Surprise! ACLU Lawsuit Supports Gun Owner's Rights

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Improvised weapons are great and I'm all for using what's available to you. Afterall you are fighting for your life. However, if you are woefully unprepared to deal with a blade wielding assailant while unarmed, then having any of the improvised weapons the two of you mentioned is not going to result in a significant reduction in advantage for your assailant.

I hope the hypothetical assailant jumps to that same incorrect conclusion.
Dual use technologies are a problem long known in foreign policy, thus far without an ideal solution. TSA has dealt with the issue in a limited manner. As an example, I cannot carry on my pool cue, because it could presumably be used as a club. A walking cane, on the other hand, can be carried on.

http://www.coldsteel.com/sticksportal.html

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I do not - so again, why the crack about gun owners?

Could you tell me exactly what "crack" you are referring to, one gun owner to another? To the best of my knowledge, I made no such comment.

I'm not going to repost it yet again. I'm sure you know how to go back and find your own posts.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm not going to repost it yet again. I'm sure you know how to go back and find your own posts.

If you are referring to my comment that if someone was not willing to fight without their gun, I wouldn't rely on them to fight with their gun, either, then I already addressed that in this post. Do you need me to explain the relevance? (<-- That's not intended to be sarcastic, I'm more than happy to clarify.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not going to repost it yet again. I'm sure you know how to go back and find your own posts.

If you are referring to my comment that if someone was not willing to fight without their gun, I wouldn't rely on them to fight with their gun, either, then I already addressed that in this post. Do you need me to explain the relevance? (<-- That's not intended to be sarcastic, I'm more than happy to clarify.)

With the amplification in this post, I understand your point. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand where you're coming from, now.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Improvised weapons are great and I'm all for using what's available to you. Afterall you are fighting for your life. However, if you are woefully unprepared to deal with a blade wielding assailant while unarmed, then having any of the improvised weapons the two of you mentioned is not going to result in a significant reduction in advantage for your assailant.

with you 100%. unarmed combat skills are very important. Up until now we were discussing improvised weapons, but thread drift happens (hell, this is like the 3rd or 4th drift in this thread alone)

The topic I was discussing was self defense versus an assailant with a blade.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Improvised weapons are great and I'm all for using what's available to you. Afterall you are fighting for your life. However, if you are woefully unprepared to deal with a blade wielding assailant while unarmed, then having any of the improvised weapons the two of you mentioned is not going to result in a significant reduction in advantage for your assailant.

with you 100%. unarmed combat skills are very important. Up until now we were discussing improvised weapons, but thread drift happens (hell, this is like the 3rd or 4th drift in this thread alone)

The topic I was discussing was self defense versus an assailant with a blade.

Rule 1. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Rule 1. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Rule 1 is actually "don't get into a gun fight at all if there is any way to avoid it."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Rule 1. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Rule 1 is actually "don't get into a gun fight at all if there is any way to avoid it."

I took that as a given...for ANY fight.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,206]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Improvised weapons are great and I'm all for using what's available to you. Afterall you are fighting for your life. However, if you are woefully unprepared to deal with a blade wielding assailant while unarmed, then having any of the improvised weapons the two of you mentioned is not going to result in a significant reduction in advantage for your assailant.

with you 100%. unarmed combat skills are very important. Up until now we were discussing improvised weapons, but thread drift happens (hell, this is like the 3rd or 4th drift in this thread alone)

The topic I was discussing was self defense versus an assailant with a blade.

But what if they are armed with a banana, or a bunch of grapes?

...

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

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But what if they are armed with a banana, or a bunch of grapes?

Then we send an Englishman after them.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Rule 1. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

and don't forget:
A handgun is what you carry when you're not expecting trouble.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Improvised weapons are great and I'm all for using what's available to you. Afterall you are fighting for your life. However, if you are woefully unprepared to deal with a blade wielding assailant while unarmed, then having any of the improvised weapons the two of you mentioned is not going to result in a significant reduction in advantage for your assailant.

with you 100%. unarmed combat skills are very important. Up until now we were discussing improvised weapons, but thread drift happens (hell, this is like the 3rd or 4th drift in this thread alone)

The topic I was discussing was self defense versus an assailant with a blade.

But what if they are armed with a banana, or a bunch of grapes?

what if they've got a pointed stick??

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Rule 1. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

and don't forget:
A handgun is what you carry when you're not expecting trouble.

"A handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle" - Jeff Cooper

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ron 10]

Quote

Quite a few laws against swearing

And there are laws against shooting people.

So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

So, you're saying that the individual's rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment are not unlimited?

I am saying that there can be individual places such as an airport or courthouse where additional precautions *could* be taken.

Personally, I think if you are a citizen without a record, you should be allowed to carry wherever you want.... To include aircraft.

But I also think that a property owner can say no and if you want to be there, you have to follow the rules they lay out.

Quote

Give me a break.

So instead of answering the question, you dodge it?

Quote

If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either.

Then if guns are not a good option, why do FAM's carry them? Why do cops? Why does the SS carry them to protect Obama?

Give ME a break.

Quote

Do you still don't get it?

I totally get it... you can't back your position with anything more than your position. You somehow think your personal position should trump the Constitution.

Quote

The words of the founding fathers that count are the ones in the Constitution. The judicial branch has the responsibility to interpret those words.

"Shall not be infringed" is not that difficult to understand.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

ok... enough with the penis waving....

Who is penis waving now?

Quote

Not as easy as you might think. I've trained with it. I'm pretty accurate with it.

And you think no one else is trained? You take your belt, I'll carry the gun when my life is on the line.

Improvised weapons are better than nothing, but a gun is normally better than an improvised weapon.

Pick the best weapon for the job.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Which guys like me

The ones that type here using your screen name.

Quote

Your tendency to stereotype people has led you to make yet another error.

It is not a stereotype if it is 100% true.

And you still dodge the questions.... I think it is simply because it will show the glaring error in your argument.

So I will ask again:

Bill, would you be OK with an entire City or State removing your rights to discuss a single topic?

Removing your right to face your accuser?

Removing your right to trial by jury?

Removing your right against illegal search and seizure?

Removing your protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

An entire City or State, not one area.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Pick the best available weapon for the job.

fixed that for you.

That I agree with. I'd rather have the gun than my belt, but they'll let me carry my belt on the plane, but not my gun.

--
Rob

[billvon 3,162]

>The ones that type here using your screen name.

Ah. In that case, you are 100% wrong.

>Bill, would you be OK with an entire City or State removing your rights
> to discuss a single topic?

If it was sensitive US information and divulging it would greatly endanger others (say, nuclear launch codes) yes. Otherwise no.

Likewise, if it was in an inappropriate area where people would be endangered (say, a hospital operating room) then yes, otherwise no.

>Removing your right to face your accuser?

If I am killing people with a rifle from a clock tower, then yes, police could effectively execute me without providing me with an opportunity to face my accuser.

Counter question - if you saw a man wound two men with a knife, kill a third, and was about to kill a fourth, and you had a gun, would you not shoot him until he had an opportunity to face the man he wounded? Or would you kill him and deprive him of his rights?

>Removing your right to trial by jury?

See above.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quite a few laws against swearing

And there are laws against shooting people.

So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?

If it would save just one child from hearing a swear word, wouldn't any amount of gagging be worth it?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quite a few laws against swearing

And there are laws against shooting people.

So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?

If it would save just one child from hearing a swear word, wouldn't any amount of gagging be worth it?

think of the children!!

--
Rob

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So instead of answering the question, you dodge it?

No, I dodged nothing. I addressed your question.

Quote

Then if guns are not a good option, why do FAM's carry them? Why do cops? Why does the SS carry them to protect Obama?

Have you considered the possibility that they may have to deal with aggressors who bear something more dangerous than a box cutter?

There is also a big difference between self defense and threat neutralization. Federal air marshals, cops, and Secret Service agents are in the business of neutralizing threats, not just self defense. The term for ordinary citizens who are out to neutralize threats is vigilante.

Quote

I totally get it... you can't back your position with anything more than your position. You somehow think your personal position should trump the Constitution.

No, that's exactly the opposite of my assertion. I've said all along that the Constitution trumps both your opinion and my opinion. The SCOTUS, who are empowered by Article III of the Constitution to have final say in the interpretation of US law, including the Constitution, have stated unequivocally that the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited. It doesn't matter how many founding fathers you quote, the decisions of the Supreme Court trump their (the framers') writings (e.g. the Federalist Papers).

Quote

"Shall not be infringed" is not that difficult to understand.

See above.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And there are laws against shooting people.

So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?

This is where personal opinion comes into play.

I would rather my son hear a swear word than get shot. But I know not everybody is the same.

[Ron 10]

Quote

This is where personal opinion comes into play.

No more like uninformed fear.

I'll ask again : So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

No, I dodged nothing. I addressed your question.

No you clearly did not. I asked what would have happened if a passenger on flight 11 had a pistol that day. You instead answered with, "Give me a break. We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. "

So, no... you didn't answer a single thing.

Quote

Have you considered the possibility that they may have to deal with aggressors who bear something more dangerous than a box cutter?

Of course!

Quote

The term for ordinary citizens who are out to neutralize threats is vigilante.

Quit trying to use emotional arguments. We are discussing the right to keep arms for self defense, not the right to keep arms to wage a war against anything.

Quote

The SCOTUS, who are empowered by Article III of the Constitution to have final say in the interpretation of US law, including the Constitution, have stated unequivocally that the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited.

They have also said in Miller that military type weapons are protected.... They also said in Heller that pistols are protected. They also said in Heller, "What is reasonable about a Ban"--- Roberts. Yet, you still approve of bans when you want.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334