Derwood, respectfully, the problem arises when people try to pass judgment on things they are not familiar with--hence Crompsin's invite to the shooting range.

Then why are you even posting. You made your point, now quit trying to instigate. If you have no interest, then some rednecks who bust out with HEY I GOT GUNS shouldn't even elicit a response from you.

As to the original topic, I will never listen to a government that says "hey don't worry, it's ok, really". Anyone that tells me that out of the blue makes me back off and think the opposite. Chalk it up to life experience LOL.

Nah, it makes them Crackerton McGreedy McAgenda'd.

Respectfully, one doesn't need to shoot a gun to have a familiarity with the gun issue. I've never flown in a space shuttle, but I can be interested in NASA.

Because I care about the issue of gun control and how it's portrayed in the media and through special interest groups. I said I had no interest in operating a gun...that doesn't disqualify me from having an interest in the greater social dilemma of gun control.

So. . .You do not claim to have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms?

So you're ok with being censored, tossed in jail without charges, having your home invaded and searched or taken from you without cause. . .

Because if not, then you believe you have a right to not have those things happen to you. .



That would kind of be my point. ..


No, I'm not. You really do need to read my post again. I'm suggesting that if gun people CLAIM to have a RIGHT, then they should stop trying to explain to us why they NEED a gun. If it is a RIGHT, then they do not NEED to have a reason to exercise that RIGHT.

I am further suggesting that if they continue to tell me that they need a gun to shoot a bad guy or to protect themselves from bears, or to stop a bad government, that they are justifying their desire to have a gun, and since they feel there is a need to justify their desire to have a gun, they do not feel it is an absolute RIGHT.


Yes, it is, and that means I get to have my opinion too, hmm?

I was trying to point out that there is more conversation here than "justification."

I come here to talk. With no research to back me up, I assume others do as well.
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 08 : 02 : 49-----
Nope. Never have. Once again, please stop pigeonholing me with the rest of the Branch Nutjobians here. I don't have a cool armband and I don't wear my sunglasses indoors. As far as I'm concerned, guns are a privilege in the US... a privilege I've totally indulged in like a fat kid left alone with a cookie jar. Mmm... guns.

In my daft opinion, it's a privilege that is modified and tweaked and mutated by our upperclass' daycare mentality every dozen years or so, usually to restrict it more for "public safety" (Clinton) or weaken said restrictions to get votes (Bush). I have no illusions about government. Government's purpose is to maintain order. A lot of people in government like a job that requires minimal sweating and six figure tax-payer incomes.

I'm uneducated and bitter... so I don't care what the Constitution says or how the Supreme Court has ruled (rulings that swing like a pendulum every dozen years from due process to crime control 'n back). It's lofty bullshit to me until it has boots-on-the-ground application in Joe Monkeybrain's everyday life. Do I have the right to own guns? Sometimes and some kinds. Do I have the right to "bear" arms? Generally? Fuck no. Not outside my house or with a "concealed weapon permit" that has more restrictions than Mick Jagger's groupie sex body count. Only thing a concealed carry permit is good for is legal protection for keeping your gun in your car... sometimes. I've done a lot of research on where I can actually "bear" my right'd guns... and it's silly. Can't take it hiking, can't take it into a restaurant, can't take it near churches, schools, banks... wow, you'd swear that the government issues concealed carry permits to people thinking they're the criminals. Open carry is a "right" in some places... but it's also a great way to get cuffed and fingerprinted by your local police.

Rights are great and all... but every right has an endless fine-print listing of "BUTs" and "EXCEPT WHENs." tagged on the end that gets added every time another veneer-equipped suit takes office or terrorists attack. Guns have it the worst, I figure. Everybody likes to talk and read stuff and all those other Bill 'o Rights joys... but guns are controversial because terrorists (and racial minorities) use guns to kill white people and that's scary. How do we deal with fear? Give more power to the government to "keep us safe." I like the placebo effect here.

...

I don't know... I've taken a few law classes and every PhD and lawyer I've spoken with has told me the same thing about our "rights" in the US of A:

"Law (and your rights) is whatever the court says it is... and as long as you believe you're free, they get what they want."

...

When people have to ask you to explain your point over and over again... it might be because they're dummies... or it might be because you need to rethink the presentation.

It sure didn't take one of them long enough to 'use' the heller decision to wrap more control and 'regulation' in to making it even more difficult to exercise ones right to keep and bear, did it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:h45ih.txt.pdf

I wonder how long it will take this item to go through?

Lightbulb: I understand your point but it doesn't make any sense to me. I comprenende... but it muy loco.

Gun nuts: Justification silliness aside, maybe they're just talking for the other side of the spectrum that Derwood and other anti-gun know-it-alls are coming from... the side where they have "a RIGHT" (TM) to X but it is getting pissed on by "the MAN" (TM) like a back alley in New Orleans during Mardi Gras.

/goes back to being a middle-of-the-road know-it-all

It's kind of funny thinking about this. In the past, we actually had rights once. Then when those rights got included to groups of people a majority of elitists didn't think should have them, they all became burdened with the reasonableness standard. Then, when some people actually try to put forth the argument that if we truly believe we have the right, we don't need to justify it, just do it. Well horseshit. What happens to the person who says 'fuck it, its my right', and then runs afoul of some peoples 'reasonableness'? They get fucked by a system that others no longer liked because it didn't suit them. Thats why I say shoot the fuckers.

Tired of this reasonableness shit, social contract stupidity that gets defined by people who usually know crap about the subject anyway, just decide based on their bullshit emotions, and THEN, when someone actually dares challenge the so called establishment to assert their rights, they get called 'branch nutjobians'.

This thing called freedom died decades ago, most people just don't know it yet. Seems they are quite happy with the illusion of it though.

true, which is why i should probably rephrase it as 'I'd LIKE to shoot the fuckers'.

once upon a time, the world was populated by giants who lived quite apart from one another and spent much of their time going about exercising their rights by shooting their guns whenever they felt like it at whatever they felt like shooting at. other times, they did other things, but mostly, as their rights were central, they wandered around shooting at things real and imaginary, animate and inanimate, as the mood struck them.

every once in a while, a giant exercising his rights would espy another giant exercising his rights.
they would greet each other with a customary ritual called the "firefight" in which they would shoot at each other and laugh and laugh.

after the prescribed period of greeting, if both were still alive, the giants would make a campfire together and tell stories that they all somehow knew about the character god whom they all liked to imagine was up there somewhere, maybe overseeing a warehouse in which heavy machinery stamped out rights that were then delivered to the giants by secret conveyances. the main story involved a giant who stumbled upon the warehouse. entering without the ritual firefight of greeting, so abruptly, rudely, the giant saw this god character overseeing the machinery in the rights factory. "what are you doing?" the giant asked. "what i've always done" came the reply. "what do you mean?" asked the giant. "every since i remember, i've been here overseeing the machinery" the god character said. "this is all i do."

then came the Fall.

the story of the fall is confused, but its outcome evident--the arrival of the tribes of Elites from far away---thousands upon thousands of them poured into giantland. soon they had created private property and changed the landscape, putting Elite settlements Everywhere. you couldn't walk two days exercising your rights any more, for fear of killing one of the Elites, who did not know the rituals, did not engage in the requisite firefights of greeting that were the giants' way of saying hello.

these Elites were not only rude, but they didn't understand the basic importance of being able to walk around exercising your rights by shooting at things animate and inanimate. they assigned other functions to their version of the god character, and so this character migrated away from overseeing the machinery that stamped out the rights of giants and delivered them by secret conveyance. soon, giants all somehow knew a different version of the stories they would tell each other before the fall while sitting around the post-firefight campfire. the machinery of stamping out rights is delicate, these new stories would say. without supervision, they'll just stop. maybe they already have.

this became the giants' individual explanations for the loss of their rights.
they lost control of the story under pressure from the Elites.

soon the giants found themselves entirely overrun by the population of the Elites. they bred like rabbits. and they changed things. they brought new forms of plant life with them like those underground vines called electricity and indoor plumbing and strange glowing flowers called television sets.

worse, these Elites had strange customs, the most obvious and oppressive of which was "reasonableness".
they liked to coexist as a society.
who does that?
they preferred peace amongst themselves to the exercise of rights.
who does that?

but many giants found that staring at the strange glowing television flowers was interesting and that was the first step, the first loss. soon, you could not tell giants from Elites in many places. they looked the same, they talked the same, they all were fascinated by the glowing television plant and no longer went about exercising their rights by shooting at things animate and inanimate whenever they wanted to. and because of that, the important rituals of greeting---the firefight, the checking for survivors, the manly campfire amongst Heroes--all not only fell into disuse, but worse became something else.

these people, these Elites, convinced themselves and the giants that gave in to them that the firefight was "Unreasonanble"

and so into decadence slid the giants, confounded with, undercut by, and assimilated into the oppressive reasonableness of the Elites tribes. who were everywhere. they bred like rabbits and preferred living in peace to the execise of rights.
who does that?


but one day a Prophet will come.
o yes, one day a prophet will come and wake up the sleeping giants from their slumbers.
enough of the tyranny of peaceful co-existence and reasonableness, he will say.
remember the rights we gave up, he will say.

and somehow the sleeping giants will all know that the prophet has come, using that way of knowing that giants have who exist outside of society and only communicate with others after the ritual of firefights around a manly campfire, during which they talk about their rights and where they come from.

you need to polish up your reading comprehension skills. show me where I've been "anti-gun" on anything besides a personal level?

-----

but there is a good point about all rights being limited. some on the extreme side of the pro-gun movement would have you believe that no restrictions should be put on gun purchasing or ownership because the 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right. the truth is, all of the rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have limits; you can't lie under oath, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you don't have the right to assemble in, say, the Oval Office....but if a legislator suggests that it might not be a great idea for your average "Joe Monkeywrench" to own an aresenal of military grade automatic weapons, people get their panties all in a twist.

roachboy, did you have a point behind your bullshit story other than to intimate that all gun owners who thought they have rights like to do nothing more than shoot at each other?
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 10 : 19 : 12-----
really? why? because some people are too afraid of others having freedom? thats really what it is you know. You say gun rights need to be limited because people shouldn't have military weaponry, yet that is exactly what the founders intended, if one can be intellectually honest enough to admit.

I can also yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. Do they put gags on you when you enter it?

i just thought it a quaint story, dk.
the post that reminded me of it, which i quoted at the outset, is far more surreal than my story.
but i was in a good mood, so thought it would be amusing to put forward a stronger case for your position than you did, that's all.

enjoy.

Alright. I'm sorry, then. I misread.

Which is my point. Pro-gun people in this thread have been loudly proclaiming that having a gun is a RIGHT and that they will shoot anyone who tries to take the gun away from them. But, despite the fact that the government is eagerly restricting and confiscating weapons of all kinds, guns included, they're not shooting. So there's a logical disconnect here that I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Otherwise it's a bunch of people with Rambo fantasies who won't actually back up what they're boasting about in here.

I am not offering an opinion here on whether or not having a gun is a right. I'm saying that there are people in here claiming it is a right, and claiming that they need the guns to keep their rights, and yet they aren't doing anything to stop the erosion of the rights they claim to have.

So what are you going to do about it? You're one of the loudest pro-gun, "it's a right, dammit" voices in here and yet you aren't using your guns for the reason the 2nd ammendment fanclub claims to need them. Why not?

why are you purposefully missing the point? the "yelling fire" example is fairly common in discussions about the limits of free speech. of COURSE you can do it if there is an actual fire, that's not the point.
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 10 : 58 : 29-----
first off, how do you know that's what the founders intended? it's certainly not explicit in the 2nd amendment, so can you cite me a different source?

second, the world was a much different place 200+ years ago. it probably seemed like a good idea that the citizens have musket loaders just like the infantry. it's not such a good idea that the citizens have SAM's and M-50's.

oh. ok then. nice, but fail. not amusing at all.
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 11 : 04 : 15-----
of course it's the point. to claim that one has no right to yell fire in a crowded theater is so much bullshit. You do indeed have that right, however, if you abuse it by doing it when there isn't a fire, there is a legal penalty to be paid. Does that mean the right has limits? no, it means if you abuse having it, you pay a penalty. It should be the same with all rights, but that's just not enough for some people.


federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, constitutional convention debates, and political commentary about the right to bear arms from several key people before, during, and after ratification that are clearly documented.....some of that commentary even coming from US supreme court justices.

why not? because half a dozen people might go hay wire and decide their life is shit, so they'll take as many out with them as possible? kind of sucks for the other 304,999,990 people that didn't do that.

I was thinking more about this thread. I see it's been humming along quite nicely. I liked roachboy's story, though he had a good source tale to base it on.

Anyway, the thought I had recently was this: If you live in a nation where personal freedom hinges on whether you have access to fully automatic weapons, perhaps it's time to get out.

why? I'm perfectly fine and happy with people owning fully automatic weapons. Hell, over 200,000 people in this country do already and i'm not worried about it at all, especially considering that there are only two documented crimes occurring with automatic weapons that were registered with the ATF and they belonged to cops. With that record, civilians with machineguns don't bother me a bit.

You aren't worried about your freedom? Even if they ban automatic weapons?

sorry, not making any sense here. what are you talking about?

IMO, very little is this thread makes sense anymore.

It has strayed so far off track from the OP and is just more of the same old rhetoric raised in every gun related discussion.

Interesting as I found that when I was living in Singapore, that the idea that guns were so controlled and basically only in the hands of a few, I thought the same thing, that my personal freedom was so infringed upon that I had to get out. Thank goodness I didn't live there when they banned gum.

There are extremes, of course. For example, I think we've heard enough about the Nazis and the Soviets.

* * * * *

dk, I was commenting on the ban of fully automatic weapons and whether it would mean the destruction of personal freedom. (i.e. if this indeed would be the case, then I think it would be a good reason to leave)

we're still fighting that. once we get to the point of intellectual dishonesty about it in the courts, well, we'll see where it goes from there. It should be evident that the very specific laws prohibiting SOME machine gun possession are totally unconstitutional and illegal, but the reality of it is that there are too many people out there right now, like derwood, who could care less about the constitution when it comes to things they don't like.

then making someone swear an oath of telling the truth in court is unconstitutional. prohibiting me from assembling a protest in the Oval Office is unconstitutional. prohibiting me from lying on a job application is unconstitutional.

no it's not, because you still have the right not to testify. 5th amendment?

editing this, because you're right. you can assemble and plan the protest in the oval office all you want. whether you actually get to do it, totally different thing.

I would tend to agree with you on this as well, in most cases. As long as you're not lying about things like having a congressional medal of honor, your performance will probably show that you either are, or are not, lying on your application. Simple records checks as well should show that you are either licensed to practice medicine or fly a plane, so if you want to lie on the application, go for it, but don't cry when you get fired because you can't do the job.

But I want to testify falsely. Doesn't my right to free speech allow me to do so? How dare someone tell me what I can and can't say! (having the choice not to testify doesn't change this)

Thus, i'm still being barred from my constitutional right to assemble in the Oval Office.

I see you like to be obtuse.

i'm making the point that constitutional rights aren't limitless, so the 2nd amendment crowd needs to chill out

no, what you're trying to do is create a stupid ass argument about the bill of rights making illegal, immoral, and unethical acts constitutional when in fact, the framers of that document had no such intention. get a new argument, yours fails miserably.

or what I said

I don't know if my high school was particularly lax, but students were allowed to chew gum in the halls, cafeteria, and, unless a teacher specifically objected, in class. One time after an assembly they handed out gum to every student as they left. I later learned that there was an administration-led drive to ban gum in the school and that handing out gum to every student was a way of testing the current policy. If the gum showed up stuck to the bottom of chairs and desks or became a nuisance they would have all the justification needed to ban gum permanently. That didn't happen though, students enjoyed their gum and disposed of it properly and the ban was given no further consideration.

Since Obama's election there has been a well documented spike in sales of assault weapons and other accessories that were previously banned. The fear is that Obama and a Democratic controlled congress will reinstate an assault weapon ban. So we have a statistical spike to work from and some solid facts on which to base our laws. In the next year or two if there is a spike in the use of assault weapons to commit crimes then IN MY OPINION we do need laws to make those types of weapons much harder for people to obtain. I honestly hope we don't see an increase in crime involving assault weapons. I'd like to think that there are enough responsible gun owners out there that such a ban isn't necessary. We'll see.

It's been pretty well documented that the assault weapon ban is largely an aesthetic ban as there are unbanned hunting rifles which are more powerful, more accurate, and capable of being magazine fed.

On the other hand if I have to read about more costumed 12-year-olds being gunned down by AK-47 fire as they hop up to trick-or-treat a well-lit house on Halloween night, I'm going to think it's a good idea to place as many barriers as possible to limit the purchase of such weapons. Someone will probably point out that the incident I mentioned above involved an ex-felon possessing weapons illegally. Surely though, those weapons would have been much harder for him to obtain and the chance that red flags would have been raised to law enforcement would have been much greater.

Some people are arguing for a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, but unless you're arguing weapons be limited to black powder muzzle loaders, your argument entails just as much interpretation and tailoring as anyone else's. On the other hand there were certainly creators of the constitution who were aware of the ancient Greek's use of fire weapons, so flamethrowers should be okay right?

"Assault Weapons" are used in a very, very small percentage of homicides. They simply are not being used to kill people in any large numbers (except by the military). Also, studies of crimes-committed-by-assault weapons following the Clinton AWB showed no decrease in gun homicides as a result. Since there was absolutely no evidence it in any way actually reduced crime (likely because most criminals use pistols rather than expensive military-style rifles) the AWB was allowed to expire...those arguing in favor of one didn't have a leg to stand on.

America's problem with violence is more cultural than anything else...we have a higher rate of knife-murders than England, where knives are really all that's available for a potential killer to use. Likewise, Mexico has extremely harsh gun-laws...there is only one gun-store in the entire country. However, Mexico has a big gun-problem and firearms continue to be smuggled into the country by criminals (and then into the USA) and those who make a living off illegal activities are typically armed. It is this lop-sidedness I want to avoid, in addition to maintaining what I believe to be a fundamental right.


Oh, and with regard to your halloween indident...People (even criminals) acquire firearms to increase their sense of security. He probably bought whatever he could buy without paperwork, and if he couldn't get an AK he would probably have shot that girl just as dead with a shotgun.

That a particular firearm is used in a crime does not make that weapon responsible for that crime.

For instance, according to a BATF study in 2000, the weapon most often used in the perpetration of a crime is a S&W .38 Revolver. It isn't on any ban lists, it doesn't look scary or sexy, and it is relatively non-intimidating. Why go after rifles that are seldom used to commit crimes while ignoring the one which is used the most?

you make many great points, but I have to ask: what are the positives of you or any non-military citizen owning an assault weapon? Just because they aren't used in crimes doesn't make them a positive thing, does it? Can you outline for me the positives to Joe Blow owning such weapons?

That's a decent argument. But a person who has flown in space would be more credible regarding NASA than your average lay person.

2008 Mumbai attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Los Angeles riots of 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you wanted the rioters to have assault weapons or the cops? or both?

you asked for positives to the average citizen owning 'assault' rifles, I gave you some, unless in your mind the average citizen is nothing but a criminal in waiting.

In an instance where the mumbai attacks could be the dallas attacks, I'd want a machine gun to fight back and force the terrorists to consider that they will die quickly.

In the north hollywood shootout, citizens having assault rifles could have stopped the mayhem from those two assholes alot faster than how it went down.

During the LA riots, the rioters would have been alot less damaging with the average citizens ability to defend their property and themselves with assault weapons, in fact, this was proven in media and tv reports.

These are just a few incidents where the bad guys already had them and it would have been better if joe q. citizen had equal firepower.