to be armed, or not to be armed.

[Lex Talionis]

Ok here goes. Having only been here for the last few months and being very surprised that I have a lot in common with some of the citizens on DU. I would like to have a REAL intelligent discussion with all the Free thinkers, Critical thinkers, Philosophers, Anarchist, Socialist, Historians, Professors, Lawyers, Anti-gun nuts, Pro gun nuts, North, South, East, West, all religions, all non religious, and anybody else I may have left out. Someone, more enlightened than me, once said, and this is not a quote so I may have the wording wrong, but the meaning is the same.

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject". Is there any truth to this? Feel free to use historic and present day conditions to make your point, or your counter point. You don't have to use links, cause I'm not, but can if you want to.

This is not a pro gun diatribe, as being armed can mean any personal weapon ever made by man. This also has got nothing to do with me owning a Nuke. I'm talking about an individual right to be armed under any type of Government. Again only the serious need post. I was shocked by a lot of denizens here, who on the one hand think that the Government is building concentration camps for them and any day they are coming for them, but then think a rational human being should also trust the same Government to protect them and give up any means that may convince said Government to cooperate. Me first.

I believe truer words were never spoken. That also, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", said by another wise person. History has proven time and time again that unarmed people under a cruel,tyrannical government suffer terribly. That governments who disarm their citizens almost always invariably turn into a dictatorship, or at the very least a corrupt entity. That to really be free and live in a free society,Men and Women, must be willing, able, and have the capability to stand against their Government without fear of being jailed or persecuted. That the Government should at the end of the day fear the people and not the people fear the Government.

Have at it y'all, play nice and don't be ugly to each other.

[thunder rising]

1. "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject" ... 'nuff said!

[onehandle]

4. Heinlein's folly. nt

[jody]

2. IMO your question is better suited for DU's Guns forum n/t

[lazer47]

6. The question is real good, right where it is,,,

[Tejas]

11. Yes, since most fear to tread in the Gungeon anyway n/t

[jody]

16. I see our opinions differ and that's OK. n/t

[zanne]

239. I agree. Where are the moderators?

[villager]

3. for those of us in urban areas, the questions is: how many guns are enough?

how armed is "armed?" What interest does society have in common-sense limits to the kind of garrison you or your neighbor can amass, etc., etc...

These are serious questions, and they don't have all-or-nothing answers...

[Tejas]

13. Fast cars have no place in urban areas

unless they're Police cars.

"Why do you need a car that fast?"

[villager]

24. you mean, like speed limits? Yes, they have their place. Good point.

n/t

[Recursion]

25. No, he means car control

Why do you need a fast car? Don't you know how many people are killed by fast cars? Shouldn't we ban cars with things like spoilers and chrome rims?

[Tejas]

31. Correct. All that bling etc just makes

one want to drive aggressively and wrecklessly. Got a spoiler? Let's see if it works at 110mph down Main Sreet!

Want flashy wheels? Sure, why not, what better way to advertise your personal wealth!



Ban cars like that and you'd erase car-jackings and accidents from the face of the earth, think of the countless lives saved! Really, for the children!


:sarcasm:

[villager]

67. actually, there are far more restrictions on cars, in most states, than guns

you have to be licensed, have insurance, etc.

But again, I'm sure the gun strokers will have none of it.

[Recursion]

116. Nope. You only need a license, registration, and insurance to drive on public roads

I can drive an unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured car on my own property to my heart's content, with no background check or waiting period. Guns are much more restricted than that.

A driver's license is something like a concealed-carry permit. The state lets you (drive / carry a concealed weapon) in public places after verifying you can be trusted with that responsibility. In this case, the concealed-carry vetting process seems to work a lot better than the driver vetting process.

[villager]

130. then keep your guns on your property! And leave home without 'em!

and we'll be fine.

[Recursion]

134. I don't have a concealed carry permit, so that's what I do

I wasn't aware that concealed/open carry was being discussed here; I thought this was just about having guns.

[villager]

137. great! And if someone steps off their property, they can be subject to the same laws

and restrictions car owners and drivers are subject to, right?

[Recursion]

148. Yes, that is how the law stands now

Do you really not know that?

[villager]

230. Tell me if Alabama's car ownership/liability laws are as lax as this:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=al

to use but one statewide example.

[Recursion]

273. Yes, the restrictions on guns (again) are stronger than those on cars

What part of that is escaping your grasp?

[EricTeri]

245. I WISH

we were subject only to the same restrictions car owners and drivers are subject to!

I'd LOVE to only have those restrictions.

Lets see - one license, obtained when i was 16, after receiving state-funded education to ensure I could pass the test. This license allows me to drive any car i want, regardless of capabilities, on ANY public road ANYWHERE in the world. It allows me further to drive from anywhere to anywhere the roads may go. I can rent different vehicles for a nominal fee if I am away from my home vehicle. If i lose that license, i merely have to let the state know i lost it and they send me a new one. If i break minor laws, i pay a fine and it is forgotten about.

Want me to go on and make you look REALLY foolish, or would you rather take this as one more object lesson that you should take the time to learn a few things?

[zanne]

240. There are more regulations on teddy bear safety...

Than there are on gun safety.

[EricTeri]

246. You can keep saying that...

but it doesn't make it any more true. The claim that there are more regulations on teddy bear safety than guns is blatantly and provably false.

[krispos42]

277. Well, gun's don't have parts that a baby pull off and can choke on...

And they aren't readily flammable, don't tear apart easy, and aren't filled with stuffing. They do not contain wires or batteries.

They do contain lead inside them, though. I suppose that's something to worry about.

[villager]

63. I shoulda figured gun folk are also for driving 70 miles per hour by schools

"You can't limit my freedom! Watch out kid!"

[Dimensio0]

78. I have seen no one voice such a sentiment.

I believe that you have misunderstood the statements of others. There is no logical means to arrive at the conclusion that you have stated.

[villager]

132. the gunners refuse to acknowledge any collective need for safety

i.e., speed limits, etc. or to make the obvious analogy that the same collective need pertains to limiting the type of weaponry on our streets.

They think only -- only -- of themselves. Ask them why traffic laws are reasonable, but gun laws aren't, and they start gibbering and yowling but never -- and I stress never -- directly addressing the question.

And no, a right to possess an arm doesn't mean the constitution says anyone can have any weapon, anywhere, at any time. So don't even try that tired-ass argument.

[Dimensio0]

139. Please justify your assertion.

You are making blanket assertions about all gun owners. Please justify them.

[awoke_in_2003]

177. As someone already stated

you are making blanket accusations. I own several guns- a .45 for home defense, a bolt action .270 for deer season, and a shotgun for dove and pheasant hunting. I believe in the right to own guns, but I do think there are limits. If the gov't says I can't own fully automatic assualt rifles and armor piercing bullets, I have no problem with that. If the gov't wants to do a background check on me, feel free. But in the middle of the night, if some asshole breaks into my house, I at least have enough rights to protect my family. I would never use deadly force to protect property (it can be replaced). But, to protect my wife and boy, I don't even have to think twice.

[BoneDaddy]

207. Dont confuse the two issues

There are gun nuts who are for no regulation but there are some "arms-supporters" such as myself and the vast majority of gun owners who see no problem with regulations, restrictions and the denial of permits to people who have a maladaptive history.

Just as there are some people who think there should not be speed limits or limitations on seat belt laws, most people understand and call for some sort of balance to these personal/collective issues. I tend to find either extreme pathetic.

[EricTeri]

248. Nobody is saying there should be no laws against misuse

In fact, you'll find that gun owners are some of the strongest voices calling for increased penalties for MISUSE of weapons.

Incidentally, you've got it backwards. The Constitution doesnt say anyone can have any weapon...etc. It doesnt have to. The Constitution is a limitation on GOVERNMENT, not upon the people.

So, what you should really be looking for is the part which grants government the authority to restrict ownership to anyone at any time in any place.

[benEzra]

268. Dammit, how much gun control do we have to support

before you drop the "gun owners don't support ANY restrictions on gun ownership" BS?

Most of us here (including me) support the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the NICS background check system, the 1986 restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition, the ban on X-ray-transparent firearms, are OK with requiring a license in order to carry a concealed firearm in public, strict requirements for the use of force in self-defense, etc. etc. etc.

The only thing most of us are opposing here is FURTHER restrictions on the right of MENTALLY COMPETENT ADULTS with CLEAN RECORDS to lawfully and responsibly own NON-AUTOMATIC, NON-SOUND SUPPRESSED CIVILIAN FIREARMS UNDER .51 CALIBER that MEET THE BARREL LENGTH AND OVERALL LENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

I'm not arguing for no restrictions. I'm saying that further restrictions on lawful and responsible ownership of non-automatic civilian small arms are unreasonable, wrongheaded, and would do nothing to reduce illegal gun misuse.

Just because we don't support extreme restrictions (rifle handgrip bans, pre-1861 capacity restrictions, handgun bans, whatever) doesn't mean we oppose all restrictions, including those that are already law.

[krispos42]

279. Good'un

:thumbsup:

[krispos42]

278. Ummm... we do. Hence concealed-carry laws.

Permits, background checks, safety classes, handgun handling classes, state law on self-defense classes.

Now Vermont and Alaska choose to not require a permit to carry concealed, but 46 other states have some sort of process.

However, the problem of murder and other crimes with guns rests almost exclusively on the career criminal. Not people like me and you. (I assume you're not a career criminal :-) )

[Recursion]

122. What's funny is that you completely miss the distinction I'm making

The way to mitigate the danger of fast driving is by having speed limits. This is a good idea.

What would be stupid would be trying to solve it by banning cars that have spoilers and chrome wheels. This is the equivalent of gun control.

[villager]

138. so we agree there are reasonable restrictions a society can make

for its collective safety. Yes?

(Which is the point I am making, that you are missing...)

[Recursion]

147. Of course we do

Which is why I support speed limits, the 1934 National Firearms Act which (for practical purposes) prevents civilians from owning automatic weapons, and states' abilities to regulate open- and concealed-carry. I also support the national instant check system which allows and requires gun dealers to make background checks when they sell firearms.

Furthermore, I support fixing the mental health disclosure FUBAR's that have been shown of late to be a weak point in the system.

What you don't seem to get is that I'm like about 95% of gun owners in that. There is no significant opposition to NICS, or the NFA.

[villager]

160. all right, it's a start.

I probably have a longer list of "weapons only built for mayhem" that don't need to be vended, let alone manufactured, than you do.

And I really don't think we all need to walk around strapped (i.e., with "concealed" weapons)

But I'm glad to find at least some reasonableness on your part. I will be blunt: It seems not to be the rule, among the gun crowd.

[Recursion]

162. Thanks, but one thought

probably have a longer list of "weapons only built for mayhem" that don't need to be vended, let alone manufactured, than you do.

By all means, tell me what they are. I like talking about this kind of thing.

Frankly, if you're like most gun-control-proponents I know, you'll be surprised to find out they are already banned.

[villager]

226. for example, here's a list for Missouri. I would change the "no's" to "yes's"

http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=MO


But I suspect you would keep them all "no's"... yes?

[Recursion]

269. In your mind, what is an "assault weapon"

Honestly, if you want to ban them I can only conclude you don't know what that phrase means.

[krispos42]

218. Where have you been???

The argument has *never* been that gun can't be regulated!

What you think is "reasonable" and what I think is "reasonable" may differ, but nobody has argued that all regulation is unconstitional. Or stupid.

What has to be done is start from the position of absolute freedom (anybody, any gun, anytime, anywhere) and carefully work our way down the path towards absolute restriction (nobody, no gun, no when, nowhere) until we get to a point where the restrictions are Constitional, minimally burdensom to the legitimate owners of them, and effective against illegitmate owners of them.

[villager]

225. well, again, it's a framework for discussion. I'm glad for it.

I think we also need to realize that what might "work" in a rural area, wouldn't necessarily "work" in an urban area -- again, like speed limits. So regional/local variances be necessary, and left to local citizenry, as well...

[krispos42]

267. I don't buy the "urban vs. rural" argument

Yeah, in rural areas you are more likely to use a gun as a non-life-defending hunting tool. And it's typically easier to go out shooting.

But when you're talking about personal defense the situations are basically the same. Either you're in your car, on the street, or in your home. If you're home, you probably want a long gun like a shotgun or semiautomatic rifle, if you're out and about you want a pistol.

The person or persons attacking you probaby have a weapon, maybe even a gun of their own, almost certainly in violation of the law.

The difference is that you're twice as likely to be attacked in an urban area as suburban or rural. It's still a fairly remote possibility, though.

[ldf]

144. quite frankly, i don't think anyone cares about the macho crap

because it IS just that (even if you DON'T have a penis... but you just WANT one of your own, really bad .. :-) believe me, it is not all its cracked up to be...)

if the absolute maximum speed limit is 70, then why does a car need to go 120? 80 should give you the speed to pass on the interstate. think about all the extra costs that are built in, both in the manufacturing of those penis enhancers, AND gas consumption required for displaying your penis enhancer.

bottom line, the higher the rate of speed, the more deadly the crash.

is that so hard to understand? and no one gives a squat about your precious penis, be it real, or virtual.

yeah, yeah, yeah, you just want to exercise your FREEDOM to stoke your penis at 50 mph over the absolute maximum speed limit.

nevermind. i forgot that (as i was reminded on another thread) EVERYONE goes to private tracks EVERY weekend to stroke around in circles at 120. and i am an idiot.

pardon me, but i am apparently STILL a complete (idiotic) ass.

:eyes:

forgot to mention, guns may protect us from other humans, but we REALLY need them to protect US from our GOVERNMENT. the last seven years should convince anyone of that.

[villager]

161. it's rare to have a pro-gun post talk about penis metaphors/extenders

But hey, I always like surprises!

(I don't think letting weapons flow through cities, btw, will necessarily protect us from our government, either...)

[krispos42]

214. No no no, because obviously it's been proven that...

everyday, common people can't be trusted with the lure of horsepower.

What we need, obviously is sensible, reasonable restrictions on car engines. You can have any size car you want, but it's limited to 4 cylinders and 80 horsepower. Who needs more than that? Even a 55-horsepower Geo Metro LSi can achieve highway cruising speeds! I think 80hp is more than sufficient.

And it can't have any features that increases handling, or even looks like it does! We need a mix-and-match list of features.

Your car can have an automatic transmission and TWO of the following, or a manual transmission and ONE of the following:

• Rim sizes greater than 14"
  
• Protruding conspicous rear spoiler
  
• Front air dam
  
• Tinted rear windows (excluding windshield)
  
• Driving lights

And we'll have an exhaustive registration system for people that can prove they "need" more than 80hp.



Of course urban and rural areas are different, so let's leave it up to local laws.

[Mugu]

167. No matter the number of weapons that a person owns, they can only shoot one at a time. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

193. oh really?

it seems someone forgot to tell clive owen about that...

[TahitiNut]

5. I prefer to be armed with an education, facts, a conscience, and ...

... a pump shotgun with a folding stock. :patriot:

[Mugu]

166. Hear, hear.

My order might be slightly different, but we're on the same page.

Regards, Mugu

[awoke_in_2003]

179. Interesting quote from Franklin-

"Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is one well armed sheep contesting the vote"

[AlienGirl]

7. Guns are no protection against the government; they have you outgunned

I am loosely pro-gun for numerous other reasons (it's in the Bill of Rights, it provides a way of stopping another civilian from killing you first, in case of a famine you can shoot and eat wildlife) but I don't have any illusion that anything I could obtain would protect me against the kind of weaponry the government already possesses. Especially since, in the event of catastrophe, the government's most powerful weapon will be the ability to convince my fellow-citizens to turn me in.

Instead of guns, my protection against tyranny is a very nervous disposition and a plan for getting to somewhere safe.

Tucker

[lazer47]

10. For all the big time weaponery that the Gov. has, it didn't

prove out to well aganist a backward nation like Vietnam.

[Tejas]

15. .....or Iraq either n/t

[LanternWaste]

205. However, it did seem to do some good at

However, it did seem to do some good at Little Rock, Arkansas Central High School.


The incorrect application of might does not necessarily imply that the weapons themselves are deficient or lacking-- merely that the strategy being used is inefficient or poor.

[Recursion]

22. Right, that's why Iraq was a cakewalk

Do you guys even think about this stuff before you post it?

[AlienGirl]

28. ...And what "guys" would that be? Please tell me where you have me pigenholed.

[Recursion]

30. Sorry, I literally meant "people who make that specific argument"

And I should have been more clear about that, sorry.

I take this kind of personally as an Iraq vet, because it gives me the impression that nobody actually notices the shit that happened to us over there.

[lazer47]

33. Welcome home brother,, you just joined the 6 million other vets

that "nobody actually paid attention to",, sad I know,, but it is the truth

[Recursion]

47. Ain't it the truth, brother?

My dad is a Vietnam vet, so he was at least able to prepare me a little, though obviously nothing prepares you for actually seeing it.

[AlienGirl]

37. I know what happened in Iraq; but do you really think a citizen's shotgun is going to stop tyranny?

In general, an individual's private arsenal is not going to win against the armory of the government--at least not without some good strategy and tactics, and true desperation. By the time we get around to firing our pump-action shotguns against the gestapo, we have already lost.

Tucker

[lazer47]

42. I am glad you weren't there to encourage the Minute Men when

they fought the British with their private arsenal

[AlienGirl]

45. What about Waco? That private arsenal sure worked, eh?

[lazer47]

48. Fortified positions are a testament to mans stupidity,,,

[Recursion]

75. Waco was a religious compound mosty full of women and children

I think Fallujah is a better example than Waco

[everythingsxen]

86. Which got... anyone...anyone...

oh yeah airstriked with white phosphorous until it was toast. Private civilian armory 0 - US Military 1

[awoke_in_2003]

181. "US Military 1"

The US military will not be the ones called out to fire on us. Just will not happen. That is why groups like Blackwater are getting so much money- those goddam mercenaries will kill whomever the check holders tell them to.

[Tejas]

115. Yes, and it wasn't

actually the US Military but an out-of-control section of the US Treasury.

Imagine that.

[EricTeri]

249. In reality, it DID work...

50 men women and children held off the entire US government for 6 weeks, and ultimately only lost the battle because the government took a scorched earth policy.

[Recursion]

51. Again, Iraq stands as an empirical counter-argument

In general, an individual's private arsenal is not going to win against the armory of the government

Funny, that seems to be exactly what happened to us.

[AlienGirl]

52. And Waco stands to refute it.

[lazer47]

56. You seem to miss the point,,The people at Waco WON ,,,winning

doesn't always mean that you live,,, it can also mean you died for what you believed in, and you don't live to see the outcome of your resistance

[AlienGirl]

60. That's a strange definition of "winning".

[lazer47]

65. "For those who have never fought for it, Freedom hold a price the

protected will never know or understand",,,,,,,,,Peace to you..EOM

[everythingsxen]

68. Uh, the people at Waco...

were defending David Koresh's right to have sex with minors and run a cult.

The arsenals of the US are too vast for "just owning some guns" to make a difference. The minutemen could, because guns sucked back then. Try telling that to the sniper with rifle a mile away with a bead on your head.

[Recursion]

107. Ah, you know that because the media says so?

That story is not remotely as the media wanted us to think it was

[spoony]

196. Upon doing actual research, I was horrified

by what happened in Waco. Those people were taunted, tortured, and murdered. I mean, shit, what kind of government opens up suppressive fire on the only exit of a burning building? I wish the people here who think all that carnage was justified would base it on more than, like you said, because the MSM told them so.

[EricTeri]

251. No they werent.

For starters, one has a right to run a cult if one wishes. Freedom of religion and all that.

The sex with minors thing is pure bullshit.

NEITHER issue explains why the federal government was even involved as both of those examples would be purely local issues - and the local constabulary had no issue with them.

Go learn something. Stupidity pisses me off.

[AlienGirl]

69. That has nothing to do with the original question, and you know it.

The original question was whether a citizen's armaments would be effective for defense against the US government gone berserk. Without providing any exapmples of occasions in which well-armed civilians have successfully defeated their own tyrannical government, you have tried to drag it into an argument about whether an honorable death is worth more than a miserable life. This is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether armed US citizens could defeat the US government, and you know it.

Tucker

[Tejas]

80. Has everything in the

world to do with answering post #56 (yours).

Calm down and read what the poster meant, you'll see.

[Greyhound]

164. The battle of Thermopylae is a perfect example.

They lost, but cost the enemy so much the war was won, and we are still talking, writing, and making films about it 2,500 years later. That is a victory by any definition.

[Recursion]

114. I didn't say an insurgency will *always* win

I said it was possible, and the case of Iraq is proof it is possible.

Next?

[krispos42]

280. Any kind of serious uprising by the American people...

...would start out as an guerilla force. Insurgents, partisans, whatever term you want to use.

In the Civil War large segments of the Army packed up and left for their homes in the South, including many officers. With the various state militias already up and running, there was an instant army ready to rebel.

If it were to happen today, it would be like the Viet Cong. Moving unnoticed among the civilian population, emerging from cover to strike, to steal, to destroy, to kidnap, to assassinate, then fading back into the crowd. Eventally things would get more organized. Military units would switch sides, rival aircraft fighting in the sky, etc. Eventually the guerilla force would become a regular army... or be stomped out.

In either case, the destruction and death would be immense. Not something I want to see in my lifetime.

[Greyhound]

163. Tell that to the North Vietnamese or to the Iraqis. Better yet study some history.

In every case the dominant and overwhelming invading force is defeated by the inevitable insurgents except where the invaders win over the general population.

It's very simple, the invaders have more powerful weapons that require more maintenance, more ammunition, long supply lines, and limited time (the folks back home can't/won't fund the army indefinitely). Meanwhile, all the insurgency has to do is not surrender. The longer the conflict lasts, the weaker the invaders become and the stronger the insurgency gets.

The Romans totally understood this and that is the primary reason they were so successful for so long. When they conquered a land, they made life better for the average people with roads, sanitation, education, etc., so the petty tyrants that were in charge were not missed. The Pax Romana was very real and very effective.

The idea that we have no chance against the government because they have air superiority and really cool space-age weapons systems is just so much bullshit that is meant to scare you into submitting without a fight. So go ahead and run off to your hidey hole and hope nobody finds you, the American patriots will, once again, save your sorry ass.

[SecularNATION]

165. Exactly

"So go ahead and run off to your hidey hole and hope nobody finds you, the American patriots will, once again, save your sorry ass."

These 'fascist hunters' on DU won't even hide. They'll just give in, sit at home, and bitch. Hell, some of these talkers will rat out the real fascist hunters. They'll say "Mr. Blackwater, my neighbor didn't turn in his gun!"

[Greyhound]

168. I'm afraid you are right in that. I am dismayed by the number of craven little shits that

hang out here. I expect to find an abundance of pencil dicked chicken hawks and fascists on the republik boards, but most liberals I've known are real patriots who know, or at least can imagine, what war is and and are therefore opposed to it, but who also understand that slavery is worse.

Surprise!

Peace.

[AlienGirl]

171. Are you calling me a "craven shit"? Have you not read what I wrote?

[Greyhound]

173. My comment was an observation in reply to SecularNATION.

My reply to you was that you are wrong and that the small arms equipped insurgency always wins against the technologically superior invaders unless the invaders win over the population.

Only you know the answer to the question of whether or not you are craven.

[AlienGirl]

174. The Warsaw resistance fighters did not win.

[Greyhound]

175. Are you telling me that Germany still controls Poland?

Or is it the Russians? The Indians took 400 years to rid themselves of the British.

The home team wins because it is the home team and there is no time limit. We lost 60,000 and killed an estimated 4,000,000 Vietnamese, we still lost because they would not stop. How many major engagements did George Washington win?

[LanternWaste]

232. The point is valid. The Warsaw insurgents did not in fact win.

The point is valid. The Warsaw insurgents did not in fact win. As a matter of fact, it was a bloodbath. However, the Soviet military did occupy Warsaw a later date after they themselves defeated Germany.


"The home team wins because it is the home team and there is no time limit"

So American Indians have a military advantage over the American military?

[Greyhound]

261. You can always change the original point and claim victory, that's what the republiks

are so adept at. The problem is that nothing is ever established and no points are validated.

The Polish insurgency, like the French, never was never eliminated, the Allies won the war first, and it's always a bloodbath for the weaker side initially. 1,100,000 NVA/VC vs. 250,000 ARVN and 60,000 Americans not to mention the 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 civilian deaths, who rules now?

You also assume that the Native American struggle is over. It took the Indians 400 years to rid themselves of the British and they changed tactics as well.

[WildEyedLiberal]

241. So it was pointless for them to fight back at all?

Yes, I guess they should've just sat around and waited for the Nazis to load them onto the cattle cars.

What the hell are you even trying to say? That fighting against a tyrannical power is always pointless - and when confronted with several examples to the contrary, you come up with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? Do you think they'd have preferred to die in the camps?

For God's sake.

[Greyhound]

262. Good point. n/t

[AlienGirl]

172. "Once again"? Listen, honey, the "American patriots" didn't do much when the SS St. Louis asked

I know better than to trust that the populace of a government that's gone fascist will revolt successfully.

Tucker

[Greyhound]

176. You are quite right about that, but that is an entirely different situation.

Believe me, I am no fan of the conduct of the American government in it's entire history and it's citizens are only a marginal improvement, but your original position assumed an armed revolt and posited that it was doomed to failure because the military is much better armed and trained. That is what I dispute.

[awoke_in_2003]

182. From the life of brian

"what have the Romans ever done for us?"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

[Greyhound]

264. Great scene and cuts right to the heart of my point. Thanks. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

8. No. But if I lived in the country, I'd have a rifle. Damned straight. nt

[CTyankee]

9. Don't want to be ugly, but, my family member's death was pretty ugly.

All she did was be present when another family member got drunk and angry and shot her with his legally possessed gun!

Progunners don't want to hear it, but let me tell you, she didn't fear the government. She didn't have to. The guy with his "constitutional right" to a gun killed her.

You want ugly. That was ugly. Don't even THINK about telling me about ugly.

[Critters2]

215. Sadly, your lost family member, and your suriving family

is less important than the OP's guns. We live in a fallen world. :cry:

[EricTeri]

243. Not to sound mean but...

yes, my rights are FAR more important the the death of one person through the criminal actions of another. Sorry you are unable to deal with that.

[EricTeri]

242. My sympathies about your family member

Why blame the gun though? As you pointed out, the man who killed her was drunk. Why not blame alcohol?

Bluntly put - the only thing which deserves blame for her death is the person who shot her. Not the gun, not alcohol, not other gun owners - just the man who pulled the trigger.

If you want to get irrational and mean, and continue in life trying to blame others and objects for your loss, that is your choice. If you want to come to terms with your loss and grow from it, accept the facts as they are and stop blaming things which had nothing to do with it.

[MadMaddie]

12. I have no issue with citizens owning reasonable guns such

as a shotgun or handgun. However; I draw the line at uzi's and other weapsons specifically designed for war. These weapons have no place in American society.

The most important issue is "Mental Health", isn't it? Should individuals with mental health issues be allowed to own weapons? The latest University murders were committed by a man diagnosed with Mental illness. These type of killers should never possess a weapon. Of course if they don't get it legally they can get it illegally - and round and round it goes.

I am not saying individuals who do not have mental illness will not kill, however; these people will usually think and process their anger before committing a heinous crime.

[AlienGirl]

17. One infive Americans has, or has had, depression

That's a lot of people with "mental health issues."

Tucker

[MadMaddie]

27. This is true...not all of them own weapons and not all of them

want to commit mass murder.

We don't address mental health like we should in this country. By itself mental health is a serious problem but when you combine with a gun you have recipe for disaster.

I don't have an answer but to address a problem we have to acknowledge it.

[Tejas]

117. I agree on

the mental health issue, but also wonder why in the world people don't want to work for an honest living. Don't they want something more out've life besides watching Ghost Wisperer on a stolen TV?

[AlienGirl]

120. What kind of bizarre tangent is that? Please clarify, are you saying mentally ill are lazy?

[Tejas]

143. Try harder

to focus instead of chasing around like a troll. Might be a newsflash for you so sit down......mental illness is not the only cause of crime in this country. Hence the post I made.

That said, any comment on lazy criminals or just more babble?

[AlienGirl]

152. Try harder not to chase the troll around? I like playing with them. Like cat toys.

Any explanation about the purpose of the post you made? Or was it just a chance to mention "Ghost Whisperer" in public to gain cred with the president of the fan-club?

Tucker

[Tejas]

186. "criminals = lazy" is not rocket science - As MM's ankle-biter, even you

should comprehend but, if you still don't understand then maybe someone else here can explain.

[Tejas]

18. so, you would ban 9mm pistols?

A semi-auto UZI can be fired no faster than a typical 9mm handgun, which is exactly what an UZI is.....but you knew that.

Are you fearful of UZI's because they LOOK SCARY?
How do you feel about semi-auto AKM's?



Know your subject before knee-jerk line-drawing ;)

[MadMaddie]

36. I was in the military and I am a former police officer I know about

weapons. I am not afraid of weapons.

My preference - Glocks.

You said you wanted to have a conversation, attacking me isn't a conversation.

I pose the question to you then how do you cut the gun related deaths in this country?

How do you stop the mass murders at the Universities? Until mental health issues in America are addressed we will continue to have these incidents.

Until the Government and states make a real effort to get illegal weapons off of the streets we will continue to have dead bodies littering the streets.

[Tejas]

46. Nice attempt at a tangent

there, but you stated where YOU drew the line on what firearms law-abiding citizens should be ALLOWED to possess. I took you up on it.

Would you advocate LEO/MIL only being equipped with shotguns/handguns? Of course you wouldn't, then why limit citizens to "certain" weapons?

[MadMaddie]

55. The MIL must weapons for war..I support our military and

want them to have the most advanced "Military" weapons available.The LEO must have appropriate weapons to combat the military weapons on the streets.

The streets of American are not war zones, I do not want a war on our streets because of the abundance of military weapons on the streets. It's the innocents that always get killed.

You didn't answer my question how do you stop the gun violence in America?

[Tejas]

70. The obvious goes without

saying, I understand the MIL/LEO needs them, not arguing that but simply showing how you endorse citizens being totally helpless against an all-powerful .gov

I cannot and will not agree with that. As a law-abiding citizen I refuse to be treated like I can't be trusted to do anything more than voting.


As to your gun-violence question, it goes back to what is the problem. It's not the guns, it's the criminals. Sort've like trying to get it through GWB (and other's) heads, it's not about universal health care, it's not about the environment, it's the economy.

Criminals want to commit crimes instead of earn a living, lock 'em up. Yes, it's the criminals, not the guns (or the knives or the bats or the ice picks).

It's not me and my collection of AKM's, it's the societal structure and failed programs that are broken. You aren't broken, I'm not either, I would prefer the do-gooders go "fix" the badguys.

[Recursion]

125. Is there an epidemic of crimes using automatic weapons I don't know about?

Seriously, you're making it sound like criminals are packing automatic weapons; the stats I've seen say that's nearly unheard of.

[Tejas]

146. You know, you would almost

think that a lot of the disinformation in GD comes straight from Chief Timoney himself. No wonder so much misinformed hash and trash gets thrown about when it comes to the facts about guns.

Me, I'm still waiting for an opportunity to make a few antis in this thread scream by bringing up how popular (and legal) NFA items are.

LOL!

[depakid]

184. All you need to do is run a SIMPLE google news search

to disprove your assertion.

Try "AK 47" or "assualt weapnn."

[Recursion]

208. Assault weapons are not automatic

The problem is, you think they are. You think (because the media has told you) that "assault weapons" are automatic. They aren't. Period.

Every article I've seen that mentioned an "AK-47" turned out to be describing a semi-automatic assault weapon, not an AK-47.

You were saying?

[benEzra]

271. Rifles aren't a crime problem in this country and never have been.

Rifles rank dead last in the FBI murder statistics, not only behind blunt objects, knives, and shotguns, but even behind shoes and bare hands.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

And that's for all rifles combined, not just small-caliber rifles with modern styling.

BTW, if by "weapons of war" you mean military infantry rifles like M16's or actual AK-47's, possession of those outside police/military duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is already a 10-year Federal felony, and has been for 74 years now.

[sendero]

77. You stop them the same way..

.. you stop octagenerians from losing control of their car parking. You stop them the same way you stop idiots on cellphones who can barely drive when they are not. You stop them the same way you stop industrial and farm accidents that maim and kill. You stop them the same way you drive bys.

You don't. Not every thing you dislike can be stopped.

The government can no more get weapons off the streets than they can get drugs off the streets. Billions of dollars and zero tolerance and NOTHING HAS CHANGED and it's not going to because PEOPLE WANT DRUGS and THEY WANT GUNS and for every demander there will be a supplier. Period.

[Irreverend IX]

170. Handguns?

Handguns are used in the lion's share of gun murders, more than 60% of all US homicides, while "weapons designed for war" are used in less than 3% of homicides. Also, real Uzis that fire fully-automatic are almost impossible for US citizens to acquire; only semiautomatic lookalikes of fully-automatic military weapons are available. Why would you want to ban military-style rifles when they're used in a tiny fraction of homicides?

[Mugu]

185. I have rewritten this post numerous times in an attempt to minimize details.

But, the fact of the matter is that the only defense to school/university murderers is to deprive them of their motivation.

Keep giving them what they want (worldwide notoriety) and the awful day will come when the murderers figure out that their goals can be archived in a more efficient and less expensive manner than with firearms. I can think of several methods and I'm no Einstein, but some of these guys are.

Neutralize them or get them off the street and out of our classrooms, else suffer their rage.

Regards, Mugu

Edit:To add university.

[EricTeri]

244. Well if you only have a problem with...

...weapons specifically designed for war, then you shouldn't mind at all if I have a Thompson submachinegun or a Barret .50 caliber rifle.

After all, both of THOSE were specifically designed for non-military use.

[beevul]

274. FYI...

"However; I draw the line at uzi's and other weapsons specifically designed for war. These weapons have no place in American society."


Uzis and most weapons designed specifically for war are tightly controlled by the NFA ofg 1934.


One can not just go to a gun store, get a quick background check, and take one home.

[Bright Eyes]

14. The problem of course is;

Unless you have your own personal Air Force, tank division, fleet etc, you're not going to be able to fight the government.

The spirit of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies today. It was written at a time where federal soldiers would have been armed very similarly to the State Militia. The state militias were supposed to be a counter to the federal government's army.

There is a serious disparity today between civilian and military arms. A militia can never hope to keep up with the Army, because of the immense costs.

*excuse any typos I may have missed, as I'm not feeling well*

[fireonthemountain]

19. you should read posts 10 and 15

[lazer47]

20. You need to re-read history,, tell that to Castro's rebels, or

the Filipinos in WWII or the Viet Minh, or the Sandinistas, or the original Minute Men,,, you might decide that you don't know what your talking about.

[fireonthemountain]

23. and Iraq or Vietnam?

My point is it's that it's possible.

In a popular enough rebellion they would stand no chance.

[lazer47]

26. 10 Men fighting for their freedom are worth more than a hundred

Black Water Wannabes

[AlienGirl]

41. That pre-supposes the rebellion is popular...

[Tejas]

39. You assume a common fallacy that

those in the military of this great country would fire on it's own sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers.......

You might want to rethink your logic.

[AlienGirl]

44. Didn't they, in the Civil War? Do you think we are somehow innately superior to Germany?

The German military eventually fired on their neighbors, their in-laws, their brothers...and that was in what had been the most progressive, educated country in the world. With proper training using the most effective emotional hooks, anyone can be made to fire upon anyone else.

Tucker

[Tejas]

54. You're grasping for straws now and apparently

know nothing about the pre-war Germany that led to Nazi Germany. Also, for you to compare the US Military vs the American family structure to an entirely different culture of 70 years ago (in another country at that) is beyond my comprehension.

[AlienGirl]

59. Your contention was that soldiers would not fire upon fellow-citizens. I have provided counterexampl

So, tell me, what about the "pre-war Germany" is so utterly alien to our current situation that our populace could never be manipulated into a similar situation? This is your assertion, please back it up with something other than an argument to incredulity.

Tucker

[Tejas]

72. You've provided

nothing.


Nothing but some thought out of your mind that this country is in a parralel universe to 20th century Germany. I can't help you.

Incredulity? I studied history somewhat extensively and still do. Please read up on 20th century European affairs before drawing conclusions out of thin air.

[AlienGirl]

81. Tell me, what is so incredibly different between people in Weimar Germany and people in 2008 USA?

Do you really think a Goebbels could not motivate Americans to tyrannize Americans? What do you base this on?

Tucker

[Lex Talionis]

90. The Internet is the difference. Technology.

You can be sitting in a hotel room somewhere and reach out and communicate across the world. I have learned more from the internet in the last 13 years than, I did the first 37. The internet is a powerful tool. a powerful weapon, would you give it up?

[Tejas]

91. for starters: culture and laws

No country in the world has or has ever had a Constitution such as ours, including Germany. Hindenburg et al could never exist here, much less the SS.

[AlienGirl]

92. So why bother arming against tyranny? It obviously can't happen here, right?

[AlienGirl]

102. What about oyur culture and laws makes us immune to tyranny? Please enlighten me,

[Tejas]

108. Didn't read the post huh?

Did Germany (or any other country for that matter) have a Constitution similar to ours?


What part of that do you not understand?

[BeHereNow]

53. Sorry pal, that theory has been proved wrong.

I'm sure some kind DUer has the link somewhere, but until they
paste it, rest assured when I tell you the following:
In the early nineties, a survey was given to marines stationed
in SoCal- I think it was SoCal anyway. The question was asked,
"Could you , would you , be willing to fire upon fellow
Americans in the interest of preserving national security, blah..blah...blah."
The majority said yes.

Hell, they are even encouraging business owners to
fire on citizens with the Infragard program in the event
of a civilian uprising.

Why?
Because they know with global climate change- economic collapse
and who knows what else, the scenario is MORE than likely.

BHN

[Tejas]

57. Sorry pal, pulling jokes out of your

won't get it here. Feel free to offer up something besides "some kind DUer has the link somewhere" or "In the early nineties" or "The majority said" or the old standby "Because".

Links to current facts of any kind will do just fine. Otherwise, go blow your rhetoric outside.

[BeHereNow]

71. It's not a joke.

I'm dealing with a friend who is dealing with a dying parent.
Go look the story up yourself and stop being an ass.
BHN

[Tejas]

You make numerous baseless claims and

then accuse someone of being an ass for calling you on them? Sorry bud, that's how this stuff works.

That said, if you come up with links or quotes to back anything up then feel free to do just that.

[BeHereNow]

79. I'm not a "bud," and you being too lazy to research it for yourself DOES make you and ass.

There are plenty of threads in the archives about it-
Does that make everyone on DU who researched it
guilty of baseless claims?

BHN

[BeHereNow]

Here you go smart ass- now welcome to my ignore list.

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30)
day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

http://www.stanley2002.org/Combat_Arms_Survey.html

BHN, wishing there was a BIG F.U icon.

[beevul]

275. "The majority said yes."

Your link shows the questionaire, but unless I missed it, it does NOT show how many answered yes or no.

Please support your claim that "The majority said yes."

[BeHereNow]

84. DUPE

N/T other than, I am sick and tired these people.
BHN

[Tejas]

85. Take a pill,

my panties aren't in a knot over you calling me "pal" or "an ass". If you're that fritzed, maybe we should do this later.

By the way, I can't search the archives, but if it's so easy then help a brother out. I called you on your statements, you are the one that has something to prove, so get to it.

[BeHereNow]

88. I just gave you a link to the survey- now go away.

I have no desire to have further discussion with a pompous jerk
like you.

BHN

[Tejas]

93. Good, take your name-calling with you.

Lack facts for a debate?

Call them names!

[AlienGirl]

96. I thinik a careful reading of this thread will reveal who is using name-calling the most.

[Tejas]

119. Feel free to make a list, otherwise

do you have an opinion on the subject?

[BeHereNow]

101. Look Tejas- YOU are the one who attacked first.

Can't stand the heat?
Stay out of the kitchen.

BHN

[Tejas]

123. You threw ramblings out there, I called you on them.....oh wait

we already established that.

As far as the original claim by you, you'll have to simply accept the fact that I disagree that the military would fire on its own kin.

If you think the mindset of our sons and daughters is otherwise, again, feel free to prove it.....but not with 10-15 year old allegations.

[AlienGirl]

128. If the military would not fire on its own kin, why bother arming against tyranny?

[AlienGirl]

129. If the military would not fire on its own kin, why bother arming against tyranny?

[BeHereNow]

136. The poster obviously has not read the link I provided to the survey- even after whining about it

Don't waste your breath on fools Tucker.

Tejas is obviously here to argue and insult, not read and discuss.
Gee, how many times have we seen that over the years
we have been here?
The tactic is tiresome, don't you think?
BHN

[Tejas]

141. Link?

seriously, missed it. Saw you mention it in a previous post but saw none.



By the way, the giggling schoolgirl routine is entertaining.
(sorry, but you should REALLY step back and look at you two)

[BeHereNow]

145. I'm not surprised you missed it- learning is not your motive for being here.

As to Aliengirl and I- there is no giggling between us,
just mutual disgust with your act which we have
seen before in our time together on DU.
Far too many times to count actually.
Now go away and pester someone else.
WE are officially bored with your show.

BHN:boring: :boring: :boring:

[Tejas]

154. Wow, the things you bet your rep on

are, to say the least, interesting.

That said, with all of the tin-foil on that site I'm amazed that you would be so inclined against gun ownership. Frequent the 9/11 conspiracy forums much do you?

[BeHereNow]

155. Bet my "rep" on? You really are grasping, aren't you.

YOU were too lazy to find the survey yourself.
I found it and gave you a link to it.
And please, feel free to identify the tin foil on the link
I gave you.

Something you should know about
DUers- we LONG ago learned that the casting
about of the term "conspiracy theory" and "tin foil"
was the tactic of a certain disrupting population to
attempt to discredit the facts.

Nice try.
But really boring and unimaginative.

BHN

[Tejas]

187. Your link is "grasping" to the power of 10 n/t

[BeHereNow]

227. Prove it.

BHN

[BeHereNow]

254. Crickets- just as I expected. Another hit-and run trouble maker.

BHN

[BeHereNow]

159. And furthermore, you who posts without reading or thinking-

Please identify ONE statement I have made on this thread
expressing opposition to gun ownership?

IF you were not here to simply waste bandwidth with
your blathering, you would find the opposite to be
true.

Anyone who is not prepared to protect their property
and family in these times is not paying attention.

BHN

[Tejas]

188. Post info more current than over 10yrs old and you might be taken seriously - n/t

[BeHereNow]

228. You're joking right? Ellsberg, the PNACdocs, and any info older than 10 years is irrelevant?

You just shot yourself in the foot Tejas.
To make such a statement has just validated
the fact that you are a dunce.

BHN

[LanternWaste]

216. doesn't the burden of evidence lie with...

If, during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars the military fired at its own people, if the military fired on its own people at Kent State, OH, wouldn't you agree that there is indeed historical evidence that it's not an absurd line of reasoning?

And if the citations above did in fact occur, doesn't the burden of evidence lie with you in illustrating a proof that the military wouldn't in the here and now?

[BeHereNow]

229. No see, the idiot actually said anything older than ten years was irrelevant.

And has YET to
DISprove the facts.
Tejas is only here to make a fool of him/her self
and has done so quite nicely I'd say.

BHN

[LanternWaste]

231. Well, we should ask him why violence has an expiration date.

Well, we should ask him why violence has an expiration date. We should ask him on what he bases that comment, and why specifically ten years rather than nine or eleven. We should further ask him if it's mere opinion on his part or an actual citation.

That's what we should do... but after reading more and more of his/her posts, I doubt (s)he'll answer up to it. :shrug:

[AlienGirl]

87. If the military of this great country could not be used against its civilians, tyranny is impossible

So why bother arming against it? Obviously Americans, being above the norm of human nature, will never be able to fire upon Americans, thereby rendering tyranny impossible in the US. Brilliant!

Tucker

[Recursion]

131. They did in Garden Plot

Though admittedly that was Marines who were themselves under fire.

[Greyhound]

178. They have done it repeatedly all through our history. What makes you think they wouldn't now? n/t

[Recursion]

126. Ah, that's why Iraq was a cakewalk? nt

[BeHereNow]

21. The real question is this: Who owns the majority of illegal fire arms in the US?

Criminals, that's who.

Any punk, iPod toting, disenfranchised hood worth his bling-bling
knows where to purchase a weapon- no?

As the economy continues to tank and people become more
pressed to survive, say a week without water or perhaps
a week without electricity or a complete shut down of services
due to a natural disaster or a BFEE attack- who do you think is
going to hit the streets, armed to the teeth, first?

Criminals, that's who.
The answer is simple.

BHN

[SteveM]

276. But who owns the majority of legal firearms? Us...

The United States is unique in the world in that it recognizes a right to keep and bear arms as a natural right, not to be usurped by government (other nations ALLOW guns with regulations they can strengthen to the point of faux prohibition). This allows a measure of individual defense and a possible defense against tyranny, armed insurrectionists and gangs. 2A is not a warranty, it's a right. There are many instances of lightly-armed forces taking on superior government forces and defeating them or fighting them to a standstill. Again, no warranty. But I damned well won't just sit and let a tyrannical government (should it come to that), a gang or private army do its will. Mahatma Gandhi wouldn't either.

[Lex Talionis]

29. Hold on, Folks, hold on!

This is not a pro gun or anti gun question. Just answer the question. Is there truth in this? "an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject". Read what I asked and don't inject your personal feelings into it. I'm not advocating that you get to have 100 guns in your house and all of them get to be fully automatic. I just want an honest unbiased discussion on the phrase above. If you think its untrue, just say no, you don't have to prove it unless you think you can. If you think its true, just say yes and the same applies. I'm not requiring that you link to anything. Out of all the sites I monitor over the years, I found this one to be the most unique, in that it has people from one end of the spectrum to the other and I really want to know how the above phrase plays. Read the post. Slowly.

[Tejas]

34. Well, you chose to

post this in GD instead of the Gungeon so what did you expect?

:)

[Lex Talionis]

82. I'm a dumbass newbie. I guess thats why.

I'm serious about the critical thinkers and such. Respects to you.

[BeHereNow]

97. Welcome to DU and trust me when I tell you- no need to express respect to that one.

You are not a dumb ass.
We appreciate critical thinking and shared research on DU.
Welcome.
BHN

[Lex Talionis]

My keyboard Kung Fu is weak, too.

Thanks for the welcome.

[BeHereNow]

113. Which is why you should learn to use the 'Ignore" feature!

Makes life ever so much easier on DU.

Assholes have a way of revealing themselves in
an astonishingly short time these days.

As you may have witnessed on you thread?
Again, WELCOME-

:hi:
BHN

[Tejas]

127. Then pro or con, you'd

enjoy the Gungeon. Lots to learn and lots of minds to pick through down there and no name-calling.

[BeHereNow]

38. "An armed man is a predator- an unarmed man, his prey."

Read my post above regarding the potential scenarios
where this could be true.

There is no pro-gun, anti-gun argument in my mind.
I live in Los Angeles where the criminals FAR outnumber and out gun
the police in the city.
In the event of civil chaos, I want to be armed.
I would be a fool not to.
BHN

[Greyhound]

263. OK, one thing that I must insist on. There can be no comparisons of unique. Unique is self defined,

there can be no 'most' unique, nor 'very' unique, nor 'more' unique.

Thank you.

[apocalypsehow]

32. Be armed all you want - in the Army, Air Force, Navy, & Marine Corps. They're hiring!

Otherwise, firearms have no place in civilian hands other than for hunting purposes, i.e., some kinds of shotguns, Deer rifles, and such.

[Tejas]

35. So, no shooting a rabid pitbull with my AK? (and then you woke up) n/t

[Dimensio0]

49. So are you saying that

civillians who have defended themselves while using firearms should, instead, have allowed themselves to be injured or killed?

[apocalypsehow]

62. Reading comprehension is a talent that requires practice to make perfect, to be sure.

So go ahead and re-read what I wrote and see if this time you can make out what I actually typed, as opposed to whatever malfunctioning mechanism in your cognitive facilities told you it said.

[Dimensio0]

73. I merely asked a question.

I merely made an inquiry based upon the possible implications of your stated position. You have not actually addressed my inquiry.

[apocalypsehow]

94. "I merely asked a question" - No, you did not. You employed a logical fallacy based upon your

dislike of my stated position above (actually you used two: Misleading Vividness & Appeal to Consequences). I have no intention of "addressing" your silly inquiry, since it is the online equivalent of "you're saying we should have fiddlers in the street, instead of policemen?" Go practice that silliness with someone who'll play, I'm not interested.

[Dimensio0]

104. You have apparently misread my statement.

I made no declaration, thus my inquiry cannot have been a logical fallacy.

You stated that firearms "have no place in civillian hands other than for hunting purposes". You listed no other exceptions. This would imply, if you are taken at your word, that you do not believe that firearms have a place in civillian hands for purposes of defense. I merely inquired so that I could ascertain whether my conclusion regarding the apparent implications of your statement was accurate.

For example, do you believe that the firearm posessed by the woman referenced in this story had "no place in civillian hands"? There is no indication that this woman posessed the firearm for purposes of hunting. If this firearm had no place in this woman's hands, then what should she have done regarding the intruder who trespassed into her dwelling instead of using a firearm on him?

[apocalypsehow]

110. Oh, LOL: despite using them quite often, you really have no idea what a logical fallacy is,

do you? I will say this one more time: my statement above means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less. Extrapolate whatever you wish from it and twist it however you want, but the bottom line is that in a decent society firearms have no place in civilian hands other than for hunting purposes, period.

[Dimensio0]

118. You have still not answered my question.

Where does your position leave citizens who have used a firearm for acts of self-defense?

I am not attempting to "twist" your statement. Rather, I am attempting to understand it. It is for that reason that I have aksed you about the implications of your statemet.

[apocalypsehow]

124. Is English your second language? I have no intention of answering your loaded, imbecilic "question".

I do not care whether you "understand" my position or not, nor am I interested in fielding any inquiries from you about "the implications". I will say it one more time, since you obviously have problems comprehending it: save for hunting purposes, firearms have no business in civilian hands. Period. Is that really so difficult a statement to decipher?

[Tejas]

135. No, but the mentality

that harbors such willingness to surrender to the harmful whims of others baffles me.

Heck, even Ghandi disagrees with you.

[Dimensio0]

142. Your refusal to explain your position is puzzling.

Your statement implies that you do not believe that firearms belong in civillian hands for purposes of defense. The way that you have reiterated your previous statement further confirms this implication. However, I do not believe it unreasonable for you to explain your position on those who have used firearms in self-defense.

If you believe that it is not justifiable for a civillian to use a firearm in self-defense, you can simply say so. Why you do not do this, or -- if you do not actually believe such a thing -- further explain your position, is puzzling.

I also wish to understand why you believe that firearms have no place in civillian hands with the exception of hunting. Can you explain the reasoning behind this position?

[apocalypsehow]

149. Is English your second language? I have no intention of answering your loaded, imbecilic "question"

I do not care whether you "understand" my position or not, nor am I interested in fielding any inquiries from you about "the implications". I will say it one more time, since you obviously have problems comprehending it: save for hunting purposes, firearms have no business in civilian hands. Period. Is that really so difficult a statement to decipher?

I figure if I repost this reply enough the words will eventually work their way into your neural synapses, and an epiphany will occur inside the skull of "Dimensio0". At that happy moment, you will have grasped the plain meaning of the simple, vernacular English I have been using to compose my posts at long last.

[Dimensio0]

151. Your willful refusal to offer any explanation for your position is puzzling.

Are you unwilling to explain the rationale behind your stated belief because you have not actually logically considered your position? Is your position not one derived from rational thought, or do you have an ulterior motive in your refusal to justify it?

[apocalypsehow]

153. Is English your second language? I have no intention of answering your loaded, imbecilic "question"

I do not care whether you "understand" my position or not, nor am I interested in fielding any inquiries from you about "the implications". I will say it one more time, since you obviously have problems comprehending it: save for hunting purposes, firearms have no business in civilian hands. Period. Is that really so difficult a statement to decipher?

We'll give this exercise in simple English comprehension a third try.

[Dimensio0]

156. Your repetition of your original statement is unnecessary.

You have made it clear that you believe that firearms have "no business in civillian hands", apart from hunting purposes. It would appear that you are misunderstanding my inquiries. I would like to know why you believe that firearms have "no business in civillian hands", except for hunting purposes. To that end, I would like to know why you do not believe that self-defense is a "business" appropriate for a firearm in civillian hands.

[Tejas]

250. That poster, like others...

has no reason, they simply hear someone else say it and then repeat it until (in their mind) it becomes the truth. They have no basis for their passion, it just makes them feel good to say it.

Maybe they were taught by parents or peers, no idea but their teacher did more harm than good and took away their individuality......hence their lack of ability to make decisions for themselves, easier to just drink the koolaid instead.

[Recursion]

150. Been there, done that, got the OIF medal

But I'm puzzled by your statement. Hunting is not remotely an inalienable right. Self-defense is.

[Paladin]

40. I Bet You Think That "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" Too

If so, I've got a little reality check for you: our society is armed to the hilt--and it's not too fucking polite.

An armed society like ours is many things: violent, terrified, paranoid, intimidated, primitive. But not polite. Sorry I couldn't come up with a really cool quote for you covering all that, but you get the idea....

[Tejas]

43. Haven't been to many

Texas gunshows have you? Besides church, it's about the friendliest place on earth to be on a Sunday.

People smile at each other, they say 'excuse me', they make room for seniors to pass, and on and on.

[Paladin]

50. As A Matter Of Fact....

....I've been to quite a few Texas gun shows, back when I was into guns. I never missed that big one in Houston, years ago.

And thanks for proving my point, by the way. What you're really saying is that gun shows are friendly because there are so many guns and gun freaks that no one dares to be anything but "polite." Ultimately it's not politeness, it's intimidation.

[Tejas]

61. Sorry that you choose to be "intimidated"

More like "common sense", which impolite people seem to lack......which proves my point (thank YOU!).

[AlienGirl]

66. What an emotionally manipulative and passive-aggressive way to "apologize"

Tell me, are you a Fark poster? This style really seems more like Fark (go ad hom fast and keep at it!) which can be amusing but rarely leads to anything constructive, than like the normally substantive discussion DU attempts to encourage.

Tucker

[Tejas]

105. Don't worry, he's a big boy

Constructive, as in this post you just made?

um, okay

[onehandle]

58. Heinlein again.

How could such a genius be so wrong?

[Lex Talionis]

106. Ok I've just got to ask and show my ignorance.

What is Heinlein's folly?

[Tejas]

111. It's something

to do with people blindly following.

ie: Taking what the Brady Bunch say as gospel and running with it, which ultimately can lead to the people's downfall because they wind up as "sheep".


I could be totally wrong, the memory banks aren't what they used to be.

[Greyhound]

180. Sorry, my Great Grandmother used to say that all the time and she was old when Heinlein was born.n/t

[Lex Talionis]

121. Yes it is.

What if all gunpowder weapons magically disappeared tomorrow. What do you think would happen? Would the strong take from the weak?
or would mankind join in a big round of kumbaya? Good name, thats a knight who protects the weak and downtrodden, yes?

[penguin7]

64. If there is a revolution in this country

let us hope the citizens are not armed or there will be an unholy bloodbath.

[SecularNATION]

74. penguin7 in 1776

I can see penguin7 sitting at the dinner table in 1776 saying...

"If there is a revolution in this country let us hope the citizens are not armed or there will be an unholy bloodbath"

[Tejas]

76. I think penguin7 left out

the :sarcasm: icon, at least I would hope so!

[SecularNATION]

83. No question

There is no doubt, an armed populace presents a harder nut to crack, for a tyrannical government, than an unarmed one. Which will prevail: out of control oppressive government or armed resistance? Who knows? But, if a fascist clampdown comes, I'd rather be armed. Wouldn't you?

[Dimensio0]

89. I suspect that there are rational individuals who would disagree with you.

I believe that there are a number of rational arguments that can be made in support of legally barring all citizens from posessing firearms or other weapons. I suspect that a large number of rationally-thinking tyrants and despots could easily explain many of these reasons.

[Tejas]

100. Yep, seen some of the darndest

rationalizations in England here lately. Odd government over there.

[penguin7]

95. The only thing worse than an out of control oppressive government

would be an out of control oppressive mob of armed Americans.

[Tejas]

98. worse than that are

the ones lined up to drink the koolaid.

"Komrade, we are here to take care of you."

[AlienGirl]

99. But as you said earlier, that can't happen in the US! So no worries!

[Tejas]

103. Funny. There are those that don't care....oh, American Idol is on! n/t

[AlienGirl]

109. Do you wish to retract this statement, then?

Tejas (857 posts) Tue Feb-19-08 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #81
91. for starters: culture and laws
No country in the world has or has ever had a Constitution such as ours, including Germany. Hindenburg et al could never exist here, much less the SS.

[Tejas]

112. A clue as to the reason for doing so would help n/t

[SecularNATION]

133. Worse? How?

penguin7, how would a 'mob' of armed Americans be worse? What 'mob' are you referring to? The 'mob' that already exists? As in, 40 to 50 percent of your fellow American citizens? Your fears are groundless. Whereas, fearing the United States becoming an out an out fascist state, that will have to be resisted(possibly by force), is anything but.

[BeHereNow]

140. Clearly, you do not live in a major urban city- either that or you are not paying attention.

Here in Los Angeles we DO have armed mobs.
They are called gangs.
Mexican
Armenian
Chinese
Vietnamese
And the lovely white skin heads, to name but a few.

If and when there is a natural or BFEE manufactured
disaster, a power or water black out- believe me
when I tell you I fear them and their arsenal far more
than our government who will do nothing as it
benefits them to do nothing, witness Katrina.

BHN

[SecularNATION]

157. I see...

...then you'd agree it's better to be armed, against a gang of CRIMINALS, than not armed. Right? That's the lesson of Katrina. Those who weren't armed, were much more likely to become victims. Those who WERE armed, and who didn't have their weapons unlawfully confiscated, were able, in many cases, to defend their property and lives. Your scenario is an excellent reason for law abiding citizens to own weapons, even in a big city like New Orleans or Los Angeles.

[BeHereNow]

158. Oh yeah. That is my point exactly. Especially in a country where there is no rule of law.

Which would describe us perfectly.
The "no rule of law" part that is.
The gangsters are FAR more prepared to fight for
survival than the average policeman actually.

BHN

[Greyhound]

169. No, they really aren't. I lived about a mile away from the intersection of Hollywood & Western.

It was the intersection of 3 gangs in a war for over a year. It was mayhem, but the fact is none of them knew how to use their ubiquitous weaponry. Yes people got shot, and the fact that the LAPD let it go on is outrageous, but most of the victims were hit by chance.

[depakid]

183. "Is there any truth to this?" NO

While Americans have doomed themselves to an an ever increasing cycle of often senseless and random violence- and have respoded by building the largest and most expensive prison system in the world (with more citizens incarcerated per capita and by raw numbers than any other nation.

Other countries llike Australia got fed up after a mass shooting in 1996, and engaged in a systematic process to remove easy access to firearms- and the government bought back those already in circulation.

The result? I feel safe pretty much anywhere here- and the crime stats have shown dramatic drops in homicide and suicide rates- both in rural areas and larger cities.

America doesn't have to be the way it is- it's citizens CHOOSE to live in a violent society and apparently WANT it to continue getting worse (which it will).

That's a price they're willing to pay for their obsesion with guns, with their fear and their paranoia.

Sad really- to condemn ones kids to that, for what amounts to self-indugence.

[Lex Talionis]

189. Do you live in Australia, now?

The population is quite smaller than the U.S. and consolidated in the coastal areas. They do not, I believe, have whole city areas where even the law does not tread. America has such places. Senseless random violence is epidemic in even strong anti-gun areas of the country. Look at Washington D.C., Look what happened in New York City recently with the doctor being hacked to death with a cleaver. In my experience most people don't chose to live in a violent society. Not sure what the answer to that is. The founding Fathers didn't envision this. Do you live in a low crime area? So, the people of Darfur are they citizens or subjects? What about the people of Myanmar, Citizens or subjects? Kosovo just declared it's independence, I'm not so sure they would be able to do that if they are all unarmed, and counting on the mercy of the Serbs. Part of Human nature is to subject others to their will. If all guns disappeared today. Would we better off? Maybe the strong would take from the weak? Its human nature to do that. Thanks for your honest answer.

[depakid]

192. Been here since last year

and we just got back from long awaited road trip through rural and urban areas of NSW and the ACT.

Every single bloke I've spoken with, in clubs, in pubs, around campsites and beaches- in Canberra and in lower working class places- thinks Americans have, to paraphrase- insane gun policies. Every single one, and Aussies aren't shy about sharing an opinion, especially over a few stubbies.

What makes this interesting is that Aussies tend not to be passive aggressive- you generally get an honest earful, and the two countries share a similar sort of history, with forced (or disadvantaged) migration, fortune hunting, pioneers and frontiers (opened up with guns) graziers, drovers (cowboys) bushrangers (outlaws that have an almost mythic quality) -disdain for authority, and a similar treatment of native peoples.

Why would Australia be so different, given the similarities?

It's an interesting question- and I think from living in both countries (more than once) that Aussies have a more pragmatic and "can do" approach to problems and policy. Now, you might hear a different story from my girlfriend- she lived here all her life, and so is keener to the nuances- and blinder to the contrasts (as I am, when she's commented about things while in America).

Kind of a de Toqueville deal.

From what I've observed, the mass shooting in Port Arthur was one of those "enough is enough" type moments that peoples and societies sometimes have- and even the Liberals (the right wing down under) knew it was time- to use the American vernacular- to deal with that shit. So they (the nation) did.

For the most part, that's how it went in the last election too- the nation dealt with that shit (the Howard Government).

Somewhere along the way, America lost that "can do" attitude and follow through. Perhaps it was Reagan, perhaps Carter- perhaps too many went down in 1968. Who can say? When isn't the issue today.

As to the queries you raise- they're also interesting. While it's true that Oz has a smaller population, there are plenty of places with near equivalent densities and pressure. Try driving through Sydney or Melbourne at peak hours!

And of course, there is crime- but both the level and the frequency would make most Americans laugh (a sad laugh) at what's reported. "News" here looks long and hard for sensational things (in a British sort of way sometimes) -yet they're hard pressed to find things that are so commonplace in the states that they're not "news" at all!

Getting back to the main question though- the answer from my observations is an emphatic NO.

Indeed- what you find here is in many ways a freer, safer kind of place, because of its firearms policies.

<on edit: Joe Bageant has a quote in the preface to the Australian edition of "Deer Hunting With Jesus" that kinda stuck:

Went something like this: We got the convicts and you got the puritans.

Curious, that.

[Lex Talionis]

197. I've worked with some Aussies before.

We agreed, of the whole world, we have a lot in common. Good post. But, I still would like your take on the other countries I mentioned. Especially Darfur and Myanmar. The Aussies have only one major race and are pretty much, nonreligious from what I gather. And yea, I'm envious of ya for living there. The only other country I'd move to, other than OZ, would be Brazil.

[Tejas]

252. Good luck on "feeling safe"

Don't look now but........


from:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

[bossy22]

260. here i go again

America is safe....everyone calls it a war zone, but only 5.5 americans out of 100,000 will die in a homicide. I still think that is pretty safe. I've been to places in this country that they don't know what murder is (my family up in New Hampshire). In my county of 1.3 million we had around 15 murders last year- thats it- i consider that pretty safe don't you? Most people go to work/school everyday without fear. there are no roaming death squads.

One thing about suicide rates- i think its quite niave to think you can control suicide rates with gun control. Suicide in the US is mostly made up with use of firearms- but you dont think people would get stopped without firearms right? remember 45% of the other suicide cases were committed without no firearm. Suicide is a mindset- people just choose a firearm cause its there, if its not there, they will start there car in their garage and just go to sleep....in fact that method may be more dangerous (i remember an entire family died because the mother tried to commit suicide that way- 6 people in total-)

The gun culture is not one about fear, but individual responsibility and leaving without fear, taking care of yourself. I own a gun not because i am afraid, but because it is a sign of taking individual responsibility. I put on a seatbelt when i drive a car not because i think im goin to get into an accident, but just in case i do.

Australia could have gotten away with tightening the regulations and not banning semi-auto's- but like the UK- decided to make it symbolic. Its silly that they don't consider firearms legitimate for self defense, but arm their police so they may defend themselves

owning a gun for self defense is not done because you are afraid of other criminals with a gun- in fact many criminals that would might encounter will be unarmed- its about you being the one with the advantage. So when someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night- chances are they won't have a gun, and when i come down there with a gun, they will quickly run away. thats what its about. gun crime is still rare in the US, more common than other western nations, but in no way is it up to the level of war zone or shooting gallery.

[Orsino]

190. Because there are armed assholes in charge of us...

...it behooves us to be armed assholes, too. I don't want my government able to assume that I can't shoot back. If the possibility that I might be armed as well as they are deters them even for a moment from barging in, the Second Amendment has fulfilled a piece of its purpose. (Yes, I know that my being armed may also invite overwhelming aggression.)

Sure, there's also the possibility that we might need a local militia. I regard that as a secondary concern. Current state and federal governments are often trigger-happy and just plain mean. Gun ownership carries a whole slew of problems, but I will not deny a citizen the basic right to arm himself, especially in times like these.

I'm just incredibly suspicious of people who cling frantically to the Second Amendment while denigrating all the others.

[backscatter712]

195. This is it.

As long as our country's president is a brain damaged psychopath, as long as we have things like the PATRIOT ACT and the Military Commissions Act, as long as organizations like Blackwater and Infragard exist, as long as our government tortures and even thinks of building concentration camps; I damned well am keeping my guns. Maybe they'll kill me, but I guarantee I will not die alone.

It's a fucked up world we live in when we feel we must get firearms to protect ourselves from our own government, but that's reality today.

[penguin7]

219. The Gun Nuts voted for Bush

[Lex Talionis]

198. OK, you get the grand prize.

Good answer. A lot of people don't understand that 2nd, helps protect the 1st. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And yes, assholes are in power.

[Orsino]

202. Yeah, as far as I can tell...

...every Amendment helps to protect every other one.

[Lex Talionis]

210. Glad to meet ya. Lots of so called really smart people don't see that.

[zanne]

191. THIS BELONGS IN THE GUN FORUM. nt

[Lex Talionis]

199. Well I didn't want it to be just about guns.

Men kill men with what ever is at hand. At one time in history peasants couldn't have weapons of any kind. Look at Rwanda, most killed were hacked to death. Unarmed humans are easy prey for armed ones. Its just a fact of life. Do you think the people of Myanmar are citizens of their country? Did the Monks non aggression protest change anything?

[zanne]

234. BS It certainly is about guns. nt

[Lex Talionis]

235. Well, what ever gets you through the day

I noticed you didn't answer the question about Myanmar. Must be nice to live a safe comfortable life and never have their worries. Peace to you.

[zanne]

238. The PO entitled it: "To be armed or not be armed"

How can that not be about guns?

[aikoaiko]

194. I'd rather be armed and not need it, then need it and not be armed.

[LanternWaste]

200. ualify with what we arm ourselves with...

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject..."

A statement which may or may not be true. However, it does not qualify with what we arm ourselves with.

The bloggers, armed with a keyboard and access to data, appear to be a much better defense against an alleged tyranny of and by the government than some yahoo packing heat.

TalkingPointsMemo.com appears to have been a much more effective and efficient combatant against the loss of our current freedoms than... well, it seems as though those with guns are doing a pretty piss-poor job of any kind of defense against any kind of inequity other than those committed directly against the self.

Point being-- I haven't seen civilian firearms protect anyone from the collective sum of the loss of freedom. On the other hand, I've seen pens and keyboards actually toe the line and make a stand.

Arm the people with pens, we'll become a much more open and much freer society. Arm the people with weapons and some yahoo who gets turned down by the cheerleader in school will open fire the next day and take five or six down with him before he turns finally it on himself.

[lazer47]

201. All of that talking and writing and computer key boards has sure

put a stop to * and his cronies..why GWB is probably shaking in his boots right now worring about what people will write next.. :sarcasm:

[LanternWaste]

203. Point being...

Point being-- all of that talking and writing has done more than some yahoo packing heat.

Unless I'm simply unaware of an armed militia movement which has brought Bush's inequities to light and into the public discourse... and if that is indeed the case, I'd be very interested in hearing more about it.

[lazer47]

204. Granted the press is an intregal part of any society, however

there will come a time when the "power structure" will no longer consider it relevent, such was the case of the founding fathers,,,,or as you put it "yahoos packing heat", History will repeat itself in time, I am 60 yrs young and hope that I don't live to see it happen... Peace to you...

[LanternWaste]

206. Alien and Sedition Acts

One of the Revolutionary war heroes (Washington to be precise) was of the mind that the press was not so much irrelevant as it was dangerous. A yahoo packing heat does not make a hero.


Part and parcel of the reason for the Alien and Sedition Acts was precisely to shut down Philadelphia's 'Aurora', a newspaper run by Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Beecham. (per the book, "American Aurora").

No insurrections, fire-fights or running gun battles preceded or proceeded the ensuing fight-- it was a war fought with, and won by words.

[lazer47]

209. Your history is lacking, the Revolutionary War was won by

Yahoos packing heat,,,,as was the Civil War, as was WW1, and WW2, ,,,,,enough said

[LanternWaste]

211. Not lacking as you may think

Not as lacking as you may think. I've never stated that the Revolutionary War was or was not won with firearms-- I'm afraid I can't do anything about what you may or may not infer.

No, not as lacking as you may think... however, I'd be lacking both critical thought and historical knowledge if I stated something along the lines of "wars have only been won by military means", or any other implication to the effect of "packing heat is the only viable solution".

I'd also be lacking in common sense (or simply too biased to allow my own reason to bloom) if I made absolute statements about another poster based only on (and at best) vague inferences.

Let me assuage you just a bit if I may-- I'm not out to grab your guns. I'm not out to regulate your guns. I'm not out to prevent you from firing your gun.

The only posit I've put forth is that communication is a more effective means of ensuring freedom than guns are. You may or may not agree with that particular sentiment, but putting forth the assumption that my knowledge of history is lacking is and then following that up with a list of the obvious is, well.. narrow minded (at best).

Wars can, and will, and have been won without a shot ever being fired. Much more often than you seem to imply.

[lazer47]

213. The very inference to war itself, means weapons of some

sort have been utilized whether it be a gun or a club, thus it becomes War, I will give you this, all wars are finished by negotiations,,,,

[LanternWaste]

220. Financial and economic warfare.

Financial and economic warfare. Class warfare. Labor warfare. Race warfare. Covert operations intended to disrupt or deny elections/independence/self-reliance/et.al., Psy-Ops. Many of these have happened without a shot being fired (yet many have had shots fired also-- one does not preclude, nor rule out the other). Many of these are validly labeled as wars. Wars of Aggression. Wars of Dominance.

Many would argue that America has engaged in an economic imperialism which has been quantified as a success by the power brokers.

Major conflicts are not necessarily resolved at the point of a sword or a gun barrel. That you limit your own, personal definition of warfare to include only those conflicts that use weapons intended to do physical harm, that's on you. I've read of far too many instances to subscribe to that line of thought, though.

[Indy Lurker]

212. you seem to like quotes

so here are a few more.

Albert Einstein:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

Helen Keller:
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.

Benjamin Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Samuel Adams:
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Cesare Beccaria:
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1989):
History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.

Woodrow T. Wilson:
Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it... The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.

Patrick Henry:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.


**************************************************************
We are unique in that we are self governed.

A government of, by and for the people.

As such, we trust in the judgment and abilities of our fellow citizens.

For example, we trust our fellow citizens (non-government employees)to:

Be school board members and administer education policies for our children.
Provide life saving medical care.
Fix our our roads and bridges (private contractors)
Build and operate chemical and munitions plants. (private companies)
Run our nuclear plants and power grid.(private companies)

Surly if we can trust our citizens to these important jobs, we can trust them to properly operate a firearm.

[Lex Talionis]

221. Thanks for all the quotes.

I like quotes cause I'm not smart enough to come up with my own. As I've said, way smarter and more enlightened men and women than me, understand the principle of what it takes to be free. I've been really shocked at how many citizens of this board think that its OK to bare your throat to the butchers knife, just to make the point of how Morally superior they are to an armed individual.
I'm very glad that I've been proven wrong about those on the left of my ideology and that common ground is something that rational thinking beings can reach. This was not supposed to be a pro or anti gun thread. I just wanted to hear from those who think that say, The people of Myanmar are better off than we are because they are unarmed. That maybe, just maybe, if you think that a Government is corrupt and a tyranny when we have access to guns, or any weapon, just how bad it would be if we were unarmed, like the citizens of Myanmar. It also takes people willing to stand up and say no more. Wonder how many in this country would have the guts to stand in front of a tank, or go up against a wall of bayonets. The Enstien quote is above my bar at home and is a reflection on how it is today. I'd hate for some here to have to come to my rescue. Respects to you

[ProgressiveFool]

217. The simple fact of the matter is, the availability of guns leads to gun crimes

Europe doesn't have guns easily available - Europe doesn't have epidemic crime committed with guns. Europe doesn't have some nutjob go crazy once every couple months and try to see if he can get the high score for senseless slaughter of innocents. Europe doesn't have teenagers getting shot by their friends by accident when those friends were showing off their dad's gun (at age 14, this happened to me - a couple inches further to the right and the bullet would have gone through my heart, and not my upraised arm.)

I have no problem with hunting. Handguns which can be concealed and have no other purpose than to shoot a human being, should be banned.

edit: Also, OP, if you spend all your time listening to and accepting whatever simple slogans other "wise people" say, you will probably miss out on your chance to be wise yourself someday.

[Indy Lurker]

224. Western Europe has lower homicide rates

But the is no evidence that it is due to a lower rate of handgun ownership.

In fact, if you look at the data, Western Europe has a lower homicide rates for guns, knives, and unarmed homicides.

If a reduction in gun ownership led to a reduction in firearm homicides, I would NOT expect to see a lower rate of knife homicide or unarmed homicide. (unless there were a reduction in knife ownership)

[Perry Logan]

222. Excellent source of gun violence research: The Harvard Injury Control Research Center

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center is an excellent resource for scientific studies on the effects of gun violence.

There are lots of specific studies on how guns increase the suicide rate, murder rate, crime rate, etc.

Who would have thought that disseminating huge numbers of lethal weapons throughout a society does not lead to a more peaceful society?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/

[kimmylavin]

223. Where is that quote from?

I did a quick search, and all I can find is a bunch of gun pages that reference it, without a source.

Was it written specifically about guns?
It seems a man can be "armed" with more than a gun - knowledge, perhaps.

[Lex Talionis]

236. Here ya go

Those who beat their swords into plows, will plow the fields of those still with swords.

An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington



He probably was not as enlightened as most. Yea, I know he wasn't perfect, but the truth hurts sometimes. Have you ever heard of Darfur or Myanmar?

[walldude]

233. Only 2 needs for a weapon.. Hunting and defending

yourself against another weapon. I don't hunt, and I don't have much of a need to defend myself. I'm not overly paranoid, I live in a neighborhood where I can leave my door unlocked, and I don't do anything that would make someone else want to hurt me.
To call me a "subject" and not a citizen because I could care less about gun ownership is bullshit. If the government wants you they will get you, no matter how many guns you own. You want to own a gun fine, go ahead. I don't. If you think you are more protected from the government because you own a gun and I don't well then you are really kidding yourself.

[Tejas]

247. marksmanship contests and target practice too n/t

[Hangingon]

237. I choose to be armed.

[Lex Talionis]

253. Whoa! Where are we? Did I get banished?

[BeHereNow]

255. No you are not banished. The mods moved your thread, that's all.

Because you are a newbie, may I extend my
sincere apologies for all the ass holes on your thread?
It was a good question and topic.
Unfortunately, it attracted some of the worst elements.
Try again with another topic and we'll back ya!

BHN:hi:

[Lex Talionis]

256. Thank you BHN

I really didn't want it to degenerate into what it did. I really truly wanted an intelligent discussion about tyranny and how it comes about. I guess after reading through some of the posters comments, I see how easy it is to slide in that direction. Thank you for the greeting and yea I'll be back. Truthfully, I have followed this site for years, read some strange things on it. So no need to apologize, its not as bad as I expected. There are people here, who while they may not live my life style,think a lot like me. very eye opening. Respects to you and yours, BHN.

[BeHereNow]

257. You were the victim of what we call a "tag team" around these parts.

We are more than versed on how to handle them, so
stick around, we've got your back.
BHN

[Lex Talionis]

258. Hahhh! Sensi. I see. I thought some of the questions were bait

To draw me out foaming at the mouth. Is that standard procedure for that sect. My Keyboard Kung Fu, will, improve.

[BeHereNow]

259. By George, I think you've got it!

Spot on my friend.
Spot on.

BHN

[Greyhound]

265. Yes, banished to the gungeon where this excellent thread will die.

Notice there is no record of the 120+ recommendations either. There are several topics that are banished to these forums so that the GenPop doesn't have to see them. I/P, 9/11, women's rights, etc.

[Lex Talionis]

266. Wow! so the highly enlightened, most intelligent, and

Morally superior people ever to evolve in the history of mankind,have blinders on? I did not know that my post got 120+ recs. I asked several question having to do with Rwanda, Myanmar, and present day tyranny and it was ignored. This is what has become of Liberalism?So what can you post in GenPop that you would generate an intelligent discussion about the powerful ruling the weak? Are all the sheep in GenPop? Its good that both sides have their fanatics I guess. At least I know now that self righteous, self centerd people come from both Ideology's. Tell me the truth, was my post a "bullshit" post, as one sensitive soul implied? I really put a lot of thought into it.

[Greyhound]

270. Not at all. It was a good post and a pertinent question, as witnessed by the number

of replies. But you have to remember that this is not Progressive Underground or Liberal underground or even Lets-Have-Honest-Discussions-About-Issues-That-Matter Underground. It is Democratic Underground and is a Party above all board.

[Lex Talionis]

272. Got it. Just blows my mind though how thinking human beings

can think that this Government, or any other, is not capable of enforcing their will on unarmed people. Thats why I'm an Independent, don't like the taste of ether's koolaid. Thanks for the tip. Respects to you.