My problem is that word "mandatory". And "licenses". Remember that poor guy I told you about? I don't think he had time to attend a mandatory class. Or the money to do so if it was voluntary.
Also, I have a huge problem with "licenses". I have this horrible image of these thugs showing up at a house with a checklist. "Let's see, at this location there are 2 shotguns, 3 pistols, 5 jews...". Or in having all "applications" for firearms ownership by people with islamic names being silently denied.
This reminds me of what one other guy said. He talked about people in countries where the people are "allowed" to own weapons. Allowed by who? The people with the guns, obviously. If this is indeed a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it is the people, not the persons with the guns, who must do the allowing. The people of a country must be armed to ensure the legitimacy of it's government.
Also, the problem with licenses and applications and such is their lack of constitutional legitimacy. Did you register your computer with the federal free speech agency? Can't have people spreading false information, you know. Who knows what anarchy we'd have if people could say anything they want! They might hurt somebody!
The rights acknowledged in the constitution are not subject to approval by anyone else. My computer is powerful enough to break weak encryption keys. My guns can shoot through body armor. I don't see a difference.
Once our only option is to fight, it's probably too late to change anything.
I know. But if all guns are good for is to give a 1 in 300 chance of victory for for some freedom fighters every 400 years or so, they are worth it. And if a state gets to that point, it may indeed be too late.
But you see, we as americans are in a special position. We can't rely on anyone but us. If the national socialits take over australia, we might help the fighters out. People being ethnically cleansed somewhere in africa (and there are, right now) can at least hope the US will show up to save the day.
We, American citizens can rely on no help from outside. It is up to us, and us alone, to ensure the legitimacy of our government. No one can, or will, aid us.
Once germany in got to the point where the jews went in to hiding, the jews couldn't change the system. But if every jewish family had had, say, a sten gun and 100 rounds of ammo, might the holocaust have happened? Probably. The nazis had the army, and any violent resistance would have been crushed.
But if you had a choice as to get quietly rounded up like cattle and taken off to a death camp, or dying violently trying to resist, which would you choose? Weapons ownership, no matter how small, is the ability to try.
It is no guarantee of success. But I'll tell you what: If thugs come on my street trying to get me or my neighbors, they'll find it most difficult.
Which is really the point: to make it so hard for a government to enforce it's will that it is forced to justify itself through the courts.
====
Yeah, I'm thinking of saving up for a model 99. They look snazzy. I was worried about the bolt action, but I just realized the thing is worthless at close range anyway- a bolt is just as good. Plus it costs half as much.
And also, a gun in.50BMG is a much better keep-the-state-in-line weapon.
No, I think I understand you just fine. Your point is that:
1. "Modern societies" have eliminated the need for weapons ownership, if there ever was such a need.
2. People do not need guns.
3. If normal people and cops don't have guns, criminals won't need them.
4. Only people that have been "seriously vetted" should be allowed to own weapons.
5. Killing someone is never justified.
Was the weimar republic in the 1930's a "modern society"?
After all, judges, pilots, soldiers and the like were seriously vetted. To make sure they weren't spies, murederers, jews, etc.
How do you propose to deal with the next national socialist party, not in another country, but yours?
If you say there won't be another, why not?
Oh, and the second amendment to the U.S. constitution does indeed provide for the private ownership, by the people, of "arms". B2's, V2's, and flamethrowers are all clearly "arms".
As for the cracks about my lack of ability to see logic, I see yours just fine. I think this is kind of like arguing with a kind from the middle ages would be. You say "What gives you the right to control all these people?" he says "God gave me the right." You say "Couldn't anyone say that?" he goes "No, because I'd kill them. I'm king. God me king. That gives me the right to kill anyone who says otherwise."
See, he is being utterly logical. God made him king, and that gives him the right to do anything he wants.
I feel like that arguing with you. I see your logic just fine. People do not have the right to own weapons, no matter what. If they disagree, kill them. People do not have the right to own weapons, and that is that. When everyone but the disarmament police is defenseless, they will naturally just give up their guns too.
Given those axioms, I see no real way to argue with that. Hence the "Screw you and everything you stand for." I disagree totally.
Lots and lots and lots of people have been murdered in history by their own governments and neighbors. And not ancient, history-book history, but recent history.
There are people alive today, walking the earth, with numbers tatooed on their forearms. They were marked thus in death camps where they were to be worked as slaves until they died of exhaustion or privation or simple cruelty.
Did the jews in bergen-belsen have the right, according to you, to kill the camp guards? How is something like the holocaust supposed to be prevented without weapons? The nazis were not convinced to stop by logic and talk of "modern societies". They stopped because people better armed and tougher and stronger came in and said "stop or die.", then killed until the germans gave up.
I am curious. Given your logic, how should the holocaust have been stopped? (if you would have done so, given your condemnation of killing as never justified).
And who would have been the best people to do so? The residents (jews) of germany and poland and austria, or should the people being herded into cattle cars had to rely upon the army of some foreign country, which might not have done anything?
Your assumption that I would be arguing for the ownership of one powerful weapon but not another is untrue. I am arguing for the right of people to own whatever weapons they want. Including fighter jets.
I'm not talking about my granny here, I'm talking about yours. Nonetheless, yeah, that would be terrible. Worse would be seeing that happen and not being able to stop it. As for skills, I am a good shot, and I'll take my chances. I would rather take that chance than be powerless.
We live in societies. Societies are there to protect us.
Did the society in germany in 1942 protect the jews? Did the society in cambodia in the seventies protect intellectuals?
We don't need guns..
Did the jews in 1942 germany (who were only alive because they hid in a basement for 2 years) need guns? Could they have used them?
You know, I just checked back on your page to see your original post. I think I was thinking of someone else when I posted back. That's obviously no excuse, but I'd actually like to apologize.
I don't think that "gun control" (not canned, just a habitually poorly-defined word) would make anyone even a little safer, in the long run. I look at history, and I see lots and lots of people murdered by their own governments or by their neighbors.
Put broadly, I'm opposed to mandatory anything. I do think that if everyone, of their own free will, decided to own firearms, that that would be a good thing. I also think it would be good for people, every evening, to just join hands and sing kum bah yah. I consider them as likely as the other, but, nonetheless, both good things.
I would be against mandatory gun ownership. I would also be against mandatory kum bah yah singing. I would also be opposed to laws banning either.
I am glad you are, unlike many people, capable of seeing that an inanimate object is, of itself, not dangerous. Guns and ammunition are of course stored energy and discharging mechanisms and are thus more dangerous than, say, a rock, but both are capable of harm only when affected by human beings.
I agree that guns are not the end-all be-all of defense. A gun does not automatically make a person safer. However, how is a person to get safer? My answer is to let them choose what they think they need for themselves. If a granny thinks carrying an mp5 in dark parking lots is what she wants, I do not oppose her and am against anyone who does.
If there were devices that were be-all end-all defense weapons, usable by frightened people in the middle of the night, as well as jews when the gestapo is knocking on their doors, as well as of the populations of totalitarian countries to overthrow their governments, as well as cheap, accurate, usable against enemy invading tanks, usable at short ranges as well as long, that could be distributed quickly and efficiently by human carrying, I'd be arguing for them, not guns.
Because the be-all end-all solution would have to be all of those things and more. However, it is precisely because guns are the closest to those goals of any other device that I am arguing for them. I can think of lots of problems with guns that are not solvable without changing the paradigm. (i.e. getting rid of easily-damaged and hard to manufacture rifled barrels.)
I think the best thing to do, for now while a perfect solution evades human beings, is to simply allow the unrestricted ownership of all weapons, everywhere.
I share your concerns about irresponsible ownership. My mistake earlier was in thinking that you meant "My neighbors might be able to hurt me! Oh no! I'd better take away their rights!" when in fact I think you meant something more like "I hope my dumbass next door neighbor doesn't leave his gun on the table for his kids to find before they know the safety rules."
I share the second concern, and am utterly opposed to the first. However, I have reached the conclusion that there is no way to prevent idiots from doing something stupid and still let people protect themselves and their neighbors from the next national socialist party.
I know that my position could result in a lot of accidents. It makes me very sad, but I see no way to avoid it- just try and let the market invent something better. For the time being, I'll stick to my guns.
I had an interesting encounter a week or so ago. You see, I was in Wal-Mart, looking at their gun rack. (don't draw conclusions- I shop other places too). This short, stocky, latino guy kept walking back and forth and checking out the guns.
I happened to be wearing a white shirt and tie, so the guy started talking to me, thinking I worked there. He asked me "hey, what I gotta do to get a gun?" I should note that he was pushing a stroller with twins in it, and was clearly about 20. I read the writing on the rack and told him he needed to be 18 (f
This has got to be the most worthless exchange I have ever been in.
I post something, you post back alleging contradictions. I ask for evidence, you spout off some line about how funny my attitude is.
I think I have a good idea as to what you think I am, and you are wrong. Of course, you won't actually tell me anything specific, but you'll probably reply with some non-informational crack that will likely do nothing but try and push some buttons.
Anyway, it has been a total waste of time talking to you. Bye.
No, there are indeed such things as facts, and as long as people can agree on a meaning, (any meaning) of a word, rational argument is still possible. It is when people persist in not defining words that arguing is useless.
See, the old "copyright infringement==stealing" thing is like the chinese I argue with online. Some actually assert "There is only one china, and taiwan is part of china. That is an indisputable fact." See, it's clearly BS.
Copyright infringement is illegal, and almost always (like p2p/RIAA) is morally indefensible.
However, copyright infringement is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. If they were the same thing, we'd call them the same thing.
Yes: If a 15-on-1 mugging is to be stopped, a taser or a small handgun is not going to be an
end-all solution. I think that pulling a gun of any type (by the person being mugged) could have a
hugely beneificial effect for the muggee. If the thing is to be conclusively stopped, something
bigger, like a submachine gun, would be better. Better still would be a pintle-mounted heavy
machine gun. I think your point is that if muggings are to be violently ended by the muggees, they are going to need the most accurate, powerful, high-capacity weapons money can buy.
This is my point too, and if a grandmother wants to carry a $150 mac-10 that can fire full-auto, fine. If a criminal wants to "take her gun and use it against her", his chances are significantly
reduced by the fact that that grandmother has a very good chance of stopping him. A mac-10 is
cheap, powerful, and concealable, and the magazine could give her 20 or 40 chances to hit him.
If you know that muggers are n% more likely to attack you if you walk alone down a
dark alley, you would be a fool to walk alone down a dark alley.
I wonder how much wearing a short skirt affects women's chances of being raped. There is
probably a percentage available someplace. Ergo, they are fools for wearing those skirts, as it
increases their chance of being raped.
This is clearly BS. Women ((and men)(and the "other" genders)) have a right to wear whatever
they want. If they are raped or beaten, it is the fault of the person that did it, not theirs.
Likewise, statistical percentages are irrelevant here. I have a right to walk down dark alleys if
I please, and if someone tries to mug me, they are at fault, not me.
you move towards anarchy
Anarchy would be preferable to a situation where I had to rely on police inside my own home.
I'm guessing that it doesn't say that owning a weapon is a right to all humans --
if it did, then obviously the UK wouldn't have no-guns laws.
I am not referring to the so-called declaration of human rights. Do you really think the
unelected dictatorship of china would approve something that could even conceivably threaten
it?
Also, your statement to the effect that "if I don't have it, it must not be a right" is clearly
bunk.
Also please note that you changed the issue from weapons to free speech: the issues
are completely disconnected. Shooting people isn't a (legal/valid) expression of your
ideas.
I did not "change the issue", I used a supporting example. I.E, free speech is a human right, no matter what anyone says, weapons ownership is a human right, no matter what anyone says. And since when does something have to be "an expression of your ideas" to be legal? And for that matter, remember that things are only legal because you made them legal.
P.S. I just consulted the declaration of human rights and it mentions "security of person" -- that doesn't have to mean "right to hold a gun". A gun is simply a means to retaliate against someone who has/trying to violate your rights.
Delightful- you have the right, but you are permitted precisely no way to ensure it or exercise it. This is akin to saying "We have free exercise of religion here- just no torahs or korans or rosaries." Sure, guns are a means of retaliation just like any other method, like courts, except the have the virtue of being portable, powerful, efficient and selective. And
(effectively) instantaneous.
...find guns/ammunition/bombs/etc. then they don't need other evidence (that can
be incredibly difficult and costly to obtain):...
Good: They are automatically criminals, and the cops don't have to prove some kind of
beurocratic red-tape formalities like "intent" or "evidence" or "guilt" to put them away. It is
horriying to me that you are completely defe
Why, isn't it meaningful? Perhaps you, Mr. I-am-so-smart, would be so kind as to tell me how, exactly, what I said is not meaningful.
I mean, was it in a dialect of english you don't understand? Perhaps the concepts were too advanced. Maybe you were blinded by the "boo hoo" and you believed me to be an infant.
So, do you actually have anything meaningful to say, or just cute comebacks?
The problem being that guns don't have a legal use that can't be accomplished just as easily with something nonlethal (a taser, for example)
Bullshit. In some later posts, I read of gangs of 15 people mugging at the same time. Applying a non-lethal charge to one of them is not going to do jack. He has 14 friends there to help him. Also, a taser only has 2(!) shots available. 1 to shoot, and one more. Only. That works out to taking out, over a period of 20+ seconds, 1/7th of the attackers. Also, a taser needs to be in contact as long as possible (5+ seconds) to be effective. In five seconds, you'd be dead, if you were close enough to use that.
Is ensuring the legitimacy of government a "legal" purpose to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that I refrain from walking, in my country, in my city, down the roads that my tax dollars paid,for as a solution to crime? What if they take up residence in my house? Should I just leave?
Weapons ownership is a basic human right. It does not need justification or asking someone for permission. Like free speech and the free exercise of religion, it is a fundamental right right that all humans deserve, except those that initiate hurting people. If you don't have the right of free speech, what the hell is the point of governance?
Are you familiar with the concept of rights? I ask because I have spoken to people online who are not acquainted with the subject. Your ignorance of basic human rights suggests you are among them.
You simply don't need guns to stop crime
How dare you presume to tell me what I do and do not need.
I'm glad where you live is such a nice, safe place for muggers to operate in large gangs.
Weapons ownership is a basic human right. Only death can make me give it up.
As for how safe you feel- congragulations. You are now completely at the mercy of your government, anyone with 3800USD, or any group of thugs who want your money and are willing to hurt you to get it.
Frankly, I don't personally know anyone who has been mugged. You say several of your friends have been accosted. Were any female? Were they raped? If so, and you had been there, what would you be willing to do to stop it?
Your city, where muggings seem to be a hell of a lot more common than where I live, (virginia) seems like a paradise for the gangs that you describe- lots of easy targets, and all you need is some friends and/or a cheap knife!
Your tone about how much better off you are without a basic freedom is like the chinese I talk to online. They go on and on about how much better a place their country is where the government can censor anything it pleases. They say it results in a much more orderly place. Maybe it does.
If peace is your goal, you are a fool or a liar. "Peace", meaning no fighting, has never existed, and, based on your description, doesn't now. While there is such a thing as peace, it is hypothetical. Someone, somewhere, is being raped, right now. Thousands of people were murdered yesterday.
Being completely helpless (and forcing others to be) is the stupidest long-term plan for survival I have ever heard. We can see examples of cultures like that in the past- the dodo, anyone? My only solace in the face of your monumental stupidity is balanced only by the fact that I own weapons (and am willing to kill to keep them), and that, darwinistically, ideas and people as stupid as yourself will eventually leave the gene pool.
Long-term, you have as much chance as the shakers- none. (The shakers didn't have sex. There aren't any more of them. No children.) Your willingness to be mugged or raped, and to force others down your short-sighted path, is evidence of poor thinking on a chamberlain-ish scale.
But if the guns were also illegal elsewhere, where would those thugs get their guns?
I can be anywhere in the world and back again in 72 hours. Your plan (banning guns everywhere)would require the complete cooperation of every citizen of ever country in the world.
That seems pretty fucking ridiculous.
Also, there are (est) 500 million guns in the world. What do you propose to do about them? Also, guns, properly stored, can last for decades. Your plan to destroy all of them is preposterous. What about the (many) countries that hate you and your country? Do you propose invading north korea to take their guns?
And how are you going to do that without making more guns for the invasion?
Or do you expect the communist dictator in charge of that country to just disarm himself, just because you told him to?
For that matter, do you expect me to give up my weapons, just because you want me to?
I warn you that the only way to do so is to kill me. And how are you going to do that, if you actually do what you say you want and destroy yours first?
Your total lack of respect for basic human rights is disturbing.
The NRA is opposed to registration because if the government knows who has which and how many guns who has, it can take them away.
The NRA doesn't want guns taken away because weapons ownership is a fundamental human right, like free speech or freedom of religion.
Also, many people do not have the time to jump through a bunch of hoops to get something. Also, should fax machines be registered because they might be used for copyright infingement?
As for the racist innuendo, I support the individual right of ownership for all weapons to anyone. Especially cheap, powerful weapons that low-wage workers can afford. Especially concealable ones that they can carry everywhere. For that matter, poor people are the people most in danger of having their rights trampled, and are thus most likely to need weapons, should the need arise. (which they decide, not me)
Fine, so you prefer to be helpless to rapists and murderers and nazis.
If your grandmother is raped in front of your eyes, reassure yourself that "the potential cost is way too high".
And when the guy kills her afterwards, remember that you are the better man for standing by and doing nothing.
So you don't mind you and your loved ones murdered and raped. Fine. Less stupid people to pass on their genes. I warn you, however, that I will not give up MY weapons while I still live.
If you want my gun(s), you'll have to kill me first. And that won't be easy, especially for somebody helpless like you..
Your post is an illogical heap of crap. Do you actually espouse the preposterous belief that crime can be totally eliminated?
And your bs about a "serious vetting" process to determine who, in your beleif, is qualified to protect themselves. What gives you the right to decide, that, against the will of other people? By what doctrine are you endowed with that authority? For that matter, how can anybody else (or any combination of people) decide for other people who gets to excercise a basic human right?
Did you register your fax machine with the federal anti-samizdat bureau? We need to ensure people don't get false or misleading information. Constitution? The majority of people voted for the fax registration law. That makes it right.
What? You refuse us entry? Well, we'll just break down the door and throw you in the gulag. Good thing you are disarmed- you might have hurt somebody.
Dude, whoever or wherever you are, you can have my high-capacity, long-range, modern battle rifle when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
it's semantic games, idiot. If you are going to go to the trouble of posting something twice, you should at least take the trouble to spell your piss-poor arguments correctly.
When it really get to it, all law is nothing but a massive, long-lived semantic game.
What is and is not stealing is not some kind of open and closed issue. Reasserting a much-disputed "fact" will not magically make the issue go away. Saying something is an indisputable fact, when people most certainly are disputing it is one of the stupist things possible.
Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Saying something is indisputable, in an argument about that same something, is retarded.
If it wasn't stealing, the RIAA wouldn't be getting any convictions or settlements
Those jews wouldn't be in that camp if they hadn't done anything wrong. If that woman was raped, she shoulda seen it comin, it was her fault for wearing that short skirt.
I live in the country. I know bullshit when I perceive it.
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and the terrorists will have already won.
Even more proper would be "and the terrorists already have them"
Osama bin laden has all the powerful, repeating, long-range guns he wants. He has rocket launchers, and tiny little knifes he can use to hijack bigger weapons.
What weapons do you own?
Also, some problems can be solved by the application of more money and guns. The defeat of the third reich, for example.
And don't bring up the "war" on drugs, either. I most certainly do not have the authority to regulate what molecules enter your body.
Some people want to put wacky chemicals in their bodies. Fine, just make sure you don't hurt me. Firearms, however are the absolute best way to ensure the ligitimacy of government.
Frymaster
did a VERY insightful article on this very subject. Since I beleive it is licensed under creative commons, I reproduce it here.
====
bowling for colombine... and bazookas originally aired nov. 10 2002
there's a good chance that you're one of the people who told - nay, exhorted - me to see this movie. well, i saw it. you can stop nagging now.
i'm not going to discuss bowling for columbine. you've seen it. i've seen it. any review would be little more than intra-referential. instead, i'm going to present a simple plan i've had for some time now. it's called the "bazooka plan"
guns. the good there's a lot of talk about the "legitimate" uses of firearms: hunting, target shooting &c... all namby-pamby bullshit apalogia. guns are weapons. they're instruments of force and coercion.
now, it's no secret that force is the ultimate source of de facto authority. should the state wish to fine you for, say, traffic violations, they send you a ticket. if you refuse to pay, they send you a summons. if you refuse to appear they send some thugs to get you. if you resist, they attempt to subdue. if you will not be subdued, they apply force - the club initially, the gun ultimately. the fact that we mostly just jot off a cheque for that traffic ticket is a sign that we invest our state with de jure authority. we believe they have justification in sanctioning us, so we go along. if that de jure authority loses its support, however, the state is more than willing to exert it's de facto authority: force. violence and coercion are the gold standard of the currency of authority. mostly we never cash in our fiat currency for gold, but we know that fort knox is full of the stuff... just like we know that cop dinging us for the illegal left is packing a glock.
if a state is to have more than the appearance of citizen control (what we in the west refer to, oddly, as "freedom"), it is necessary that that gold standard be controlled at least in part by the citizenry. authority is only de jure if those who submit to it have the capacity and ability to judge its justness and act accordingly. if the means of coercion are completely controlled by the state, state authority can only be judged as de facto in nature.
this isn't a new idea. those patriarchal, slave-holding early americans knew it. when the second amendment talks about the right to bear arms being "necessary for the security of a free state" they're not talking about the security of the state, but the security of the freedom of that state. mao, put it better with his oft-misunderstood statement that "political power flows from the barrel of a gun." note that, contrary to nra propaganda, mao actually armed the population in the early fifties. he passed out free rifles. obviously mr. zedong was confident in the legitimacy of his party's rule. an armed populace is a voluntarily governed populace.
the capacity for revolution is a necessary prerequisite for the legitimacy of governance. guns good.
guns. the bad bowling for columbine covers this section quite nicely. the culture of glorified violence, machismo, revenge, power and the worship of instant, pocket-sized and portable de facto authority over fellow citizens has made the arming of the american population an absolute and abject failure.
the part of bowling... that drove this home most succinctly (for me at least), was the interview with the michigan militia. i'm on record all over the place as dismissing the militia movement as being nothing more than a motley and poorly-dressed gaggle of right-wing nuts with zero und
eyeBlog uses this information to record and publish
face-2-face conversations...(emphasis added)
Get it through your heads, people: Numerals are not syllables and connot be substituted for them. "2" is NOT the same thing as "to". "1" cannot be substituted for the "one" in "someone". "4" is NOT the same thing as "for".
If you are going to use these kinds of sloppy, illegible, ugly, non-standard substitutions, just go whole hog. No point in half measures. Example:
eyeBlog uss ths in4m8ion 2 rec0rd n puhblihs face-2-face convers8ions w/o dvdng teh usrs attntion be2ween teh event bng rec0rded, n teh devIce bng usd 2 rec0rd it.
Is that what you want? To sound like an illiterate 14 year old girl on AIM? Then understand it now: Numerals and syllables are not interchangable. When you act like they are, you cheapen the quality of life of everyone who accidentally reads your fetid heap of alphanumeric garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
I think more training would be good.
My problem is that word "mandatory". And "licenses". Remember that poor guy I told you about? I don't think he had time to attend a mandatory class. Or the money to do so if it was voluntary.
Also, I have a huge problem with "licenses". I have this horrible image of these thugs showing up at a house with a checklist. "Let's see, at this location there are 2 shotguns, 3 pistols, 5 jews...". Or in having all "applications" for firearms ownership by people with islamic names being silently denied.
This reminds me of what one other guy said. He talked about people in countries where the people are "allowed" to own weapons. Allowed by who? The people with the guns, obviously. If this is indeed a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it is the people, not the persons with the guns, who must do the allowing. The people of a country must be armed to ensure the legitimacy of it's government.
Also, the problem with licenses and applications and such is their lack of constitutional legitimacy. Did you register your computer with the federal free speech agency? Can't have people spreading false information, you know. Who knows what anarchy we'd have if people could say anything they want! They might hurt somebody!
The rights acknowledged in the constitution are not subject to approval by anyone else. My computer is powerful enough to break weak encryption keys. My guns can shoot through body armor. I don't see a difference.
I know. But if all guns are good for is to give a 1 in 300 chance of victory for for some freedom fighters every 400 years or so, they are worth it. And if a state gets to that point, it may indeed be too late.
But you see, we as americans are in a special position. We can't rely on anyone but us. If the national socialits take over australia, we might help the fighters out. People being ethnically cleansed somewhere in africa (and there are, right now) can at least hope the US will show up to save the day.
We, American citizens can rely on no help from outside. It is up to us, and us alone, to ensure the legitimacy of our government. No one can, or will, aid us.
Once germany in got to the point where the jews went in to hiding, the jews couldn't change the system. But if every jewish family had had, say, a sten gun and 100 rounds of ammo, might the holocaust have happened? Probably. The nazis had the army, and any violent resistance would have been crushed.
But if you had a choice as to get quietly rounded up like cattle and taken off to a death camp, or dying violently trying to resist, which would you choose? Weapons ownership, no matter how small, is the ability to try.
It is no guarantee of success. But I'll tell you what: If thugs come on my street trying to get me or my neighbors, they'll find it most difficult.
Which is really the point: to make it so hard for a government to enforce it's will that it is forced to justify itself through the courts.
====
Yeah, I'm thinking of saving up for a model 99. They look snazzy. I was worried about the bolt action, but I just realized the thing is worthless at close range anyway- a bolt is just as good. Plus it costs half as much.
And also, a gun in .50BMG is a much better keep-the-state-in-line weapon.
No, I think I understand you just fine. Your point is that:
1. "Modern societies" have eliminated the need for weapons ownership, if there ever was such a need.
2. People do not need guns.
3. If normal people and cops don't have guns, criminals won't need them.
4. Only people that have been "seriously vetted" should be allowed to own weapons.
5. Killing someone is never justified.
Was the weimar republic in the 1930's a "modern society"?
After all, judges, pilots, soldiers and the like were seriously vetted. To make sure they weren't spies, murederers, jews, etc.
How do you propose to deal with the next national socialist party, not in another country, but yours?
If you say there won't be another, why not?
Oh, and the second amendment to the U.S. constitution does indeed provide for the private ownership, by the people, of "arms". B2's, V2's, and flamethrowers are all clearly "arms".
As for the cracks about my lack of ability to see logic, I see yours just fine. I think this is kind of like arguing with a kind from the middle ages would be. You say "What gives you the right to control all these people?" he says "God gave me the right." You say "Couldn't anyone say that?" he goes "No, because I'd kill them. I'm king. God me king. That gives me the right to kill anyone who says otherwise."
See, he is being utterly logical. God made him king, and that gives him the right to do anything he wants.
I feel like that arguing with you. I see your logic just fine. People do not have the right to own weapons, no matter what. If they disagree, kill them. People do not have the right to own weapons, and that is that. When everyone but the disarmament police is defenseless, they will naturally just give up their guns too.
Given those axioms, I see no real way to argue with that. Hence the "Screw you and everything you stand for." I disagree totally.
Lots and lots and lots of people have been murdered in history by their own governments and neighbors. And not ancient, history-book history, but recent history.
There are people alive today, walking the earth, with numbers tatooed on their forearms. They were marked thus in death camps where they were to be worked as slaves until they died of exhaustion or privation or simple cruelty.
Did the jews in bergen-belsen have the right, according to you, to kill the camp guards? How is something like the holocaust supposed to be prevented without weapons? The nazis were not convinced to stop by logic and talk of "modern societies". They stopped because people better armed and tougher and stronger came in and said "stop or die.", then killed until the germans gave up.
I am curious. Given your logic, how should the holocaust have been stopped? (if you would have done so, given your condemnation of killing as never justified).
And who would have been the best people to do so? The residents (jews) of germany and poland and austria, or should the people being herded into cattle cars had to rely upon the army of some foreign country, which might not have done anything?
Your assumption that I would be arguing for the ownership of one powerful weapon but not another is untrue. I am arguing for the right of people to own whatever weapons they want. Including fighter jets.
I'm not talking about my granny here, I'm talking about yours. Nonetheless, yeah, that would be terrible. Worse would be seeing that happen and not being able to stop it. As for skills, I am a good shot, and I'll take my chances. I would rather take that chance than be powerless.
Did the society in germany in 1942 protect the jews? Did the society in cambodia in the seventies protect intellectuals?
Did the jews in 1942 germany (who were only alive because they hid in a basement for 2 years) need guns? Could they have used them?
I wonder if any jews said that in 1930.
You know, I just checked back on your page to see your original post. I think I was thinking of someone else when I posted back. That's obviously no excuse, but I'd actually like to apologize.
I don't think that "gun control" (not canned, just a habitually poorly-defined word) would make anyone even a little safer, in the long run. I look at history, and I see lots and lots of people murdered by their own governments or by their neighbors.
Put broadly, I'm opposed to mandatory anything. I do think that if everyone, of their own free will, decided to own firearms, that that would be a good thing. I also think it would be good for people, every evening, to just join hands and sing kum bah yah. I consider them as likely as the other, but, nonetheless, both good things.
I would be against mandatory gun ownership. I would also be against mandatory kum bah yah singing. I would also be opposed to laws banning either.
I am glad you are, unlike many people, capable of seeing that an inanimate object is, of itself, not dangerous. Guns and ammunition are of course stored energy and discharging mechanisms and are thus more dangerous than, say, a rock, but both are capable of harm only when affected by human beings.
I agree that guns are not the end-all be-all of defense. A gun does not automatically make a person safer. However, how is a person to get safer? My answer is to let them choose what they think they need for themselves. If a granny thinks carrying an mp5 in dark parking lots is what she wants, I do not oppose her and am against anyone who does.
If there were devices that were be-all end-all defense weapons, usable by frightened people in the middle of the night, as well as jews when the gestapo is knocking on their doors, as well as of the populations of totalitarian countries to overthrow their governments, as well as cheap, accurate, usable against enemy invading tanks, usable at short ranges as well as long, that could be distributed quickly and efficiently by human carrying, I'd be arguing for them, not guns.
Because the be-all end-all solution would have to be all of those things and more. However, it is precisely because guns are the closest to those goals of any other device that I am arguing for them. I can think of lots of problems with guns that are not solvable without changing the paradigm. (i.e. getting rid of easily-damaged and hard to manufacture rifled barrels.)
I think the best thing to do, for now while a perfect solution evades human beings, is to simply allow the unrestricted ownership of all weapons, everywhere.
I share your concerns about irresponsible ownership. My mistake earlier was in thinking that you meant "My neighbors might be able to hurt me! Oh no! I'd better take away their rights!" when in fact I think you meant something more like "I hope my dumbass next door neighbor doesn't leave his gun on the table for his kids to find before they know the safety rules."
I share the second concern, and am utterly opposed to the first. However, I have reached the conclusion that there is no way to prevent idiots from doing something stupid and still let people protect themselves and their neighbors from the next national socialist party.
I know that my position could result in a lot of accidents. It makes me very sad, but I see no way to avoid it- just try and let the market invent something better. For the time being, I'll stick to my guns.
I had an interesting encounter a week or so ago. You see, I was in Wal-Mart, looking at their gun rack. (don't draw conclusions- I shop other places too). This short, stocky, latino guy kept walking back and forth and checking out the guns.
I happened to be wearing a white shirt and tie, so the guy started talking to me, thinking I worked there. He asked me "hey, what I gotta do to get a gun?" I should note that he was pushing a stroller with twins in it, and was clearly about 20. I read the writing on the rack and told him he needed to be 18 (f
This has got to be the most worthless exchange I have ever been in.
I post something, you post back alleging contradictions. I ask for evidence, you spout off some line about how funny my attitude is.
I think I have a good idea as to what you think I am, and you are wrong. Of course, you won't actually tell me anything specific, but you'll probably reply with some non-informational crack that will likely do nothing but try and push some buttons.
Anyway, it has been a total waste of time talking to you. Bye.
I have seen bowling for columbine. My eyes are open. I have a brain, else I could not type.
In what way were my comments contradictory? Perhaps you would be willing to provide specific examples. Or should I just take you at your word?
You allege contradictions. Let's see them.
No, there are indeed such things as facts, and as long as people can agree on a meaning, (any meaning) of a word, rational argument is still possible. It is when people persist in not defining words that arguing is useless.
See, the old "copyright infringement==stealing" thing is like the chinese I argue with online. Some actually assert "There is only one china, and taiwan is part of china. That is an indisputable fact." See, it's clearly BS.
Copyright infringement is illegal, and almost always (like p2p/RIAA) is morally indefensible.
However, copyright infringement is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. If they were the same thing, we'd call them the same thing.
Yes: If a 15-on-1 mugging is to be stopped, a taser or a small handgun is not going to be an end-all solution. I think that pulling a gun of any type (by the person being mugged) could have a hugely beneificial effect for the muggee. If the thing is to be conclusively stopped, something bigger, like a submachine gun, would be better. Better still would be a pintle-mounted heavy machine gun. I think your point is that if muggings are to be violently ended by the muggees, they are going to need the most accurate, powerful, high-capacity weapons money can buy.
This is my point too, and if a grandmother wants to carry a $150 mac-10 that can fire full-auto, fine. If a criminal wants to "take her gun and use it against her", his chances are significantly reduced by the fact that that grandmother has a very good chance of stopping him. A mac-10 is cheap, powerful, and concealable, and the magazine could give her 20 or 40 chances to hit him.
I wonder how much wearing a short skirt affects women's chances of being raped. There is probably a percentage available someplace. Ergo, they are fools for wearing those skirts, as it increases their chance of being raped.
This is clearly BS. Women ((and men)(and the "other" genders)) have a right to wear whatever they want. If they are raped or beaten, it is the fault of the person that did it, not theirs. Likewise, statistical percentages are irrelevant here. I have a right to walk down dark alleys if I please, and if someone tries to mug me, they are at fault, not me.
Anarchy would be preferable to a situation where I had to rely on police inside my own home.
I am not referring to the so-called declaration of human rights. Do you really think the unelected dictatorship of china would approve something that could even conceivably threaten it?
Also, your statement to the effect that "if I don't have it, it must not be a right" is clearly bunk.
I did not "change the issue", I used a supporting example. I.E, free speech is a human right, no matter what anyone says, weapons ownership is a human right, no matter what anyone says. And since when does something have to be "an expression of your ideas" to be legal? And for that matter, remember that things are only legal because you made them legal.
Delightful- you have the right, but you are permitted precisely no way to ensure it or exercise it. This is akin to saying "We have free exercise of religion here- just no torahs or korans or rosaries." Sure, guns are a means of retaliation just like any other method, like courts, except the have the virtue of being portable, powerful, efficient and selective. And (effectively) instantaneous.
Good: They are automatically criminals, and the cops don't have to prove some kind of beurocratic red-tape formalities like "intent" or "evidence" or "guilt" to put them away. It is horriying to me that you are completely defe
Why, isn't it meaningful? Perhaps you, Mr. I-am-so-smart, would be so kind as to tell me how, exactly, what I said is not meaningful.
I mean, was it in a dialect of english you don't understand? Perhaps the concepts were too advanced. Maybe you were blinded by the "boo hoo" and you believed me to be an infant.
So, do you actually have anything meaningful to say, or just cute comebacks?
Bullshit. In some later posts, I read of gangs of 15 people mugging at the same time. Applying a non-lethal charge to one of them is not going to do jack. He has 14 friends there to help him. Also, a taser only has 2(!) shots available. 1 to shoot, and one more. Only. That works out to taking out, over a period of 20+ seconds, 1/7th of the attackers. Also, a taser needs to be in contact as long as possible (5+ seconds) to be effective. In five seconds, you'd be dead, if you were close enough to use that.
Is ensuring the legitimacy of government a "legal" purpose to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that I refrain from walking, in my country, in my city, down the roads that my tax dollars paid,for as a solution to crime? What if they take up residence in my house? Should I just leave?
Weapons ownership is a basic human right. It does not need justification or asking someone for permission. Like free speech and the free exercise of religion, it is a fundamental right right that all humans deserve, except those that initiate hurting people. If you don't have the right of free speech, what the hell is the point of governance?
Are you familiar with the concept of rights? I ask because I have spoken to people online who are not acquainted with the subject. Your ignorance of basic human rights suggests you are among them.
How dare you presume to tell me what I do and do not need.
I'm glad where you live is such a nice, safe place for muggers to operate in large gangs.
Weapons ownership is a basic human right. Only death can make me give it up.
As for how safe you feel- congragulations. You are now completely at the mercy of your government, anyone with 3800USD, or any group of thugs who want your money and are willing to hurt you to get it.
Frankly, I don't personally know anyone who has been mugged. You say several of your friends have been accosted. Were any female? Were they raped? If so, and you had been there, what would you be willing to do to stop it?
Your city, where muggings seem to be a hell of a lot more common than where I live, (virginia) seems like a paradise for the gangs that you describe- lots of easy targets, and all you need is some friends and/or a cheap knife!
Your tone about how much better off you are without a basic freedom is like the chinese I talk to online. They go on and on about how much better a place their country is where the government can censor anything it pleases. They say it results in a much more orderly place. Maybe it does.
If peace is your goal, you are a fool or a liar. "Peace", meaning no fighting, has never existed, and, based on your description, doesn't now. While there is such a thing as peace, it is hypothetical. Someone, somewhere, is being raped, right now. Thousands of people were murdered yesterday.
Being completely helpless (and forcing others to be) is the stupidest long-term plan for survival I have ever heard. We can see examples of cultures like that in the past- the dodo, anyone? My only solace in the face of your monumental stupidity is balanced only by the fact that I own weapons (and am willing to kill to keep them), and that, darwinistically, ideas and people as stupid as yourself will eventually leave the gene pool.
Long-term, you have as much chance as the shakers- none. (The shakers didn't have sex. There aren't any more of them. No children.) Your willingness to be mugged or raped, and to force others down your short-sighted path, is evidence of poor thinking on a chamberlain-ish scale.
Screw you and everything that you stand for.
I can be anywhere in the world and back again in 72 hours. Your plan (banning guns everywhere)would require the complete cooperation of every citizen of ever country in the world.
That seems pretty fucking ridiculous.
Also, there are (est) 500 million guns in the world. What do you propose to do about them? Also, guns, properly stored, can last for decades. Your plan to destroy all of them is preposterous. What about the (many) countries that hate you and your country? Do you propose invading north korea to take their guns?
And how are you going to do that without making more guns for the invasion?
Or do you expect the communist dictator in charge of that country to just disarm himself, just because you told him to?
For that matter, do you expect me to give up my weapons, just because you want me to?
I warn you that the only way to do so is to kill me. And how are you going to do that, if you actually do what you say you want and destroy yours first?
Your total lack of respect for basic human rights is disturbing.
Boo hoo, a big bad criminal might hurt me- I'd better disarm myself and my next door neighbor- that will make us safer!
The NRA is opposed to registration because if the government knows who has which and how many guns who has, it can take them away.
The NRA doesn't want guns taken away because weapons ownership is a fundamental human right, like free speech or freedom of religion.
Also, many people do not have the time to jump through a bunch of hoops to get something. Also, should fax machines be registered because they might be used for copyright infingement?
As for the racist innuendo, I support the individual right of ownership for all weapons to anyone. Especially cheap, powerful weapons that low-wage workers can afford. Especially concealable ones that they can carry everywhere. For that matter, poor people are the people most in danger of having their rights trampled, and are thus most likely to need weapons, should the need arise. (which they decide, not me)
Fine, so you prefer to be helpless to rapists and murderers and nazis.
If your grandmother is raped in front of your eyes, reassure yourself that "the potential cost is way too high".
And when the guy kills her afterwards, remember that you are the better man for standing by and doing nothing.
So you don't mind you and your loved ones murdered and raped. Fine. Less stupid people to pass on their genes. I warn you, however, that I will not give up MY weapons while I still live.
If you want my gun(s), you'll have to kill me first. And that won't be easy, especially for somebody helpless like you..
Your post is an illogical heap of crap. Do you actually espouse the preposterous belief that crime can be totally eliminated?
And your bs about a "serious vetting" process to determine who, in your beleif, is qualified to protect themselves. What gives you the right to decide, that, against the will of other people? By what doctrine are you endowed with that authority? For that matter, how can anybody else (or any combination of people) decide for other people who gets to excercise a basic human right?
Did you register your fax machine with the federal anti-samizdat bureau? We need to ensure people don't get false or misleading information. Constitution? The majority of people voted for the fax registration law. That makes it right.
What? You refuse us entry? Well, we'll just break down the door and throw you in the gulag. Good thing you are disarmed- you might have hurt somebody.
Dude, whoever or wherever you are, you can have my high-capacity, long-range, modern battle rifle when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Screw you and everything that you stand for.
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
I have never ever ever, by anyone, seen a non-BS counter to that. Do you have one?
OK, lets see some proof for your assertion that "crime rates in the UK have been going down across the board for years".
And buying a car makes you 100% more likely to get run over by your own car than before you owned one.
BS, move along.
it's semantic games, idiot. If you are going to go to the trouble of posting something twice, you should at least take the trouble to spell your piss-poor arguments correctly.
When it really get to it, all law is nothing but a massive, long-lived semantic game.
What is and is not stealing is not some kind of open and closed issue. Reasserting a much-disputed "fact" will not magically make the issue go away. Saying something is an indisputable fact, when people most certainly are disputing it is one of the stupist things possible.
Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Saying something is indisputable, in an argument about that same something, is retarded.
Those jews wouldn't be in that camp if they hadn't done anything wrong. If that woman was raped, she shoulda seen it comin, it was her fault for wearing that short skirt.
I live in the country. I know bullshit when I perceive it.
Even more proper would be "and the terrorists already have them"
Osama bin laden has all the powerful, repeating, long-range guns he wants. He has rocket launchers, and tiny little knifes he can use to hijack bigger weapons.
What weapons do you own?
Also, some problems can be solved by the application of more money and guns. The defeat of the third reich, for example.
And don't bring up the "war" on drugs, either. I most certainly do not have the authority to regulate what molecules enter your body.
Yes: instead women (like your wife or sister) will be brutally raped, and no one can help who isn't 15 minutes away.
Also, if no one had computers, banks wouldn't have to wory about people breaking into their computers and extorting money from them.
guns are a recently invented luxury.
Sure, if you 700 years ago "recently".
Some people want to put wacky chemicals in their bodies. Fine, just make sure you don't hurt me. Firearms, however are the absolute best way to ensure the ligitimacy of government.
Frymaster did a VERY insightful article on this very subject. Since I beleive it is licensed under creative commons, I reproduce it here.
====
bowling for colombine... and bazookas
originally aired nov. 10 2002
there's a good chance that you're one of the people who told - nay, exhorted - me to see this movie. well, i saw it. you can stop nagging now.
i'm not going to discuss bowling for columbine. you've seen it. i've seen it. any review would be little more than intra-referential. instead, i'm going to present a simple plan i've had for some time now. it's called the "bazooka plan"
guns. the good
there's a lot of talk about the "legitimate" uses of firearms: hunting, target shooting &c... all namby-pamby bullshit apalogia. guns are weapons. they're instruments of force and coercion.
now, it's no secret that force is the ultimate source of de facto authority. should the state wish to fine you for, say, traffic violations, they send you a ticket. if you refuse to pay, they send you a summons. if you refuse to appear they send some thugs to get you. if you resist, they attempt to subdue. if you will not be subdued, they apply force - the club initially, the gun ultimately. the fact that we mostly just jot off a cheque for that traffic ticket is a sign that we invest our state with de jure authority. we believe they have justification in sanctioning us, so we go along. if that de jure authority loses its support, however, the state is more than willing to exert it's de facto authority: force. violence and coercion are the gold standard of the currency of authority. mostly we never cash in our fiat currency for gold, but we know that fort knox is full of the stuff... just like we know that cop dinging us for the illegal left is packing a glock.
if a state is to have more than the appearance of citizen control (what we in the west refer to, oddly, as "freedom"), it is necessary that that gold standard be controlled at least in part by the citizenry. authority is only de jure if those who submit to it have the capacity and ability to judge its justness and act accordingly. if the means of coercion are completely controlled by the state, state authority can only be judged as de facto in nature.
this isn't a new idea. those patriarchal, slave-holding early americans knew it. when the second amendment talks about the right to bear arms being "necessary for the security of a free state" they're not talking about the security of the state, but the security of the freedom of that state. mao, put it better with his oft-misunderstood statement that "political power flows from the barrel of a gun." note that, contrary to nra propaganda, mao actually armed the population in the early fifties. he passed out free rifles. obviously mr. zedong was confident in the legitimacy of his party's rule. an armed populace is a voluntarily governed populace.
the capacity for revolution is a necessary prerequisite for the legitimacy of governance. guns good.
guns. the bad
bowling for columbine covers this section quite nicely. the culture of glorified violence, machismo, revenge, power and the worship of instant, pocket-sized and portable de facto authority over fellow citizens has made the arming of the american population an absolute and abject failure.
the part of bowling... that drove this home most succinctly (for me at least), was the interview with the michigan militia. i'm on record all over the place as dismissing the militia movement as being nothing more than a motley and poorly-dressed gaggle of right-wing nuts with zero und
Get it through your heads, people: Numerals are not syllables and connot be substituted for them. "2" is NOT the same thing as "to". "1" cannot be substituted for the "one" in "someone". "4" is NOT the same thing as "for".
If you are going to use these kinds of sloppy, illegible, ugly, non-standard substitutions, just go whole hog. No point in half measures. Example:
Is that what you want? To sound like an illiterate 14 year old girl on AIM? Then understand it now: Numerals and syllables are not interchangable. When you act like they are, you cheapen the quality of life of everyone who accidentally reads your fetid heap of alphanumeric garbage.