peacefuljeffrey

All the more reason you should recuse yourself from judging whether others are justified when they determine they feel the need to arm themselves for protection. Do you not recognize that some people do NOT live in the relatively safe and luxurious circumstances that you do, in which you feel no pressing need to stand ready to defend against criminal attack? Some people DO live in shitty areas; some people DO live so far from the quick response of authorities that if they were being home-invaded, it would come down to them alone to fight for their lives because the police are half an hour away. So since you don't know at all what that might be like, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the need or desire for a gun for protection, or to suggest that we all jump through bureaucratic hoops to enjoy that right. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. But leaving the situation at a point where the man DOES have a gun but the kid DOESN'T go around pulling late-night vandalism raids would still enable the guy to have a gun to defend himself against real attackers AND the kid would still be un-shot. Taking the gun from the guy leaves the kid safe, yes, but leaves the guy without his means of defense. So if you want the kid to be safe and don't want to also trample the guy's right to keep himself safe, the simplest answer is "don't do the actions that bait people who do have guns into shooting you." Some guy decides that every time he wants to cross a street, he refuses to look both ways and wait until it's safe. Now along comes a woman who hits him because he just walks right out into 40 mph traffic on Main Street. You could argue in favor of taking away her car so that she never could have hit him -- but that would punish her even under normal circumstances. Or you could say, "She wouldn't hit a guy even having a car if he would just do what's normal and not walk straight out into traffic." Why would this be different for guns? The guy with the gun still can have it for legitimate uses. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? In the confusion of an abnormal situation like that, the kid was "guilty" in the sense that he had brought down upon himself the unnecessary circumstance of having someone suspect that he may be a dire threat. Nothing required the kid to be showing up after midnight to vandalize a house or pull pranks. It is fair of a homeowner/defender to be afraid for his life when something so aberrant is going down. So while the kid is not "guilty" enough to warrant being shot to death, neither is the defender "guilty" of doing something wrong, because the whole situation must be judged based on "what did he reasonably have cause to fear was happening at the moment it was happening." The whole case happened because of -- was engendered by -- the faulty choices made by the kid. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Yes, and someone arguing your side of this issue (guns, at least) opposed it, saying that mostly it is not viewed that way anymore. That person was Kallend, I believe. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I understand that, though we as a group generally have no problem with some form of self-regulation. You of all people want to puch that further when it comes to canopies. Then why would it be too much to ask for gun owners to do some self regulation and require proficient training and recurrency training? Why would that be a bad idea? Because we already know from experience that if we let that situation arise, there are those who are rabidly against our right to keep and bear arms, and they would attempt to commandeer the "required proficiency training and recurrency training" system to make it impossibly difficult to pass, and that would become a de facto ban. We already know what these people get up to. They are NOT good-faith actors. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What, we don't suffer the anti-gunners over there and over here arguing that WE should change OUR laws based on YOUR "success"? I mean, for Christ's sake we have anti-gun idiots telling us we should adopt a strategy that has been shown to be an abject FAILURE over there! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You're right; it absolutely is a ridiculous situation. The concept of having to abandon your OWN HOME when it is entered illegally by a person who evidently means you harm or death is ABHORRENT. Why is it, then, that your COUNTRY is not obligated to flee to another country when some foreign aggressor-nation invades it? What justifies your country standing and fighting to keep out invaders, but not an individual in his home? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Playing devil's advocate on this point, but I'd guess that the answer to that one would be that guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to transport people. Take your thinking a couple steps further and you'll be there: Guns are designed to kill people. Cops have guns. Cops have guns so that they can kill people. Why and when would a cop kill a person? When doing so is morally and legally justified; when it will save either the cop's life, or the life of someone endangered by that person. Do you see that just because you can show that guns' purpose is to enable a person to kill, it does not follow that all killing is bad; therefore you haven't shown that guns are inherently bad. Some killing actually is done to save more innocents by dispatching a dangerous bad person. You might as well try to argue for banning gasoline by saying something as simplistic as, "Gasoline is made to cause explosions." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why you're absolutely right; and it never could ever happen again in a million zillion years, so let's make damned sure we don't waste effort by remaining prepared for that possibility! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, if all it takes to make something illegal is proof that 17 people were killed when someone abused either a right or a privilege, something is wrong. And a whole lot of other things would also be illegal. You have the exceptions making the rules there, now. It's tragic that people can be killed by people with guns. It's also tragic when people who are denied guns are killed because they had no means to fight back against an attacker. If we produced the names of 18 such people, would that be enough to get the law changed back? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When it comes to eradicating a right held by the people, I hold the government to this standard: Provide a reallllly compelling reason why our giving up this right is going to make some situation that is bad a LOT better. In the case of the U.K., gun crime was not bad to begin with -- big strike against taking away a right, to deal with what is essentially a non-problem. It's not enough to show that taking away the right did not make things worse -- it sure as hell better have made things better, or it wasn't worth the trade. That said, I don't, actually, think it is EVER worthy to give up a right in order to try to cure some perceived social problem. The rights stay sacrosanct, and you find OTHER ways to solve the problem. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There are many reasons to believe that widespread civilian gun ownership would be a major aid in the battle between civilians and a tyrannical government. For one thing, many civilians are extremely adept in the use of their weapons. Many of them have military training and experience, and cherish freedom. This would be a guerrilla war. We wouldn't have to be meeting on a battlefield to be cut down by S.A.W.s or mortars. We would be sniping convoys, capturing additional military ordnance (a big factor), and using it against them. There would be quick erosion of support for the government if and when they used the big formidable weapons that naysayers claim would make opposition to the tyranny impossible. Who would support the government laying waste to homes, streets, towns, using F-15s, F-22s, B-1s, tanks, TOWs, etc.?? When people saw their neighbors slaughtered and their towns reduced to rubble by such heavy-handed tactics, support for guerrillas would blossom. So that leaves the government waging this war on a person-to-person, urban and suburban level, with small arms -- and a SEVERE personnel disadvantage. There would be military desertions for sure, since it would hardly appeal to many in the armed forces to fire on their countrymen on their own soil. Those deserters might well take purloined ordnance with them to aid the cause. But the major factor would be 80,000,000 gun owners, and even if 1% of them joined the fight, 800,000 guerrilla forces could give the military a hell of a run for its money -- just one lousy percent. Unable to use 500 lb. bombs, unable to use nukes, what could the U.S. military do but lose a war of attrition in which they do not outnumber the rebels? Absolutely, for the reasons I specified above. And I note that there are examples of pitifully armed civil rebel forces have held large mighty militaries at bay for years and years (Afghanistan and the Soviets, Vietnam and the U.S.). We are currently better-armed than they were, and better able. There is the fact that the only places where genocide has truly been able to take place around the globe have been where there are large numbers of disarmed civilians -- the unilateral disarmament is a key factor to being unable to fight and resist. And armed populace, it seems, can have tremendous deterrent effect against a government that may wish to erode and eventually trash individual liberty. May I ask why you believe it would not be possible for them to do so -- barring help from any outside nation? (In other words, don't say, "The world community would step in when things got out of hand and slap the U.K. gov't. down.) What is it that you think your government fears in its largely unarmed populace that makes it wary and keeps it wary of ever becoming tyrannical? I mean, you can't say you'd VOTE OUT a tyrannical government, because um, they'd have put a stop to voting. Use your freedom of speech (such as it is in U.K.)? They'd have outlawed that. What, besides force, would stand against them? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I can't imagine a better place/time/event at which to pass my... ...100th SKYDIVE!!! I'm there, chica! Can I put in a bid for a couch or futon or somethin'? What's the price, anyway? Ooooh this should be good! I'm psyched already, with three more workdays between me and the fun! Ugh! Must... press... on...!

What's your sig line about, there, Kev? Is it meant as irony, or pointing out hypocrisy, or what? Ashcroft's Treasury is the one that came out with a pro-gun-rights statement to the U.S. Attorneys, who now, under him, are not to argue the "collective rights" argument in court. I haven't seen quoted material besides your sig line that he said that. Does this somehow relate to your favoring of a patchwork of different state laws, which prevents smooth transitions of concealed carry from state to state and leaves people confused about where they are and are not criminals? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Can I get an Amen? Amen. Our enemies want us to lose our freedoms, and they're happier if we take them away from ourselves; insult to injury. And all in the name of protecting the Democratic fuckin' National Convention! Oh, the irony! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Can I get an Amen? Do... uh, do I have to give an "Amen" if I'm the guy who wrote it originally? I'm, umm, not sure how this works. And does it count if I'm an atheist? Amen anyway. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are such a noble patriotic American. - Thinks any vote that gets drawn away from that socialist fuck Kerry is "down the shitter - Thinks a guy who really believes he might have good ideas that are worth putting before the voters is an "asshole" - Wishes the man dead, just for putting himself into an election Maybe you'd like a crown to wear, and then you can decide who legitimately may run. Hell, why don't we let you just decide who the votes can be cast for?! Save us all the trouble, right? I have to say I deplore your way of thinking. I can only wish that you were kidding about it all, but I strongly suspect not. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Reminds me of a great bumper-sticker slogan I saw -- the ultimate double-entendre: "NO GOVERNMENT IS BETTER THAN OUR GOVERNMENT!" Get it? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This would be a prime example of racial profiling that is most definitely OUT of bounds. The race of the guy is a red herring, actually. I guess I used it to inflame my rhetoric about my outrage. The problem is with searching people without probable cause in general. This is an outrage. I don't give a rat's ass that the convention is in town -- Democrat, Rebublican -- shit, even if it were the Libertarians. No one's protection is worth sacrificing our essential liberties -- and freedom from warrantless searches is high among them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They haven't set up their system to be based on this concept, that's all. It's not something that you don't have to constantly maintain, Quade. It takes "eternal vigilance," don't you know. But just because other cultures get run-roughshod over by their governments, and exist at the pleasure of those governments, does not mean that our rights ALSO derive from what our government metes out to us. WE say it's not that way, and if it starts to get that way, we're supposed to fight. The PEOPLE are the final say under the U.S. Constitution. What do other countries and the way they do it have to do with us? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understands this fixation with freedom of speech." I think this is the crux of the cultural difference between many americans and many non-americans with respect to guns. You clearly see gun ownership as a right, just like free speech. To you the analogy is very clear. To many non-americans gun ownership is not seen as a right, rather it is seen as privilege. In that case your analogy does not fit, given that most people do see free speech as a right. Once again, I think I see that we need to clarify a cultural difference or two. The main difference is not in the belief in a right to own guns, but in the right to protect oneself, one's loved-ones, and one's country. The non-American cultures have been for the most part indoctrinated against the concept of SELF-defense, instead relying on government to defend the individual on a day-to-day basis, which obviously it cannot deliver. (If it did, there wouldn't be crime and victimization, now, would there? Crime existing at all in places where government is in charge of keeping the people safe, i.e. England, is proof that the government can't do it.) It's not a right to GUNS that we're really on about here; it's a right to the best means of self defense, which happens at the present time to BE guns. Question: If you retain the right to free speech, and give up your guns, and then your government becomes tyrannical, shuts down presses, television and news stations (leaving only those pirates who can manage to keep under detection, I guess), how can use of your now-imaginary "freedom of speech" get you your freedom back? We know that if we lost our right to free speech but kept our guns, we could use those guns in the fight to get back our lost freedom of speech... See, this doesn't work in both directions too well. What do you think of this example? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Or so you'd think . . . but you'd be wrong. The Declaration of Independence outlined what some folks thought were the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness", but only a country's consititution can lay the foundation of rights that will be given to a people. For instance, try using your "virtue of being human beings" argument with regard to much of what is in the Bill of Rights in a LOT of countries and you're going to get laughed at pretty freekin' hard. It's you who are wrong. The Constitution does not say, "The People are hereby granted the right to free speech, and freedom of assembly..." The amendments in the Bill of Rights speak of "the right" and then say that it shall not be infringed, etc. Note that the language implies the preexistence of the rights; it does not establish the rights as though they are brand new and created by the language of the amendments themselves. In the U.S., our Constitution assumes us to have ALL power and rights, and we cede to the government ONLY what can be found in the Constitution as imparted to it, and only those laws that the government passes that are within its powers as granted to IT by the Constitution. In other words, the government is not supposed to have any powers that are not spelled out for it in that document. (I know, this concept has been perverted to the extreme, but it still is valid, even if trodden-on.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh... my... God.... Can I borrow those? Be my guest. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, that is squarely fucked up. How on earth can that be legal? The sta... I mean "commonwealth" of Virginia's position is that people from all other states must have their vehicle registered in Virginia?! WTF?!?! Sounds like abuse of authority to me. You gonna fight it, I hope. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes. The people would be in an uproar and that would quickly be resolved. It should be up to the people, not a special interest group even if I happen to belong to it. I think this line of thinking ("We should rely on the people steering clear of an abusive state and starving it for revenue") is specious in the extreme. For one thing, our rights should not be dependent on whether a state can or cannot withstand an economic boycott in order to make it do the people's bidding. How would the state even get the message that it was because of X policy or Y policy that it was being boycotted? How would it know which of its many policies was the one pissing people off? Since when should rights be not determined by definitive codification at law -- and merely subject to whatever the traffic will allow? What if a state decided to (if it could) suspend giving the Miranda warning to arrested suspects? Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything legally to force it to obey the law -- we should just stop spending money in that state until it "gets the message" and resumes playing by the accepted rules again? What if the state decides that it is willing to absorb the economic ramifications, if it values its policy more than the money? Then the people would be screwed, right? I think your theory is nonsensical. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"