Why yes, I will have your rifle when I pry it from your cold, dead fingers

[Dlx2]

For those of you who aren't in the know, Charlton Heston just kicked it.

Good riddance.

[Notta_skeptic]

I own guns. I've been a hunter in my youth. My sons, nieces, nephews, brothers, sister, and in-laws all own guns. One of my sons is a lifetime NRA (National Rifle Association) member. And even my son and I thought that Charlton Heston was a fanatic.

But death by Alzheimer's I wouldn't wish on anyone. It's a terrible way to die.

[Dlx2]

But death by Alzheimer's I wouldn't wish on anyone. It's a terrible way to die.

I used to feel that way until it happened to Reagan. Since then, I've come to realize that most of the time, terrible things happen to people who simply don't deserve them (I have lost family and friends to Alzheimer's), but on rare occasion, those terrible things happen to the kind of total bastard who really honestly deserves it.

I can't help but cherish those rare occasions.

[VoxRat]

It seems like the disease must have progressed really quickly in Heston - if that is in fact what did him in.

[Quizalufagus]

I met Heston once. He was a really nice guy. Sorry to see him go.

[Goldie]

I own guns. I've been a hunter in my youth. My sons, nieces, nephews, brothers, sister, and in-laws all own guns. One of my sons is a lifetime NRA (National Rifle Association) member. And even my son and I thought that Charlton Heston was a fanatic.

But death by Alzheimer's I wouldn't wish on anyone. It's a terrible way to die.

I am a gun owner /user as well. I also would call Heston a fanatic... but I wouldn't wish death by MANY things on anyone. Well ... except maybe Fred Phelps.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Nor would I.

Death by just ONE thing, however... :D

[SteveF]

I don't know much about him, but I heard he did some civil rights stuff in the 60s. If so, good for him.

[Dlx2]

I don't know much about him, but I heard he did some civil rights stuff in the 60s. If so, good for him.

He did, and then, he turned around 180 degrees and actively campaigned for Reagan, both Bushes, and increased involvement of the religious right in conservative politics. He campaigned against abortion, against freedom of speech in the media, and various other things. He's spent the last 20-some years as a shameless neocon. Whether or not he was a racist in the 60s, he was certainly a racist by the 80s, considering that he was a strong supporter of extended US activity against hispanic countries and immigrants.

So yeah, no tears here.

[Ray Moscow]

We can only hope, for his sake, that they allow guns in heaven.

[Goldie]

Nor would I.

Death by just ONE thing, however... :D

Okay, Smart-ass!:p:D
Thanks for the smile.

[Wally]

For those of you who aren't in the know, Charlton Heston just kicked it.

Good riddance. I'm sure we all have those that would wish us the same.

[Matty]

liie i said in the other thread the only shame is that he didnt get shot.
otherwise good fucking riddence, he has about as much indirect blood on his hands as the pope.

[Wally]

Speech by Charlton Heston
"Winning The Cultural War"
Harvard Law School Forum
February 16, 1999

I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."

There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right. Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

<link to the rest of Mr. Heston's speech> (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/forum/heston.html)

[SteveF]

I didn't realise Heston wrote for WorldNutDaily.

[Wally]

Speech by Charlton Heston
....
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's [or whoever's] grace, built this country.
....
All you guys feel better? If not ... eat a bug and die!

[Arctish]

Thanks for posting that speech, Wally. It's good to see the man behind the caricature.

There were l lot of things Heston stood for I disagreed with but Holy Tomcats! I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him when it came to free speech and civil disobedience.

[Wally]

Thank you. Just my point, much (if not all) of what we know about anyone only the latest media massage; history is important... not just current (flavor of the day) events.

[Worldtraveller]

This reminds me a similar thread where we were trying to say something nice about someone, and Hitler came up.....

Sure, he did some good things, so did <insert favorite historical bad guy figure here>. He also di a bunch of rather crappy things, in many peoples' opinion, and they have just as much right to exporess it, or base their opinion on his douchebag staus (or not) on the sum of his behavior.

I say good riddance to the man, mostly because of the fanatic opposition to any sort of reasonable gun control laws. I will freely acknowledge that he did good things too.

[Dlx2]

Thanks for posting that speech, Wally. It's good to see the man behind the caricature.

There were l lot of things Heston stood for I disagreed with but Holy Tomcats! I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him when it came to free speech and civil disobedience.

You do realize that his idea of free speech in that speech is trying to block media that he disapproves of, his idea of civil disobedience in that speech is blocking gay marriage, and his idea of protecting civil rights in that speech is defending the public image of Christians even when they're doing completely retarded or even illegal things.

He drops a lot of catchphrases and names in that speech, but don't let that fool you.

[Arctish]

Thanks for posting that speech, Wally. It's good to see the man behind the caricature.

There were l lot of things Heston stood for I disagreed with but Holy Tomcats! I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him when it came to free speech and civil disobedience.

You do realize that his idea of free speech in that speech is trying to block media that he disapproves of, his idea of civil disobedience in that speech is blocking gay marriage, and his idea of protecting civil rights in that speech is defending the public image of Christians even when they're doing completely retarded or even illegal things.

He drops a lot of catchphrases and names in that speech, but don't let that fool you.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

I don't agree with Heston on every stance. I do agree with him on the importance of defending the right to speak one's mind and engage in peaceful protest.

[DanB]

"Hate the sin. Love the sinner."

I liked Heston. I don't have to agree, with all of his positions to do that. We are all victims of our cultures and the alliances that coalesce within them.

I never felt that Heston was motivated by hate. That's more than I can say about most people.

[Dlx2]

Thanks for posting that speech, Wally. It's good to see the man behind the caricature.

There were l lot of things Heston stood for I disagreed with but Holy Tomcats! I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him when it came to free speech and civil disobedience.

You do realize that his idea of free speech in that speech is trying to block media that he disapproves of, his idea of civil disobedience in that speech is blocking gay marriage, and his idea of protecting civil rights in that speech is defending the public image of Christians even when they're doing completely retarded or even illegal things.

He drops a lot of catchphrases and names in that speech, but don't let that fool you.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

I don't agree with Heston on every stance. I do agree with him on the importance of defending the right to speak one's mind and engage in peaceful protest.

Except that Heston's message is "I have the right to say that you shouldn't have the right to say what you want."

[tjakey]

Right wingers who defend "free speech" do nothing of the kind. What they defend is their right to say whaterver they think "god" would say, and force the rest of us to agree. As with the gun debate; the real issue isn't so much an individual's "right to bare arms," (which is nowhere in the second amendment regardless of what this retarded S/C is going to say) as it is the desire of people to threaten their fellow human beings with instant and easily delivered death. Gun control isn't about freedom, it is about power, for the fact is the rest of us are not free to live without the threat of weapons being used against us anyplace, anytime, by anyone.

[DanB]

Gun control isn't about freedom, it is about power, for the fact is the rest of us are not free to live without the threat of weapons being used against us anyplace, anytime, by anyone. Does "by anyone", leave any room for, "the rest of us"?

Does Heston's position on this issue, warrant a complete and utter lack of empathy or recognition, as a fellow human being?

Am I then, also to be denied such compassion, as a gun owner and Heston admirer?

[Wally]

Gun control isn't about freedom, it is about power, for the fact is the rest of us are not free to live without the threat of weapons being used against us anyplace, anytime, by anyone. ... correct; the power of the government to restrict a human right... that of self-defense from the crimianl element that will not follow even your reasonable gun control laws. A criminal by definition breaks laws... I think you've made my point for me, thank you.[Does "by anyone", leave any room for, "the rest of us"?

Does Heston's position on this issue, warrant a complete and utter lack of empathy or recognition, as a fellow human being?

Am I then, also to be denied such compassion, as a gun owner and Heston admirer?So it would seem and me too.

Cheers, jeers, or beers,
Wally

[dancer_rnb]

... correct; the power of the government to restrict a human right... that of self-defense from the crimianl element that will not follow even your reasonable gun control laws. A criminal by definition breaks laws... I think you've made my point for me, thank you.[
Wally

Hell, historically sometimes the government/police will arm the criminals.

[DanB]

... correct; the power of the government to restrict a human right... that of self-defense from the crimianl element that will not follow even your reasonable gun control laws. A criminal by definition breaks laws... I think you've made my point for me, thank you.[
Wally

Hell, historically sometimes the government/police will arm the criminals. Or even be the criminals.

[Wally]

Far too true.

[Dlx2]

Does Heston's position on this issue, warrant a complete and utter lack of empathy or recognition, as a fellow human being?

No, the fact that Heston actively campaigned for three US presidents who have consistently fucked up US race relations, US international relations, and US civil rights policies denies him status in the halls of "reasonable human being."

I really couldn't care less about guns. Except maybe the guns those administrations sold en masse in South America, Africa, and the Middle-East to defend our economic interests.

[Dlx2]

A criminal by definition breaks laws

This begs the question: how do we know that the laws we're worried about are unambiguously moral?

[Wally]

So does your position.

[dancer_rnb]

A criminal by definition breaks laws

This begs the question: how do we know that the laws we're worried about are unambiguously moral?

By using the minimum set.
Don't harm me or others.

[Dlx2]

A criminal by definition breaks laws

This begs the question: how do we know that the laws we're worried about are unambiguously moral?

By using the minimum set.
Don't harm me or others.

And now, are our laws unambiguously moral?

[Wally]

No more than our religion I'll wager.

[Matty]

Does Heston's position on this issue, warrant a complete and utter lack of empathy or recognition, as a fellow human being? Yes. He had the balls to stand there in front of the parents of victims of the columbine massacre spitting bullshit gun nut rhetoric in case his beloved NRA was tarnished by the incident. Fuck him and everyone who thinks like him. They display the very utmost lack of human compassion by thinking their right to a knob extension trumps someone elses right to not be shot.

Am I then, also to be denied such compassion, as a gun owner and Heston admirer?Not particularly, he would appear to be a very special breed of scumbag, However should you ever wind up bleeding out from a bullet wound, you brought it on yourself . Maybe the human compassion might be there but the sympathy certainly wouldnt be.

[DanB]

Does Heston's position on this issue, warrant a complete and utter lack of empathy or recognition, as a fellow human being? Yes. He had the balls to stand there in front of the parents of victims of the columbine massacre spitting bullshit gun nut rhetoric in case his beloved NRA was tarnished by the incident. What exactly did he say in that speech, that you found so offensive? Were the parents of the Columbine victims attending an NRA national meeting?

Fuck him and everyone who thinks like him.They display the very utmost lack of human compassion by thinking their right to a knob extension trumps someone elses right to not be shot. Setting aside the logical non-sequitor, do you see no irony in your statements? I don't think you mean "Fuck him", in the good way.

Am I then, also to be denied such compassion, as a gun owner and Heston admirer?Not particularly, he would appear to be a very special breed of scumbag, However should you ever wind up bleeding out from a bullet wound, you brought it on yourself . Maybe the human compassion might be there but the sympathy certainly wouldnt be. I see. If, I destroy my firearms and denounce Heston, there's no chance I'll ever be shot?

My point here is not to defend gun-ownership. My point is to illuminate the destructive propensity, that we all share, which causes us to villify and dehumanize our fellows, simply because we do not share the same beliefs.

"Hate the sin. Love the sinner."

[Dlx2]

No more than our religion I'll wager.

I'm an atheist. That argument won't fly with me.

You said specifically that shooting a criminal was okay, because a criminal has, by definition, committed a crime. This could be anything from a couple of kids taking a shortcut through someone's backyard to someone choosing to indulge in illicit substances in their own home to someone attempting suicide to, in some cases, someone choosing to have sex before marriage, sell booze on a Sunday, have sex with someone of the same gender, read certain books, and so on and so forth. We have all violated little laws. We are all criminals.

I hate to go all slippery slope on you, but unless you're willing to claim that it's perfectly acceptable to shoot elementary school kids who cross someone's lawn without asking permission, I would suggest that you reconsider the "criminal = no rights" rhetoric.

[Matty]

What exactly did he say in that speech, that you found so offensive? Just my perspective Dan. Directing a speech at revently bereaved parents bout how guns are vital to the freedoms of the US and even following such a tragedy that its would be unfair to blame the ownership of such weapons...yadadadadada, is simply put, a cunt move. You dont find it offensive that a couple days after one of the worst civilian massacres your silly country has seen, that fucking clown is directing a speech at the parents beseeching them not to irrationally blame gun ownership? I think its is about as abhorrent as it gets.

If a Nazi general were to come up with a "yeah it sucks but hey, look at all the lovely soap we made", i could hardly be more disgusted.

I see. If, I destroy my firearms and denounce Heston, there's no chance I'll ever be shot?I guess you stand a reasonable chance of being shot in any country where you actively arm the dickheads and chavs of society, but I didnt actually say that did i? .

Let me clarify, if you actively perpetuate such a retarded state of being as giving guns out to any wanker that saw that model on the latest movie and wants one, you have no right to bitch when said asshole shoots you or your family. You brought that on yourself by prioritising your right to a knob extender over the good for society.

that we all share, which causes us to villify and dehumanize our fellows, simply because we do not share the same beliefs.

"Hate the sin. Love the sinner." Yeah well when the sin involves the blanket ownership of lethal weaponry it gets a bit hard to disseminate the two, doesnt it? You can point your fingers at me and shout bang all you like and i wont think badly of it, i promise. Tell me that the world would be a safer place if all school kids were armed and i reserve the right to think you are a clueless wanker.

Dehumanization has no say in this., I'm aware that Heston was a person, shit he was probably nice to his horse for all i know, that doesnt detract from the fact that he was a loathsome right-wing gun nut with very dangerous and selfish ideas and that the world is better place with him not in it. That is what i dislike him for, the fact that he gave his favourite horse an apple every day and was good to his redneck grand kids means nothing in comparison, At the end of he day we are remembered by our actions, and his were abhorrent

You could be a great person for all i know, I'm sure youre very nice, but the fact that you are pro gun ownership says to me that you really don't give a fuck about anyone else other than yourself and certainly not to the point of giving a fuck how destructive to society as a whole your right to bear dick lengtheners is.

For the record, i'm not anti gun ownership. I'm anti "blanket with fuck all restrictions gun ownership" , and handgun ownership.

[DanB]

What exactly did he say in that speech, that you found so offensive? Just my perspective Dan. Directing a speech at revently bereaved parents bout how guns are vital to the freedoms of the US and even following such a tragedy that its would be unfair to blame the ownership of such weapons...yadadadadada, is simply put, a cunt move. You dont find it offensive that a couple days after one of the worst civilian massacres your silly country has seen, that fucking clown is directing a speech at the parents beseeching them not to irrationally blame gun ownership? I think its is about as abhorrent as it gets.
What speech are we talking about? The only speech, I'm aware of, was addressed to the members of the NRA at a national meeting, in Denver. Is there another, to which you are referring?

*I'm short on time. I may address more of your post later.*

[Wally]

No more than our religion I'll wager.

I'm an atheist. That argument won't fly with me. ... or lack of religion?

You said specifically that shooting a criminal was okay, because a criminal has, by definition, committed a crime. This could be anything from a couple of kids taking a shortcut through someone's backyard to someone choosing to indulge in illicit substances in their own home to someone attempting suicide to, in some cases, someone choosing to have sex before marriage, sell booze on a Sunday, have sex with someone of the same gender, read certain books, and so on and so forth. We have all violated little laws. We are all criminals. In order... I did not say crimianls should be shot, I said that they would not follow guns laws... big difference. Second the examples you put up are pretty much strawmen or at least small potatoes in compoarison to armed robbery, rape or murder. Yes, I'm sure we all have done something that is outside the social norm but not necessarily felonious, so? Again, not what I was talking about.

I hate to go all slippery slope on you, but unless you're willing to claim that it's perfectly acceptable to shoot elementary school kids who cross someone's lawn without asking permission, I would suggest that you reconsider the "criminal = no rights" rhetoric.It is to laugh! My background is teaching the Constitution (and to try to explain its variously miss represented principles)... if anything we should not equate criminal with no rights as we are not guilty until the state proves us so. I was speaking of the convicted felons that testify from the prison cells that gun laws will not stop them from getting guns and about the law following sheeple that will follow the laws and turn in guns once these feel good laws are passed... not little kids that track across ones lawn.

While I'm on the soap box: I will agree that Matty has reason to be taken aback by the speech Heston made after Columbine [different on than I posted]... I was too and I've been a gun crank all my life. I just wonder was he bothered, as well, by the dad of one Columbine victim that specifically asked people not to blame guns?

[Dlx2]

... or lack of religion?

Still a no-go.

In order... I did not say crimianls should be shot, I said that they would not follow guns laws... big difference. Second the examples you put up are pretty much strawmen or at least small potatoes in compoarison to armed robbery, rape or murder. Yes, I'm sure we all have done something that is outside the social norm but not necessarily felonious, so? Again, not what I was talking about.

What percent of US states have laws making homosexual intercourse a felony?

What percent of convicted felons in the US are serving time entirely for dealing drugs? What percent of these individuals have also violated gun control laws? What percent of these people hsve never once in their life owned a gun?

It is to laugh! My background is teaching the Constitution (and to try to explain its variously miss represented principles)... if anything we should not equate criminal with no rights as we are not guilty until the state proves us so. I was speaking of the convicted felons that testify from the prison cells that gun laws will not stop them from getting guns and about the law following sheeple that will follow the laws and turn in guns once these feel good laws are passed... not little kids that track across ones lawn.

My point is that the law is not unambiguously moral, and that assuming that all felons are dangerous felons is absurd. As for self-defense, most of the cases I've seen where someone used a gun 'in self defense,' they were either not in mortal danger, the perceived 'crime' did not actually happen nearly according to the manner in which the murderer 'responsible' gun owner claimed it happened, or the conflict could have been resolved peacefully without use of a deadly weapon. I agree that deadly force ought to be met with deadly force, but it's absurd to shoot someone who broke in to your home unarmed to steal your plasma TV when they're running away.

The fact of the matter is, this has nothing to do with defense anymore. This has everything to do with microphallic compensation, either because someone wants to pack heat, or because someone wants to go out into the woods and shoot random woodland animals. I'm a big fan of the whole militia thing, but how many folks with guns are actually part of an organized militia? The only ones I can think of are the crazy white supremacists who live out in the boonies in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.

[VoxRat]

I see. If, I destroy my firearms and denounce Heston, there's no chance I'll ever be shot?Wow!
I haven't spent much time arguing the gun thing, but I see that some - how to phrase this politely? - gun control opponents are as - how to phrase this politely? - logic-averse as creationists. My point here is not to defend gun-ownership. My point is to illuminate the destructive propensity, that we all share, which causes us to villify and dehumanize our fellows, simply because we do not share the same beliefs.
You know, whether I "villify" Charlton Heston, or idolize him, regret that I didn't have a torrid affair with him, or fantasize about sadistically torturing him... none of that makes one molecule of difference to anyone anywhere. But the fact that guns are way too easy to get has resulted in a whole lot of bereaved parents, siblings, kids... I heard a news story not long ago about a mother who had just buried the last of, I believe it was six kids - all lost to urban gun violence. That's just insane.

Hey. I harbor no particular ill will toward the memory of Heston the man or the actor. Heck - I'll beg off social engagements to stay home and watch The Ten Commandments if it's on TV! Or Bowling for Columbine. But as a spokesman and symbol for right-wing lunacy in general and the NRA in particular, well let's just say I mourn him like I mourn Jerry Falwell, James Earl Ray, or Augusto Pinochet.

[Wally]

Still a no-go. :dunno:

What percent of US states have laws making homosexual intercourse a felony? Any is too many.

What percent of convicted felons in the US are serving time entirely for dealing drugs? What percent of these individuals have also violated gun control laws? What percent of these people hsve never once in their life owned a gun?What has this to do with the price of nails in Denmark? I was speaking of gun laws... not the others. And, BTW a conviction for a criminal act, ambiguous or not, defines criminal.

My point is that the law is not unambiguously moral, and that assuming that all felons are dangerous felons is absurd. Agreed.

As for self-defense, most of the cases I've seen where someone used a gun 'in self defense,' they were either not in mortal danger, the perceived 'crime' did not actually happen nearly according to the manner in which the murderer 'responsible' gun owner claimed it happened, or the conflict could have been resolved peacefully without use of a deadly weapon. I agree that deadly force ought to be met with deadly force, but it's absurd to shoot someone who broke in to your home unarmed to steal your plasma TV when they're running away. Did I really sound like that big a fool to imply that this should be the case? Wow, I need to check my deoderant( or my anti-flatulent)! I'm sure you have a reason for all this bile but please understand my guns have killed few[edit: er] people than Ted Kennedy's car.

The fact of the matter is, this has nothing to do with defense anymore. This has everything to do with microphallic compensation, either because someone wants to pack heat, or because someone wants to go out into the woods and shoot random woodland animals. I'm a big fan of the whole militia thing, but how many folks with guns are actually part of an organized militia? The only ones I can think of are the crazy white supremacists who live out in the boonies in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.Sorry to disagree; I'm the militia and never have been to any of those states; last killed a quail about 45 years ago; am okay phallically, and wish you well in Limbo.

Vox:
Wow!
I haven't spent much time arguing the gun thing, but I see that some - how to phrase this politely? - gun control opponents are as - how to phrase this politely? - logic-averse as creationists.

The key is some ; ;)

Wally

[VoxRat]

Wow!
I haven't spent much time arguing the gun thing, but I see that some - how to phrase this politely? - gun control opponents are as - how to phrase this politely? - logic-averse as creationists.

The key is some ; ;)

Wally
Good point.

[Wally]

Thank you and much as it pains me, you are quite correct and it is, therefore, much harder for the rest of us to be heard... over their prattle.

[dancer_rnb]

I've got a couple of books that were very hard to read. One about the Armenian
massacres, and one about Reconstruction in the South after the American Civli
War. I wasn't able to finish the second one. I'm tempted to put together quotations
from those two books about what happens to unarmed minority populations when
the local power structure goes after them.

[DanB]

I see. If, I destroy my firearms and denounce Heston, there's no chance I'll ever be shot?Wow!
I haven't spent much time arguing the gun thing, but I see that some - how to phrase this politely? - gun control opponents are as - how to phrase this politely? - logic-averse as creationists. Conceded. I may well fit that description. I like to think that I don't, but I'm sure every deluded person, likes to think that. However, please note the question mark, in the quote.

Perhaps you can help me. Is this, given the context in which it was presented, a logic-adverse statement: However should you ever wind up bleeding out from a bullet wound, you brought it on yourself Or is it not?

My point here is not to defend gun-ownership. My point is to illuminate the destructive propensity, that we all share, which causes us to villify and dehumanize our fellows, simply because we do not share the same beliefs.
You know, whether I "villify" Charlton Heston, or idolize him, regret that I didn't have a torrid affair with him, or fantasize about sadistically torturing him... none of that makes one molecule of difference to anyone anywhere. I disagree. Again, maybe I've deluded myself, but I see it as part of the never ending "Culture War". Regardless of what ideology the participants rally around, the concept of Universal Kinship almost always seems to suffer from, collateral damage.

But the fact that guns are way too easy to get has resulted in a whole lot of bereaved parents, siblings, kids... I heard a news story not long ago about a mother who had just buried the last of, I believe it was six kids - all lost to urban gun violence. That's just insane. Yeah. There's no shortage of insanity in human affairs. And I agree that firearms is an issue that needs to be addressed.

However, in our silly country, we're restricted in the ways we can address the issue, by our constitution. And I have a problem, when people believe their particular issue, warrants ignoring that fact. My problem with that, is the precedent it sets for ignoring the rest of the limitations, set by the document. It's what keeps groups of people, from legislating things such as, mandatory church attendance.

So if, something like, "well regulated militia....keep and bear arms", seems to be either outdated our simply too, ambiguous then, there the solution is to amend the document.

An actual amendment may not be necessary. Sure, guns were involved in Columbine. But to claim that easy access to guns was what resulted in the deaths of those students, is a fallacy. That would be like claiming that humans only engaged in agriculture because, they had easy access to plows.

Now, I'm fairly libertarian in my thinking. I believe in personal freedoms, so long as, they are coupled with, personal responsibility. I'm convinced that violence can be manifested as physical, social, or economic. In that regard, I don't have any problem with the concept of registration and holding the registered owner responsible for the consequential use of firearms they have taken into there possession. That includes, ensuring that those firearms are secure, or if, transfered to another owner or stolen, reported.

That's not presented as a panacea. Much of what needs to be done is not going to be directly involved with controlling firearms ownership. Simply controlling firearms ownership will not result in the desired outcome.

Hey. I harbor no particular ill will toward the memory of Heston the man or the actor. Heck - I'll beg off social engagements to stay home and watch The Ten Commandments if it's on TV! Or Bowling for Columbine. I'm happy to hear that. That's not the sentiment that prompted me to reply to this thread, in the manner, which I did.

But as a spokesman and symbol for right-wing lunacy in general and the NRA in particular,... And if, that's all there was to the man, I'd find it difficult to not view him with the same disdain that I reserve for Dick Cheney and Fred Phelps. But those are my particular demarcation points, dishonesty and hatred.

...well let's just say I mourn him like I mourn Jerry Falwell, James Earl Ray, or Augusto Pinochet. Please, I ask respectfully. Define "right-wing lunacy" and show where, Heston directly defended it. Explain to me, how those persons are related so that, they deserve the same lack of empathy?

[Dlx2]

There are three arguments for gun ownership:

Argument 1: guns are a necessary part of a popular set of sports, including marksmanship and hunting.

Argument 2: guns provide protection from dangerous criminals.

Argument 3: guns provide protection from the government in the event that the government goes rogue.

Only the third is supported by the constitution. The first is an absurd argument, especially considering that other forms of recreation have been made illegal (drug use, dogfighting, pedophilia) due to ethical or social concerns. The second is more sinister, as vigilantism is expressly forbid by the constitution, as we are expected to work out legal disputes in the court system.

As such, I think gun access should be permitted, although I think that basic safety experience and testing must be conducted first, much like we do with driver's licenses. I am against concealed weapon permitting; I think that weapons should be kept in a secure place in the home under lock and key, subject to inspection. A similar system is in place in most states for, say, dangerous animal facilities. Just as I can't, in most states, walk around legally with a cobra in my backpack, I shouldn't be able to do the same with a gun. Shooting ranges should probably provide a storage service for weapons if an individual chooses to keep their weapon at such a facility rather than at home, and provide range-owned weapons for individuals who want to shoot without having to transport their weapons. Transportation of weapons should be done with the weapon in a locked, secure container, with permitting information on the person of the transporter. Transport of weapons across state borders should require additional permitting.

There are legitimate uses for guns, but this masturbatory "self-protection" shit is absurd. Most gun-related deaths are either accidents or heat-of-the-moment events where it could have been resolved without violence had the gun not been present.

And as for insurrection, you should be more concerned that the US government controls the distribution of ammonium nitrate than potential controls on gun distribution.

[dancer_rnb]

[The second is more sinister, as vigilantism is expressly forbid by the constitution, as we are expected to work out legal disputes in the court system.

Court system only does you some good if you are alive to use it.
Once I'm dead, I don't have any interest in what happens to my killer.
Though my family probably would.

[Dlx2]

[The second is more sinister, as vigilantism is expressly forbid by the constitution, as we are expected to work out legal disputes in the court system.

Court system only does you some good if you are alive to use it.
Once I'm dead, I don't have any interest in what happens to my killer.
Though my family probably would.

Chances are, your killer is family or friend.

This whole "oh man, a gun is going to protect me from some random nutjob on the street" conception of gun safety is absurd. Chances are, if you're going to get murdered, it's going to happen at home, and it very well might be with your own gun. Keeping a gun on you at all times does not make you safer; it simply means that your gun can be used against you, or worse, it makes you into a potential murderer as well. Far too many of these cases where someone uses a gun 'for self defense' it turns out that the situation could easily have been resolved in a reasonable manner and was emphatically not violent. The simple appearance of a gun in the situation worsened it, and the use of the gun by the 'victim' was generally the act of aggression by the victim rather than self-defense. Trust me on this: I currently live in a state with a Make My Day law, and every goddamned case where MMD comes into play, the person engaging in 'self-defense' needlessly raised the level of violence by using their gun.

[Wally]

This whole "oh man, a gun is going to protect me from some random nutjob on the street" conception of gun safety is absurd. Chances are, if you're going to get murdered, it's going to happen at home, and it very well might be with your own gun. Keeping a gun on you at all times does not make you safer; it simply means that your gun can be used against you, or worse, it makes you into a potential murderer as well. Far too many of these cases where someone uses a gun 'for self defense' it turns out that the situation could easily have been resolved in a reasonable manner and was emphatically not violent. The simple appearance of a gun in the situation worsened it, and the use of the gun by the 'victim' was generally the act of aggression by the victim rather than self-defense. Trust me on this: I currently live in a state with a Make My Day law, and every goddamned case where MMD comes into play, the person engaging in 'self-defense' needlessly raised the level of violence by using their gun.

What you say has some validity; there are cases enough to take this position and enough cases of the other kind... justified self-defense without other alternative in life threatening situation to counter it. That said, I am not for packing heat or having a gun in every bedside table... and agree that the advantage of a weapon (gun, knife, hammer, table leg, bottle, or size / strength advantage) can and often will give a person the idea they can use violence to solve a problem.

Sadly, I have to spend hours each term teaching children that violence isn't the normal way to solve problems because our society glorifies robbery, rape, murder, and mayhem in the movies and on TV... and seemingly the parents haven't got the message across that "this is pretend... don't try this at home!"

I'm reasonbly sure what I've just posted won't change your mind nor do I really care, however I think it important to show that your stereotype concept of gun owners and users isn't always the case. Make of this what you will, but I'm satisfied that there are more gun owners like me than there are of the type you would paint us to be.

[dancer_rnb]

[The second is more sinister, as vigilantism is expressly forbid by the constitution, as we are expected to work out legal disputes in the court system.

Court system only does you some good if you are alive to use it.
Once I'm dead, I don't have any interest in what happens to my killer.
Though my family probably would.

Chances are, your killer is family or friend.

This whole "oh man, a gun is going to protect me from some random nutjob on the street" conception of gun safety is absurd. Chances are, if you're going to get murdered, it's going to happen at home, and it very well might be with your own gun. Keeping a gun on you at all times does not make you safer; it simply means that your gun can be used against you, or worse, it makes you into a potential murderer as well. Far too many of these cases where someone uses a gun 'for self defense' it turns out that the situation could easily have been resolved in a reasonable manner and was emphatically not violent. The simple appearance of a gun in the situation worsened it, and the use of the gun by the 'victim' was generally the act of aggression by the victim rather than self-defense. Trust me on this: I currently live in a state with a Make My Day law, and every goddamned case where MMD comes into play, the person engaging in 'self-defense' needlessly raised the level of violence by using their gun.

Well, I don't own any guns.
Second, it doesn't matter if a person is killed by gunshot, strangled, or killed
in another manner, or whether they are killed by a family member or stranger.
Once they are dead, the court can't do anything for them. They are dead.

[Matty]

However should you ever wind up bleeding out from a bullet wound, you brought it on yourself
Or is it not?

whats illogical about that?

if you actively support the free availability of guns to all and sundry and with little or no legislation, you actively increase the chances of being shot by one of those guns.

Chance are incrsed, at your request, that you are shot by legit gun wielders either by accident or design. as well as which you also add to the massive pool of available guns from which the criminal element typically steal theirs and have thus increased the chance of falling foul of them too.

You have actively added to the social situation in which you are now statistically more likely to be shot. So why is it illogical to state that?

Actually i would feel bad for you, but i would also feel sorry that you couldnt see the obviuoius before it hit you in such an avoidable way.

Its really quite simple, you cant get shot by a gun that doesnt exist. And if they do exist it is less likely that you are shot when they are in the hands of people with the training and intelligence to use them responsibly, as opposed to a chav with a DMX fixation.

Funnily enough that would seem to be obvious to pretty much everyone but the pro gun americans.

[dancer_rnb]

There were present at a Republican barbeque about fifteen hundred coloured people, men women and chikdren.Seeking the opportunity white men, fully prepared, fired into the crowd. Two women were reported killed, also two children...........
Last night, this morning, and today squads of white men were scouring the country killing negros. Three were killed at Clinton this morning.--one of whom was an old man, nearly 100 years old--defensles and helpless. Yesterday the Negros, though UNARMED and umprepared, fought bravely and killed four of the ringleaders, but had to flee before the muskets that were at once brought onto the field.......They know we have a majority of some thiry thouand and to overcome it they are resorting to intimidation and murder.


THE BLOODY SHIRT Terror After Appomatox , Stephen Budiansky Viking, pp 196-197

[dancer_rnb]

In creating an effecient killing process the Special Organization systematically recruited, organized, and deployed tends of thousands of convicted criminals for the purpose of massacring the Armenian population...
the military authorities were given autonomy to authorize the release of thousands of convicts from the prisons.

THE BURNING TIGRIS The Armenian Genocide and America's Response
Peter Balakian, Harper Collins, pp 182

[DanB]

However should you ever wind up bleeding out from a bullet wound, you brought it on yourself
Or is it not?

whats illogical about that?

if you actively support the free availability of guns to all and sundry and with little or no legislation, you actively increase the chances of being shot by one of those guns.

Chance are incrsed, at your request, that you are shot by legit gun wielders either by accident or design. as well as which you also add to the massive pool of available guns from which the criminal element typically steal theirs and have thus increased the chance of falling foul of them too.

You have actively added to the social situation in which you are now statistically more likely to be shot. So why is it illogical to state that?

Actually i would feel bad for you, but i would also feel sorry that you couldnt see the obviuoius before it hit you in such an avoidable way.

Its really quite simple, you cant get shot by a gun that doesnt exist. And if they do exist it is less likely that you are shot when they are in the hands of people with the training and intelligence to use them responsibly, as opposed to a chav with a DMX fixation. I'm sorry. I'm failing to see how any that is necessarily inferred from my being "a gun owner and Heston admirer". That was the context in which, it was presented.

Funnily enough that would seem to be obvious to pretty much everyone but the pro gun americans. Yes, it's always the other side that's oblivious to the obvious, isn't it?

[Wally]

Matty,
Won't it be rather hard to be a Gunboat Diplomat w/o said guns? Or are you another elitist type that want guns for your own purposes and leave the rest of us in the great unwashed unarmed against the chavs?
Wally

[Dlx2]

RE: dancer_rnb

As far as armed conflict between paramilitary organizations or between paramilitary organizations and police/military, this has nothing to do with availability of handguns. Kalishnakovs? Sure. Large amounts of ammonium nitrate? Fuck yes. But a .22? That's like going to war with a butter knife.

IF this is your primary concern, then this suggests that the current legislation needs to be upended. Access to explosives should hen not be restricted, and the governmental practice of monitoring purchase of, say, fertilizer, is strictly unconstitutional. So is, for that matter, the ban on ownership of assault rifles, mortars, etc.

In the event of a civil war against the US government, we are more likely to be using pipe bombs and cars filled with fertilizer than sidearms.

[Wally]

Interesting point; I was always concerned about those farmers and the fertilizer.

In the event of a civil war against the US government, we are more likely to be using pipe bombs and cars filled with fertilizer than sidearms. All kidding aside, this is far too true.

[Esocyn]

Speech by Charlton Heston
"Winning The Cultural War"
Harvard Law School Forum
February 16, 1999

I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."

There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right. Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know ... I'm pretty old...but I sure Lord ain't senile.

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issues. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our Land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- Long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!" But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys-subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "Blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, and new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read a few examples.
At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive. In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs --- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not... need not ... tell their patients that they are infected.

At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name. In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery. In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know ... that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said, "black." But it's a no-no now. For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American ...with a capital letter on "American."

Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign. As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly,' (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and © actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression? Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.

Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers. I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me!"? If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people. You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr.King ... who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in VietNam. In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me.

Let me tell you a story. A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word:

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF,
I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF.
I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF,
I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore: "SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ...." Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied,"but Time/Warner's selling it." Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office. When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents. When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, Crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month ...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

Thank you.

It's fucking hilarious to watch and hear Heston read the lyrics from Cop Killer.

[Wally]

I'm sure it was much more theatrical than one would expect (or was necessary) but the guy was used to playing large [biblical], no?

[dancer_rnb]

RE: dancer_rnb

As far as armed conflict between paramilitary organizations or between paramilitary organizations and police/military, this has nothing to do with availability of handguns. Kalishnakovs? Sure. Large amounts of ammonium nitrate? Fuck yes. But a .22? That's like going to war with a butter knife.

IF this is your primary concern, then this suggests that the current legislation needs to be upended. Access to explosives should hen not be restricted, and the governmental practice of monitoring purchase of, say, fertilizer, is strictly unconstitutional. So is, for that matter, the ban on ownership of assault rifles, mortars, etc.

In the event of a civil war against the US government, we are more likely to be using pipe bombs and cars filled with fertilizer than sidearms.

These Reconstruction incident was as much about the armed local powere structure attacking essentially unarmed groups trying to assert their rights, as well as against the federal government

The releasing of convicts by the Turkish government was a case of the government waging a civil war against some of its own people, if you can call a massacre a civil war.. Not the other way around.

I guess I'm arguing against the idea that leaving arms only in goverment hands will fix all our problems
with violence.

[Dlx2]

RE: dancer_rnb

As far as armed conflict between paramilitary organizations or between paramilitary organizations and police/military, this has nothing to do with availability of handguns. Kalishnakovs? Sure. Large amounts of ammonium nitrate? Fuck yes. But a .22? That's like going to war with a butter knife.

IF this is your primary concern, then this suggests that the current legislation needs to be upended. Access to explosives should hen not be restricted, and the governmental practice of monitoring purchase of, say, fertilizer, is strictly unconstitutional. So is, for that matter, the ban on ownership of assault rifles, mortars, etc.

In the event of a civil war against the US government, we are more likely to be using pipe bombs and cars filled with fertilizer than sidearms.

These Reconstruction incident was as much about the armed local powere structure attacking essentially unarmed groups trying to assert their rights, as well as against the federal government

The releasing of convicts by the Turkish government was a case of the government waging a civil war against some of its own people, if you can call a massacre a civil war.. Not the other way around.

I guess I'm arguing against the idea that leaving arms only in goverment hands will fix all our problems
with violence.

And my point is that armed resistance against genocide does not involve sidearms. It involves car bombs, makeshift mines, makeshift incendiary devices, etc. Even then, it's not always successful; just look at how successful the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was, for example.

[Wally]

dancer_rnb: I guess I'm arguing against the idea that leaving arms only in goverment hands will fix all our problems
with violence.

Dlx2: And my point is that armed resistance against genocide does not involve sidearms. It involves car bombs, makeshift mines, makeshift incendiary devices, etc.

Interesting; many of us have firearms... but not the time or skill to make the car bombs etc. so we'd be out of luck, I guess, if they were outlawed... and would be forced to become criminals on several levels.

[Dlx2]

Interesting; many of us have firearms... but not the time or skill to make the car bombs etc. so we'd be out of luck, I guess, if they were outlawed... and would be forced to become criminals on several levels.

Yes, but can you work out a basic design for a molotov cocktail?

[Wally]

With the price of gasoline getting to be what it is, I'll stick to my gun thanks.

[DanB]

And my point is that armed resistance against genocide does not involve sidearms. It involves car bombs, makeshift mines, makeshift incendiary devices, etc. Even then, it's not always successful; just look at how successful the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was, for example. Ive really been trying to avoid focusing on the gun control aspect of this thread. But, I just can't get my head around the idea of telling a group of people, facing genocide, that they can't have any firearms because, firearms are ineffective and socially destructive.

[Wally]

Nicely put.

[dancer_rnb]

And my point is that armed resistance against genocide does not involve sidearms. It involves car bombs, makeshift mines, makeshift incendiary devices, etc. Even then, it's not always successful; just look at how successful the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was, for example.

I'll agree, you need those sort of things againsyt trained military forces.
But what about mobs or bands of released criminals?
Also we are not nessarily talking about genocide. It could just be supression
of demands for better treatment.

I heard on Oprah once a potential lynch victim who was able to escape,
because the NRA had organized a shooting club among the blacks men in the area, and there were 200 black men with rifles who could oppose local whites, which gave him time to get the hell out of there.
This did a lot to change my view of the NRA.

[Dlx2]

And my point is that armed resistance against genocide does not involve sidearms. It involves car bombs, makeshift mines, makeshift incendiary devices, etc. Even then, it's not always successful; just look at how successful the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was, for example. Ive really been trying to avoid focusing on the gun control aspect of this thread. But, I just can't get my head around the idea of telling a group of people, facing genocide, that they can't have any firearms because, firearms are ineffective and socially destructive.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that if your concern is providing a means of resistance to a people facing genocide, then the legality of sidearms should not the the center of discussion. If resistance is your goal, then the discussion should be centered around the fact that actual tools of resistance are strongly curtailed. When the constitution was written, it was possible to stage an effective resistance with the same firearms used for hunting and home defense. To assume that this remains the case is absurd.

Either your argument in favor of gun legality is to allow people to stage an effective response to genocide and government oppression, in which case handguns and hunting rifles can go to hell and we need to focus on legality of assault rifles, mortars, rockets, and explosives, or else that's a smokescreen you're throwing up in order to justify your ownership of a gun for recreational purposes.

See this guy?

http://and-still-i-persist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/image.jpeg

I don't think a Colt .45 is going to do him a hell of a lot of good.

[Dlx2]

But what about mobs or bands of released criminals?

That's what the police and national guard are for. No provisions are made in the second amendment for vigilantism.

Also we are not nessarily talking about genocide. It could just be supression
of demands for better treatment.

The use of lethal force to protest nonlethal suppression seems like a criminal and antisocial act to me.

I heard on Oprah once a potential lynch victim who was able to escape,
because the NRA had organized a shooting club among the blacks men in the area, and there were 200 black men with rifles who could oppose local whites, which gave him time to get the hell out of there.
This did a lot to change my view of the NRA.

While I'm glad he survived, I don't think this is a good argument in favor of legalization of sidearms and recreational weapons. From a simple utilitarian perspective (and I'm not a utilitarian) you have to weigh the number of lives given each approach. It's not really a secret that access to guns increases the chance that someone is going to use said gun in a criminal manner. For every one situation like the one you described, there are hundreds to thousands where someone catches their wife cheating on them and proceeds to grab their gun out of the closet and shoot them. Whether or not the potential exists for guns to stop crime, the potential is much higher for guns to cause crime.

[Wally]

... I don't think this is a good argument in favor of legalization of sidearms and recreational weapons.They are legal, so far and I think your examples are pretty lame. I thought we were here to rationally not talk a ration.

BTW, I agree a .45 is not going to be much more effective, than the book bag in post #71, against a line of tanks.

[Dlx2]

... I don't think this is a good argument in favor of legalization of sidearms and recreational weapons.They are legal, so far and I think your examples are pretty lame. I thought we were here to rationally not talk a ration.

The question is whether or not ownership of side arms and recreational weapons (hunting rifles, birding shotguns) is covered by the constitution. The answer as far as I can tell is "no."

The second question is whether there are things which should be covered by the constitution but are still illegal because "someone might use them in a terrorist attack." The answer as far as I can tell is "yes."

In other words, this isn't a constitutional question at all. This is a question of whether or not someone likes the feeling of walking around with a .22 in their purse, or whether someone likes going out deer-hunting on weekends. As far as I can tell, recreation is not protected by the Constitution. What is protected is the ability to form militias and adequately arm these militias. A bunch of middle-aged suburbanites packing .22s and hunting rifles are not what I'd consider "adequately armed."

What's not rational is the fact that the same people who are overly concerned with their right to pack heat are the same people who generally support measures to take away more important rights, such as free speech and demonstration. The entire point of the second amendment is to provide the people with the power to defend the rest of the constitution, NOT their personal property.

[Wally]

Before I go further let me apologize for the ration remark; you post is very rational and while I don't agree 100% there is much that has merit for further discussion.



The question is whether or not ownership of side arms and recreational weapons (hunting rifles, birding shotguns) is covered by the constitution. The answer as far as I can tell is "no."As the arms of the time were multi-use rather than use specific, as many are today, I could argue that as far as I can tell the answer would be yes.

The second question is whether there are things which should be covered by the constitution but are still illegal because "someone might use them in a terrorist attack." The answer as far as I can tell is "yes." Not a constitutional issue; various gun control acts are already in place that limit the ownership of such devices. A question of enforcement.

In other words, this isn't a constitutional question at all. This is a question of whether or not someone likes the feeling of walking around with a .22 in their purse, or whether someone likes going out deer-hunting on weekends. As far as I can tell, recreation is not protected by the Constitution. There are many things that are protected by the Constitution that are not named in the document; the Ninth Amendment and all that: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What is protected is the ability to form militias and adequately arm these militias. A bunch of middle-aged suburbanites packing .22s and hunting rifles are not what I'd consider "adequately armed."The formation of militas isn't the question... the people are the militia. The protection is of the right of those people to be armed .

What's not rational is the fact that the same people who are overly concerned with their right to pack heat are the same people who generally support measures to take away more important rights, such as free speech and demonstration. The entire point of the second amendment is to provide the people with the power to defend the rest of the constitution, NOT their personal property. I would only disagree with this to say AND rather than NOT.

Hope I don't sound as [I]out there as I was beginning to feel.

Wally

[DanB]

Whether or not the potential exists for guns to stop crime, the potential is much higher for guns to cause crime. That is simply a ridiculous statement. Guns are tools. They are certainly used in crime, but they are not the cause of crime.

What's not rational is the fact that the same people who are overly concerned with their right to pack heat are the same people who generally support measures to take away more important rights, such as free speech and demonstration. Another, ridiculous statement. There may be some who fit that description, but I'd need some evidence to convince me that they were in the majority.

The entire point of the second amendment is to provide the people with the power to defend the rest of the constitution, NOT their personal property. And yet another. That's part of the intent behind the entire document.

Thank you, though. You're providing an excellent example of the kind of tribal mentality that can be manifested by even the most intelligent and educated of us.

[Dlx2]

As the arms of the time were multi-use rather than use specific, as many are today, I could argue that as far as I can tell the answer would be yes.

Well, a modern hunting rifle is good for putting one bullet into an animal that is not likely to shoot back. A modern pistol is good for putting a handful of bullets into an unarmored person at short range. I'm failing to see how either would be much use in a large-scale armed conflict.

Not a constitutional issue; various gun control acts are already in place that limit the ownership of such devices. A question of enforcement.

I disagree. The second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This doesn't say "the ability for a civilian to protect themselves from criminals being necessary to the security of a free state" or "the right to choose your mode of recreation being necessary to the security of a free state." It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." We already have a militia that exists to protect us from external forces: the Army National Guard and the Navy Coast Guard. Thus, the only type of militia that we [i]need guns for is protection from our own military in the event that the government turns oppressive. Side arms and hunting rifles are not going to be sufficient. The makings for bombs, mortars, and other military technologies are technically "arms," and are protected by the second amendment, or should be.

Which brings us to the question of which arms are protected by the Constitution. I'd argue that arms with military use are protected. Arms without military use are not protected. The question then is whether the right to bear recreational arms is a good idea, and we can argue about this 'til the cows come home. I'd argue it's a bad idea, and you'd argue it's not. We both have statistics to back us up, but this is a conclusion that must be come to without kneejerk 2nd amendment rhetoric.

There are many things that are protected by the Constitution that are not named in the document; the Ninth Amendment and all that: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And certain rights are not permitted by the law, regardless of the constitution. I don't have the right to legally buy marijuana. I don't have the right to have sex with 16 year olds. I don't have the right to steal someone else's copyrighted work and claim it as my own. I don't have the right to beat my wife, to piss on your front lawn, or to run around in public with my dangly bits in plain view. The reason why is because lawmakers have decided that these sorts of behaviors are detrimental to society. While we may disagree on some of the details (I think, for instance, that legislating marijuana is absolutely retarded), we can agree that there is a point to the continued existence of some legislation, and this is permitted and even encouraged by the constitution.

The formation of militas isn't the question... the people are the militia. The protection is of the right of those people to be armed [if they so choose].

Note the phrasing of the 2nd amendment: "well regulated militia." This does not indicate a group of people who simply have guns. It indicates an organized group.

I would only disagree with this to say AND rather than NOT.

Protection of property is the job of the legal system. It is not the place for vigilantism.

[Dlx2]

That is simply a ridiculous statement. Guns are tools. They are certainly used in crime, but they are not the cause of crime.

There are various tools that we control. People use illicit substances as tools as well. The question is whether the tool has constitutionally defensible uses, or whether its uses are not] constitutionally protected. If they aren't protected, then the question is whether we have more to gain or lose by legalizing these tools. The fact that murder rate very highly correlates with handgun availability suggests to me that we have more to lose.

Another, ridiculous statement. There may be some who fit that description, but I'd need some evidence to convince me that they were in the majority.

Social conservatives are more likely to oppose free speech and social justice concerns and more likely to support gun rights concerns. This is a statistical question, and the statistical answer overwhelmingly disproves your claim.

And yet another. That's part of the intent behind the entire document.

I was of the understanding that the purpose of the constitution is to codify the procedures of the US federal government. The purpose of the amendments is to provide checks and balances on the federal government such that the government does not steamroll over civil rights and minority rights.

If I'm wrong, and the purpose of the constitution is to make it legal for you to go out skeet shooting or carry around a handgun in your briefcase, I'm always interested in learning about this country's government.

Thank you, though. You're providing an excellent example of the kind of tribal mentality that can be manifested by even the most intelligent and educated of us.

I fail to see how pointing out that handgun and recreational gun use are not protected by the constitution and thus should be assessed outside of the kneejerk rhetoric of "2nd amendment rights" is evidence of a "tribal mentality."

[nygreenguy]

Chances are, your killer is family or friend.

This whole "oh man, a gun is going to protect me from some random nutjob on the street" conception of gun safety is absurd. Chances are, if you're going to get murdered, it's going to happen at home, and it very well might be with your own gun. Keeping a gun on you at all times does not make you safer; it simply means that your gun can be used against you, or worse, it makes you into a potential murderer as well. Far too many of these cases where someone uses a gun 'for self defense' it turns out that the situation could easily have been resolved in a reasonable manner and was emphatically not violent. The simple appearance of a gun in the situation worsened it, and the use of the gun by the 'victim' was generally the act of aggression by the victim rather than self-defense. Trust me on this: I currently live in a state with a Make My Day law, and every goddamned case where MMD comes into play, the person engaging in 'self-defense' needlessly raised the level of violence by using their gun.

Im curious though, if someone breaks into your home, what do you do?

Or if your safety is in danger in general.

I simply dont trust the cops to protect me, so my personal safety is my responsibility and I will use the necessary means to defend myself and my family.

Im quite sure you believe the same, but it would appear you would take a different route and I wonder what that would be.

[perfessor]

Im curious though, if someone breaks into your home, what do you do?
I know you addressed this to Dlx2, and I certainly don't speak for him, but I'll give you my answers.

Here's what we did when we were broken into: We filled out a police report, and filed an insurance claim.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but most breakins, apart from those on TV, occur when no one is at home. Ours was fairly typical, I imagine. They took our stereos, our bedsheets (to carry the loot), my pot. The nightstands and dressers were well searched, but nothing was taken from them.

What do you suppose they were looking for in the nightstands? You better believe that if we had owned a gun, it would have been on the street the next day.

Or if your safety is in danger in general.
My general strategy is to put as much distance between me and the danger as is possible. I'm sure I'm not going to out-draw or out-shoot the thug.

I simply dont trust the cops to protect me, so my personal safety is my responsibility and I will use the necessary means to defend myself and my family.
Agreed. The cops are mainly there to clean up afterwards, and hopefully catch the bad guy after it's too late. That's why I rely chiefly on the "distance" strategy.

Im quite sure you believe the same, but it would appear you would take a different route and I wonder what that would be.

[Wally]

perfessor,

I think you summed it up verry well... the approach most of us (including this gun owner) would take. No firearms in nightstands or under the pillow at my house; locked (up) and loaded (in the safe).

[nygreenguy]

I'm not trying to be flippant, but most breakins, apart from those on TV, occur when no one is at home. Ours was fairly typical, I imagine. They took our stereos, our bedsheets (to carry the loot), my pot. The nightstands and dressers were well searched, but nothing was taken from them. We (my apt complex) have had 5 in the past year all while someone was home!

My general strategy is to put as much distance between me and the danger as is possible. I'm sure I'm not going to out-draw or out-shoot the thug. But what about everyone else in your home!

[perfessor]

We (my apt complex) have had 5 in the past year all while someone was home!

But what about everyone else in your home!
Well, I have to admit that your anecdotal evidence is stronger than mine.

We no longer live in the city, BTW. The "distance" factor is roughly 60 miles. I haven't locked my door in years, don't even know where the keys are.

[nygreenguy]

Well, I have to admit that your anecdotal evidence is stronger than mine.

We no longer live in the city, BTW. The "distance" factor is roughly 60 miles. I haven't locked my door in years, don't even know where the keys are.

haha, well, its still just anecdotal. It was all the same person, ad he was allegedly caught.

But as for the city, you talking about chicago? I lived in cicero for a few years. Wasnt very safe their either!

My partners parents live in the country and crazy lock their doors and have tons of guns. But there republicans, so that explains that.

[DanB]

That is simply a ridiculous statement. Guns are tools. They are certainly used in crime, but they are not the cause of crime.

There are various tools that we control. People use illicit substances as tools as well. The question is whether the tool has constitutionally defensible uses, or whether its uses are not] constitutionally protected. If they aren't protected, then the question is whether we have more to gain or lose by legalizing these tools. The fact that murder rate very highly correlates with handgun availability suggests to me that we have more to lose. That says nothing to support your assertion that, guns cause crime. Correlation is not causation. You're familiar with this, yes? Then why ignore any other correlating factors, so as to focus on firearms?

Another, ridiculous statement. There may be some who fit that description, but I'd need some evidence to convince me that they were in the majority.

Social conservatives are more likely to oppose free speech and social justice concerns and more likely to support gun rights concerns. This is a statistical question, and the statistical answer overwhelmingly disproves your claim. The statement of yours, to which I responded, did not qualify itself with "more likely". btw... I didn't make a claim, regarding proportion. Nor could your simple assertion be considered, evidence.

And yet another. That's part of the intent behind the entire document.

I was of the understanding that the purpose of the constitution is to codify the procedures of the US federal government. The purpose of the amendments is to provide checks and balances on the federal government such that the government does not steamroll over civil rights and minority rights. "We the people of the United State, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

From the time of the Magna Carta, a man's home was considered his castle and he was free to defend it. Such are the blessings of liberty.

If I'm wrong, and the purpose of the constitution is to make it legal for you to go out skeet shooting or carry around a handgun in your briefcase, I'm always interested in learning about this country's government. Are you? And you need me to educate you? Can you find no other source?

Thank you, though. You're providing an excellent example of the kind of tribal mentality that can be manifested by even the most intelligent and educated of us.

I fail to see how pointing out that handgun and recreational gun use are not protected by the constitution and thus should be assessed outside of the kneejerk rhetoric of "2nd amendment rights" is evidence of a "tribal mentality."If, you really can't see it, don't feel embarrassed. Most of us can't see it, while we're engaged in it. Objectivity isn't easy to obtain or maintain.

[Magdlyn]

So, Charlton Heston, National Rifle Association. Umm, and you have that saying, what is it? That, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But monkeys do, too! If they've got a gun. Without a gun, they're pretty friendly. But with a gun, they're pretty dangerous.

[DanB]

So, Charlton Heston, National Rifle Association. Umm, and you have that saying, what is it? That, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But monkeys do, too! If they've got a gun. Without a gun, they're pretty friendly. But with a gun, they're pretty dangerous. Thank you. Obviously, I've been mistaken, here. Please disregard my statements in this thread.

[nygreenguy]

Its obvious guns dont cause crimes, stupid people do.

However, guns to make certain crimes easier to commit. And a simple look into behavior and cost vs. benefit will show you that guns make the cost lower. (ie lower risk of injury, easier to kill, etc..)

Id rather have an insane jackass wielding a bat than a gun.


Also, the supreme court has even ruled that there is no individual right to have guns. Yes, there is a lot of legal theory behind this, but I agree to the idea that it is not an individual liberty/right.

OTOH, I do believe it is ok for responsible citizens to own firearms.

[Dlx2]

That says nothing to support your assertion that, guns cause crime. Correlation is not causation. You're familiar with this, yes? Then why ignore any other correlating factors, so as to focus on firearms?

In attempting to avoid a post hoc, you're denying the correlative. There are plenty of situations where the only variable is gun access.

From Wikipedia (I hate argumentum ad wikipedium as much as the next person, but I have limited access to raw statistics):

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.[31] Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun.[32]

In the United States, a quarter of commercial robberies are committed with guns.[35] Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[35][36][37] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[38] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons.[39] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates.[40][41] A significant number of homicides result as a by-product of another violent crime which escalates, with the offender going into the crime without a clear or sustained intent to kill or be killed.[37][42] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are also comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.[39][42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

As far as I'm aware, robbery is one crime. Robbery and homicide are two crimes. So, if a robbery escalates and turns into homicide because a gun is involved, then the crime rate goes up.

"We the people of the United State, in order to form a more perfect union,

In order to form a reasonable government.

establish justice,

Have a judicial system which works.

insure domestic tranquility,

Keep people from getting shot by their neighbor.

provide for the common defense,

Defend against outside aggressors.

promote the general welfare,

Keep a healthy society.

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

And protect our rights to free speech, organization, and free practice of religion.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Sign this document establishing this government.

I don't see how this protects the right to recreation.

From the time of the Magna Carta, a man's home was considered his castle and he was free to defend it. Such are the blessings of liberty.

The Magna Carta was a document signed by the king and the nobility. A Lord's home wasn't "considered" his castle....a Lord's home WAS his castle. The Magna Carta did not apply to the serfs, nor did it apply to free peasants or townspeople. All the Magna Carta did was establish a set of limitations on the power of the king as far as it applied to the property of the aristocracy.

You're demonstrating yourself to be woefully undereducated about the purpose of the documents you're citing.

If, you really can't see it, don't feel embarrassed. Most of us can't see it, while we're engaged in it. Objectivity isn't easy to obtain or maintain.

I'll drop the sarcasm then and make this damned clear.

The idea that we need guns to protect us from roving gangs of thieves, murderers, and escaped convicts is absurd, and is normally a racist response by folks who have strong anti-immigrant, anti-hispanic, and anti-black sentiments. The idea that we need guns in our homes to protect us against these sorts of contingencies is itself highly xenophobic, and is rooted in deep xenophobia and perception of impotence. Pointing out that gun ownership for recreational or self-defense purposes is not protected by the Constitution, and has effects that are highly detrimental to society at large is perfectly reasonable. It is more unconstitutional to ban one book than it is to ban all sidearms, and is more divisive and more xenophobic. The fact that you don't recognize this suggests to me that you value the wrong rights.

[Magdlyn]

So, Charlton Heston, National Rifle Association. Umm, and you have that saying, what is it? That, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But monkeys do, too! If they've got a gun. Without a gun, they're pretty friendly. But with a gun, they're pretty dangerous. Thank you. Obviously, I've been mistaken, here. Please disregard my statements in this thread.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Circle/circ7.png

[Dlx2]

Its obvious guns dont cause crimes, stupid people do.

However, guns to make certain crimes easier to commit. And a simple look into behavior and cost vs. benefit will show you that guns make the cost lower. (ie lower risk of injury, easier to kill, etc..)

Not to mention that the addition of a gun to circumstances increases the chance that an unfortunate accident is going to be fatal. In domestic abuse situations, presence of a gun increases the chance that the abuse will escalate into homicide of either the victim or the aggressor. In simple robbery, the presence of a gun will increase the chance that the robbery will turn fatal. Yes, you can be robbed with a knife, yes, you can be murdered with a knife, but stab wounds are often a lot less fatal than gunshot is, so even if you get stabbed, there's a better chance that you'll survive, and the chances you'll get stabbed are less, especially if you're able to get distance between yourself and he assailant.

[dancer_rnb]

Also, the supreme court has even ruled that there is no individual right to have guns. Yes, there is a lot of legal theory behind this, but I agree to the idea that it is not an individual liberty/right.


Do you have a reference for this? It's my understanding that
the Supremes are looking at the matter this year.

[dancer_rnb]

[


I'll drop the sarcasm then and make this damned clear.

The idea that we need guns to protect us from roving gangs of thieves, murderers, and escaped convicts is absurd, and is normally a racist response by folks who have strong anti-immigrant, anti-hispanic, and anti-black sentiments.

I've seen gun control used by racists. "We need to disarm all those black criminals" and so on and so forth.

Regarding the use of hunting rifles in a resistance. Aren't a lot of them semi-automatic?
What are the police normally armed with? Pistols and shotguns?

[nygreenguy]

Do you have a reference for this? It's my understanding that
the Supremes are looking at the matter this year.

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

and

U.S. v. Miller

or you can just use westlaw

But yes, they are looking at it.

[nygreenguy]

Not to mention that the addition of a gun to circumstances increases the chance that an unfortunate accident is going to be fatal. In domestic abuse situations, presence of a gun increases the chance that the abuse will escalate into homicide of either the victim or the aggressor. In simple robbery, the presence of a gun will increase the chance that the robbery will turn fatal. Yes, you can be robbed with a knife, yes, you can be murdered with a knife, but stab wounds are often a lot less fatal than gunshot is, so even if you get stabbed, there's a better chance that you'll survive, and the chances you'll get stabbed are less, especially if you're able to get distance between yourself and he assailant.

A couple things to add, I simply dont think we can stop the bad guys from getting the guns. With that said, what should the citizen do in return?

[Dlx2]

Not to mention that the addition of a gun to circumstances increases the chance that an unfortunate accident is going to be fatal. In domestic abuse situations, presence of a gun increases the chance that the abuse will escalate into homicide of either the victim or the aggressor. In simple robbery, the presence of a gun will increase the chance that the robbery will turn fatal. Yes, you can be robbed with a knife, yes, you can be murdered with a knife, but stab wounds are often a lot less fatal than gunshot is, so even if you get stabbed, there's a better chance that you'll survive, and the chances you'll get stabbed are less, especially if you're able to get distance between yourself and he assailant.

A couple things to add, I simply dont think we can stop the bad guys from getting the guns. With that said, what should the citizen do in return?

In the case of most murders, "the bad guys" were previously law-abiding citizens. That's the issue. Most murders are committed by people who are not part of this anecdotal criminal underground. Prevent guns from being immediately available in cases of domestic conflict, and you significantly decrease the number of murders.

[Dlx2]

I've seen gun control used by racists. "We need to disarm all those black criminals" and so on and so forth.

Racists argue whatever they can to defend their fucked-up worldview. The problem is, a hell of a lot more of them fall in the 2nd amendment rights camp than elsewhere.

Regarding the use of hunting rifles in a resistance. Aren't a lot of them semi-automatic?

Some are. They're not military-grade weapons though.

What are the police normally armed with? Pistols and shotguns?

Irrelevant. The job of the police is to arrest criminals so they can be tried in a court of law. They are not equipped for military conflict either. This is why, in situations where the conflict is sufficiently military in nature, they call in special weapons officers.

[Garrett]

Dlx2
In the case of most murders, "the bad guys" were previously law-abiding citizens. That's the issue.
I'm not convinced that most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.

I admit I'm confused by the subject. Criminals have guns - why can't I? But... criminals rarely have hand-grenades.

But if only the military can have weapons such as hand-grenades, how can we defend ourselves against corrupt government?

So, I want hand-grenades. But if hand grenades were generally available, I'd feel less secure.

I guess the answer is... we need a powerful government we respect and trust. Our government has a long way to go to reach that standard.

[DanB]

Racists argue whatever they can to defend their fucked-up worldview. The problem is, a hell of a lot more of them fall in the 2nd amendment rights camp than elsewhere. Still can't see it? Really? :banghead:

[Dlx2]

Dlx2
In the case of most murders, "the bad guys" were previously law-abiding citizens. That's the issue.
I'm not convinced that most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun

I admit I'm confused by the subject. Criminals have guns - why can't I? But... criminals rarely have hand-grenades.

Because most of these "criminals" are not hardened criminals at all. You're more likely to be killed by a family member than a complete stranger. You're more likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance than the two of those combined.

But if only the military can have weapons such as hand-grenades, how can we defend ourselves against corrupt government?

So, I want hand-grenades. But if hand grenades were generally available, I'd feel less secure.

This has nothing to do with how secure someone does or does not feel. This has everything to do with whether or not handguns meet the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment, and if they don't, whether keeping them legal is likely to make society safer or less safe. Grenades meet the "well regulated militia" litmus test, and should be legal. Oddly enough, I don't see hand grenades as being particularly commonly used weapons. Guns are.

I guess the answer is... we need a powerful government we respect and trust. Our government has a long way to go to reach that standard.

Good going, Hobbes. Now show me that's even possible.

[Dlx2]

Racists argue whatever they can to defend their fucked-up worldview. The problem is, a hell of a lot more of them fall in the 2nd amendment rights camp than elsewhere. Still can't see it? Really? :banghead:

Calling a racist a racist is not "being divisive." It's funny how the same people who rally behind "2nd Amendment rights" also rally against immigrant rights, bilingualism in regions of the US with a significant Hispanic population, and so on and so forth. Stop with the neoconservative Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly bullshit. It's not fooling anyone.

[nygreenguy]

Calling a racist a racist is not "being divisive." It's funny how the same people who rally behind "2nd Amendment rights" also rally against immigrant rights, bilingualism in regions of the US with a significant Hispanic population, and so on and so forth. Stop with the neoconservative Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly bullshit. It's not fooling anyone.

I will agree in that the ideas are connected. The people who want guns want to protect themselves, and dont want the government to do it for them. These individualistic ideas are also found along with the things you mentioned above.

If you look at the root of the beliefs, its really no surprise.

[DanB]

Calling a racist a racist is not "being divisive." It's funny how the same people who rally behind "2nd Amendment rights" also rally against immigrant rights, bilingualism in regions of the US with a significant Hispanic population, and so on and so forth. Stop with the neoconservative Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly bullshit. It's not fooling anyone.Limbaugh and O'Reilly? Should I be listening to them? Would I feel more at home in their company?

[Dlx2]

Calling a racist a racist is not "being divisive." It's funny how the same people who rally behind "2nd Amendment rights" also rally against immigrant rights, bilingualism in regions of the US with a significant Hispanic population, and so on and so forth. Stop with the neoconservative Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly bullshit. It's not fooling anyone.

I will agree in that the ideas are connected. The people who want guns want to protect themselves, and dont want the government to do it for them. These individualistic ideas are also found along with the things you mentioned above.

If you look at the root of the beliefs, its really no surprise.

I don't think that's the root belief. I think that's the impression they want to come across about their root belief, but I don't think that's the root belief. A lot of these people are highly xenophobic and fear a change in society where they will no longer be on top. The Reagan-era 2nd Amendment fervor arose in a time of panic concerning sensationalism of urban gang violence. The fears were specifically tied to crime by young black men. The modern anti-immigrant fervor is similar, except it is tied to anglophone fears of being replaced by Spanich-speakers as the majority. This is not limited to illegal immigrants; there is a strong belief that hispanics should damned well learn English and speak it in all situations. My father, for example, is a legal immigrant from Venezuela who has lived in the country for about 40 years, has several degrees, speaks perfect unbroken, unaccented English, and owns his own successful business. If he speaks in Spanish in public, though, he gets everything from nasty looks to outright hostility. It doesn't matter if he's speaking to someone who only understands Spanish. Once again, this has nothing to do with individualism, and everything to do a fear of the unknown. Once again, this is another situation where guns come into play: the racists conservatives suddenly grab their private weapons and start patrolling the border with Mexico, occasionally crossing the border and otherwise treating individuals of Mexican and Hispanic descent like absolute trash.

I will also note the responses to the point I've made over and over again that one is more likely to be murdered by a friend, acquaintance, family member, or intimate relation than by a hardened criminal, and the response has always ignored this fact. You're most likely to be murdered by someone in your own demographic, most likely someone you associate with on a regular basis. However, the 2nd Amendment Rights nuts are not concerned about that, they're concerned about being murdered by some nebulous "other," which is often (although not always) racially, economically, or religiously segregated from them.

Someone who is self-reliant respects the fact that other people from other cultures have the ability to be self-reliant in their own ways. Someone who is self-reliant is not terrified of other cultures, but rather recognizes them as valid ways of living and welcomes that diversity, as doing so protects their own way of living.

Someone who is self-reliant does not feel the need to buy a .45 to keep in their nightstand for the express purpose of fending off imagined hardened criminals while simultaneously significantly worsening the safety of their home simply by owning said weapon.

[Magdlyn]

Calling a racist a racist is not "being divisive." It's funny how the same people who rally behind "2nd Amendment rights" also rally against immigrant rights, bilingualism in regions of the US with a significant Hispanic population, and so on and so forth. Stop with the neoconservative Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly bullshit. It's not fooling anyone.Limbaugh and O'Reilly? Shoul