a well regulated militia
 

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

I read that whole article
 

And the dude needs some serious help. And his rights to firearms taken away.

There are those who have guns who shouldn't and he's proven himself to be one of them.

Natural reaction, indeed! I might have thought "mechanical difficulty" or something. But not terrorists. Last thing I would think, if at all. Normal people do not see torrorists coming out from under their beds. We lived through this once before with Sen Joe McCarthy seeing Reds under the bed.

Oh no, here we go again is my "natural reaction".

Brian

Re: I read that whole article
 

Normally this is true, except nowadays we've got the gub'mint running around on tv screaming "terrorists! terrorists!". Somehow I don't think this guy's alone.

Helos can be very unwlecome guests in residential neighborhoods. When I was learning to fly many moons ago, the guy who owned the airport where I was learning brought his Bell Jet Ranger back from upstate with a bullet hole in it. Some folks just don't like helos. 'Namvets especially.

I wonder if this guy just didn't take a potshot at the helo thinking nobody would know where the shot came from. The pilot didn't know the aircraft had been hit until he saw a caution light on his panel The guy's lawyer prolly told him to plead that he thought the helo was terrorists.

Apparently the helo hovered 20 feet over this guy's garage while setting up for the landing....he being inside the garage at the time. It then dropped lower over his driveway for a landing across the street The pilot has also been charged with reckless operation of aircraft, and could spend a month in jail.

> "Maybe I overreacted, but I did feel this was terrorism at its utmost," Chwaszczewski said.

"Maybe?"

After all, if I was a terrorist, the next logical place _I'd_ choose to strike would be a residential neighborhood in the middle of fucking nowhere, to strike at a retired construction worker. Screw the Pentagon and the WTC, THAT'D make a statement!

Ass.

> Chwaszczewski told police the shooting was "a natural reaction," after having watched the events of September 11.

Lashing out violently at people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack is a very unnatural reaction, even if our government seems to have the same idea.

Still think assult rifles are a good idea? And don't say this is just one guy, this is what happens when big guns and little minds team up.

Given that we are a nation of 280 million people, I'd say these type of incidents are few and far between. Of course, there are some out there that would love to spin the stats their way.

Oh, absolutely the gun was at fault. Furthermore, the irresponsible buzz job was the helicopter's fault, too.

I think the helo pilot is getting off lightly here. If somebody pulled a stunt like that over my house, I'd be pissed as hell too. I also still think the whole "terrorism" angle is thought up after the fact to appeal to a jury.

Spin, you never did explain exactly what it was you were doing that got you chased out of PA that time, didja? :-) Sounds like you're still stinging from being sent home for misbehaving.

I was driving from a church function (not kidding) at a state park home. Last I looked that wasn't something that warrented the local redneck enforcement to get on my ass. Personally, that really has very little to do with my feelings on guns. I really don't have a problem with most guns, I have yet to see a good reason for assult rifles. They are pointless for hunting, they aren't really good for defending your home. They only thing are good for is a bunch of untrained idiots to go play soldier. Oh and killing people with body armor (like cops).

what part of little minds didn't you understand?

The alterative to no assult rifles would be the swiss system wherein everyone by law is required to keep them. And I don't know if that would be that great of an idea in this country.

Yeah, the problem is this guy with an assault rifle. Obviously, if Civil Aviation were better armed, such attacks by guys like this would be prevented. I doubt if he would have shot at a Blackhawk. The sooner we get better air to ground capabilities in Civil Aviation, the sooner lunatics like this guy will be blown off the streets and we'll all feel much safer. ;)

Waitaminute..."enforcement"? Were you talking about a *cop*? Somehow that got left out of the last telling. And you said something earlier about "bumping the Beastie Boys"....c'mon, what's the real story here? A cop didn't chase you out of the state for going to the church picnic.
I disagree.

The rifle in question was an AR-15; ten rounds of .233, autoloading. It's a decent home defense weapon, unless you live in an apartment, where penetrating a wall is a problem no matter what you're shooting. A rifle can be aimed much more accurately than a handgun.

Nonetheless, reports from Afghanistan are that the AR-15's military cousins aren't the fiercest "assault rifles" in the world, since they lack stopping power compared to rifles shooting bigger, slower rounds. The main advantage it seems to have is that the rifle and it's ammunition are much lighter (and thus easier to carry and ship) than the competition...an advantage for the logistics people.

The whole "assault-style rifle" category is a canard, one the gun prohibitionists keep hyping on because it's guaranteed to generate an emotional reaction, as I see it has in you. You say "assault rifle" and people immediately imagine someting about the size and power of a BAR and start frothing at the mouth. Would you have been as excited about this if the news story said they guy had been shooting a 12ga shotgun? That probably would have been more likely to bring down the helo at that range.

I've actually fired AR-15s. They're just little rifles, mostly made of plastic, ferchrissiakes. The projectile is tiny (only .003" more than a .22) and tries to make up for it in velocity.

I'd rather have an M-14 at home, myself.

No, not cops. Rednecks, pickups and shotguns. That is what chased me. And as I explained the Beastie Boys weren't that loud cause I don't have a system. That is my point. I LOOK different. Therefore I was a target.

You know, I love when people bring up the fact that .223 is only a tiny bit bigger than .22, as if those opposed to guns weren't smart enough to figure that out. While at the same time leaving out the fact that the size of the charge is about three times the size of .22. And no it doesn't have the stopping power of an AK 47. Duh. Another secret reveled. But with a trigger assembly that can be bought at nearly any gun show or a remachined firing pin you have a fully automatic rifle. With at least twenty rounds in the clip. That isn't the point anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason for these guns to be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

How about this:

Why take away the freedom?

More people die each year from car accidents than gun accidents. Why not make cars illegal? Or, maybe just make fast cars illegal, since they're more likely to be involved in a fatal accident?

How is it that people manage to miss one of the most obvious truths of this stupid and unending debate: <b>criminals will get guns no matter what the law says</b>. If they want an AR-15, they'll get it. Period.

All a law does is make it illegal for law abiding citizens to get them. Well, last time I checked, law abiding citizens weren't murdering each other. Criminals were.

Sure, make it difficult to buy an assault rifle. Require that a class be taken. That's fine. But there's really no reason to make it impossible. Why? Because those that want them to commit crime are going to get them anyway. So there's no reason to take it away from those who are not.

Hey, Comma, what if we all spelled out our punctuation? Question Mark? Although you do make good points, Comma, saying the word 'Period' does not make your point more valid. Period. Oh, Comma, look! Exclamation mark! I'm right, Comma, because I spelled out my punctuation! Exclamation Mark!

Perhaps it's a way of saying "This, in my eyes, is not open to debate."

And perhaps, if you have nothing useful to add to the conversation, you should shut the fuck up.

Sorry, just felt like giving you some shit. :)

Juju, if it helps, I found it insightful. ;)

And the "reason" you're looking for is: It's my right to keep and bear arms. It's not your right to decide what arms I should be allowed to have.

Getting into the business of "prove to me you should be allowed to own this particular gun" is one hell of a slippery slope. Our state constitution says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. It doesn't say "execpt for really nasty things that Spin doesn't like".

Imagine how much freedom of speech would be worth if I had to prove I should be allowed to read each book I wanted to on an individual basis. Or if every privacy right was subject to "Why? You're not hiding anything, are you?"

I think the core of the problem you have is that you live in a state that has taken away your self-defense rights, and now it's all sour-grapes. It was especially aggravating to come down here to PA and have your nose rubbed in it. Don't whine about how hard it is that you "look different"...I look plenty "different". The answer to feeling defenseless isn't to try to disarm everybody else; that just plain doesn't work.

(BTW, "I don't have a system." doen't mean you're incapable of being obnoxious with your car stereo..I can be plenty obnoxious with the stock stereo in my Saturn. )

And for all the huffing horror about what an evil assult weapon of mass distruction this clown was shooting...we seem to have lost track of the fact he didn't actually hurt anybody. Before you snap back with "he could have", I'll point out that the helo pilot could have too.

I'll take this one, Maggie
 

I'd like to hear the whole story here someday. Every time I hear you mention it, I hear a new detail that changes the whole thing.

You know, I love when people opposed to guns get sarcastic. Of course the size of the projectile is only a fraction of an inch larger than a .22. So? What difference does the size of the powder charge make in this argument? None. Nor does stopping power which IMO is an arbitrary rating anyway. Neither of these things defines an "assault weapon". What does is the weapon's appearance. That's why some SKS rifles are banned and some are not. It's appearance and not the actual moving parts.

Here's another secret you don't know: no one who does not posess a valid Class III license issued by the federal government can purchase full-auto conversion kits, parts or assemblies. Including the trigger assembly you claim is available at gun shows. I've never seen one. And I know how to do the conversion and it involves a lot more than the firing pin which, other than needing to be hardened, does not need to be changed at all. The selector, cam and engaging rod (sear) need to be replaced. Also if you're smart you'll replace the barrel bushing which in the AR-15 is nylon with a steel one (found only in the M-16 A1/2) to prevent it's melting and jamming the mechanism.

Don't tell anyone though. You'll destroy the idea that a full-auto conversion can be done by anyone with a file and five minutes.

For information: allow me to quote from the National Firearms Act:

The term "machine gun" means any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, [my emphasis] automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under control of a person.


There you have it. And I cannot really find a definition of an "assault rifle" other than that used to describe a rifle, designed for military use, which has a bayonet lug, select fire capability and a detachable magazine. If you can find a better one, please let me know.

Brian

A challenge to spinningfetus
 

How would you like a look at the best reason for civilian assault rifles (or their cheaper-to-feed cousins the semiauto-only versions) that I've ever seen?

Spinningfetus, let me warn you ahead of time: if you don't at least give this material a good looking over, you are not going to know how genocide gets started, or what the ordinary joe can do about it, which turns out to be not only simple, but fun even.Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Dhamsaic, I don't think "mak[ing] it difficult" is the right idea. For background on why I think that way, I refer you to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. These people have a tremendous, and unrebutted, case -- one that deserves to be heard around the world.

Professional fireamrs instructors that I know are, believe it or not, <b>opposed</b> to government-mandated firearms training as a requirement for licencing. In general they find it tends to be ineffective and overpriced.

JFPO has some interesting things to say about the psychological motivations of gun prohibitionists, too.

the gun thread....part??????
 

Spin,
Answer:
Because the Bill of Rights says we can.

Counter question:
Why can I not have one?
Have I (not criminals or other hypothetical people) ever done anything wrong to justify you pissing on one of the founding principles of this country?
addendum:
This is a theoretical I. of course you can't answer about me in specific b/c there is the possibility that I am violent in some way and just haven't posted that on these boards.

Government...overpriced...ineffective. Shocking. ;)

Are you going to party like it's [been] 1999 [posts since you joined the Cellar]?

Of course, he can't answer that question. :)

The sky is so purple, there are people running everywhere...

16/F/5'10"/94lbs PM ME!!!

A girl that size would be on her way to supermodelhood. ;)

Re: the gun thread....part??????
 

I doubt it. You're a hard pacifist that probably lives in a blacked-out room spinning Cat Stevens records all day. ;)

Re: Re: the gun thread....part??????
 

Actually, I'm a closet speed freak listening to Swedish death metal in my grandma's basement with 26 sun lamps to keep the demons away. :rar:

And, for everyone's enightenment, a couple of short descriptions of the Cellar, courtesy of Hunter S. Thompson:

"This place is like the Army: the shark ethic prevails-eat the wounded. In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride . . . and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mid, well . . . maybe chalk it off to forced consciousness expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."

You're stopping short, hence not recognizing the dilemma. The 2nd Amendment not only gives us "the right to keep and bear" nasty guns, but "arms". It doesn't say "muskets" or "personal protection"; it says honest to goodness ARMS. I believe (as many do) that the intent of this amendment was to allow the public to credibly defend itself against an oppressive government.

Now c'mon -- anybody who honestly believes a few assault rifles would stand any chance of deterring a bona fide govt assault by anything more vicious than a battalion of rabid postal carriers is just stupid. We need machine guns, shoulder-fired rockets, tanks, missiles, and tactical nukes! But you gotta ask yourself, how safe would you feel knowing your neighbor and half the guys in the county had tactical nukes at their personal disposal? (Road rage = KABOOM!!! :D ) I believe, however, the 2nd Amendment gave that right, but it is obsolete, irrelevant, and frankly (don't shoot me -- ;) ) should be repealed.

Don't get me wrong; the 2nd Amendment made good sense when muskets were among the pinnacle of weaponry, and it was reasonable to expect some sort of military balance between the power of the government and the power of the people. However, it is now centuries obsolete -- made so by the power of modern weaponry vs. the irresponsibility of Joe American.

The classic NRA "protection vs. govt" line is Grade A bullshit, and I wish people would stop invoking it. Please understand and recognize this: The real reason for packing heat is for power vs. fellow man, whether that's a potential criminal, a bully in a bar, or an unwelcome visitor caught boinking your spouse. Now whether that's a valid reason to permit personal weapons (even assault rifles) is debatable, but not, I believe, constitutionally protected.

The Pennsylvania constitution is very clear on this point: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense <b><i>of themselves</i></b> and the State shall not be questioned." [emphasis added] So this includes the 9mm autoloading pistol I carry, as well as the Springfield M1-A/M-14 "assult-style rifle" I''d like to own, but can't afford at the moment.

(As an aside, capping an unwelcome boinker will get your guns conficated and you thrown in the slammer...unless the boinker was unwelcome by the <i>spouse</i>, too, in which case it's justified use of deadly force in this state...rapist season is always open.)

The intent of Amendment 2 was manifold--danger can come from many directions, not just an out-of-control government--but clearly the founders thought a disarmned populace was a bad idea, and I agree. And and out-of-control government is nothing more than a biggish gang of hoodlums...your "fellow man" writ large.

The idea that an armed citizenry is pointless simply because the government owns bigger guns is silly. Don't underestimate the power of small arms widely held by a large population. Nice thing about it is that it's inherently democratic. The republic was born in guerilla warfare, and it could, if need be, happen again.

Unless people who think our rights are "obsolete" surrender them for us.

Interesting tidbit on the PA constitution! Of course it's irrelevant to the national constitution and, by extension, national arms rights. But my implicit question remains unanswered: What defines "arms"? How do you arrive at the conclusion that pistols and assault rifles are okay? Just your arbitrary personal opinion? Why not shoulder-fired rockets? Sure would be easier to defend my home with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the porch and an M1 Abrams tank in the garage. Who are you to tell me I can't have them?? I have a constitutional RIGHT!!!
No argument here, although a simple gunshot is probably too kind...
Maybe, maybe not, but it's kinda hard to support that position in light of the more specific language present in, say, the PA constitution -- language which is conspicuously absent in the national constitution.
This is probably the heart of the issue, and the key point that we disagree on. I really do think the constitution right to arms argument is bunk, but the question remains: Are we safer with armed citizens or with disarmed citizens? It probably boils down to different viewpoints on human nature. I tend to think that even basically kind, decent, "good" people can lose it from time to time. A gun greatly facilitates death in such a situation.

[anecdote edited to protect the guilty; sorry -- I just reconsidered that a public forum prolly isn't the best place for this story]

Guess that's where I'm coming from... I think that gun-advocates tend to see in more black and white, but you tell me?
Maybe true, but the power of their weaponry makes pistols and assault rifles utterly irrelevant. (see below)
You've got to be kidding. I gotta assume you're just saying this for argument's sake. Please tell me you don't really believe your subdivision, armed with M-14s, could hold off a full assault of marines, complete with automatic weapons, mortars, artillery, heli gunships, etc.

That was then -- we fought muskets with muskets. This is now -- there's just no contest. I guess, you might argue that North Vietnam fought off the U.S. through guerilla warfare, but they had much more than mere pistols and semi-auto assault rifles with which to fight, not to mention that was 30 years ago. U.S. military tech hasn't exactly stood still.

:rolleyes: I can't believe I even have to argue this point. You might as well be insisting the sky is green...
MODERN WEAPONRY has made any constitutional right to arms that may or may not exist obsolete. It just doesn't matter -- "armed" civies vs. "ARMED" govt don't have a prayer, NONE, even w/ guerilla tactics, *unless* the civies have access to real weaponry, e.g. fully automatic rifles, grenades, rockets, etc. at a MINIMUM. They'd need tanks, heli gunships, etc. to even approach a fair fight.

I'll ask again: Would you feel safe if Joe American had access to bona fide modern weaponry? After all, ICBMs don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people.

I'm with you sludge, the whole idea of overthrowing the govt is farcical nowadays.

This is the "what if" game that no one can win. Yes, if he had a gun, he might have killed her. And if she had a gun, she might have held him off. Would he try to attack his wife if he knew she was armed and knew how to use it? What if? Blah blah blah. Seriously. You can't win here, so let's just drop it. I like you, but this is an awful example.

Guns definitely do facilitate death. That's what they were made to do - kill people. Unfortunately, this can't be undone. Guns are here to stay.

Now, what to do about it?

Well, one option that you <i>seem</i> to support is the idea of gun control laws - making it illegal to possess handguns and assault rifles (which were your examples). Okay. So those laws get passed and you're real happy. What have they accomplished? <b>They remove the guns from the hands of law abiding citizens</b>. That is the very simple and obvious outcome, and you cannot argue it. Read it over again and again until it totally makes sense. Only those that obey the laws are going to follow it. Criminals don't care about the laws, so it's not bothering them.

As a matter of fact, they're loving this gun control stuff. Why? Well, for one, it creates an illegal market for guns. Those that are able to traffic in them will become obscenely rich. Secondly, it means that Joe Q. Citizen does <b>not</b> have a gun, so Leroy G. Thug can pick on him at will. Leroy might not have a gun, but he <b>knows</b> that John doesn't, and that gives him an advantage. Partially because John can't know whether or not Leroy does, and partially because Leroy now isn't in as great a physical danger as he is when he attacks someone who is carrying a firearm.

So the situation that has been created is this: law abiding citizens do not have firearms (pistols and assault rifles), and criminals may or may not.

Explain to me how this is a good idea?

"Well, the potential for accidental firearm deaths will decrease."

Okay. Well, last time I checked, more people died in car accidents than did in shooting incidents. Let's make cars illegal too? Hmmm?

I'll give gun control advocates the benefit of the doubt and assume that their intentions are noble - to make the country a safer place. But... how is it possibly a <b>good idea</b> to make any sorts of firearms illegal? How does that help you accomplish your goal?

Not at all. There are no "national arms rights". They're not "national rights", they're the people's rights...the Federal Constitution's Second Amendment simply prohibits the Federal Government from infringing them. In the Commonwealth, our constitution reiterates that that right is not to be questioned.

By the way, they're not called "tid-bits". They're called "articles". If we called them "tid-bits", some dweeb might think they were trivial, optional, and amendable by whim.
Arms Arms, n. pl. OE. armes, F. arme, pl. armes, fr. L. arma,
pl., arms, orig. fittings, akin to armus shoulder, and E.
arm. See Arm, n.
1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

Seems pretty clear that handguns and long guns fall under that rubric.
Indeed you do. And *I* certainly won't tell you you can't have them. I might offer some commentary on how effective they might be...but that's just opinion. Make sure you pay the Class 1 tax on the .50 cal, it's annoying, but legally required. You *are* allowed to have one, legally, today...assuming you can get your local cop shop to sign off that you're OK.

The Abrhams might be a bigger problem....catepillar treads tend to tear up municipal paving. :-)

I'm not going to play "slippery slope" with you about drawing a line somewhere between a slingshot and a Minuteman warhead, because we'll end up playing the old Salami Game. That's where somebody steals your salami one slice at a time, and nothing happens, because one slice of salami isn't worth fighting over. Pretty soon, there's nothing left but the string, and that's not worth fighting over either.
Probably too kind (assuming you don't go in for kneecaping), but inarguably effective. Of course, there's that other constitutional "tid-bit" about "cruel and unusual punishment"...but if we're editing the constitution to suit your personal prejudices, why stop with just the Second Amendment?
So, you just don't trust good people with guns. You'd rather only the criminals and the cops had them (neither of whom have a particularly good record, BTW).

I don't share your view, and I don't believe the facts support it either. I can point you to piles of research and studies that show individually and in bulk that the cases where a legally armed citizen does *good* by being armed vastly outnumber the cases where they go berzerk and do evil. In fact the real-world cases where armed citizens prevent a crime vastly outnumber the cases where cops prevent a crime. They just don't usually generate press reports and anecdotes.

It wasn't conspicuous until I pointed it out to you, of course.

They're obviously not worded in *exactly* the same way. The Federal Constitution had more cooks messing with the broth, and it shows..even in the punctuation, much less the diction. Nontheless, they both still say what they say, and mean what they say. So while you're marvelling at points that you can't belive you need to defend, marvel at that.

Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

I'm sorry that you project your distrust of yourself and your friends onto the rest of us, but happily so far your opinion doesn't rule. The biggest danger you face involving firearms *isn't* that some legally armed citizen is going to go berzerk and plug you. Even if your taste in friends runs to those with personality disorders who mix drugs and alcohol. (I'd recommend the lady involved obtain a protection from abuse order, BTW. Then you won't have to worry about your drunken friend with OCD getting guns legally.)
You can stick in all the eye-roll smilies you like, but I think your view of the balance of power between the government and the people is hideously oversimplified.

Your proposed scenario of a Marine assult on a subdivision sounds like something an elementary school kid would draw in crayon, but do you really think there's a battallion available for every town in the country? Do you really think they'd have much unit cohesion once they started to get orders to assault their own people? And how long do you think their weapons would remain completely in government hands? (The Vietcong at one point were issued handmade single-shot weapons--little more than zip guns--the purpose of which was to take out *one* enemy soldier by sniping, thereby arming the shooter.)

I *do* believe I have to argue the points about gun prohibitionism, because your lines of argument are very common among gun prohibitionists, and we've heard *all* of them on The Cellar at one time or another.

The slippery slope ("You don't want a nuke...do you?") the paranoid accusation ("Why can't you feel safe without a gun?"), the "obsolete constitution" argument ("Oh, it doesn't really mean what it says, and weapons are completely different today, so let's just ignore it") and the *other* paranoid accusation ("I wouldn't trust me with a gun, or any of my friends, I'm afraid they might flip out, so you shouldn't have one either.")
Well, it *does* exist, and I don't think it's obsolete. Just because *you* don't personally like this particular part of the Constitution doesn't invalidate it, thank goodness.

Thank you for illustrating an argument for gun control. Instead of a situation which ended peacefully it would have ended with a death if *either* of them had had a gun and possibly 2 deaths. People always have a capability to kill, the better the available weaponry the more likely deaths will occur.

yup, and tanks, nukes, chemical weapons, grenades, rocket launchers.......

Summerised to: I can't acutally deny this one.

Out of question, why do you want an assult rifle, personal protection? Killing wildlife?

Congratulations for defeating your own point. Firstly i'd point out that over 3 million Vietnamese died to 50,000 US soldiers. If the govt dissolved to the point where the vast majority of the population was in open insurrection many other things would happen before it dissolved into armed conflict anyway, its silly to even argue it. It is also point out that militas which were very popular in the 90s were carefuly scrutinised by the govt, i'm sure if any had started posing a serious threat they would have started dissipearing too.

Visa Versa.

Will someone please answer my question?
 

Specifically Jag and Sludge, because they're the ones arguing most vehenmently.

Why can I not have a gun? I was speaking in the hypothetical before, but, I'll be more specific now. Why not? I've never been arrested; I haven't even been in a fistfight since I was in junior high school. I don't drive drunk. I don't really even speed that much.
Therefore, I put the challenge to you:

Tell me why I cannot have a weapon at my disposal.

The burden of proof is not on me. I have done nothing wrong. You want to punish me for the actions of another. That, I do not accept.

Orignially posted by MaggieL

Army officer's wife charged in shooting death

Nonsense.

The woman was assulted by a man who was drunk, and on psychiatric drugs. I personally think she should have had the opportunity to defend herself.

Instead *you'd* let her face a lunatic perhaps twice her size barehanded so you can have a feel-good about gun prohibition. Nice guy.
No, summarized to: I won't sacrifice the principle to extreme hypotheticals. Very few people waste money on overkill weapons like that. Some admittedly do, legal or not. If someone wants to keep a tank in his backyard, it's OK with me. (in fact some people here do). Toxic chemicals of any kind, including fissionable materials, fall more under public health issues in my view; but I don't think they should be regulated <i>because they might be used as weapons</i>.

C'mon, you know enough about argumentation to know what a "slippery slope" is.
Oh, please. Why do you buy meat? "Eating wildlife"? It's called "hunting", you're really stretching to try to make it sound evil.

I might want one for self-defense, or for hunting, or for both, or for neither. I might be a collector. I might be a sport shooter. The fact is, my personal reasons for owning any particular weapon (or anything else, for that matter) aren't subject to your personal review.

Do you own a car? Why? Why not? What are you going to do with it.? Can you justify it against the environmental impact? Why don't you sell it and feed the starving children? Why don't you buy one and support the auto industry? Can you prove you'll never have an accident with it?

How about that computer of yours? Why do you need that? It's perfectly capable of comitting intellectual property theft. I demand you surrender it to the government, and replace it with equipment that's been neutered to make sure it can only be used for nice, safe, legal purposes.

You see jag, I don't *have* to justify to you my desire to own any particular weapon, computer, data, software, tool or anything else. It's my business, not yours. Any of them *could* be used to comitt a crime, or make war...or not. That doesn't justify your desire to confiscate them, or make them contraband, just because *you* think I don't "need" them.

And yet the Vietnamese now control ther own goverment. You then go on to confirm *my* position that the balance of power is much more complicated than a simple head-to-head slugfest where higher firepower always wins and thus whoever has fewer/smaller weapons doesn't stand a chance so they might as well surrender before anything happens.
It *is* silly to argue about it in those terms...why are you?

Its a simple matter, they don't trust you. Among all the other things I use to measure politicians I apply the L. Neil Smith test. If they don't trust a citizen with a gun, I don't trust them with a vote.

A couple of things:

Jag, the militias would not have been addressed by the gov't. They tried to address armed religious nuts in Waco. It didn't really work too well, and that wasn't even a militia. (The OKC "blowback" did come via a militia though, if there is any truth to the common notions about what really happened.)

The notion that one cannot manage an entire revolution with peashooters because the feds have bigger weaponry is true. But arms in the hands of the common citizen has prevented the NEED for revolution! There is a big limit to how oppressive the government can act, and Waco is evidence of that point, and a sobering reminder to everyone involved.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS? Because if you send agents to many parts of the country, including the "deep north" of New Hampshire where my grandfather lived, they will get their asses blown off with a load of buckshot. This is an effective control on power, in this case a control on the agency most likely to deny citizen's rights.

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Arms in the hands of citizens has the effect of distributing real power to the lowest levels. This does lead to a certain noise level of tragedy as some people are incapable of handling their responsibilities. I'm convinced that it prevents a larger level of tragedy in crime and, eventually, in government overstepping its limitations.

Maggie you’re in a debate, you have to be able to justify your actions and words on issues that are directly related to the debate. Secondly cars are designed to transport people, computers are designed to process information on the other hand assault rifles are designed to fire bits of lead at really really high speeds many times a second to kill things. It’s not a dual-use device like a computer or a car can be, it’s designed to kill stuff, full stop. Big difference. If I’d asked you why you own a car, you'd have a point, I asked you why you wanted to own a high-power firearm designed for killing people (originally) that’s entirely on topic.

Because you have no justifiable reason for needing one. Why can't I have a library of cracking tools, why can't I modify my own hardware in the future?

Really? Got a source for that? Arms I’d take to be a shortened version of armaments which includes everything from single shot pistols to 20mm chain guns on choppers to daisy cutters to nukes.

How about some fucking pepper spray? Situation can be resolved without killing people. This I’m sure is news to the NRA. Tasers, teargas, screamers, non lethal ways of disarmaments are bloody effective, I’d argue more effective in some situations and no one dies. That’s the most important thing in my book.

You really want to get started on Vietnam? Fine. Firstly if you send a battalion of ordinary Vietnamese into battle, and a battalion of ordinary Americans, you'd have a few thou viets left and no Americans. Secondly look at the toll, the damage decades of war ahs done to the place will take centuries to recover. Thirdly half the reason America lost (the actual battle, not would have happened afterwards) was because a swing in public opinion at home, not losses on the battlefield. Thirdly it was knowledge of the territory that made them so deadly, if you a real-life idea of casualties in such conflicts look at possibly Israeli actions in palatine or the British in Northern Ireland. Army wins, hands down. My belief is if something happened to cause the majority of the population to insurrect (lets say bush declares himself dictator and burns the bill of rights...oh wait he already....nevermind) the army would dissolve into chaos anyway.


If it was worth it, they'd do it.

Tisn't:

From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European Roots. V., from Middle English armen from Old French armer, from Latin armore, from arma

But in context, for the purposes of the Constitution, the word is what it was meant when it was written in 1789: carryable weapons. They didn't mean cannons or trebuchets or poison or bombs. They meant knives, pistols and rifles.

Exactly; and the presence of guns in the hands of citizens puts a very large constant on one side of the equation. Is it "worth it" to put the agent in harm's way? Rarely. Ergo, it doesn't routinely happen.

What this does is to ensure that there is consent of the governed, because the governed do have the option of the use of deadly force in larger numbers if they do NOT consent. It is a wonderful way to ensure that there is not need for true revolution and much, much greater loss of life.

Hold on a minute. You're "begging the question", (another one of those argumentation maneuvers you're so fond of).

The debate isn't framed as "prove to my satisfaction why you need a weapon or give it up"...although <b>you'd</b> certainly like to cast it that way, of course. <b>I</b> say, if you want to usurp <b>my</b> right to defend myself in the manner I choose, the burden is on <b>you</b> to demonstrate a compelling reason to do so. Your best move on that score so far is "sometimes people get shot", which is feeble at best.

"The only purpose of a gun is to kill" is another prohibitionist slogan based in a gross oversimplification, the implication being that if a gun isn't used to kill then it has no purpose. If that were true would mean there are lots of cops out there with no reason to have a gun.

One purpose of a gun (ignoring for now the others) is to defend its owner, which it can do <i>witthout ever actually being fired "in anger"</i>. Of course, when this happens it tends to not generate police reports, newspaper articles, or exciting TV drama, so if that's how you learn about the world you might have missed that .

If a gun is never fired in anger, then it may well have <b>succeeded</b> in its purpose.

Ai, talk about nitpick. Why are you so unwilling to answer the question of why you want a high power assult rifle? The question was one asked out of curiousity with the possability of working the answer into another post if it proved useful.

Since when did the burden of proof lie with me? I didn't start this mess, I just weighed in halfway though. For refrence my arguement isn't "sometimes people get shot" it IS that people get shot. People DIE becase some jackass exersizing his constitutional right blows a 45 cal slug though some poor bastards back who he thought was threatening. YOur mainjsutification always seems to have been personal defense, how about less deadly means of doing that?

I mean the agurement of guns for personal defense is flawed anyway. Firstly if peopel arm themselves, crims are either oging to get more organised so people don't have itme ot use them, fire first, resulting in more deaths or get bigger guns. Great solution. I was looking into carrying weapons though cambodia and parts of Thailand for security reasons and after talking to people decided against it because in most cases it makes a bad istuation worse. Beleive it or not ciminals are not that interested in killing people, it tends to cause allot of problems. I'd rahter lose my wallet and leave it at that than risk losing my life over my wallet.

So the only purpose is a deterrant?

What the hell do you think guns were made for? Assult rifles in particular are designed from the ground up to effective kill people. Full stop. Whether they act as a deterant is irrelavent to that statement, that is their purpose. Just as a convertable can be used to impress people its still fundamentally for transport.

I'd be interested in getting some stats on this, where gun owners have killed unarmed people, armed people, people armed with lesser weapons etc not to mention percieved threat vs real threat. I mean here gun owners are a small group of people, but there penty of clubs around and stuff. I"ve been to a few of these for gun, fired a range of stuff and since i also did cadets i've done firearms traing. I swear the way a some of those people handed weapons, including loaded weapons would make scare the shit out of your average soldier. The simple fact is the vast majority of people are not mentally capable or trained enough to be able to handle wepaons effeicvely and safely in dangerous situations. Thats why i'm advocating nonlethal wepaons.

Ut: got a source on that? this one is interesting. What would a cannon have been calssified as?

On the other hand if the citizen corsses a line, they will sne dagents, who will effetive deal with that person, armed or not. If large numbers of peopel started protesting in public brandishing arms about something i'm sure the first thing that would happen is those weapons carriers would be singled out and dealt with. Lets face it anyway, the public is too stupid and too apathetic to do it anyway unless all hell borke loose in which case it woudl be ineffective anyway. I don't think bush sits there and this 'if i sign this will all thsoe armed citizens out here get pissed off.

While what you said is quite possible UT, you didn't mention why they were sending him letters. Depending on why he was getting letters, it may not have been worth it to send someone beyond the possibility that an agent might get his ass capped. What was he doing? Importing yak meat from Tibet? ;)

(EDIT: Incorrect use of a word..."fact" changed to "possibility" in last paragraph.)

Since the minute you propose restricting my rights, you need a damn good justification. I don't need a justification to exercise my rights, that's why they're called <i>rights</i>. Sorry you don't have those rights anymore, but it's not my fault.

I was trained to use an M-14 by the military, I found it to be a very satisfactory weapon, accurate, pleasant to shoot, and a fine piece of machinery. It is my right to own one, and if I had the money to spare (I don't) there would be one here right now. I don't need any more reason than that.

There are state game lands only a few miles away from my home, I might use it to hunt. (Or I might not; I'm not really fond of venison but would certainly survive on it if I had to. We're so ovepopulated with deer here that the Feds actually hire hunters to come into the local parks and thin the herds.) I would very likely use it for target shooting....it's definatly *not * the same thing as shooting as a .22 match rifle.

But I don't owe *you* a justification for this, especially since you've already declared yourself hostile to my rights. This is a matter totally within my discretion.

You don't? Then you don't know squat about US politics. Bush would have lost the election <b>big-time</b> without the support of armed citizens, and he knows <b>that</b> very well, I assure you.

And once again I've grown weary running after you around in circles over this thing.

If I deny "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" and assert "One purpose of a gun is to deter violence" you jump right into "so the only purpose is deterrance?". And then <i>in the very next sentence</I> you wander off down the "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" street again. Where did you learn logic?

No, the *only* purpose isn't deterrance, but it *is* a damned good one, and one that does not require killing. If a weapon isn't potentially lethal, it doesn't make a very good deterrant. And your proposal "let's give non lethal weapons to people who are too stupid to use guns safely" doesn't appeal to me much either....most non-lethal weapons require even <b>more</b> skill to use effectively and safely than firearms do. .

But this is all pointless...I don''t <b>need</b> a reason that will pass your muster, which is a good thing in my view, because no purpose <b>will</b> pass your muster. I remain convinced the reason it can't is because <i>you've</i> already lost your rights on this score, so everything else is sour grapes.

Enjoy your enlightened civilization, sooner or later you guys may figure it out. Or not.

Syc, I dunno what grandad was doin'... and I don't wanna know. No, really I don't know. I don't expect that it was very serious and might well have been routine. But it did occur to me that, being as he was up there in the middle of nowhere, with many people with righteous indignation at tax payin', it may well not serve your basic revenooer to pay a visit.

That's like Griff country up there; you don't just go knocking on doors without knowing what to expect. Everybody knows everybody else if it isn't tourist season.

Why did you jsut say 'deer hunting' and got the hell over it? What does my view on gun rights have to do with asking you why you want an assult rifle?

YOu've misread waht i said, which is partially my fault at elast twice. Firstly when i said armed citizens i didn't mena gun owners. I was evaluating the role of his thinking of an armed insurrection taking ot the streets, not the NRA throwing money at lobbyists.

I didn't say killing is the ONLY purpose of a gun. I didn't even say thats its purpose. I said what they re designed for. Which is killing. Particulary assult rifles. From a defense perspective a gun can either be used to deter someone from attacking you, or to stop them, i assume by shooting them correct? If a 'successful' use in a defense situation is deterence, ie someone pulls a knife and asked for your bag and you pull out a (mm and tell them to fuck off and they do. i'd love to see some stats on usage in such situations.



Phlease. Its the best peice of legislation passed in recent times in this country. Now i can go to a nightclub knowing the chances of some dipshit pulling a glock on the dancefloor is virtually none. I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby, the list just goes on. Furthermore its far easier to take on an attacker with a knife than a gun, its a cc weapon and it takes some serios skill to use effectively, guns are far easier to kill people with, particuarly when theres a few metres involved. I've done enough martial arts, knife fighting and disarmament training to feel confident about taking on an attacker with a knife, unarmed.

I'm glad you finally came out and said that, youv'e been hinting at it all the time, i was tempted to say something but it was jsut too funny. I hope you've now realised i firmly beleive what i say. I would not want to live in a gun toting society and i do not beleive the inability to carry weapons in public is a bad thing. Btw don't get holier than thou about 'enligheneted civilizations', you live in a war mongering, ignorant, arrogant powerhouse, enlightened is something i'd apply to the constitution of America in general, but not the nation.

My God...are you high, man?

There is absolutely no way you can provide evidence to support this statement: "I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby." No way in hell you can prove that. That's like saying, "I know I won't get HIV if I have unprotected sex. It CAN'T happen to me." Not to mention, were the chances of getting shot at a club that high before the gun laws? I'd say probably not.

I challenge you to come to the United States. In fact, I challenge you to come to Philadelphia. Then you can see how much of a "gun-toting society" we really are. You make us sound like we're all hanging out at the OK Corral, when in fact, all you really know about American society is what you read. You've never been here...and I'm willing to wager that if you spend a good month in this country, the only thing you'll need to worry about is people picking on you for having a "bad" accent.

Jag, I think you're an intelligent person. But you are coming across (at least to me) as incredibly paranoid and naive right now. There's nothing wrong with your beliefs, but your rationale seems to be coming out of left field.

Because (1) it's not the entire story (go back and read what I wrote again) and (2) your campaign for many postings has been "prove that you need to have a gun", along with a lot of blather about how I don't really. My reasons aren't subject to your review...which is apparently OK because even when I do lay them out you don't hear all of what I say anyhow.
A distinction without a difference.. Gun owners are armed citizens, and vice versa. By "gun owners" I mean legal gun owners...they're citizens, and they are armed.
What I said had <b>nothing</b> at all to do with lobbyists, (although it's always fun to drag that perjorative into the discussion, just like "eating wildlife" when you mean "hunting").

I was referring the people who elected him President. They're not lobbyists. And fortunately we're not yet at the point where our President needs to be in fear of an armed insurrection before he listens to the people he's supposed to be working for.
Really? I've had martial arts training too, and what I was taught (along with the appropriate techniques) was that if you take on an assailant who has a knife and knows how to use it, with you empty-handed, you *will* get cut, perhaps fatally, unless you are very skillful, recently practiced, *and* very lucky. I respect that sensei very much.

It sounds to me like you've been taught a few techniques and fed some false confidence, which can be very dangerous.
No, I've said it on several occasions before, you must have missed it. I still think it's true, especially after your account of how you considered arming yourself once you got out of AU but got talked out of it. I sure hope that wasn't on the strength of what a bad-ass martial artist you think you are...in SE Asia, of all places.

I don't doubt you <i>believe</i> what you say, of course, it wouldn't be a good rationalization if you didn't.

Ironic; you dismiss the opposition as a 'load of blather' then claim they don't listen to you.

If you're going to quote, at least don't misquote. I said 'kill wildlife'. Secondly if there is an overpopulation of a species, its a perfectly valid activity. That's why people like farmers here have guns. There are valid reasons for owning firearms, i don't and still don't think personal defense is one of them. As for them requiring more skill than firearms, bullshit. Pepperspray irequires far less training (spray at person, not you) than loading, carrying and zeroing the sights on a firearm and damn, that stuff is effective.

When he doens't he doesn't have to worry either, thats my point.

Firstly i practise twice a week, secondly it depends on how trained your attacker is. If he is trained your most likely stuffed but allot of people carry knives with little or no knowledge of how to use them. Most of the situations in which i could see that happening would most likely involve people who are likely to cut themselves trying to get it out.

That becase the places i'm going to be travling too are very heavily armed and dangerous. Australia is not. My decision was based on the point that if you pull a gun on an armed assailant you're more likely to get shot. Its not in my best interest thereore to carry a gun. I'd rather lose my shit than lose my life.
Sorry, what was the basis of your point again?

Jag you may want to consider Sycs point. The Hollywood version of America is for entertainment purposes only, do not transpose the pictures on your screen into a vision of American culture.

I'm thinking that part of the communication problem you and Maggie face is based on differing views of Americas Bill of Rights. The BoR is only a list of rights which man has that cannot be transgressed by government. It is not a list of rights given by or protected by government. That is why when you propose disarming Americans the burden of proof is on you.

oops i somehow missed sycs post

Ill rephrase. The statistical likelyhood of me being gunned down accidetly in a driveby is signifigantly less enough in a bad suburb of melbourne or sydney, than lets say...inner LA is enough to prove a corralation between the number of guns around and the number of driveby shootings.

Yo'd think by now i'd earn that you can never prove anything. COnsidering i wrote na essay on that yesterday i really should remember. *sighs* The catch bieng i didn't sleep inbetween.

Actually, yea. It was higher. Partiucalry sydney, king st etc, man, wouldn't go near those places.


*sighs* yea, you do have a point. Yea, i've got coloured views on the issue because of media etc, peace doesn't make news i know. At the same time ill stick to by guns fundamentally, carrying firearms for personal protection is counterproductive. As you can tell i'm way too stuffed to aruge atm, i'm gonan be dropping off the edge of the earth till monday or so, ill come up with something more rational with a couple of days sleep behind me.

You're getting the idea.

I'm thinking we should combine the gun thread with a Palestine thread to create The Cellar Steel Cage Shitstorm.

Throw in the National ID concept too for shits and grins. ;)

wwarner11, the fucking smartass, is no longer with us (I believe), so I'm not sure it would be as interesting.

Oh, I <b>listened</b>, but that's why I called it blather. Your conclusions always seem driven by this simplistic view of the world that doesn't involve taking into account *why* people really do what they do, and what the *actual* consequences, unintended as well as intended, of passing laws really are.
That's another fable. The statistics I've read show that as a group, crime victims who resist fare <b>better</b> then those who "give it up". You may find it counter to your expectation based on your casual "fewer guns means less shooting" type of reasoning, but it's true.
Jag, given how restrictive California gun laws are, LA is an <i>extremely</i> bad example of how gun control makes the streets safer. CA law is much closer to AU law on this score.

California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, DC and such places have already succumbed to arguments such as yours, and they suffer the consequences daily...which generate the news stories that form your picture of daily life in the US.

Other jursidictions (33 of our 50 states and the majority of our population), where the law provides that the cops "shall issue" permits for legal ownership and carry when the applicant has a clean record have significanty lower rates of violent crime. In each of the states, the crime rate went down when the relevant law was passed.

"Shall issue" rather than "may issue" is important, because it removes discretionary issue...in the hands of local cops discretionary issue too often turns into one of those "prove to me you need this weapon" farces. New Jersey is typical; to get a carry permit in Jersey you effectively need to be either a cop or a politician.

That said, the real reason for gang warfare in the streets in LA is extreme poverty and drug prohibition. Absent drug prohibition, drug gangs wouldn't have so much money and territory to fight over.

As it is, they have so much money that in the magical event of effective worldwide gun prohibition, they could have underground gun foundries set up next to their underground drug labs. In fact, such a foundary would be *easier* to run than a crack factory, since the raw materials for guns and ammunition don't need to be imported.

Gun prohibition works as well as drug prohibition, which is to say "not at all"...and for the same reasons. Creating new categories of contraband simply creates a new black market....and black markets feed on each other.

It'd still be good I think. We still have folks like tw. ;)