Slashdot Mirror

off-topic, but the site referred to in your sig has lots of buggy HTML that makes it impossible to accurately complete the extremely biased survey:

I don't read AC A human right

The main issue I have is several groups of unrelated radio buttons were marked as "x"
<INPUT NAME="x" TYPE=Radio>

This page should make any stats geek angry regardless of his opinion on gun control, for using the most obvious loaded questions I have ever seen: http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html

It would make a heydey for criminals, too. They would know that whoever their victim is would be unarmed. Look at what happened in Australia when they banned guns: crime skyrocketed.

I'm a 115 pound woman. If I'm within arm's reach of someone trying to harm me, like I would have to be to defend myself with a knife, I've already lost.

I suggest you check out:
http://www.a-human-right.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Also, guns aren't purely for "attack" or "defense". Many people target-shoot or trap-shoot recreationally or competitively; it's an olympic sport. Guns also provide a means of getting food for those who hunt.

How about a society where I, a 250 pounds muscle freak do not use my physical power to force you, the 100 pounds computer nerd, to do anything you don't want to, just because I am civilized? No need for guns.

There always have been and always will be "evil people". Your utopia simply doesn't exist.

Gun owners don't want to shoot people. People that concealed carry are are far from "trigger happy", it's a last resort. No, having a gun doesn't automatically make you safe, but it does even the odds. If only the "bad guys" have guns, they will do far more harm. Remember the off-duty police officer that shot the man at the mall that was shooting innocent shoppers? It would have been many times worse if there wasn't someone armed other than the "bad guy". http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251864,00.html

I'm a 115 pound woman. What would you have me do if some 250 pound man broke into my home with the intention of harming me? I'm just supposed to lay down and take it and not be able to defend myself? No thank you!

Suzanne Hupp's testimony about the 2nd amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

http://www.a-human-right.com/

And if you don't allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns, then the criminals are guarenteed that their target is unarmed. Good news for the criminals, it lowers their risk of harm considerably.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/keltec_0 92304/

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec_P3AT.htm

http://thearmedcitizen.com/gunpages/slipper.htm

The ethics of owning guns http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

The 2nd Amendment http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

If you know anyone with young children who need gun safety training http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/materials.asp

It ROCKS!

I usually carry my Kel-Tec P32, which has a Pocket Slipper Laser Aimer. Sits in the front pocket like a PCA or wallet. http://www.smartcarry.com/xsl.jpg

Guns And Laws

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Nice, small gun

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec_P3AT.htm and

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/keltec_0 92304/ Lifetime guarantee. .32 caliber, $250~ Slightly larger and more money: http://www.waltheramerica.com/firearms/ppks.cfm

Florida gun laws

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/florida

If you know anyone with young children who need gun safety training http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/materials.asp

The official police academy book for gun laws in Florida http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/indexbook.shtml

The ethics of owning guns http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

Florida's concealed carry permit office http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.htm l

FAQ http://www.guncite.com/index.html and http://gunscholar.com/

Purchase From Dealer

There is no license or permit required to purchase a firearm (rifle, shotgun or handgun) in the State of Florida. However, at the time of purchase an "instant background check" is performed by the dealer calling an 800 number that connects him to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The FDLE operator uses the basic information about you provided by the dealer (name, address, birthdate, Social Security Number, etc.) to check the state and federal computers to determine whether or not you have a criminal record, domestic violence conviction or are subject to a restraining order. If you have a clean record, FDLE tells the dealer that you are Approved, and the sale takes place. If there is a problem with your record the dealer is told that you are Disapproved, and he may not sell you the firearm. Assuming that you are "approved", you may take a rifle or shotgun home immediately. In the case of a handgun, you must wait three days to take it out of the store, a so-called "cooling-off" period. If you are approved, the state distroys the record of the call for the instant background and the dealer keeps a written record, which is later checked by the ATF. From a dealer, the minimum age of a rifle or shotgun is 18; for a handgun it is 21. Persons holding a valid Florida Concealed Weapon License are exempt from the handgun waiting period. Persons holding a Florida Concealed Weapons License must have the Instant Background Check performed. Sale or Transfer Between Individuals

There are no formal requirements for the sale/transfer of a firearm between individuals. However, it is a crime for you to knowingly transfer a firearm to an underaged person, or to a person who you know to be otherwise disqualified (such as a person previously convicted of a felony). For private sales, the minimum age for a rifle, shotgun, or handgun is 18 and no waiting period or background check.

Special County Requirements

In accordance with a Constitutional Revision passed by the voters in November of 1998, any County within Flor

even if you aren't shipping anything physical, you know damn well where he is, because he has to provide his billing address or you can't charge his credit card.

AllofMP3 takes other forms of payment...XROST comes to mind.

I believe that at one time they took PayPal as well.

Moreover, how does one prove that the service isn't being used by a Brit or an American while on holiday in Moscow?

If the person is located within the Russian borders, what authority does the british court system have?

Wake me up when they actually start limiting my human rights in some way.


Why were you sleeping in the first place?

The simple fact of the matter is that by increasing the prices of anything, you're allowing less access to that item to the lower classes. Several people have already said that they don't own any firearms because they can't afford them, and yet you want to make them more expensive. Instead of "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns," now it's "when guns are expensive, only the rich will have guns." This is class discrimination at its worst. Instead of depriving the poor of education, or jobs, you're depriving them of safety, and of life.

This is the main reason why banning "Saturday Night Specials" is a bad idea. Ok, no, we shouldn't allow firearms that are so cheaply made that the user is at serious risk every time the thing is loaded, fired, or looked at. But that's the realm of the FTC, which already holds companies accountable if their products are not designed safely. But that doesn't mean that well-made, inexpensive firearms shouldn't exist.

Kel-Tec is a very good example of the kind of manufacturer that I want around. They make well-designed firearms that are both reliable and inexpensive, so that the poor can actually afford them (MSRP is $300 new, and usual retail is around $260; compare that to the average pistol, which on average starts at $700). Not only that, middle-class people can afford to buy a backup pistol just in case their primary fails.

Russell, I suggest you look at this site. After you're done with that page, read the rest of the articles there; it should take less than an hour, depending on your reading speed. Really, firearms enable the average person to stand their ground against any adversary, whether it's a mugger, a burgler, or a tyrannical government.

Your main point is that all gun owners should be responsible for the actions of a few. Since many have already brought up the points I wanted to bring up on this, I will just say one more: instead of punishing all of the people who haven't yet been convicted of a crime, how about we start punishing the people who actually were convicted? It seems to me that keeping criminals off of the streets would be far more effective than attempting to keep all firearms off of the streets. It doesn't have to be complicated: if you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you have never committed a crime, you're free. There's no need to enable more crimes to happen by effectively disarming the citizens, and uneffectively disarming the criminals. If they don't follow the "Don't hurt people" laws, is there any reason to believe they'll follow the "Don't own a gun" laws?

Finally a hunting sport vegans can enjoy! All the hunting, none of the guilt!

---------
Human rights

I'm afraid I must do the same with your post.

These women need to protect themselves, but why with a gun?

Because a gun is by far the most effective tool for self-defense, especially for women, who tend on average to be smaller and weaker than their male attackers.

If they're being maltreated, the obvious action is to tell the police.

Yes, telling the police is obviously the first step to be taken, but the police can't guard someone 24/7. Also, police take time to respond to a call for assistance. The delay between calling 911 and the arrival of police can potentially be fatal. On the other hand, if the potential victim has a gun, she can protect herself immediately.

Carrying a gun around is not a valid solution to all life's problems!

A gun isn't meant to solve all of life's problems. But it can be very effective in dealing with human predators. Usually, you don't even have to shoot -- most attackers will change their minds once they find out their victims are armed.

Finally, here's a link that might be revelant: http://www.a-human-right.com/fight-flight.html

He is what I view as the embodiment of what it means to be a TRUE American. A genuine good-guy who isn't afraid to stand up for what's right...

Ah, yes. So, say, attempting to use lawsuits to enforce policy you can't pass legislatively (probably because it infringes upon fundamental human rights) is what a TRUE American does? Hint: check out http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Sty le=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS /2003/06/30&ID=Ar00601 for the story.)

...and fuck everyone who doesn't like it.

Including the legislature, and, presumably, the constituency that elected them, right? In fact, the legislature is so appalled at his idea that they're considering legislation to make what he did illegal.

I suggest you visit the following site..

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The debate is going on now and both sides keep talking about all the things we are doing to strengthen homeland security. When will it be time to start questioning whether this makes us more secure? Perhaps doing all this might make us less secure at some point? It's not like 20th century governments have some impeccable record of not abusing their power over their citizens...

Posted anonymously, the chilling effect in action.

Great, by doing that they will have plenty of time to stay in our financial affairs, bank accounts, financial transactions, and gun safes. They talk about things like having not just a minimum wage, but also a maximum wage. Basically, to enforce their financial plans will require law enforcement powers that may be even worse than what they say they want to get rid of. I sympathize strongly with their ideals but it ultimately sounds like they want to create their own police state, like somehow having a police state will protect workers and minorities. They tried that once. It was called a "dictatorship of the proletariat". It sounded like a great idea but pretty soon there were mountains of bodies of people they "saved". It's the old logic of "we had to burn the village in order to save it."

Great, by doing that they will have plenty of time to stay in our financial affairs, bank accounts, financial transactions, and gun safes. They talk about things like having not just a minimum wage, but also a maximum wage. Basically, to enforce their financial plans will require law enforcement powers that may be even worse than what they say they want to get rid of. I sympathize strongly with their ideals but it ultimately sounds like they want to create their own police state, like somehow having a police state will protect workers and minorities. They tried that once. It was called a "dictatorship of the proletariat". It sounded like a great idea but pretty soon there were mountains of bodies of people they "saved". It's the old logic of "we had to burn the village in order to save it."

I strongly recommend that you carefully read this site about human rights to understand the dangers of gun control.

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions on Slashdot. We appreciate the attention from a national political candidate. I somehow doubt that Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush would take time from their busy schedules to answer questions.

My question concerns Greens' views on gun control. I would like to vote for you because I favor strong protections of the environment, but I believe in strong protections for private ownership of modern non-sporting firearms. Here are my reasons:

• The right to protect one's life is the most fundamental right there is. If I live in fear for my own safety, I can never have a full experience of my own life. Under American law, the state (in the form of police, etc) has no obligation to protect me. Even if I call 911, and say that three armed men are breaking down my door, the police are not liable if they don't send anyone. The only way I can effectively defend myself is if I have access to the necessary tools myself.
• If the government has a monopoly on effective arms, in the end, we have no recourse. The Second Amendment was designed for the doomsday scenario of a government that doesn't follow its own laws, courts that don't enforce laws or can't find anyone to enforce their decrees. In my opinion, final power must rest in the hands of the people, and that power comes in the form of being able to resist the government if necessary. I'm scared that Greens and liberals in general want to take away Americans' ability to exercise the ultimate veto on government power.
• Big centralizations of power have never ended well in history. Our own government is headed toward greater and greater centralization of power. Private ownership of effective firearms is something that counterbalances centralized control of everything.
• Gun ownership isn't about duck hunting. I don't hunt, ever. You could say that when the Second Amendment was put in the constitution, the only guns available were muskets, which have limited abilities. You could also say that when the First Amendment was written, the only means of free speech were shouting loudly, using a quill, or using a hand-cranked press, which also have very limited capabilities. If the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, then the First must only apply to quills, hand-cranked presses and shouting loudly.

I encourage you to take a look at this site about human rights and then respond with your position on gun control.

I'm sure other threads will bring this up, but Bruce Schneier has a great term for this: he calls it "security theater".

Fortunately terrorism isn't a threat in the US. The chances of dying of terrorism here are less than the chances of being killed by lightening or many other things. We shouldn't worry about it.

Ok, here's a link about responsibility and human rights.

You might be interesting in this rather biased site about armed self-defense. Click!

In all seriousness, if the proverbial fecal matter strikes the air circulation apparatus, I plan to hole up at a friend's place out in semi-rural Tennessee. This dude has a gun safe you could fit 3-4 normal-sized adults, 2 average Americans, or 10-12 Ethiopians in. He can't fit all his guns in it.

Among his firearms are:

• AR-50 rifle in .50cal BMG, with a scope that looks like it belongs in an astronomical observatory. It's sighted in for 750 yards, and he can put 5 rounds in a 10" circle at that range.
• Steyr AUG-P rifle in 5.56mm NATO
• Armalite AR-15 rifle in 5.56mm NATO
• Carbon-15 pistol, in 5.56mm NATO
• Isreali FN-FAL variant, heavy-barrel model with bipod, in 7.62mm NATO
• Standard FN-FAL, actually an Austrian STG-58, in 7.62mm NATO.
• Makarov CZ-52 pistol in 7.62mm Tokarev - IIRC, this one's high muzzle velocity plus small-diameter round mean that, with certain brands of ammo, it can penetrate the bullet-resistant vests worn by law enforcement.
• Colt Commander, with 4-14" barrel and laser sight, in .45ACP

And his place is basically a great big hill, easily defensible :)

United We Stand, Divided We Fall:Do not allow anyone to divide us and rule. You don't have to have an interest in specific types of firearms or like specific groups of gun owners but you MUST support them. Fail to give aid to your allies in the fight for the preservation of our rights and those rights will be taken from us piecemeal.
ooo
Racisim & Hate:The idea is to keep my Black co-workers and my gay neighbors or anyone else who does not fit that very negative description from realizing that their rights are being trampled, too. The newscasts never acknowledge the concept of fulfilling the responsibility to protect their families.
ooo
The Truth Shall Set You Free - Knowledge:So, what can we do to counter such well-made propaganda? We can start by acquiring arms and learning how to use them. We can also teach others.
ooo
The Past Repeats Itself:Note that the confiscation of firearms in the UK has happend hand in hand with suspension of many civil liberties. It is a technique used by Communists, National Socialists and military juntas world-wide. Presiding over defenseless subjects dispenses with the pretense still used in America that the citizens can hold politicians accountable. Such countries, in effect, are reviving the most unsavory aspects of feudalism.
ooo