow there is an earthquake or a hurricane or if, God forbid, the nuclear bombs start falling, is the government going to protect each survivor? Is it going to defend each person's food supply? Is it going to protect each citizen from looters? Is it going to defend each woman from the predators and rapists seeking to take advantage of the situation? Is it going to hunt wild game for starving families when supply lines are cut off? Is it ALWAYS going to be there when it is needed? Anyone who believes unquestioningly that their government will always be there for them, in every situation, needs to take a long, hard look at history, particularly recent history, and then they need to wake up to reality.
More than likely, I'll go through my entire life without ever pointing a gun at another human being and without ever hunting game for survival, but until my government can indisputably guarantee me that outcome, I'll be hanging onto my firearms.
Good argument, in many ways I agree. Just a couple of questions:
Should a citizen be allowed to own chemical weapons to protect themselves from an invading force, or a rogue government?
How about nuclear weapons?
How about RPGs or mines?
What about jet planes with laser guided missiles?
How about short range missiles to protect your neighbourhood from a rogue government?
Don't you think your average citizen should be able to own all those? If not, why not?
RPGs! Bwahaha. You are aware, I'm sure, that without a government permit, fingerprinting and FBI background check you can't even own a model rocket motor with more than 2 oz of propellant. The government will not allow you to own REAL militia weapons.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Douva 0
I'm not trying to paint you as anti-gun; however, I do believe your arguments, even if you're just playing devil's advocate, are the same weak arguments used by the anti-gun lobby to try to discredit honest, law abiding gun owners. For example:
As I think those of us supporting gun rights have clearly illustrated, accepting a ban on .50 caliber rifles and "assault rifles" would accomplish virtually nothing, as far as the safety of the United States is concerned. It would, however, limit the ability of American citizens to defend themselves and pave the way for future gun control legislation. So if we seem annoyed at you, it's because every time you suggest we should be more flexible, you give examples that have no basis in fact. I'm all for helping the other side understand our position in a calm, rational manner, and I'm not pushing for the repeal of any existing national gun control legislation, but I'm not going give up any of my rights in the name of compromise.
Quote
"I also seem to recall that there was a thread on this site about California banning the 50 cal sniper rifle (I could be wrong as I did not read the thread in depth so I apologise if I have my facts all wrong on this one). How someone could possibly protest that is beyond me. For that matter how could such a thing be legal in the first place?"
"My concern is that people got so bent out of shape when someone tried
to ban it. While I like shooting there are more pressing concerns in my world than someone trying to ban a 50 cal sniper rifle."
"Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms?"
"I think the issue is not so much the look but the capacity. Can someone not shoot a .556 rife in bolt action for the same ranges? Again I love shooting, but I think the pro-gun side would gain brownie points by showing a litle flexibility."
As I think those of us supporting gun rights have clearly illustrated, accepting a ban on .50 caliber rifles and "assault rifles" would accomplish virtually nothing, as far as the safety of the United States is concerned. It would, however, limit the ability of American citizens to defend themselves and pave the way for future gun control legislation. So if we seem annoyed at you, it's because every time you suggest we should be more flexible, you give examples that have no basis in fact. I'm all for helping the other side understand our position in a calm, rational manner, and I'm not pushing for the repeal of any existing national gun control legislation, but I'm not going give up any of my rights in the name of compromise.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteRPGs! Bwahaha. You are aware, I'm sure, that without a government permit, fingerprinting and FBI background check you can't even own a model rocket motor with more than 2 oz of propellant. The government will not allow you to own REAL militia weapons.
I know, that's why I think Douva's argument is fundamentally flawed. It sounds nice, but a multitude of restrictions are already in place. His argument is like the TSA, it makes you feel better, but doesn't really accomplish anything.
Douva 0
QuoteQuoteIn my mind, the question of gun ownership is much larger than defending oneself against common criminals or having the ability engage in recreational hunting. Firearms are a survival tool, and to remove that tool from the hands of citizens is to handicap those citizens and impair their ability to handle situations that both they and the government may not currently envision.
We could go back and forth all day, debating who needs guns and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is that we'd be discussing it in the context of the known, not the unknown. There is a huge difference between being paranoid and being prepared, and preparing oneself for the unknown should never be casually dismissed as paranoia. By telling its citizens that they do not need and cannot own guns, a government is promising that it will always be ready, willing, and able to defend their lives, liberty, and property. I don't have enough confidence in any government to accept that promise. If tomorrow there is an earthquake or a hurricane or if, God forbid, the nuclear bombs start falling, is the government going to protect each survivor? Is it going to defend each person's food supply? Is it going to protect each citizen from looters? Is it going to defend each woman from the predators and rapists seeking to take advantage of the situation? Is it going to hunt wild game for starving families when supply lines are cut off? Is it ALWAYS going to be there when it is needed? Anyone who believes unquestioningly that their government will always be there for them, in every situation, needs to take a long, hard look at history, particularly recent history, and then they need to wake up to reality.
More than likely, I'll go through my entire life without ever pointing a gun at another human being and without ever hunting game for survival, but until my government can indisputably guarantee me that outcome, I'll be hanging onto my firearms.
Good argument, in many ways I agree. Just a couple of questions:
Should a citizen be allowed to own chemical weapons to protect themselves from an invading force, or a rogue government?
How about nuclear weapons?
How about RPGs or mines?
What about jet planes with laser guided missiles?
How about short range missiles to protect your neighbourhood from a rogue government?
Don't you think your average citizen should be able to own all those? If not, why not?
See, those are what we of the pro-gun persuasion consider "reasonable compromises." We don't insist on having weapons that are regulated by the UN, require years of special training, or can cause mass destruction.
There are very few "unknown" scenarios where owning the types of weapons you mentioned would benefit anybody. As for the rogue government scenario, that's not an easy question to answer, so I suggest dealing with that scenario if and when it happens. I'm sure Americans can build IED's just as well as Iraqis, with a little practice, but I don't spend a lot of time contemplating that scenario because needing to defend myself against my own government is pretty low on my list of concerns. I agree that civilian ownership of firearms helps facilitate the balance of power, but I don't think that means civilians need weapons equivalent to the army's.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
Douva 0
QuoteQuoteRPGs! Bwahaha. You are aware, I'm sure, that without a government permit, fingerprinting and FBI background check you can't even own a model rocket motor with more than 2 oz of propellant. The government will not allow you to own REAL militia weapons.
I know, that's why I think Douva's argument is fundamentally flawed. It sounds nice, but a multitude of restrictions are already in place. His argument is like the TSA, it makes you feel better, but doesn't really accomplish anything.
You're making the assumption that the only "unknown" scenario is a rogue government. Suppose tomorrow, while families across the nation are sitting in front of Christmas trees watching children open presents, some nation with nuclear weapons decides, for whatever reason, to launch a full-scale attack on the U.S. We're completely blind sided, and the survivors suddenly find themselves without any of the usual supply lines, from food and water to electricity and gas. Suddenly, people have to defend themselves and their meager stashes of supplies for however long it takes for some sort of order to be restored. Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, laser guided missiles, etc., wouldn't do you much good in that scenario, but a reliable semi-automatic rifle could mean the difference between life and death.
This scenario may seem unlikely, but it's not impossible, and it ranks higher on my list of concerns than having to defend ourselves against our own government. The truth is, if we knew exactly what we needed to posess in order to prepare for "unknowns," they wouldn't be unknown. So I'm willing to make a few reasonable concessions (i.e., nuclear weapons), but I'm not going to give up a tool--semi-automatic weapons--that might be very beneficial in many of those "unknown" scenarios.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
Richards 0
QuoteI don't know where you really stand on this, but you strike me much the same as McCains AGS. Pretends to be gun owners for a balance on the issue, but every action suggests otherwise.
Well I can assure you that I am not pretending to be a gun owner. I think at this stage there is a clear misunderstanding as to where I am coming from. If you do a search on all my posts on other gun related threads you will see where I stand on the issue and you will also see where people on here have criticised me for my pro-gun views. I can't change it if some people on this site want to see me as anti-gun.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
kbordson 8
QuoteGood argument, in many ways I agree. Just a couple of questions:
Should a citizen be allowed to own chemical weapons to protect themselves from an invading force, or a rogue government?
How about nuclear weapons?
How about RPGs or mines?
What about jet planes with laser guided missiles?
How about short range missiles to protect your neighbourhood from a rogue government?
Don't you think your average citizen should be able to own all those? If not, why not?
I addressed these questions in a different Thread
But... to restate
Whether it be swords, guns, or box cuters, I just don't like "the government" deciding what I should and shouldn't own. Much of it's a trust issue. Why should "The government" trust me, and why should I trust "the government"?
But, should there be limits and where should the limit be placed... I don't know. Skydekker made a good point that some reasonable controls are "useful."
Do I trust Homer Simpson walking around with a Stinger or Mr. and Mrs. Smith with an accelerator in their backyard? But yet we trust the government and companies with that and more. I personally don't know Pier Oddone (current Director of the Fermi lab) nor James Dyer (Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations). But I have to trust that the government knew what they were doing when he was appointed. Could Homer be placed in either of those positions? I hope not!! I hope that their qualifications were based on their knowledge and expertise, but what about ethics? Did their interviews include an indepth eval of their beleifs. And who's judging them and their beleifs, more of "the governments" employees? What are their ethics? "The government" has made other foolish choices.
More scary than nuclear stuffs... what about biologlogics? Everyone will agree that the thought of Suzie Homemaker playing around with smallpox in the kitchen is right out, but again ... lets look at the government. Colonel George W. Korch, Jr is the Commanding Officer at USAMRIID (U.S. Army Medical Research Institue of Infectious Diseases). Can I be confident on how that promotion occured? Again, I need to believe that he has the ability and integrity to handle that, but it's still just a trust issue. I was in the military myself... I've seen the peter principle at work.
"The government" should be "the people." But it often times isn't. Yes, we, in America, are able to exercise our rights with voting, which empowers us with some decision making capability... but sometimes the way the bill is "sold" through the media will influence the vote. "We, the people" get lazy, then as they're watching Fear Factor tonight, they hear about an ad for Yaris and then another for a political advertisment . Now they think they're educated to make a decision... and don't do anymore research or self thought. And so the bill passes.... which helps to benefit the group that paid some of the $400 million for the ads.
I liked this quote in V for Vendetta by Alan Moore
QuoteQuote
V: Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security, the familiar, the tranquility, repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance, and depression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myraid of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives
So back to the question at the top... where to place limits? Who to trust to place limits? Why them?
Much of it depends on where you draw the line between Anarchism and Independant Thought? Was Guy Fawkes right or wrong? Was George Washington a terrorist or a revolutionary?
rapter 0
The 2nd amendment is to protect us from our own Government. The Founding Fathers didn't trust any form of Government and gave us the means to over throw it if the time ever came to do it.
Only the good die young, so I have found immortality,
Only the good die young, so I have found immortality,
jcd11235 0
QuoteThe 2nd amendment is to protect us from our own Government. The Founding Fathers didn't trust any form of Government and gave us the means to over throw it if the time ever came to do it.
I'm not so sure about that. The Constitution empowers Congress to "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
So is your thesis point that were all the guns removed, people in these otherwise fatal situations would resolve their problems nonlethally?
Does that pass any common sense test?
Or more likely, merely show our homicide rate is several times other countries, so if you remove the most common tool, the rates look similar?
That's the definition of crappy data mining.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites