Disarming of Australian Citizens [Archive]

Oxygen

05-03-00, 04:12 AM

When we were very little, my parents knew that guns were going to be in the house. I have no idea where they were kept for the first five years of my life, but after I turned five my father brought out his .38, dropped the cylinder out (and with it any ammunition), and let me hold it. We were all taught that a gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Since it was one of dad's tools, we weren't allowed to touch it. By being allowed to handle it that once, there was no air of mystique or glamor around it.

As we grew up, we got guns of our own. We had been allowed to fire the .38 and the Winchester under supervision, and when my dad decided that we knew how to safely handle guns, including the deceptively simple task of handing a loaded firearm to one another, we were give our own guns for Christmas. (Because the .38 and the Winchester proved too powerful for me, I got a .22, which my relatively recently carpal tunnel syndrome-stricken wrist is grateful for.)

Three times I have pulled a gun. Twice was when somebody tried to force their way into the apartment while I was home alone. The presence of a firearm at the ready and a person who gave no doubt about their capacity to pull the trigger caused the perps to not even try for their own weapons. The third time was when somebody thought I was breaking into my dad's Buick. He was a co-worker and had never met me. He pulled a knife and charged me, demanding to know what I was doing to Chuck's car. I pulled a .22 Magnum and aimed it at his face, ordering him to stop, which he did. (His girlfriend was turning several shades of pale...) With weapons drawn, we introduced each other, put our weapons away and had a good laugh. It was far from a textbook situation, but I believe it illustrates a point when it comes to teaching your kids about guns. There will always be guns on the streets. There will always be a chance you'll get shot whether or not you have a gun or support gun-control, or whatever. To the criminal, you're just another mark. Learn how to shoot and you stand a chance of not becoming a statistic. Learn when to shoot and not only do you avoid a major legal hassle, but you give your friends a chance to not become statistics, either.

I will not surrender my gun, and I urge anybody from whatever country to not surrender theirs either. Wrap them in disposable diapers and bury them until the heat blows over if you must, but never surrender them, unless you plan to do it bullet at a time.

(Yeah, this is one of those topics I feel passionately about. Thanks for letting me vent.) :)

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Bowser

05-03-00, 05:17 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> I'm surprised this thread hasn't gathered more steam. Gun Control is a hot topic in the papers.

Rambler, I think that most guns are purchased for personal protection (weapons), but there are those who hunt and practice shoot and collect. Some people have a passion for guns; however, that doesn't make them killers; and, that doesn't make them irresponsible. Ozzy's home government/nation is trying to fix a broken finger by placing a cast over the whole arm. That is a bit extreme.

Working towards a society where guns are not necessary reads like a very good idea to me, but let's accomplish that task first, then we can do away with using guns as weapons. We might start by taking away those in government hands.

Tiassa, I would be a liar if I said I wasn't curious, but I know that some things are best not said.

Obviously, guns are potentially lethal, but so is life. To be redundant, I feel that the true problem with guns lies elsewhere.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

05-03-00, 05:21 PM

Bowser--

The issue of gun control surfaces every time a nut blows away a crowd of hapless citizens. The call then comes out to disarm America.

Have you ever wanted to address a perceived shortcoming, not in the declaration, but in the way one is observationally conditioned to expect "the world" to react?

If I hear it put that way while I'm drinking in a pub, it gets an earful. The problem is that I don't disagree with it.

But, in hitting my point, I found I was essentially napalming a sidebar. Six paragraphs railing Charlton Heston and a string of gun-related tragedies for which shooters weren't held responsible ... it was far too combative and lengthy for a point that, in essence, I should have no issue with.

As such.

Or something. ;)

There's a point to be made, but a far better day to make it, I'm sure. Besides, to justify my post, I also would have had to assume perceptions on behalf of many, many people, and while I feel comfortable with some of those generalizations, they're not the best form of rhetoric in this forum.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

05-04-00, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by tiassa:

There's a point to be made, but a far better day to make it, I'm sure. Besides, to justify my post, I also would have had to assume perceptions on behalf of many, many people, and while I feel comfortable with some of those generalizations, they're not the best form of rhetoric in this forum.

Go ahead and make some assumptions. Being wrong is the worst that might come of it. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited May 04, 2000).]

Oxygen

05-04-00, 12:59 PM

Bowser-
Obviously, guns are potentially lethal, but so is life. To be redundant, I feel that the true problem with guns lies elsewhere.

I agree. Taking away guns is not going to put an end to homicide or accidental death, nor will it even reduce the frequency of such events. If someone has made up their minds that they are going to kill whoever gets in their way, then they're going to use whatever is at their disposal.

More people are killed by simple household accidents than die by firearms, but I don't see anybody trying to outlaw households. ( :))

As far as gun control being a hot topic, I think the media thrusts it in our faces to make it a hot topic. Slow news day? Trot out the gun-control stories!

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Cris

05-04-00, 02:59 PM

I'm originally from Britain where I lived for most of my life I now live in California and have done so for the past 4 years. Britain is probably famous for having police that do not carry guns and over the decades this has not been a problem. Recently there have been more incidents where criminals in Britain have used guns and there are mounting pressures to arm the police. Indeed it seems that if needed then the guns are always nearby.

This is an unfortunate development and I'm not sure why it has occurred. I suspect the increasing violence on TV and movies and video games might have a role in this. But the root cause must lay with our culture and underlying morality. Disarming or arming the public isn't dealing with the root cause.

Until 2 years ago I had never held a real gun and in Britain I would have had no idea where I could have purchased a weapon, but then I had never really looked, I didn't see a need for a weapon. And I am quite sure that very few households would have had a weapon kept ready in case of assault etc. I now live in the city of Cupertino and my neighbor city of Sunnyvale was announced as the safest city in the USA, for I think 1997/8. I simply have never seen or heard of any gun style violence in this area and I still see no need to own a weapon.

However, about 2 years ago I joined a group at a shooting range in South San Francisco where I was taught something about hand guns and how to use them (the teachers were US Secret Service bodyguards). Since then I have regularly spent one evening a month at the range firing about 200/300 rounds using a variety of weapons. I am now quite confident with the use of handguns and am a reasonable marksman. But I still don't own a weapon. My point here is that shooting such weapons is simply, for me at least, enormous fun - must be a macho thing or something genetic. But I can easily see how the pleasure can be addictive. I was taught gun safety and the range masters were very strict on that matter. I was very aware how easy it could be for accidents to occur; carelessly pointing the gun in the wrong direction, thinking it was unloaded and so on. I understand many gun accidents occur with children - I can easily see how.

We should develop a society and culture where our first instincts are not to suspect the passer-by and be ready to draw a weapon and shoot him if we feel in danger. But rather, the passer-by should be welcomed without question and where we would enjoy learning from others and enjoy their company, and where our children feel safe walking to their schools without fear of being attacked.

Removing weapons from public hands is a good thing, but it is pointless unless the criminals are disarmed as well or first. The Australian situation appears to be that the criminals didn't hand in their weapons (what a surprise) and everyone else did. Now the criminals have a clear advantage - what did the politicians think was going to happen? Perhaps a deterrent to criminal use of weapons might be to increase the penalties for crimes involving weapons.

Ultimately our cultural values must change and the root causes tackled. There doesn't look like an easy answer - lets evolve in the right direction.

Cris
Have fun whatever.

[This message has been edited by Cris (edited May 04, 2000).]

ozarky

05-06-00, 01:36 AM

When I was growing up my father had guns in the house. We knew better than to touch one without permission. As pre teens we were taught the "do's and do'nts" of guns, as teenagers we were allowed to go hunting alone. When I went into the army I was suprised at the large number of people that had never even held a weapon, let alone had shot one. I do not believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry should carry a weapon on their person at all times. I do believe that you should be able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It has been proven that in areas that give permits to carry a weapon there is less crime, mainly because the criminal will not, ordinarily, take a chance on someone that could possibly be armed.
I use my guns for hunting, I share the bounty with my friends and we all comsume what we take. I will use them in defence of my family and property. My father showed me how to aim and fire at an animal. The army showed me how to aim and fire at a human being.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Cris

05-06-00, 03:28 AM

Some years ago I was working in Switzerland and had an opportunity to socialize with some of the Swiss people. I was told that every male had by law to keep a rifle in their home and that they had to fire a certain number of rounds each year and maintain a defined level of accuracy. At a moments notice the entire swiss male population could be marshalled to defend their country against an invasion and the government would be confident that there would be adequate weapons, kept in good condition and with men who knew how to use them.

With this in mind I beleive there is a large number of weapons in the public hands in Switzerland. Does anyone know the crime rate in Switzerland that involves guns. We don't hear anything and I suspect the levels are very low.

What can we conclude from this? Perhaps having guns readily available in public hands does not mean that there will be a great deal of crime using guns. I believe the Swiss have a different culture and morale values compared to societies such as Australia and the USA and it is that difference that we need to address.

I'm guessing here a bit, but I suspect I'm not far off the truth.

Cris

05-06-00, 03:33 AM

ozarky,

What was the source of your statistics? I heard today that the US NRA has been circulating such rumors to justify their position and that the Australian prime Minister is bringing a law suite against the NRA. He has stated that such statistics are false, then he might need to do that to support his political position, but in any case I'd like to know the source so we can judge for ourselves.

Have fun
Cris

Oxygen

05-07-00, 04:43 AM

Cris-Switzerland is geographically very strategic to any military campaign in Europe. It's also the most easily defended region. Over the centuries, many military leaders recognized this and tried to take Switzerland, hence her policy and hence her tradition of neutrality. The best defense is not to offend, so stay out of everybody else's problems. With the concept of mutual protection ingrained into the collective psyche, I believe that such a policy on such a small scale is viable.

Switzerland's policy would never fly in the US. We're too big, too spread out, and too diverse (and more than a little xenophobic). Where the Swiss seem to rely on cooperation, we rely on independence to resolve issues. Even with the extensive police forces and surveillance cameras, people here still take care of themselves and settle things on their own. On our scale, this can be a good thing. It frees up the police to handle bigger problems.

Unfortunately, the occasional imbalanced whacko develops this formula: (I+HaveGun=Yes)=(I+AmInvincible=Yes). He or she decides to use a gun to resolve everything. These are the people who get the media attention, not the shopkeeper who chased off the gangbangers without having to squeeze the trigger. Naturally, with all of the attention on one side of the coin, the picture of gun ownership in America is more than a little skewed.

Now, a criminal is going to commit a crime whether or not he or she has a gun. If they have decided that they are going to kill you, they don't need a gun to do it. There are scores of other implements just as lethal, if not moreso, as a gun. Baseball bats come to mind. (A person with a gun is more likely to shoot at the torso. A person with a bat is more likely to aim for the head.)

For my part, I own a gun because there is no safe alternative. Police response is slow in my part of town, and if I have to defend my life, every nanosecond counts. (On the other hand, if all they're swiping is my TV, they're probably getting what they deserve. No material goods are worth a person's life, and the numbers are all registered anyway.)

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited May 06, 2000).]

ozarky

05-08-00, 02:45 AM

Cris, The post I submitted on Australia, I was given the notes by a neighbor whose son is a detective in a medium sized city in the south. I believe it came from a police news letter "THE VAMPIRE KILLER". This police and National Guard organization is opposed to the take over of the Goverments of the world by the United Nations. The first move is to disarm the citizens of the world. The Goverments that are under the thumb of the
"elitists" are pushing disarment laws. Bill Clinton is no different!! What does our Jack booted Attorney General have up her sleeve "some time during the month of May".
"To test the prepardness of the local officials in the event of a terrorist attack". One city is Denver, CO, the other is a smaller city somewhere in the North East

The United Nations has a mandate that states
that "each police officer may carry one side arm and one long gun for every ten (10) officers.

Alot of people said that it would not happen again after World War One.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Rambler

05-08-00, 11:57 PM

Hi All,

I can't believe I'm reading this stuff. As I have said before arming the masses is a "band aid" solution, its a quick fix. You will NEVER decrease gun related crimes/accidents significantley if you put more guns out there. If you wanna shoot for fun keep your gun at the club, if you want to hunt again keep it locked up in a safe place, or better still learn how to do it with a bow and arrow or a knife (I wonder how many people would still hunt or kill others if they had to do it in a "in your face blood all over you" manner instead of a safe disconnected distance shot, almost like watching it on TV ha?). Anyway any society is not "evolving" to a better state by reserving the right to hold devices of destruction, MADE TO KILL. Farmers use them as tools and thats fine, but concealed weapons???? the aussies here, can you remember a fairly recent event where a drunk stumbling home from the pub in the rain decided to take shelter under an old mans car port and copped 2 barrels of 12 guage at point blank for it. The old man didn't get shit!!!!! the victim however came out worse for it. GUNS DO NOT MAKE A SAFER SOCIETY.... the USA is NOT a good model as far as personal protection is concered. In LA you can ask a 12 year old to get you a gun and he'll return 30 minutes later with an OOZIE. He doesn't ask if your responsible or if its for sport or how old you are or about your mental health..... The less guns there are the harder they are to find. So I think we need TOUGHER gun control...a half assed atempt (like Aus is doing) will result in crimms with guns and joe sixpack without, but NOWAY is giving everyone a gun a good idea, not with the social economic diversities we have.

ozarky

05-09-00, 03:41 AM

Rambler,
I respect your stand on this. I am sure that there are millions like you. If you would take the time to read MORE GUNS LESS CRIME by
John R. Lott Jr. It may not change your mind, I doubt that it will, you sound like a very strong willed person. It may make you more tolerent of "the other side".
You mention bow and arrow. The group that I hunt with use rifle,shotgun, muzzleloader (flint lock) and bow and arrow. Due to a physical ailment I use a compound cross bow rather than a long bow or a compound long bow. My cross bow will put an arrow clear thru a deer at 60 yards, in fact it has.

I read a statement a long time ago that was attributed to the Jap Admiral that planned and led the attack on Pearl Harbor. He refused to continue on to the west coast of America because there were to many house holds with weapons.

There is a measure up in the Arizona State legislature to consider to ceced from the Union IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESIDENT DECLARES MARSHALL LAW with the expressed purpose of disarming the citizens of this country. It is rumored that Alaska and Alabama are considering a similar move.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of pages on the net that fore-tell all sorts of doom. No, I do not believe all, or even most of it. I have been following this United Nations thing for a good number of years. The United Nations have plans in place to take over and rule the world.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Rambler

05-09-00, 05:30 AM

Ozarky,
Basically the way I see this issue is very similar to an argument against capital punishment. The means do NOT justify the end. I guess my biggest problem with guns being as common as mobile phones is that they serve no good purpose. It is a peace won through fear. And that fear MUST be reinforced in order to keep that peace. It makes it fragile. The ideal situation is to have peace and eliminate crime... it is a future worth working towards however it will never be achieved by an armed stalemate..its like a cold war between the criminals and the armed citizen. It belittles the human race, we know our short comings and hence we should work towards "raising" ourselves above it rather then accepting our violent notions.

I respectfully decline your sugestion to read the book. The title tells me all I need to know. I'll give you an example of a book that people read and took note of. its MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler. Millions of Jews and others with a sense of humanity would not have suffered and died if people weren't so easily led by a well spoken individual. Statistics and figures and environment can all be twisted taken out of context and when it comes to delivery to the masses very few question it (especially if its well written). How about this for a title "Less Blacks, Less Crime" as insane and wrong as that sounds I'm sure theres many who could argue it successfully and as propsteous as it sounds I put it on a par with the argument "more guns means less crime". Lets say that we arm ourselves and achieve asome notion of peace....we can start to think OK we don't need guns anymore, the problems is that once their here its nearly impossible to get rid of them just look at the present situation. Why compound the problem with an intemediate solution? why not attack the cause of these crimes. Most are a direct result of socio economic inequality, thats what needs to be addressed, get rid of crime not counter it. If it remains it will always surface. As far as national security is concerned then fine as long as we have global conflicts we need to protect ourselves, leave it up to the armies of the world not the citizens. If mobilisation was necessary then arm the masses when they need the guns not just incase they do.

BTW the history I'm familiar with tells a story of the japanese objective to take out the heavy US warships and aircraft carriers.. to keep them out of asia long enough for Japan to conquer it...I'm yet to read an account that suggests japan would invade the USA. They did some silly shit but they knew their limitations.

I have a question for you, why do you hunt.. and why did you take pleasure in telling me your crossbow can go right through a deer? I'm not having a shot at you here just curious (no pun intended).

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited May 09, 2000).]

ozarky

05-10-00, 04:10 AM

NO REPLY AT THIS TIME THANK YOU

Rambler

05-10-00, 05:37 AM

Ozarky,
OK I'll wait, hope my last post didn't offend you. I read it again today and realised how it would appear as a hostile sorta post but honestly I just want to know how you came to your conclusions.

Bowser

05-10-00, 06:07 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Rambler, you are passionate about gun control, and I think you have some valid points. So, whose guns are we to take?

Rambler-

"I'll give you an example of a book that people read and took note of. its MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler. Millions of Jews and others with a sense of humanity would not have suffered and died if people weren't so easily led by a well spoken individual."

That's an intersting example. Tell me, were the Jews allowed to own guns? How many liberties were they denied before they were marched away to the camps. What did well spoken authority do for them?

I think the answer to gun control is simple: prosecute those who abuse the weapon and leave the rest of us alone. There's no need for anything more.

------------------
It's all very large.

Rambler

05-10-00, 11:12 PM

Bowser,
Your not seriously suggesting that the early success germany had in WWII was due to unarmed citizens are you???? You do know that thanks to incompatent world leaders Hitler managed to borrow all the money he needed to arm his offensive, and that everyone knew what he was up to but were too stupid to act on it. In fact the British PM at the time went to germany (when things began to look unsavory) and came back with an assurance that germany was not out to start another war.....I believe 2 or 3 weeks later they began invading. The world knew of the iminent danger of war and sat on their hands too long hence Germany took some strategic parts of europe and there began the struggle. When France fell Germany had everything they needed to win. If it wasn't for luck, Musoleenies (I don't know how to spell it) stupidity and Japans over enthusiastic approach Germany would have won. Everyone had time to arm their citizens they just chose not to. BTW your six shooter or 45 automatic isn't going to do shit if theres another world war. That battle will use weapons of mass destruction...And citizens are going to die just like always war is war we don't need to live in that kind of paraniod environment.

Here's my problem with pro gun arguments:

Whats the problem? Criminlas are using guns to kill people (um guns are made for that reason, BTW)

Whats the pro gun solution? PUT MORE GUNS OUT THERE.

Sorry guys it just doesn't compute.

If you want to do it as a sport do you need a fully automatic laser sighted hand cannon????? or is that resevered for the sport of hunting?? which is also hard for me to comprehend...yeah I'm gonna kill that deer with my asualt rifle. I have all the latest technology so I can sit on my arse drink beer with my buddies and shoot them darn dangerous criters. Cause they'd kill me if I didn't kill them, and I need to feed my starving family, and their all pests, and I really like the rush of extinguishing a life..... please people wheres the logic????

P.S. Sorry about the sarcasm but I hate guns and I'm yet to here a VALID reason to own them.

ozarky

05-11-00, 02:11 AM

Rambler, You really got off on that last post. Your idea of hunters, as a whole is
WRONG! We do not shoot at every movement we see in the brush. We do not shoot unless we have a clear, clean shot. We do not have any alcohol, before or during the hunt. In fact three of the five of the group do not drink period. Granted, there are idiot's out there in the woods. Most states have tried to police the sale of hunting license's
the legislature's will not give the game people the money. Did you know that a convicted felon can walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a hunting license without any other I.D.?

Why do I hunt ? I have hunted most of my life. This to me is not a 'macho' thing. Yes, I do feel good when I make a good, clean shot. The animal is down with a minimum of suffering. This is what I tried to get across to you when I wrote the arrow went thru the deer at a 60 yard distance. I have seen too many animals that had been shot and ran into a thicket and died. God only knows how long they suffer before they die.

The Japs most certainly did have the idea of putting troops on the pacific coast right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. Had they been able to sink or damage our carriers they would have attempted to land on the coast. I was living in Kitsap County, WN (near Bremerton) at the time of the attack.
It was just a short while afterward that there was anti-aircraft guns, barrage ballons every where you looked, There were anti-submarine nets in many places in Puget Sound.

You said that Hitler borrowed the money to get his war machine started. Do you know who gave him the money ? THE ILLUMINATI !!!
Sometimes called the Bilderburgs. The same people (the ultra rich) that funded the communist revolution, that funded the Jap-China war, the same people that are putting up the money for the most massive far reaching GUN GRAB program in human history.
We will all be citizens of the world. Under the thumb of the United Nations.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Rambler

05-11-00, 03:35 AM

Ozarky,
First of all whats this non sense about minimum suffering...who caused the animal to suffer minimum or not? Just 'cause your weapon of choice can kill quickley doesn't make it right.. you are taking a life and for what reason???? cause you can!!!!!! thats NOT A VALID REASON!!!!!!!!!! its one of the worst I can think of as a matter of fact. You just told me that just because you can make a cleaner kill then some poor bastard bad shot it makes it OK, I'm afraid its no different. You don't have the right to take that life just because it brings you pleasure. Can you replace what you destroy??? hell no!!!!!! Am I to believe that because your hunting group has the good sense to avoid alcohol around weopons that everyone does. The reality is that hunting IS a macho thing and its a "guys get together" and sure as the popes a catholic boys WILL be boys and they will be drinking.

What planet were you on when the Japs attacked the US navy?, cause Japan had its eye's on Asia not the USA. Even Hitler knew not to get the US involved because of their shipping potential. Every single account of the war I have read states clearly the objective of the Japanese was to take asia, its all they wanted. They then signed a pact with germany. If Japan didn't attack pearl harbour the US wouldn't have got involved and Germany would most likley have beaten the pomms (UK) and then onto russia. At that stage invading the USA was NOT feasable for either the germans or the Japs. The idea was to keep the USA on its turf until Asia and Europe were taken. So please enough with re-writing history.

Still waiting for that valid reason.

Bowser

05-11-00, 05:41 PM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif">

Rambler-

I wanted to respond to your posts. Once again, I don't own a gun, but I feel that I should be able to purchase one if I desire. Also, it's no business of any government.


"Your not seriously suggesting that the early success germany had in WWII was due to unarmed citizens are you????"

I'm suggesting that a single bullet to Hitlers head in the pre-war years would have been to the advantage of both the German Jews and the World. I know this sounds crude, but it is true.

"BTW your six shooter or 45 automatic isn't going to do shit if theres another world war. That battle will use weapons of mass destruction...And citizens are going to die just like always war is war we don't need to live in that kind of paraniod environment."

Well, the North Vietnamese sure did stomp the crap out of the U.S. Army during their war. The Afgan rebels did pretty well against the Russians, too. They were the underdogs with very limited weaponry, much of that weaponry constructed using primitive manufacturing techniques.

"Whats the problem? Criminlas are using guns to kill people (um guns are made for that reason, BTW)."

Yes, some gun are made for killing people, but most of those are sold to our governments, some guns made for hunting.

"Whats the pro gun solution? PUT MORE GUNS OUT THERE."

No, I think the idea is to put more guns in the hands of potential crime victims. If I could purchase a police officer to guard my family, home and life, I would certainly buy one. A gun is more affordable.

"If you want to do it as a sport do you need a fully automatic laser sighted hand cannon????? or is that resevered for the sport of hunting?? which is also hard for me to comprehend...yeah I'm gonna kill that deer with my asualt rifle. I have all the latest technology so I can sit on my arse drink beer with my buddies and shoot them darn dangerous criters. Cause they'd kill me if I didn't kill them, and I need to feed my starving family, and their all pests, and I really like the rush of extinguishing a life..... please people wheres the logic????."

I really like the above <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

There is no logic to hunting. And yes, it is a rush to kill small, furry critters. I suppose that we are predators by nature, and the sport of hunting is a way of expressing that blood-lust. I don't hunt, but I do fly fish. I know that there is a thrill in catching an elusive prey.

"Still waiting for that valid reason."

Self defense--because big brother can't protect you.

Hunting--because we love to kill and eat other critters (probably has something to do with being carnivores or omnivores).

Personal right--because most of us are responsible adults, and no government should assume otherwise.

If that doesn't work for you, then I can't offer any other reasons which might be valid in your mind. These are perfectly valid in my mind.

"P.S. Sorry about the sarcasm but I hate guns..."

It doesn't bother me; it's obvious that you feel strongly about guns, and that they frighten you.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

05-11-00, 06:50 PM

Rambler--

All other rhetoric aside, I thought I would stick my nosy-nose into this.

I finally figured it out a couple of years ago. Governments cannot control guns with prohibitive legislation, nor should they. Rather, it seems more productive to work toward a society in which guns are less necessary. I would advise you to remember that violence begets violence. Teach kids the effects of violence, and then it's left to someone else to teach them why they want, or, as many would have it, need a firearm.

Every reason to own a gun disappears when we apply a certain salve of common-sense. Yes, it's a violent society, but only because we choose it to be. So as long as people with guns decide it's necessary to have guns, we can rest assured that guns will be necessary.

We could work to reduce crime, if we want. But it's more expensive and less fun than just shooting everyone.

In the meantime, I would suggest that you accept some of the outright absurdity of it. Charlton Heston said you need a gun to protect your rights. Anyone look at the First Amendment to the US Constitution, lately? Frankly, people should be outraged. But it's not a big enough threat to rights to protect, apparently. Nor the search and seizure, nor the murder of our citizens by police.

If I follow NRA-Prez Heston's way of looking at it, I'm outraged that I can't show Anal Aviators 6 on Saturday morning at 8:00. After all, there's no regulation implied in the First Amendment, as opposed to the Second.

But the key is to affect society; we don't have to legislate guns out of people's hands, but demonize and persecute violence the way we have cigarettes, marijuana, and religious expression. Maybe we can shame the guns out of peoples' hands.

We can't take them by force, no matter how absurdly stupid I find firearms. But we certainly can make a world in which people don't want to own guns. Of course, it costs too much, but I blame capitalists and not gun-lovers for this. ;)

Do take it easy ... peace is only a few heartbeats away if we all get over our personal issues and decide we want it.

In the meantime, I suppose it's best to duck.

Remember the next time a bullet whizzes by your head that it is only effective because it can steal your hope for better days.

peace,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 12, 2000).]

ozarky

05-12-00, 04:02 AM

Rambler, My reason for hunting is (to me ) valid. My wife and I both have problems with high cholesterol. There is NO cholesterol in Venison! I do admit that by time you put out the money for the hunt, the meat you bring home, in all probabilty cost's you more than a good cut of beef or pork at the local market.
Another valid reason is that man has killed off allmost all of the deer's natural enemies. There are still a few wolves and cougars around but not enough to keep the deer population down to an acceptable level.
Without hunting many towns and villages would have deer roaming their streets eating the flowers and shrubs of the residents.
Anyway, it looks like "your side" is winning the battle. The little man like me that ask's the land owner to hunt on his land, our day's are numbered. Many land owners are asking for money, in some cases big money to hunt on their land. I think the land owner will hurt if he can not produce
"trophy" deer for his moneyed hunters.
Some of these places set up feed boxes and a guide will take a "hunter"
to a site and the guide will point out a deer to the "hunter"
to fire at. The hands then dress the deer and pack it in dry ice and send it where ever. That is not hunting.

I will not argue with you about WW2.

I rest my case

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Bowser

05-12-00, 05:53 AM

In the meantime, I would suggest that you accept some of the outright absurdity of it. Charlton Heston said you need a gun to protect your rights. Anyone look at the First Amendment to the US Constitution, lately? Frankly, people should be outraged. But it's not a big enough threat to rights to protect, apparently. Nor the search and seizure, nor the murder of our citizens by police.

If I follow NRA-Pre Heston's way of looking at it, I'm outraged that I can't show Anal Aviators 6 on Saturday morning at 8:00. After all, there's no regulation implied in the First Amendment, as opposed to the Second.

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Tiassa, I see the issue of gun control as being part of the same threat to our liberties. There is more money involved with protecting this right, but I guess we're just fortunate that capitalism is working in our favor this time around.

Also, the implied regulation in the Second Amendment is reference to a prepared militia--citizens army:

"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."

------------------
It's all very large.

Oxygen

05-12-00, 12:52 PM

Inresponse to Rambler's post on May 10:

The Japs hit Pearl Harbor because they thought they could. After all, we were training with broom sticks and pretending to shoot at guys running across a field wearing signs that read "TANK" or "TROOP". (Eye-witness accounts. Listen to your elders. The government hasn't white-washed them, so they're a fabulous source of historical information.) If all Japan wanted was Asia for it's so-called Co-Prosperity Sphere, she sure went out of her way to hit America. There were landings planned for Southern California, San Francisco (specifically named), and Washington. Fortunately, the scenario necessary to make this happen never came about.

I met an old woman whose husband was in the SS. She was unapologetic about it, but I used to sit at her table and drink coffee with her while she told me stories from the other side of the war. "Mein Kampf" was owned by almost every household in Germany because it was mandatory, not because everybody wanted to read it. I've read it myself. (I keep it with the rest of the comic books.) Hitler didn't want the US in the war for the simple fact that he had nothing with which to strike at her with. We had bases in England. We could hop across the Channel and slap him whenever we wanted. Hitler, however, had to cross the Atlantic to get to us. Anything he had in the Americas was in South America. To get here, he would first have to fight Mexico and the South American nations that hadn't thrown in with him. Hitler was using up his resources against the USSR and engaging in a fight with England that he really didn't want. He had hoped to take England without too big of a fight because of the old ties between the German and British Royal houses. He was hoping to wear England down, but knew it was futile due to the Lend-Lease Act. (Hey, he was a charismatic leader, not a brilliant tactician.)

Japan hit us because they could, Hitler didn't because he couldn't.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Tiassa

05-12-00, 04:28 PM

Bowser--

I've just annhilated a bit of ranting and rambling. I think I can be shorter:

* What, then, is the extent of the 2nd Amendment? Conventional wisdom says that only the most bonkers liberal will claim that the 2nd restricts guns to the National Guard. However, the NRA's standard from there--and, consequently, the prevailing standard for local gun-related elections--is that any regulation is a grievous wound to Liberty. If I take Messrs. LaPierre and Heston at face value, there becomes no reason why an American should be prohibited from owning a weapon of mass destruction.

* A popular gun-owners' vagary is "responsible gun owners". Help me figure out what that is, amid the subjective mass hysteria of the American culture, and yeah, it becomes a real idea. In my own life, I've only known one person who qualified as a "responsible" gun owner, and that's because as anal as his words seem, he actually backs them up when he's handling his weapons. To the other, I recall a gathering of "responsible" gun owners in McMinnville, Oregon, on one occasion when they were actually stirring up a posse ... drunk men stumbling around in front of a tavern laden with bullets and waving rifles about in the air ...

Seriously, I'm not going to take anyone's gun away unless they're dumb enough to point it at me and not kill me immediately. But the fight has started and the one set of logic that doesn't make sense is that used to assert the 2nd Amendment, "responsible" gun ownership, and also the line about "legal" guns versus "the criminals having the only guns". I just can't believe that every "illegal" gun used in a crime came from elsewhere; some of them had to be stolen from responsible gun owners.

Enough out of me, for now.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa

05-12-00, 04:30 PM

re: World War II

Part of the WWII disucssion is nagging at me:

I had thought it to be quite well-established that the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor solely because the US government allowed them to.

Without it, we had no cause to enter the Pacific Theatre.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

ozarky

05-13-00, 02:37 AM

Rambler, You do not believe in guns. That is fine with me. I pray that you are never in a position that you need one to protect your family.
Do you eat meat ? Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse ? That is animal suffering.
I went thru one once, it made me physically
ill. I have never felt that way in the woods on a hunt. The farmer replaces what the slaughterhouse kills. Nature replaces what the hunter kills, has for centuries.

You do not believe that I was living in Kitsap County, Washington on December 7th,1941 ? I assure that I was.
Within the county there was one of the largest Naval Ship repair facility's on the west coast. There was a Naval Station that manufactured torpedoe's. There was a subermarine base. Just inside the entrance gates to these facilities sat manned machine gun 24 hours a day. There were anti-aircraft guns scattered around the county, along with barrage ballons. In fact there was a barrage ballon on the high school tennis court. When taking the ferry from Bremerton to Seattle the ferry had to stop while the boats opened up the anti-subermarine nets. Whom ever wrote your history books should have told Rooseveldt that the Japs had no designs on the west coast. The country could have saved a lot of money. The Puget Sound area of western Washington state was not the only part of the west coast that was armed, it was from the Canadian border to the Mexican border.

Believe me BEEN THERE DONE THAT

Bowser

05-13-00, 06:54 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

tiassa

A weapon of "Mass destruction" would be something like a nuclear bomb--a weapon which is beyond the reach of most people. A machine gun would probably fit into that catagory too. I do know a collector who has a federal license to own those types of guns. He simply has a passion for guns and military collectables.

Yes, any regulation can be a grievous wound to Liberty. They often open the door for more repressive regulation, and I think that this is what gun owners fear the most.

Common sense with an appreciation for human life would define a responsible gun owner.

As for the logic of what this means:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You tell me how that would serve as an argument in favor of gun ownership.

Responsible people deserve their privacy and their freedom. They don't create the gun problem.

<hr>

As for the Jap's and WWII, They, the Jap's, were hungry for resources, and they wanted to be a world player. The U.S. was a strong naval force in the pacific. So the Jap's simply removed the potential threat before proceeding with their invasions of Asia. I doubt that they ever hoped to invade the West Coast, but they did manage to float a couple of bombs over the pacific.

------------------
It's all very large.

ozarky

05-14-00, 03:11 AM

Bowser, Yes the Japs were hungry. So hungry that they landed troops on one of the Aleutian Islands. It was either Attu or Kiska. It was a small force that was quickly defeated. They also bombed Dutch Harbor in Alaska. Our intelligence said that the japs wanted a base in the Aleutians
so they could bomb the Mainland. They never did try again.

I was in Germany with the Third Infantry Division. About a year after the war in Europe was over the division got orders to return to the states. I was given about a dozen prisoners of war (German) to inspect the vehicles and grade them as returnable to this country or sell and/or give them to Allied Countries. Through a combination of English/German and German/English I learned a lot about the German tactics that was never written about.
Did you know that the first German troops into Russia were greeted as friendly troops?
Anything was better than the opression of Joseph Stalin. Had the Germans not raped and murdered there way into Russia, they could have gone thru Russia without hardly firing a shot. I was told that the German troops found the bodys of small children, too small to place the stock butt against their shoulder in shell holes and buildings.
All the kids could do was to "point" the gun and fire it. They were effective to a point.
The Germans did not know but the fire was coming from regular soldiers.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Tiassa

05-14-00, 11:33 PM

Bowser--

So, if I'm reading you correctly, since we both agree that "well-regulated militia" does not restrict guns solely to the National Guard, there's apparently no other regulation of weapons allowed?

Or have I lost part of the alleged logic?

Free anthrax bombs for everybody! ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Rambler

05-15-00, 12:28 AM

OK guys as far as the account of Japanese intentions is concerned, I still believe that the Japs had no intention of invading the USA. Perhaps that would have come IF they were able to conqure Asia and germany were successful in their campaign. I would think the US government were playing on the side of caution because there was a GLOBAL conflict and they wanted to be prepared. The strike against the Navy was for the sole purpose of trying to keep the USA on its own shores long enough for Japan to gain a foot hold in major tactical asian positions. You americans need to look past the propaganda every so often. Your government is just as guilty of brainwashing as any other. War is BIG business for the USA, and you can't deny it.

Now back to the issue of guns, I do eat meat. I have never been to a slughter house, I have no intention to either. I aslo don't hunt. We are meat eaters and hence we kill animals to feed. Let me be the first to inform you that we are IN THE 21st CENTURY and we are far from any hunter gather lifestyles. You can not tell me seriously that you hunt for the purpose of food. You can get food anywhere you like. The exception I take to hunting is that its done for the thrill of the kill. You KILL TO GET A BUZZ. Thats a shit reason to take a life. But I guess its ok 'cause you only kill it a little bit right?? unlike those who use thier hand cannons and kill an animal alot.

We have a former responsible gun owner running from the law in my back yard at the moment. He was responsible enough to own a weopon. His neighbours took exception to the fact that he waved it around in his yard, and that he refered to himself as Jessie James. So they called the police several times. But he was "responsible" so the police were powerless. He lost a football bet a few weeks ago, he got abit wild and threatend his neighbour (who won the bet). The neighbour called the police, they arrived and old mate shot 12 rounds into the cops at point blank. One female officer got 8 bullets. The coppers lived but they have a responsible gun owner to thank for their ambush. Also another former "responsible" gun owner flipped out pulled out a high powered rifle (down in Tasmania) and blew away 30+ people. Those victims can thank the law for allowing this "responsible" gun owner to have access to an automatic rifle.

Let me make my position clearer. I too believe that having the any rights restricted or taken away is wrong. However I would freely give up that particular right. I would hope that society is intelligent enough to realise that a peace won through fear and armed stalemate is not worth persuing (haven't you guys learnt anything from the cold war?????). Its breeds paranioa. What do you want? the days of the old west?, where everyone is packing a side arm. You have to realise that this is an intermediate solution, and one that would compound the problems that KILLING DEVICES are asociated with. Criminals steal legal firearms....that IS a fact. If theres LESS guns to be found there will be less occurance of crime. Sure the hardcores will always find a way, but those same hardcores aren't going to give a shit if YOU have a gun either. You see your whole armed citizen thing is missing one vital point. A criminal has already crossed the line and your life or that of anyone (including him/her self) isn't worth much, you on the other hand may think twice before pulliing the trigger. Which makes you the loser anyway.

I too hope that i don't need to defend my family, but if that day comes whether I have a gun or not isn't going to make much difference. What am I going to say?? oh hold up a second bad guys let me just get my gun from my hidy hole so this can be somewhat fare???? please that gun isn't going to do anything. Like I said if I had the time to get a gun load it and point it at the bad guy, I'd have time to escape with my family. There's always alternatives.....violence is a last resort, not the first line of defence. Think about how many gun related deaths a child witnesses on TV before they are even 5. We are desensetised to it. I kringe when I see a dog get hurt on TV, but I can watch a city of people die no problems. Now is this the kind of society that should have guns??????? Lets assume everyone was armed (i.e. responsible adult), well soon enough kids are gonna have 'em at school (I know this already happens, not in Aus :) ) but it would be MUCH worse......

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited May 14, 2000).]

Adlerian

05-15-00, 01:47 AM

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

Tiassa

05-15-00, 09:52 PM

Alderian--

I believe that you (and Mr. Franklin) have a point. From there, I would land myself in an argument of valid reasons for proper revolt. That, I think, is best left for a later date.

However, I think it is also quite fair to point out that Mr. Franklin didn't actually expect the Union to survive beyond a half-century.

Actually, I'm going to stop for now, because that becomes its own working subject. Suffice to say that a thread of this subject could last forever, even independently of gun issues.

thanx much,
Tiassa :D

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa

05-15-00, 10:25 PM

Ozarky--

Real quickly, 'cuz it's a digression:

The Japanese did successfully bomb the U.S. mainland. A balloon-carried device dropped a bomb in Oregon that remained in a field unexploded until it was approached by a family on a picnic. The explosion killed a mother and her two children; her husband was busy retrieving lunch from the trunk of the car.

Just an odd footnote. I now return this thread to its regularly-scheduled subject matter.

thanx,
Tiassa ;)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

ozarky

05-16-00, 03:13 AM

Tiassa, The baloon bomb's that the Japs sent over were mainly ineffective. They were incendiary, meant to start forest fires.
I remember that some of them were found as far East as Wyoming.
Most of the High School students had to spend time in a tower watching for and identifying airplanes, and also keeping an eye out for those baloon's.

I also remember something about a Jap subermarine shelling the Oregon Coast. Something about it destroying a barn ?

I will not give up my guns without a fight.
No, I do not have a "laser sighted assult rifle". I have a lever action 30/30 that I have had for about 25 years. It has open sights and is in perfect condition. Except for a mark or two, you cannot tell it from a brand new one.

I don't like to counter a statement of someone, but someone here said to "wrap your gun in disposable diapers and bury it".
I don"t think so. The diaper will absorb the moisture from the soil and wet the gun. Put it in an ammo box, make sure the rubber seal is still good.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Rambler

05-16-00, 04:14 AM

Throw it in a furnace, and make a bumper bar.

Bowser

05-16-00, 05:52 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Wow, I missed a lot while at the beach. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

tiassa, I think the quote added by Alderian is very appropriate for the this thread.

Tiassa-

"Or have I lost part of the alleged logic?"

You've got me there. There are limits to what should and should not be used for sport and self defense. I imagine that only governments would have a need for chemical, bio, and nuclear weapons...but, once again, we are talking about firearms. Right? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

Rambler, you are confusing the mentally ill with responsible gun owners. Also, one does not need a gun to kill. Those people you speak of could have just as easily ran their victims down with a car.

Rambler-

"You can not tell me seriously that you hunt for the purpose of food. You can get food anywhere you like. The exception I take to hunting is that its done for the thrill of the kill. You KILL TO GET A BUZZ. Thats a shit reason to take a life."

Hunting for food is more sporting than a slaughterhouse, wouldn't you agree. I would hazard to say that hunting is MORE HUMANE than a slaughterhouse. I would like to also point out that we feed not only on meat, but also on emotions. So yes, the hunter does get an emotional buzz from killing his fodder. Just remember that animals are dying for your next meal; the sad thing is, someone else had to kill it for you.

Ozzy-

"I also remember something about a Jap subermarine shelling the Oregon Coast. Something about it destroying a barn ?"

Yes, that's correct. They shot a round or two at Ft. Stevens/Battery Russel, near Astoria, Oregon. The place now is a State Park and Military Museum. And get this, they have a collect of old guns there. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon6.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited May 16, 2000).]

Tiassa

05-16-00, 04:18 PM

Bowser--

You've got me there. There are limits to what should and should not be used for sport and self defense. I imagine that only governments would have a need for chemical, bio, and nuclear weapons...but, once again, we are talking about firearms. Right?

Well, we're not talking exactly about firearms. On the one hand, I'll offer a "far cry from": I would assert that the difference between a shotgun or pistol and a nuclear weapon is a little greater than the difference between the Teletubbies and Party Doll A-Go-Go. It's part of an extreme logical device I use to demonstrate that words, apparently, are more dangerous than guns, and are thus subject to greater restriction. But it's fair to move beyond firearms, I think. The right to keep and bear arms--can we infer from that a reservation of "arms" to "firearms"; and would such an inference be appropriate if "well-regulated militia" seems to be as useless a phrase as it is treated?

In the State of Oregon, I can carry a gun concealed, with a permit.

In the State of Oregon, I cannot carry a knife concealed. There is no permit available. This, at least, was explained to me by members of the Oregon State Patrol, Lane County (Oregon) Sheriff, and members of the Springfield and Eugene (Oregon) Police Departments at a big PR-day they were holding. It was really quite hard for me to understand the reasoning, but apparently the reason I couldn't get a permit to carry a 5" knife in my jacket (and thus could not carry it legally at all) is that, according to Law Enforcement in the state of Oregon, knives are more dangerous than guns. Now this is a particular surprise to me, but I think I understand a context in which it makes sense.

So now, not only am I "outgunned", but my right to bear arms has been stripped, apparently in favor of my right to bear "firearms".

It's one of those little coincidences that makes me think "guns" as an issue is just about loud noises and quasi-phallic bullets exploding from long tubes. Oh, and machismo. In that case, we can't forget machismo.

But you and I know better than that simple-minded generalization, right? So I'm left wondering what the deal is.

As to Alderian's quote ... my error in calling it Franklin. Jefferson, Franklin ... hey, they all grew hemp and drank beer. ;) But it is worth noting that the tree of liberty and the Union were not the same thing, even then; the spirit of revolution was well-expected to destroy the Union within about 50 years ... 2 rebellions? Yeah, that could have done it in.

Those people you speak of could have just as easily ran their victims down with a car.

I suppose I should ask if you would accept that thin an answer from me? Cars weren't designed specifically to kill stuff. Guns weren't necessarily intended to assist you with the morning commute; outside Los Angeles County, that is ;).

And part of that which I didn't quote: It seems to me that every gun owner is "responsible" until they accidentally kill or hurt someone. I've lived in Oregon, where prosecutors will do anything to avoid prosecuting gun-related "accidents" involving "responsible" gun owners. (I can think of one specific case in which the DA hands-down admitted it was not about a dead little girl, but that he didn't want the image of prosecuting a Mormon family for negligence--it might look persecutory. Again, that was in Oregon, so maybe it's just that place.) But that still points to the inevitable question:

* What "regulation" or other safety measures, then, are acceptable?

I mean, it's a safety regulation to tell you not to randomly discharge a firearm within city limits. Is this an infringement of one's rights? After all, a general rule like that punishes responsible gun owners who are capable of safely shooting while inside city limits. (Please take this with a grain of sarcasm ... I'm quite aware that I'm pushing the reasonability line. However, it's important to me to try to break this down to the most fundamental versions of the question available. I mean, just because the media debate doesn't squirrel down to this level of detail doesn't mean the issues don't exist as long as the greater issue does.

But it's important to establish what "regulation" is allowed. So I need to press again with the question regarding the Second: If the Second Amendment does not reserve weapons to the National Guard, then what regulation does it allow?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

05-16-00, 05:23 PM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> tiassa-

<hr>
Oh boy, I just plugged a new 17" monitor into my PC, and everyone here now looks so much better!
<hr>

"It's one of those little coincidences that makes me think "guns" as an issue is just about loud noises and quasi-phallic bullets exploding from long tubes. Oh, and machismo. In that case, we can't forget machismo."

Yes, I'm sure that a gun is, for many, an extension of their penis; but there are others who have personal reasons for owning guns which go beyond their self-image. I would have to concede that gun ownership is often fueled by the images and ideas of our society and its media.

"I suppose I should ask if you would accept that thin an answer from me? Cars weren't designed specifically to kill stuff. Guns weren't necessarily intended to assist you with the morning commute; outside Los Angeles County, that is."

LOL. Thanks for the LA County bit <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

My point was that it doesn't matter what your weapon might be if your intent is to kill. If you desire to save lives by removing potential danger, then you just as well move onto all of man's other devices.

"* What "regulation" or other safety measures, then, are acceptable?"

I'm sorry to answer your question with a question: How did we ever manage in the past without all of these regulations?

"But it's important to establish what "regulation" is allowed. So I need to press again with the question regarding the Second: If the Second Amendment does not reserve weapons to the National Guard, then what regulation does it allow??"

It makes no statement regarding regulations. It simply states that we have the right to carry arms. Certainly, they did not imagine the issues that we are now considering. I suppose that the deeper questions are left for the Supreme court to answer. For myself, it is very clear and beyond question.

------------------
It's all very large.

Adlerian

05-16-00, 06:17 PM

I have no wish to quarrel or convince others to think as I do. But the facts of the matter are these. There is a desire held by some members of this government to disarm its' populace. I can see some advantages to that and some of them are NOT good.

Adlerian

Tiassa

05-16-00, 10:45 PM

Bowser--

You have inspired me to a major revision of theory:

"But it's important to establish what "regulation" is allowed. So I need to press again with the question regarding the Second: If the Second Amendment does not reserve weapons to the National Guard, then what regulation does it allow??"

It makes no statement regarding regulations. It simply states that we have the right to carry arms. Certainly, they did not imagine the issues that we are now considering. I suppose that the deeper questions are left for the Supreme court to answer. For myself, it is very clear and beyond question.

Then I can only assert that the 2nd Amendment, as written, reserves firearms to the National Guard. There goes private ownership altogether. It's kind of like the Bible--if you pick the right words out of a collective body (sentence, paragraph, &c), you can make that sequence of words say anything. But if I look at the sum effect of the words, then I eliminate a number of bad options. As possible interpretations pare away, we find two conflicting ideas attached to "well-regulated militia".

First is the idea which I've already noted, which is the long-standing opinion of the Supreme Court, as well, that the 2nd Amendment does not reserve firearms to the militia (e.g.--Nat'l Guard). On the other hand, though, is the idea that, having eliminated exclusivity of the militia, there is no room left to regulate weapons. Technically, our Constitution is the Law of the Land; any treaties Congress has approved which suspend the ownership of weapons of mass destruction are still subordinate to the Constitution and its Amendments. Which leaves me with the uncomfortable position that either the Well-Regulated Militia is the only one to get guns, or that we all get anthrax bombs and nuclear missiles.

But, once we've discounted, as per the Supreme Court, reservation of firearms to the National Guard, it seems, then, that no other regulation on weapons should be allowed. That idea is insidious in its own right, but if I read the Constitution the way a number of firearms enthusiasts have described it, then I demand to be able to carry my damn knife, and I also want to pack 5 kilograms of enriched uranium in a triggering device in my backpack. You never know when I might think society is out to get me. ;)

And in the meantime, there's nothing about the militia, and nothing about regulation in the 1st Amendment; by the NRA's "defense-of-rights" scheme, I would be fully justified in carrying arms against my government so that I could show bestial anal porn during Saturday morning cartoons.

Yes, I'm sure that a gun is, for many, an extension of their penis; but there are others who have personal reasons for owning guns which go beyond their self-image.p/i]

Okay, that's my own sarcasm getting in the way. :o

Actually, what I was after when I resorted to phallic-shaped bullets and machismo is that the "right to bear arms" isn't about that at all. In Oregon, for instance, I cannot bear my arm of choice, by circumstance of law. Individual gun owners I know had diverse reactions, ranging from sympathy and even sympathetic outrage to the arrogant assertion that you don't need that choice of arm when you can get a Big Gun. So when I say that the gun-issues seem to be about loud noise, phallic bullets and machismo, that's actually what I mean. It's not about "the right to bear arms." It's about the right to carry guns. I mean, the law is so technical in Oregon that to carry knives legally, you have to advertise the fact that you're armed to the teeth. (And, yes, I gotta admit, there's one hell of a rush to having twelve pieces of lethal cutlery stationed around your body.)

[i]My point was that it doesn't matter what your weapon might be if your intent is to kill.

Again, I need to challenge the depth of your point, here.

Do you remember when the Clinton administration tried to ban assault rifles? The most disingenuous people in that campaign were the NRA. Aside from a ludicrous misinformation campaign (which really was genius execution of a juvenile manner of behaving), among the things the NRA told us is that .223 caliber military rifles were good for hunting, and also--and this is the important one--that guns aren't weapons, they're tools.

For that little snippet, I point to Homer Simpson, using his .357 caliber tool to turn off the TV, shut off the lights, and open beer cans. To be honest, I think the Homer-point was that guns are weapons and not tools, but the idea of tool vs. weapon is important. I can make a claw hammer a weapon, if I want to. But it's designed as a tool; when I use the hammer as a weapon, I'm putting it to the wrong use. However, the only use, whatsoever, for a gun, is to kill. It's what they're designed for.

I once proposed a simple solution to "gun control" that didn't go over well with the individuals I was discussing the issue with. Very simply, make any shooter absolutely accountable for his round. Period. I don't care if someone is breaking into your home; if your shot misses, goes through a window and strikes any part of another person's private property, then the shooter should be held civilly and, where applicable, criminally accountable. You hit my house, you pay for the repairs and get cited for vandalism. You kill someone with that stray shot, you go to jail for manslaughter. There are no apologies. There are no accidents.

I, personally, think that would handle it. People get to own and use what guns they want, and no more innocent people will have to go down to "accidents" committed by "responsible" gun owners.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Rambler

05-17-00, 01:05 AM

Bowser,
You said above as a reply to me that hunting is more humane then a slaughterhouse. That maybe the case, but we aren't realy discussing ethical behavior of a butcher....For every clean kill in a hunt they'll be just as many missed shots, and the animal WILL suffer (even from a clean kill). Now here's my point, YES at one time we needed to hunt to feed, however we are no longer hunter & gather's, we are consumers. I for one couldn't be a butcher...there are people who can do it. The difference is that in a slaughterhouse animals are being kulled (note: kulled) not killed for the purpose of feeding the population. In this century (21st remember) hunting is not done for the purpose of feeding. That maybe a smokescreen in the mind of the hunter but the fact remains you can get your food without the blood lust. A hunter kills for the kill. And thats still a shit reason to kill. My proplem is the motivation behind the action, not the action alone.

Now lets look at "responsible" gun owners....
We have people on this discussion raving on about UN conspiracies and I'll fight to keep my guns etc. UN taking over the world!!!!! I don't know how to say this without being out right rude, but the fact is, there's no real evidence to support the claim...which makes it paranioa. And these are the people who want to be armed. Lets not forget that your not considered insane until you do something stupid. So how do you identify the potential "flakes"????? How many gun owners would be happy to take a phsyc evaluation every 6 months? if your gonna call yourself responsible and sane and for that reason you want to own a gun then prove it....that would be great:

Phsyc: why do you feel you need a gun sir?
responsible gun owner: Because I hunt

Phsyc: why do you hunt?
responsible gun owner: Because I get off on the kill, and the UN wants to take over the world.

hmmmmmmmmm sure take an oozie on your way out. Be sure to grab a shoulder holster so you can conceal it properly. But leave your knife at home, we wouldn't want to be irresponsible would we.

I don't see the logic.

You know guys we get TV down here in the wilderness and I've seen the protests organised by the mums of the USA. Would it still be so easy to rave on about the merits of owning guns if you were talking to one of the mothers that lost a child to a "former responsible gun owner"?

Bowser (this is harsh so I'm gonna appolagise now, but I feel I have to make the point),
Put yourself in the position of a parent that lost their child to gun play, or a gun owner who just couldn't take it any more, would you still be so keen to defend that right?

You guys are discussing the 2nd amendemt, I think the bigger issue is the legal political bribary you call lobeying. On the one hand you have a bunch of concerned mothers, and on the other you have a pile of cash being handed to you by MOSES. Now whats a god fearing capitalist gonna do?..........

The first line of the first post in this thread says, LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS, as an Australian I believe I have.

Tiassa,
your point above,

"Very simply, make any shooter absolutely accountable for his round" ...quoted from Tiassa

We have a similar situation here. If I walked in on an intruder in my house, the law allows me to protect myself with reasonable force. I.e. if he's armed with a knife and I shoot him. I go to jail. This law needs revision. By the same act if the intruder hurts himself while robbing me he can sue me for negligence, silly I know. But like I said needs revision. However atleast it recognises the value of human life, and supports due process. Making yourself judge, jury and executioner is a dangerous state of affairs.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited May 16, 2000).]

Adlerian

05-17-00, 03:22 AM

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops…" Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" 1787

Perhaps this will place the 2nd Amendment in its historical context and may be of value for the readers.

Adlerian, member N.R.A.

[This message has been edited by Adlerian (edited May 16, 2000).]

Rambler

05-17-00, 03:47 AM

Adlerian,
Thanks for the 300 year old propaganda mate.

"Your living in the past, quite living in the past Marge".....Homer Simpson

Rambler, Member of the human race.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited May 16, 2000).]

Adlerian

05-17-00, 03:53 AM

Your welcome, Rambler. :)

Freedom is dearly bought at every purchase.

That "propaganda" got us our freedom, mate.

Here's another quote from a man who helped found our country.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785)

Adlerian

Rambler

05-17-00, 05:42 AM

I hope you realise that the ideals held by society and "nation builders" 300 years ago are worlds apart to contemporary thinking.

Are we going to quote the merits of burning witches and using leaches for medical purposes too???

Or how about quoting a field marshal in time of war and passing it off as relevant to peace-time?

Now as to the merits of the quote, I see non. Infact I consider it one of the most absurd things I have EVER read. Hmmmmmm don't see too many saturday afternoon shoot outs in the park. Obviously Michael Jordon waisted his life. Silly man if only all young people applied themselves to being skilled killers instead of waisting their time on sport..............

sports gonna hurt ya, don't waist your time on it. Learn to kill instead. Thats what we want from our youngsters.....Responsible??? I think not.

Again thanks for making my point :)

Bowser

05-17-00, 06:31 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Yawn! It's late.

<hr>

Tiassa,

"It's kind of like the Bible--if you pick the right words out of a collective body (sentence, paragraph, &c), you can make that sequence of words say anything. But if I look at the sum effect of the words, then I eliminate a number of bad options. As possible interpretations pare away, we find two conflicting ideas attached to "well-regulated militia."

I suppose you could focus on one or the other. But, once again...

"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."

...doesn't suggest any circumstance where people should be denied the right to carry arms, and it doesn't say only a well regulated Militia shall have the right to bear arms. It really is very simple.

"but if I read the Constitution the way a number of firearms enthusiasts have described it, then I demand to be able to carry my damn knife, and I also want to pack 5 kilograms of enriched uranium in a triggering device in my backpack. You never know when I might think society is out to get me."

It sounds like you have an issue there. You should take it to a higher source...like the NRA <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"I mean, the law is so technical in Oregon that to carry knives legally, you have to advertise the fact that you're armed to the teeth. (And, yes, I gotta admit, there's one hell of a rush to having twelve pieces of lethal cutlery stationed around your body.)"

I believe that the same rule applies to guns; but, as you mentioned earlier, there are exceptions for guns (concealed weapons). I believe that there was once some logic to displaying your weapon on your person, but I'm too tired to remember and it was so very long ago when I heard the explanation.

"For that little snippet, I point to Homer Simpson, using his .357 caliber tool to turn off the TV, shut off the lights, and open beer cans. To be honest, I think the Homer-point was that guns are weapons and not tools, but the idea of tool vs. weapon is important.)"

I saw that one. I felt that the producers were using a cartoon to cast a negative image on guns and those who own guns. I thought it was cheap and tacky.

"I once proposed a simple solution to "gun control" that didn't go over well with the individuals I was discussing the issue with. Very simply, make any shooter absolutely accountable for his round. Period. I don't care if someone is breaking into your home; if your shot misses, goes through a window and strikes any part of another person's private property, then the shooter should be held civilly and, where applicable, criminally accountable..)"

Liability for our own actions doesn't sound beyond reason to me; however, you can create liable out of the least of injury. That too can be used as a form of gun control, no doubt.

<hr>

Hey Rambler,

"A hunter kills for the kill. And thats still a shit reason to kill. My proplem is the motivation behind the action, not the action alone."

Well, the butcher kills for your money. There's lust in greed, y'know. I can't concern myself with the hunter's motivations because it really isn't a crime to hunt an animal. If it gives him a thrill to track and kill his wild game, then more power to him. If the species isn't threatened with extinction, then it's a resource for recreation. I think the question of its demise is pointless.

"Now lets look at "responsible" gun owners....
We have people on this discussion raving on about UN conspiracies and I'll fight to keep my guns etc. UN taking over the world!!!!! I don't know how to say this without being out right rude, but the fact is, there's no real evidence to support the claim...which makes it paranioa. And these are the people who want to be armed."

Why do you suppose they added the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution? Who do you think this addresses?

"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."

...Not the people.

"Lets not forget that your not considered insane until you do something stupid. So how do you identify the potential "flakes"????? How many gun owners would be happy to take a phsyc evaluation every 6 months? if your gonna call yourself responsible and sane and for that reason you want to own a gun then prove it....that would be great:"

Well, they are doing that now with background checks. The assumption is that you are guilty until proven innocent. Correct?

You know guys we get TV down here in the wilderness and I've seen the protests organised by the mums of the USA. Would it still be so easy to rave on about the merits of owning guns if you were talking to one of the mothers that lost a child to a "former responsible gun owner"?


I'm not responsible for the errors of another. It would be a greater error to let society pilfer away the rights of those children who still live. I have no shame for the actions or convictions of others. Yes, if they were to ask, I would speak my mind.

Put yourself in the position of a parent that lost their child to gun play, or a gun owner who just couldn't take it any more, would you still be so keen to defend that right?

I can't answer that question honestly, because I haven't lived it, so I'll leave it at that.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

05-17-00, 06:32 PM

Bowser--

By Monday I hope to have gathered enough children's grammar books to make my point. On the other hand, perhaps I can spare myself and, by proxy, you, from that process with the following:

"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."

I have quoted your last posting of the Amendment.

Unfortuantely, I have to ask you to break that sentence down. It seems to me that the first part of that, through the words "free state", do not stand on their own. Thus, the second part, beginning with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" must either be wholly independent, rendering the first part utterly extraneous, or else indicate that the second is conditional, dependent, or otherwise relative to the first. They are not separate sentences. Let's try one on:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

One thing I can tell you about that.

After all, it isn't as if, without consideration for the facts as a whole.

(Yes, I can keep that annoying part up, but it wouldn't help things any.)

When I read the Amendment in its entirety, I see a very natural sentence that provides both an assumption of justification ("A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") and the standard it justifies ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".)

Please explain to me, then specifically what is meant by the first portion of that Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

It says nothing without the standard it justifies.

re: the Simpsons episode: I agree it was designed to cast a negative light on the rhetoric of the gun-enthusiasts, but that was the point. It's all rhetoric. I think it's just as cheap and tacky when a gun enthusiast explains how his gun is a tool, but cannot demonstrate a use for it beyond shooting at people, animals, or targets. I mean, you can't hook a rope to it like an arrow and cross a canyon (though I can't think of when I'd need to do that except in the most dire of circumstances) and a gun isn't particularly good for boring holes or driving nails. I've heard the NRA assert that an AK-47 is a good hunting tool, yet of the four hunters I've known who owned 47's or other such weapons, none of them ever used the things for hunting, and shuddered at the thought. A little consistency in both theory and practice is all the writers are asking for in the Simpsons episode; they are hardly demanding perfection.

It sounds like you have an issue there. You should take it to a higher source...like the NRA

If I'm missing the full degree of your sarcasm, I apologize, but that was the point. Although I have realized that perhaps that's the problem. The NRA isn't about keeping and bearing arms, it's about keeping and bearing rifles. I'm not going to go join a National Cutlery Association to lobby for my rights.

I would also like to say that when I moved to Oregon in 1991, I could purchase a super-stiff CS-gas over the counter. Now the only stuff available there is a 1% solution that I know--from experience--stops only the most genteel of criminals with serious, preexisting breathing disorders. Perhaps the NRA, if it is concerned about violence, should call for the return of less drastic defensive weapons for citizens. But as it's name suggests, it's about bullets. But, to be honest, I don't carry any weapons anymore. And when I feel a "need" to carry one, you bet it's a rib-sticking, mutha-humming piece of steel. And, like my silly drugs, it's one of those things that, if they choose to bring me down for it, I'll be happy to stand and defend myself and in turn the nation.

As a rhetorical barb, though, fighting a 2nd Amendment case like a knife would give me perverse pleasure in the sense that I would be doing what I accuse the NRA of not doing. But that's just me.

But I still don't get the 2nd Amendment thing. I mean, it's possible to demonstrate logic through the conditions I'm asking, but the only two arguments I ever get out of it are A) that we don't reserve guns to the Nat'l Guard, and B) the Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to carry and use weapons.

But ne'er do I hear the whole sentence addressed at once.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Rambler

05-18-00, 02:40 AM

Bowser,
You are arguing for the right to bear arms right. But if confronted by a realtive of a victim you say and I quote:

"I'm not responsible for the errors of another."

Sorry but your insistance that carrying a gun is a citizens "just" right makes you somewhat responsible. Not directley but you allow the means to purportrate a gustly crime, by arguing for that right.

Would you agree that a right of the people is to NOT live in fear? because if you do then a society which is armed is one which breeds fear.

Also you say a "responsible" adult should be allowed to bear arms if they so choose. However you don't own a gun because you have children. That to me seems like a contradictory argument. You are a responsible adult what difference does it make if you own a gun??? Are you afraid your child might find it and hurt themselves or someone else? because by definition a responsible adult would NEVER allow for a situation where a child has unsupervised access to the gun right?

By your own actions you have demonstrated that the safest thing to do in regard to guns is to not have them around, thats what I've been arguing all along.

I may be wrong and out of line here, but would I be right in saying that your argument isn't for gun ownership, but against ristriction of rights?

Adlerian

05-18-00, 02:59 AM

tiassa: Perhaps here is a place where you can help me. I am a new member of the N.R.A.. I joined last month. To me the interpretation of:

"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."

means that the people shall not be disenfranchised of their right to own guns.

I break this down as:

A well-regulated Militia (like a volunteer fire department) is necessary to fight whatever enemies, lastly the British, since we have no standing Army, is necessary to keep the Union free, and for that cause the people shall have to right to keep their private weapons to have on hand in case of emergency.

I hope that helps. I am fairly new to this issue and do not own a gun. But the recent turn of events in our government have galvanized me to action. I do not presently own a gun. But I have been to several gunshows in the past few weeks and will be purchasing "guns and ammo" in the near future. I joined the N.R.A. the week LaPierre issued his challenge to Komrade Klinton although I hadn't seen or even heard of their debate.

If you feel I have misunderstood the quote please correct it. Perhaps I can call the N.R.A. to see what they believe the interpretation should be.

All the Best :)

Adlerian

If you see anything wrong with my hermeneutics let us discuss it.

ozarky

05-18-00, 03:35 AM

HOW ABOUT THIS FOR SNEAKY ??
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced the so called "hand gun safety and registeration act of 2000" The bill is numbered S.2099.
The Bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to REQUIRE the registeration of hand guns AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

ozarky

05-18-00, 03:53 AM

Sorry about the mix up
This bill would;
Impose a new federal transfer tax on hand gun sales.
Impose new federal taxes on firearms manufacturers; and require ALL now unregistered hand guns to be registered immediately.
The United Nations has called for a small arms control regime to impose an international standard on every country and to require the listing of every gun and it's Current ownership.
The term "small arms" Aso refers to rifles and shotguns---not just pistols.
All of this information is to be put on the IRS form 1040. You all know what happens to those that are not truthful to the IRS.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Bowser

05-18-00, 05:44 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif">

Double yawn! This is my last late night on this thread.

<hr>

tiassa-

Go ahead and let your grammar books collect some more dust. The absolute phrase in which you are searching for salvation is only an explanation for the creation of the Second Amendment. Yeah, they had other concerns back then, but the clause "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" has no less meaning now then it did then. Go figure <img src ="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"The NRA isn't about keeping and bearing arms, it's about keeping and bearing rifles. I'm not going to go join a National Cutlery Association to lobby for my rights."

Thanks again for the humor <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

The sarcasm was me. I've read a lot about your knife problem and thought maybe you were serious.

"I would also like to say that when I moved to Oregon in 1991, I could purchase a super-stiff CS-gas over the counter. Now the only stuff available there is a 1% solution that I know--from experience--stops only the most genteel of criminals with serious, preexisting breathing disorders."

Stop. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"But I still don't get the 2nd Amendment thing. I mean, it's possible to demonstrate logic through the conditions I'm asking, but the only two arguments I ever get out of it are A) that we don't reserve guns to the Nat'l Guard, and B) the Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to carry and use weapons."

I'm certain that the modifier was more of an explanation of why the right was reserved for the people; nonetheless, I don't see it as suggesting a limitation to who should posses arms."[/i][/b]

<hr>

Rambler,

"Sorry but your insistance that carrying a gun is a citizens "just" right makes you somewhat responsible. Not directley but you allow the means to purportrate a gustly crime, by arguing for that right."

That's equivalent to making me responsible for all the fatalities related to drunk driving, simply because I enjoy a few beers now and then.

"Would you agree that a right of the people is to NOT live in fear? because if you do then a society which is armed is one which breeds fear."

I suppose it depends on what each individual fears the most. Personally, I feel that guns are the least of our troubles.

"Also you say a "responsible" adult should be allowed to bear arms if they so choose. However you don't own a gun because you have children. That to me seems like a contradictory argument."

It may seem like a contradiction. I made a choice which best suited myself and my children. I would hope that others could make their own decisions about such thinks.

"I may be wrong and out of line here, but would I be right in saying that your argument isn't for gun ownership, but against ristriction of rights?"

Well, I don't own a gun at this time, but I once had a really fun semi-auto M-14 which I enjoyed shooting when I was younger. Certainly, I wouldn't insist that everyone needs a gun. it is a personal choice to be made. And yes, I feel very strong about individual rights.

------------------
It's all very large.

Adlerian

05-18-00, 02:42 PM

Bowser and tiassa:

"But I still don't get the 2nd Amendment thing. I mean, it's possible to demonstrate logic through the conditions I'm asking, but the only two arguments I ever get out of it are A) that we don't reserve guns to the Nat'l Guard, and B) the Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to carry and use weapons."

I'm certain that the modifier was more of an explanation of why the right was reserved for the people; nonetheless, I don't see it as suggesting a limitation to who should posses arms."

Bowser, you are correct.

I called the Legislative branch of the N.R.A. today to check on my interpretation.

They agree that I had gotten it right. I looked at the historical context and the rest was easy. I have looked at various synopsis' of the Supreme Court briefs since they started writing them about the 2nd Amendment. They all pretty much agree with my interpretation.

Bowser, I have been following your posts. Very good! :) :)

All the best,

Adlerian

Adlerian

05-18-00, 02:47 PM

ozarky: Yes, I am familiar with the Bill. This is the reason we need to do what we can to stop the encroachment of our rights, before it's too late.

all the best,

Adlerian

Rambler

05-19-00, 01:07 AM

Bowser,
Thanks for making the font so large, however if it was your intention to drive your point home then it didn't work.

First of all if you drink and driven then YES you are responsible for all the fatalities due to drink driving in the same way as you are responsible for gun related deaths by supporting the right to for anyone to own a gun.

you said:
"It may seem like a contradiction. I made a choice which best suited myself and my children. I would hope that others could make their own decisions about such thinks"

A contradiction is a contradiction. You can't sit on the fence, either your for guns in which case your decision to not keep a gun in your house contradicts your belief of responsible ownership, or your against them in which case I don't understand why you argue for an armed society.

Point 3:

"Well, I don't own a gun at this time, but I once had a really fun semi-auto M-14 which I enjoyed shooting when I was younger. Certainly, I wouldn't insist that everyone needs a gun. it is a personal choice to be made. And yes, I feel very strong about individual rights"

Your right to carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in the community. Who's rights are more important? Obviously neither, however when you way up the consequences of arming the public against a gun free society... I believe a passive approach is more sensible, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've been thinking about this alot latley, I'm arguing from a perspective of someone who has been brought up in a relativley gun free society. I can see real merit in it, however your experience tells you that guns aren't a problem. I guess we are arguing to preserve our own ways of life...and until we experience both we can't really say conclusivley which is a better system. So lets just agree to disagree. Its obvious niether one of us is going to compromise our respective beliefs.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited May 18, 2000).]

Bowser

05-19-00, 05:58 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Rambler, we certainly do disagree on this matter; but I thank you, nonetheless, for staying with this thread and for sharing your thoughts with me. I offer the same thanks to tiassa and the others. I enjoyed it and have probably learned something from all of you.

Thanks

<hr>

"Thanks for making the font so large, however if it was your intention to drive your point home then it didn't work."

I'm not sure which font you're referring, but if it made it easier to read, then I was happy to help. I might have been in error while adding my HTML tags to my last post.

"First of all if you drink and drive then YES you are responsible for all the fatalities due to drink driving in the same way as you are responsible for gun related deaths by supporting the right to for anyone to own a gun."

Rambler, that really is some lame logic at work, but I think it is typical of the anti-gun crowd.

"Your right to carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in the community."

Losing my right to carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in my community.

"Who's rights are more important? Obviously neither, however when you way up the consequences of arming the public against a gun free society... I believe a passive approach is more sensible...."

Nobody is arming the public: individuals are taking it upon themselves to own firearms. The approach that you favor leaves no options. It is a totalitarian system which you favor.

"A contradiction is a contradiction. You can't sit on the fence, either your for guns in which case your decision to not keep a gun in your house contradicts your belief of responsible ownership, or your against them in which case I don't understand why you argue for an armed society."

My spectrum of thought also inludes the color grey. Forgive me if I support the rights of gun owners while not owning a gun myself.

"I guess we are arguing to preserve our own ways of life...and until we experience both we can't really say conclusivley which is a better system."

I will hold onto my small portion of freedom. You can deny yourself that opportunity if you desire.

"So lets just agree to disagree. Its obvious niether one of us is going to compromise our respective beliefs."

Okay, I agree with you there, but you should also know that...I'm right <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

ozarky

05-20-00, 02:16 AM

As you all probably know, many of the gun manufactures are being sued by various cities throughout the country, claiming damages when theit product is used in the commission of a crime. One of the companies being sued was Smith & Wesson. Up for sale and on the brink of bankrptcy agreed to the Goverments standards for the industry. In return, all law suits were dropped and the Goverment (read White House) sent out memo's to various state and federal agencies asking them to give preferred status to Smith & Wesson when bids are sent out by law enforcement agencies.
The president has long been a proponent, not only gun control--but gun elimination. Mrs Clinton believes that the police should NOT be armed.

It was in the morning paper that Smith & Wesson are still welcome to attend the NRA Convention. The gun maker said that it planned to attend.

The NRA claims to have gained 200,000 new members and $10 million in donations in the LAST SIX WEEKS. The NRA reports a record 3.6 million members.
"Lawful citizens want to keep their right to bear arms".

As far as I am concerned, that million mom march was a joke. Virtually every argument for more gun control laws is either based on lies or is grossly misleading.

Our murder rates are higher than some other countries because other countries have stronger gun control laws; England and Canada
There are other countries with tougher gun control laws than ours and a murder rate several times that of the United States. Brazil and Russia for example. You will never hear the gun control advocates talking about those countries.

Israel has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world,and yet it's murder rate is less than that of Canada.

But fewer people will hear the conclusions of John R. Lott (More guns, Less Crime) Than will hear the ignorant emotional outbursts of Rosie O'Donnell.

The leaders of the gun control movement know the facts. They have their own political agenda.

Many people have the idea that the only reason that there is opposition to gun control is the influence of the National Rifle Association- and wrongfully so.

Tiassa

05-21-00, 05:51 AM

As you all probably know, many of the gun manufactures are being sued by various cities throughout the country, claiming damages when theit product is used in the commission of a crime. One of the companies being sued was Smith & Wesson

You know ... I find this ironic, but for reasons only marginally interesting.

Gee, if we hadn't busted the tobacco industry this way, we wouldn't have a clear shot at the gun manufacturers.

Booze companies are next. I mean, we, the people, accepted it in the US when everybody wanted tobacco's head. Unfortunately, the precedent is now set. Dominoes, anyone?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Adlerian

05-21-00, 01:12 PM

ozarky: thank you for your informative post!

tiassa: agreed, but I'd rather gamble. Any takers that Hillary doesn't live to run for President?

Adlerian

05-21-00, 01:16 PM

Oh, and by the way, 51% of the American people still think the NRA is a good organization. But the propagandizers haven't really gone to work on this just yet.

People are such sheep...and that's baa baa baa'd!

Adlerian

FyreStar

05-21-00, 07:57 PM

Rambler -

Forgive me for intruder on your back-and-forth with Bowser, but its just too easy :)

**Rambler: "First of all if you drink and driven then YES you are responsible for all the fatalities due to drink driving in the same way as you are responsible for gun related deaths by supporting the right to for anyone to own a gun."

Frankly, thats ridiculous. Why on earth should any adult be responsible for the autonomous actions of another? Whats next, are you going to lock up the supporters and let the criminals go free because hey, its not THEIR fault?

Following your 'reasoning', if you've ever taken a tylenol, you're responsible for drug abuse. Ever made a fire to heat your home? Well you should be locked up for perpetuating arson. Ever tied something with a rope? Well then we can blame you for all lynchings. Sound dumb? I hope so.

**Rambler: "A contradiction is a contradiction."

You're right, and this isn't one.l

**Ramble: "You can't sit on the fence, either your for guns in which case your decision to not keep a gun in your house contradicts your belief of responsible ownership, or your against them in which case I don't understand why you argue for an armed society."

WHAT?!?!? Do you understand the concept of judgement? If you don't need a gun, why the hell should you keep one in your house? Furthermore, if not having a gun is one way in which to keep your children safe, why isn't that a viable option? Since when does supporting something mean owning? I support flight, but I don't have a plane. I support hockey, but I don't have a puck.

This is the concept of freedom. You have a choice. You seem to be arguing that there are no choices; either one MUST have a gun, or must NOT have a gun.

**Rambler: "Your right to carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in the community. Who's rights are more important?"

Put bluntly, his rights. Why? A) because yours attempt to infringe upon his, and B) because yours are based on emotion.

**Rambler: "..until we experience both we can't really say conclusivley which is a better system."

Sure we can. Gun control = loss of freedom. Loss of freedom = wrong.

**Rambler: "Would you agree that a right of the people is to NOT live in fear?"

Sure, as long as A) the fear has a base in reality, and B) the fear can be eliminated without removal of individual rights.

**Rambler: "I hope you realise that the ideals held by society and "nation builders" 300 years ago are worlds apart to contemporary thinking.
Are we going to quote the merits of burning witches and using leaches for medical purposes too???"

I must have missed that part in the constitution.

FyreStar

ozarky

05-22-00, 03:20 AM

Truly, leaches are being used in hospitals, call yours and ask. Some years back I had gangrene in my left ankle. I tried to get the Doctor to put maggots on the area. They were used in the South Pacific by the military medics. Maggots will only eat what is dead. You end up with a clean wound.

Washington will be short two holidays next year, Halloween and Thanksgiving; The Witch is leaving and taking the turkey with her.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

ozarky

05-22-00, 03:34 AM

As I stated in my initial post: Guns in the hands of honest citizens saves lives and property. Gun control laws only effect the law abiding citizen.

THE FACTS DO NOT LIE!!!!!
Look them up.

Tiassa

05-22-00, 06:36 PM

One thing worth noting.

Recently the US prison population hit two million. One of the considerations which needed to be made in comprehending that our 5% of the world population includes 25% of the world prison population is how we view ourselves, as Americans, in relation to the law.

* For instance, many of our imprisoned criminals would be dead in, say, Iran.

* Many of our crimes would not come about due to complex circumstances involving our rights. One might not go to jail for breaking a window during a riot because in that country, one would be shot for assembling in the streets.

* Economic empowerment.

* Education.

* Yadda, yadda, and yadda.

Point being, of course, that the US is unique in many ways. That's one reason I don't get along well with gun statistics from another country. Of these well-armed, peaceful countries, how many of them arm their societies through automatic age and gender-determined conscription? If I'm in Israel, street crime isn't my reason for having a gun, it's the Muslim hordes threatening to destroy the nation. Furthermore, I suppose we could look to these nations as a model, and draft everyone, regardless of gender or other considerations, for mandatory military service upon HS graduation or 19th birthday, whichever comes first.

We're unique in the US in many ways. When we cite other nations' gun statistics, are we assuming that guns must necessarily be part of the human formula? I won't take away guns, but I wonder about our gun-obsessed culture. True, we'll all be safe, but what's the point? We'll all be afraid to talk to one another. Ah, but that's what the internet is for.

I think the gun statistics from other nations are only important once we've eliminated factors of geography/topograph of the nation in question; economic level of said population; military condition of said nation, and the reasons why those guns are in those houses.

Street crime? Good reason for a gun. Invasion by Canada? I'm not as worried, there. In the meantime, there's little commonsense to be had, and nobody wonders what life would be like without living in such fear of one's safety that they are compelled to buy a gun.

I'm more disappointed in the fact that the people who want and need to own guns will do so little to reduce the need for them. Of course, I cite Mr. Burns, of the Simpsons, who complained that his tax-dollars went for "do-nothing nuclear missiles". Is that it? Would it be a shame to buy all those bullets for nothing? (Rhetorical ... we'll get into that, I'm sure, as the NRA gets ready to open its Shooters' theme parks. I'm quite sure that will go better than it sounds, but ....)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Rambler

05-22-00, 10:21 PM

Hi All,

Fyrestar,

Ok fine my arguments may seem weak to you (your probably right), however the fact remains, guns are made to KILL. I believe a better answer is to work toward a society that doesn't need guns. Obviously you don't think so. With all your great counter arguments you still haven't convinced me that the answer is to arm the masses. The very fundamentals of what pro-guns arguments (here atleast) have said is the best defense is a better offense. That might work on a football field but its way off the mark when it comes to playing for keeps. As I have said you grew up with guns, I didn't. From my perspective I believe I've got it better off, you can go on believing guns save lives. I tend to think guns kill, I'm sorry if you find it hard to comprehend but if you want a society free of gun crimes GET RID OF THE GUNS -- doesn't that seem logical to you? How far are willing to argue for rights? are you happy to throw away a peacfull existance just to defend a right which was given to you during times of revolution????? do yourself a favour and look past the proganda, we're in the 21st century, your nation has been built...now get off your arses and vote instead of shoot.

jeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzus...it looks so simple from here.

ozarky

05-23-00, 02:29 AM

This is not about guns per se; it is about a freedom that the goverment is trying to take away from us. It does'nt matter if you are pro or con. If the Goverment wins, we ALL lose. I am not obsessed with my guns. Just before hunting season I take them out, clean and oil them. After the hunting season I clean and oil them and put them away untill next year. I do not have a large stock of shells. In fact all the shells I have I can put in my jacket pocket.

I DO NOT BELONG TO THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION !!

I am not a "joiner". There are a few things about the NRA that I disagree with. Therefore I will not join. Don't get me wrong, I applaud their stand for OUR freedom's. I do not understand why our veterans organizations keep such a low profile on such a vital issue as this.

Would gun locks have prevented the Columbine murders, or any other school shootings ? NO
Will a gun lock prevent a citizen from defending his family ? YES

If Big Brother wins this one, what will be next ???

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AN DIED

Adlerian

05-23-00, 09:31 PM

Tiassa: Yes, you brought up a very good point about using the stats from another country when it comes to our particular case. However, many of the statistics that wew who favor freedom use are statistics from within our own country. Mr. Lott's study has been cited and his study focus' on the level of crime in every county in the USA. According to the statistics of his report the only people who would oppose concealed carry laws are those who favor crime, period, end of story.

Adlerian

FyreStar

05-24-00, 02:31 AM

Rambler -

**Rambler: "..however the fact remains, guns are made to KILL."

I have used firearms. I have never killed anything with a firearm. Does this mean that I'm using them wrong?

**Rambler: "I believe a better answer is to work toward a society that doesn't need guns. Obviously you don't think so."

So your solution is to abridge the rights of human beings? Look in the history books and tell me what the result is when that is done.

**Rambler: "With all your great counter arguments you still haven't convinced me that the answer is to arm the masses."

First of all, don't misrepresent my arguments. Where in the blue peepin' hell did you get 'arming the masses' as my point? The whole point of freedom is CHOICE. That means that we don't take away rights to guns but we also don't force people to take them. I sure don't want one, but if that changes, I expect the option to still be there.

**Rambler: "As I have said you grew up with guns, I didn't."

You're going to have to qualify that statement, since I haven't posted my past and I don't know yours.

**Rambler: "From my perspective I believe I've got it better off, you can go on believing guns save lives."

What a worthless statement. First of all, guns don't save lives any more than they take them. People save lives. People take them. If you don't believe me, place a loaded gun on the table in front of you some day. I'll bet you dollars to wooden nickels that it won't jump off the table and start killing people. Neither will it jump off the table to give you CPR if you've had a heart attack.

**Rambler: "I tend to think guns kill, I'm sorry if you find it hard to comprehend but if you want a society free of gun crimes GET RID OF THE GUNS -- doesn't that seem logical to you?"

Yeah Rambler, eminently logical. Why don't you just press your magic gun removal button and save us from ourselves. Pardon the sarcasm, but how exactly to we get rid of ALL the guns? Do we walk up to crackhouses and terrorist armories and politely ask them to lend us their firearms? Do we conquer the world(which would be hard to do with knives and clubs) and collect every gun in existence to keep it out of the U.S.? Do we blame the general populace for the mistakes of the criminals? Do we violate the rights that stand upon the principle of freedom? I'm afraid you must clarify this part for me.

**Rambler: "How far are willing to argue for rights?"

Pretty damned far. If you want to hand your rights and thereby your life to the government, go to China. They would be happy to accomodate you. What do you have, if not rights? How can individuals live together peacefully and happily if not for rights?

**Rambler: "are you happy to throw away a peacfull existance just to defend a right which was given to you during times of revolution?"

Heh.. let me remind you that the entire bill of rights was given to us then, not just the second amendment. Would you like some salt with that foot? And how exactly will allowing guns to stay (as they have for more than two hundred years) destroy peaceful existence? Wars and crime began long before guns were made, and do not require guns in the slightest for their continued existence.

**Rambler: "do yourself a favour and look past the proganda.."

Which propaganda would that be? Would that be the suggestion that guns are both sentient and homicidal? Or perhaps that removing guns from the hands of all but criminals would solve crime problems? Elucidate please.

By the way.. if you cannot refute any of my points, why do you continue to disbelieve them? Just curious.

FyreStar

Rambler

05-25-00, 12:08 AM

Fyrestar,
Seems to me your only arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is fine, I conceed, your much better at this then me. However I still hold my convictions that NO guns is the only solution worth working towards. I don't understand the paranioa and the "security blankets" you guys hold on to so tightly, I can only tell you that I'm completely happy with the situation over here. I can walk down the darkest streets in the middle of the night in the worst part of the city and be nearly completely confident that IF I get mugged its not gone be looking down the end of a barrel. Can you say the same???? I know that if my redneck neighbour gets drunk I don't have to dodge bullets untill he sobers up.... Now if you want to give up peace of mind for an out dated and long since irrelevant right like gun ownership, then go right ahead.....its a long way from my neck of the woods.....shoot and be merry, I just hope you don't pay the ultimate price for such an "important" right.

Bowser

05-25-00, 06:08 AM

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> FyreStar,

I have to thank you for not only a well made point, but also for a darn good laugh. I fell off my chair laughing after reading this.

Thank you <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

What a worthless statement. First of all, guns don't save lives any more than they take them. People save lives. People take them. If you don't believe me, place a loaded gun on the table in front of you some day. I'll bet you dollars to wooden nickels that it won't jump off the table and start killing people. Neither will it jump off the table to give you CPR if you've had a heart attack.

------------------
It's all very large.

Rambler

05-25-00, 10:27 PM

I see so now being petty gives weight to arguments too. You know damn well that the argument here is whether arming citizens is going to "save" them from the criminally minded. If you take something out of context it will nearly always sound silly.

Fyrestar, you said it yourself its very difficult to get rid of ALL guns. However you still argue that they should be freely available. Why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple concept.. LESS GUNS = LESS GUN RELATED DEATHS. A child could grasp this quicker. Maybe my neck colouring lacks the red it would need to comprehend your mentality???? Like I said Bubba shoot and be merry.

ozarky

05-26-00, 12:01 AM

Rambler, You are missing the point. The argument IS NOT about saving you from the criminally minded. It is to keep our right to own guns, if we so wish. It is plain to see that the goverment is attempting to take our RIGHT to own guns away from us.

I would rather be shot than be hit in the head with a tire iron. There are a lot of people walking this earth with bullet scars on their bodies. I don't have bullet scars but I do have schrapnel scars.

HA HA SHE CRIED , SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Rambler

05-26-00, 02:11 AM

Ozarky,

Well it seems that we maybe arguing two different points here. I am very much against losing any civil rights, however what I don't understand is why this particular right is so important to you guys. If you like guns for whatever reason that maybe then their are ways, professions etc where you can get your fill. The army comes to mind....you don't need to bring it into civilian life. There is no reason to, as I see it. Perhaps you can tell me why guns are so important to society, I don't mean national security..armies deal with that not civilians. Tell me what makes owning a gun so important? As I can see it there is no real purpose. You can argue that stats support the view that the right to carry a gun reduces crime etc, and in the short term the figures would support just that. I'm trying to make you guys see that this is a flawed solution. Its a very fragile balance, and once in place you'll NEVER get rid of it, for you know as well as anyone that disarming yourself whilst in the middle of a stalemate you accept defeat. Would you be willing to live in such a nervous environment?

So as to losing a civil right I would be against it, however I also think that you should fight the fights which are worth fighting. I tend to think its a wasted effort and a hollow victory if it means your worse of for it in the end. Sometimes you have to change your principles in order to reach a common good.

ozarky

05-26-00, 03:04 AM

Rambler, In September,1945, representatives from 29 Nations met in San Francisco to found the United Nations. Among those writing the charter was one Alger Hiss. An official of the State Department. Hiss was later convicted of perjury for passing on top secret documents to the Russians. By 1953 every member of the US State Department and Treasury Dept. were found to be COMMUNIST. The one exception, John Foster Dulles was a member of the MARKIST Council on foreign Relations.

Former president George Bush was on the board of directors untill nominated for the Vice Presidency, he resigned. Bill Clinton is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Did you know that every battle order given to the commanders in the field in Korea had to be first approved By the UN, Yes, by a Russian general sitting there in New York ?

The only reason the Inchon landing was a sucess was because General MacArthur did not tell the UN. Yes, Harry Truman knew the Russian was approving or disapproving every battle order. The only reason that the UN gave MacArthur the OK to cross the 38th Parallel was that we were already across. They gave the OK to save face. We were in the North Korean Capitol when the OK came in over the radio.

The world laughs at the "weak American Soldiers". Yes, It was the same thing in Viet Nam. A Russian General approving All battle orders of the Allies. What makes me sick is that the General's knew it.

Now do you see why I, along with thousands others will fight to keep the right to own
weapons of our choice ?

Rambler

05-26-00, 03:22 AM

Ozarky,

To be completely frank with you no I don't see why you will fight to own guns. The examples you listed are matters for armies and polititions. If you want an active role, join the armed forces... or better still run for election. As a civilian I too worry about the decisions being made etc, however I have a vote and it DOES make a difference. Now lets put the focus back in the civlian arena. What purpose does owning a gun? What does a law abiding citizen need with a gun (this IS hyperthetical, indulge me and consider a situation where crime has been reduced dramatically)? You know where I'm going with this right, If you reduce or eliminate crime what purpose do you have for guns? I realise that we don't live in a perfect world but over a few generations IF we work at it the world may start to resemble order and sanity....my whole point is that to reach this end we MUST consider the cosequences of an armed populace.

Tiassa

05-26-00, 10:41 PM

Rambler--

When I failed to reach any agreement with Bowser on how to read the Second Amendment, it got me thinking about the legality approach.

A couple of things on that, and if I might start with your own words:

You know damn well that the argument here is whether arming citizens is going to "save" them from the criminally minded.

I believe there's a point here. The way I read it, I see you standing on that thin wire between "guns to protect my family" and "guns creating reasons to want a gun to protect my family." (I'm aware I'm speculating your psychology; I'm hoping the demonstrable point warrants forgiveness.)

When I was in eighth grade, I read a news story about a Florida community which attempted to pass a law requiring all adults to be armed. That sounded laughable, and then it happened in Oregon a few years back when Rep Liz van Leeuwen proposed to make it a gross misdemeanor for any residence to be without a loaded firearm. I'm not laughing anymore. It seems that the "gun-culture" in general is so determined to stand on the Second Amendment that it is not particularly important to reduce the necessity of "shooting the bastard who breaks into my house."

The NRA says the fight is about the Amendment. But, as its name implies, the NRA's fight is only about how the Amendment applies to firearms. I have heard it asserted from NRA executives that bowhunting is cruel to the animal (during the 1993 assault-rifle argument), and also that bowhunting is elegant and more humane (from a children's book written by one of Mr LaPierre's executive cronies).

Furthermore, the gun culture would do well for its image to divorce itself from the GOP. If we look at that relationship with the GOP, we see that the GOP supports the War Against Drugs, reduced/eliminated regulations against lethal weapons (but only those you can "accidentally" kill with from hundreds of feet), and a number of economic programs which they support by paying off the wealthy with the "trickle down" intent of giving the lower economic classes a bonus by proxy.

Now, we see the War Against Drugs creating all sorts of chaos; in fact, the less money you have to start with, the more chaotic the WAD seems. WAD targets minorities, generally, who have suffered the brunt of it until we could say, in the early nineties that of every six black males born on a given day, two will serve hard time in prison before they are thirty, and one will be dead before eighteen as a result of a violent crime.

Economic policies are a similar vicious cycle. Frequently we hear how much wealth the United States have acquired because of Reganomics and its lassaiz-faire attitudes toward busines. Actually, lassaiz-faire doesn't apply. "Good Ol' Boys Club" seems better. Despite the quantity of wealth the nation has acquired, a greater portion of that wealth rests with a smaller segment of the population than twenty years ago. Sure, the policy created some rich people, but it also kicked the hell out of a lot of others.

Which brings this whole thing toward my point: Despite the fact that very few gun owners acknowledge the whole of the Second Amendment, I agree that we can't take the guns away. Not now. Someday, we may not have to "take" them. Now, I know that Mr Heston fears the day, but I look forward to the day when nobody wants a gun because owning a gun is extraneous. That involves reducing crime; now, if that comes by simply shooting them all, then I guess that's what our armed brethren wanted. However, I have this crazy notion that if we stop alienating cultures based on skin color in a badly-executed Drug War, stop feeding the rich with the blood of the poor, and possibly, oh, educate the culture without making the whole thing dependent on money ... well, we might actually reduce the amount of violent crime in this country to the point where the presence of guns actually can be demonstrated to encourage hostility. Sure, let them protect their families, just ask them to make that protection less necessary. Sure, let them shoot at people they think are breaking into their homes, but make sure they're not asking for directions; also, go ahead and laugh your ass off at gun tragedies; after all, there's a responsible gun owner out there who must plead an "accident". After all, we can't bring the dead back, so humiliate the idiot that did it.

Which, actually, is the point. Anyone watching American justice lately might have noticed a number of things happening in large, socially critical trials: both camps of argument will do anything to win.

We violated our President's civil rights over a blowjob; we pressed the nicotine industry into a corner using tactics not otherwise considered proper. Hey, it's a new way of getting things done. Thus, I propose a demonization of gun owners resembling that of our persecution of the cigarette industry. When we think about it, one of the base complaints of the lawsuits filed by various State Attorneys General was that "the public" was affected in a severely detrimental way by the "private" behavior of cigarette smokers. (Of course, the EPA had to violate scientific propriety to tell us what we already knew about secondhand smoke; what I don't get is why everyone was so surprised.) Sum total: hold someone responsible for once. No more "accidents" when a drunk is cleaning a loaded pistol. No more irresponsible shots fired from "responsible" gun owners. Invent a new criminal charge: Operating a Firearm while Intoxicated.

And, lastly, ostracize people you know are packing heat. Of all the gun owners I know, one alone backs his words with his actions. He gets to enter my home because I know damn well he left the piece in the car; knowing how I feel about my home, he's willing to respect that, and furthermore apparently quite confident in my ability to defend my home without a pistol. But all of those silly things we hear the gun-culture tell us about how responsible people with guns are--he actually obeys those ideas more closely than he does any other guiding principle on the grounds that violation of these principles can kill people. But otherwise, I just laugh when I hear gun owners talk about their weapons. I don't let anyone carry a gun into my home, and if they really think they can, I'll turn 'em at the door.

Heck, I know a guy who went to the University of Michigan for grad school instead of Harvard simply because he could own cooler guns in Michigan. That, literally, was the only reason, according to his own words.

But seriously, take no pity on these people who need to carry guns. Kick 'em out of your store, as such. Don't let them in the house, as such. Match their derision head-to-head. Bottom-line, shame the gun culture into common sense. It works for other segments of the culture whose mistakes won't kill people.

See, that's the tricky thing for me. I won't take the guns away, but I'll regulate 'em tightly. I propose criminally charging a gun owner who defends his home and hits anything off his property with a round.

Just pummel 'em publicly. Decry the senseless violence and demand that responsible gun owners behave responsibly. Sue 'em and sue 'em until there's nothing left except their guns. I quote Homer Simpson: "My gun has cost me my family, my home, everything but my precious, precious gun." For once make the responsible gun owners accountable for their actions.

But, thanks to the nicotine fight, we can now employ the same tactics against the alcohol and firearms industries, and people accountable at will.

Heck, we might make more headway in restoring social order that way than through more reasonable means.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

ozarky

05-27-00, 04:36 AM

Rambler, I agree-- do away with crime and the gun problem will go away. How do you intend to get rid of the crooked polititions?
Don't vote for them ? Or vote them out of office ? The Russians have a statement on their ballots, "none of the above".
The US Goverment seems to think that you can put the bad guys in jail and every one else will be safe. How long do you think it will take them to realize that it is not working ?

I could not even think about being a politition. I cannot shake a man's hand, smile and say "yes sir, i'll see to it that
that bill gets written". When I would know damn well that I would be lying.

I spent about two months shy of 10 years in the Army. What I have experienced has neither made me love or loathe firearms.
I will attempt to protect my family and property with what I have. In the mean time I will go hunting as I have for years.

Tiassa, I agree with your statement on accountability. I just don't like the word 'absolute'. You are accountable when you drive, drunk or sober. You are accountable at your place of employment. What do you want to do, write new laws? The ones on the books now are not enforced.

Drop the GOP? I don't like "little Bush" any more than I did his father. Do you know the policy of the Democrat's ? It looks to me like the lesser of the two evils.
That crap about bow hunting being cruel is another one of the reasons I don't belong to the NRA. (I know what you are saying Rambler, it is'nt necessary.)

Tiassa

05-27-00, 09:56 AM

Ozarky--

My own problems with the GOP aside ( ;) ), I think there's an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances occurring within its aspects. I had to drag the GOP and Drug War Moralists into it in order to establish a slightly larger picture; I truly do think that certain arguments supporting private gun ownership presuppose the necessity of violence.

But by and large, I'm annoyed at this year's presidential race anyway. Either way, the country loses, though this humble opinion of mine is not so humble; it's one of those I whine about when I get about four Guinness in me.

Of the laws, I would write one simple one: One bullet = one responsibility. And it would be enforced; I've heard enough gun owners declare that "there are no accidents" that I'm willing to accept that maxim in legislative writing.

That the current laws remain unenforced is a mystery to me. I kid you not that in Oregon City, Oregon, two parents left their ten year-old son in charge of their five year-old daughter, and when she refused to go to bed, the boy tromped upstairs, grabbed Daddy's loaded rifle, and shot her in the face. Now, all things aside, I recall that both the Oregonian and the Salem, Oregon Statesman-Journal (Statesman-Urinal, that is ....) carried this vague quote from the local DA in which it was implied that he was bowing to religious pressure. Apparently, some more protective members of the local Latter-Day congregation felt that their brethren were being persecuted by the mere presence of a criminal investigation. Go figure. In Snohomish County, Waashington, you can get away with accidentally killing someone while drunkenly cleaning a loaded pistol. I don't get it. In the meantime, the Snohomish County DA is prosecuting teenagers for engaging in an activity that may or may not have been smoking (it was caught on video camera, but not clearly) a substance unrecovered, but naturally assumed to be marijuana. 'S all crap, I say.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

FyreStar

05-27-00, 05:56 PM

Rambler -

**Rambler: "Seems to me your only arguing for the sake of arguing."

Nooooo, I'm arguing because I think you are wrong. There is a difference. If I wasn't making any points to support my views, THEN I would be arguing for the sake of arguing. What is it, exactly, that you are doing?

**Rambler: "However I still hold my convictions that NO guns is the only solution worth working towards. I don't understand the paranioa and the "security blankets" you guys hold on to so tightly.."

You'll have to clarify which security blankets you are referring to, please.

**Rambler: "I can only tell you that I'm completely happy with the situation over here. I can walk down the darkest streets in the middle of the night in the worst part of the city and be nearly completely confident that IF I get mugged its not gone be looking down the end of a barrel. Can you say the same????"

Yes, I can, but thats beside the point. Perhaps you can explain why you'd rather face a knife or bat or tire iron?

**Rambler: "I know that if my redneck neighbour gets drunk I don't have to dodge bullets untill he sobers up...."

Sounds like you have a pretty unstable neighbor. What relevence has this? You act as if everyone that owns a gun keeps it loaded and aimed constantly, splaying bullets wherever they please. Are you upset or just dense?

**Rambler: "I just hope you don't pay the ultimate price for such an "important" right."

Don't you realize that you already have? You gave up freedom for your right to fear guns. I'm truly sorry about that.

**Rambler: "Fyrestar, you said it yourself its very difficult to get rid of ALL guns. However you still argue that they should be freely available."

Freely available? Rambler, I didn't think you were a liar.

**Rambler: "LESS GUNS = LESS GUN RELATED DEATHS."

Well, fewer cars = fewer car related deaths. Fewer knives = fewer car related deaths. Less water = fewer drownings. You've started to make a point here. I dare you to finish it.

**Rambler: "Maybe my neck colouring lacks the red it would need to comprehend your mentality????"

What was that you said about being petty? And why, precisely, are you calling me a redneck? Is it because I have reasons for my beliefs? Because I don't have an irrational fear for firearms? Because I know how to responsibly handle a firearm? Because I cherish freedom?

**Rambler: "I am very much against losing any civil rights.."

In a word: wahahahahahahahah.

**Rambler: "..however what I don't understand is why this particular right is so important to you guys."

Simply put, people are trying to take that right from us. Hence, we fight for it.

**Rambler: "If you like guns for whatever reason that maybe then their are ways, professions etc where you can get your fill."

Get our fill of what?!?!

**Rambler: "The army comes to mind...."

Why on earth should people have to be owned by the government to use guns? You aren't making a lot of sense here.

**Rambler: "Tell me what makes owning a gun so important?"

Again, I don't see your point here. Some people enjoy using guns. I don't, particularly, but thats my preference. It isn't the owning of a gun that has importance, it is the right to do so. Can you describe the importance of owning a screwdriver?

*Rambler: "As I can see it there is no real purpose."

Rather, you see plenty of purposes, but none that apply directly to yourself, so you feel safe in ignoring them.

**Rambler: "Would you be willing to live in such a nervous environment?"

We already live in a nervous environment. However, the nervousness stems from those that are afraid of guns.

**Rambler: "Sometimes you have to change your principles in order to reach a common good."

What an evil statement.

**Rambler: "What does a law abiding citizen need with a gun (this IS hyperthetical, indulge me and consider a situation where crime has been reduced dramatically)?"

Well, possibly the hundred and one OTHER uses a gun has beyond criminal use.

**Rambler: "You know where I'm going with this right, If you reduce or eliminate crime what purpose do you have for guns?"

Don't act stupid, I'm certain you know better. Crime was around before guns. Crime does not solely involve guns. Guns do not cause crime(I refer you to my CPR comment). So, taking away guns won't take away crime.

FyreStar

Rambler

05-28-00, 10:39 PM

Fyrestar*** "Nooooo, I'm arguing because I think you are wrong. There is a difference. If I wasn't making any points to support my views, THEN I would be arguing for the sake of arguing. What is it, exactly, that you are doing?"

What am I doing?? uh... I don't share your idea of guns being an answer therefore it would seem I'm arguing because i think YOUR wrong...

Fyrestar*** "You'll have to clarify which security blankets you are referring to, please."

The second amendment, guns being an answer to bad leadership, crime, UN's conquest of the world (LOL).

Fyrestar*** "Perhaps you can explain why you'd rather face a knife or bat or tire iron?"

gives me a fighting chance..unlike you Americans I don't believe I'm faster then a speeding bullet. Can some one living in LA or NY city say the same for saftey??? That was my point, I'm pretty sure you knew it...there's a real petty stink to this fyrestar, I think you can do better.

Fyrestar*** "Sounds like you have a pretty unstable neighbor. What relevence has this? You act as if everyone that owns a gun keeps it loaded and aimed constantly, splaying bullets wherever they please. Are you upset or just dense?"

All it takes is one idiot and for you to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, now are you just deaf, dumb and stupid, or just ignorant?

Fyrestar*** "Don't you realize that you already have? You gave up freedom for your right to fear guns. I'm truly sorry about that."

That statement makes no sense to me, please explain.

Fyrestar*** "Freely available? Rambler, I didn't think you were a liar"

Again I don't understand what your trying to say here, more petty smartarse bullshit rhetoric, or is it a point???

Fyrestar***"Well, fewer cars = fewer car related deaths. Fewer knives = fewer car related deaths. Less water = fewer drownings. You've started to make a point here. I dare you to finish it."

Lets see cars, water, knives... are'nt designed or made with the purpose of killing. They have a peacefull purpose. If a drop a full jug of water at my feet, I'm not gonna die, drop a loaded gun and there's a fair chance it may discharge..look I used a "fyrestar" style of argument..I can be petty too.

Fyrestar***"And why, precisely, are you calling me a redneck"

I'll answer that by quoting your last post:

"Simply put, people are trying to take that right from us. Hence, we fight for it"

How about putting some thought behind your actions first?

Fyrestar***"In a word: wahahahahahahahah."

Is that a word????

Fyrestar***"Get our fill of what?!?! "

Playing ignorant again???

Fyrestar***"Why on earth should people have to be owned by the government to use guns? You aren't making a lot of sense here."

Because your not talking about a spanner, or type iron...your talking about a firearm. Which in MY opinion shouldn't be a part of cicvilian life. I'm not delusional enough to think owning a gun is going to enhance national security.

Fyrestar***"Again, I don't see your point here. Some people enjoy using guns. I don't, particularly, but thats my preference. It isn't the owning of a gun that has importance, it is the right to do so. Can you describe the importance of owning a screwdriver? "

Yes I can describe the importance of owning a screwdriver. Without one I couldn't do my job, or unscrew a screw..which btw there alot of in everyday life. Now tell me how owning a gun makes you living in the city, or gives you a mechanical advantage in ordinary tasks, or am I to think you are the kind of responsible gun owner Homer Simpson was?

Fyrestar***"Rather, you see plenty of purposes, but none that apply directly to yourself, so you feel safe in ignoring them."

Care to point some out?

Fyrestar***"We already live in a nervous environment. However, the nervousness stems from those that are afraid of guns."

LOL thats brilliant, what a striking point. So you right to own guns gives you a sense of security your not afraid of anything, whereas this whole crime thing and the problems involved with it are just a result of people who don't wnat guns to be a part of their peaceful lives? Now do you need me to explain the security blanket point again?

Fyrestar***"Well, possibly the hundred and one OTHER uses a gun has beyond criminal use."

Name 15, not 101 just fifteen, that aren't related to crime.

Fyrestar***"Don't act stupid, I'm certain you know better. Crime was around before guns. Crime does not solely involve guns. Guns do not cause crime(I refer you to my CPR comment). So, taking away guns won't take away crime. "

Don't be so nieve (spelling), how many people could successfully rob a bank without a gun? It facilitates crime. It removes the perp' from the act of hands on violence...it takes a whole lot more to hold up a bank with a tyre iron then it does with a sawn off shortgun.

Fyrestar***"What an evil statement."

Please tell me what meks my statement evil? Or are you one of these people who believes their principles are faultless?

ozarky

05-29-00, 03:20 AM

Tiassa, You would demonize gun owners !!
Just what do you think the gun control faction has been trying to do ? You want new laws to deal with "irresponsible drunk gun owners". my God, aren't there enough laws on the books now to cover this ? I think one of the big problems is the Judges.

I remember back in the 60's, as you traveled the hiways of the US you would see sign boards put up by the John Birch Soceity reading "Impeach Earl Warren". WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN NOTICE. He was the one that said, to the effect that the crook has a right to ply his trade.

I also remember seeing sign boards put up by the John Bircher's reading "Get US out of the United Nations". Again we should have taken notice and acted on the advice.

SMILE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY !

Tiassa

05-29-00, 11:18 AM

Ozarky--

Not laws. One law. Each shooter accountable for every shot. That's it. End of story.

As to the demonization, that should be a social process, not a legislative one.

People should reject violence. It isn't that I would deny the right to own guns, but that the most compelling justifications for owning a weapon presuppose an increasingly violent society. Perhaps instead of merely preparing for the worst and waiting for it to come, we might stave off such visions; what's that stupid Knute Rockne bit, "If you think you can or can't, you're right ...."?

We cannot hold a realistic goal of a harmonious society so long as we presuppose greater proportions of fear.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

05-29-00, 11:18 AM

FyreStar

05-29-00, 07:30 PM

Rambler -

**Rambler: "What am I doing?? uh... I don't share your idea of guns being an answer therefore it would seem I'm arguing because i think YOUR wrong..."

Right.. its the rational-reason-thing you're sorta missing out on..

**Rambler: "The second amendment, guns being an answer to bad leadership, crime, UN's conquest of the world (LOL)."

Second amendment: not a blanket, a right. Answer to bad leadership: I assume you mean in terms of a revolution? Well, seeing as how a revolution led the formation of the United States, I don't see the 'evil' connection. Crime: Would you attack a person holding a firearm? UN: Heh.. I think the root of the problem lies elsewhere.

**Rambler: "gives me a fighting chance..unlike you Americans I don't believe I'm faster then a speeding bullet."

So you are a firm supporter of violence so long as it doesn't involve guns? Ahh, admirable.

**Rambler: "All it takes is one idiot and for you to be in the wrong place at the wrong time"

So why isn't it the fault of the idiot? And I'll remind you again that this applies to cars, other weapons, lightning, and Jehovah's witnesses.

**Rambler: "now are you just deaf, dumb and stupid, or just ignorant?"

I sense anger..

**Rambler: "That statement makes no sense to me, please explain."

You understand it.

**Rambler: "Again I don't understand what your trying to say here, more petty smartarse bullshit rhetoric, or is it a point???"

Both. Revelent response?

**Rambler: "If a drop a full jug of water at my feet, I'm not gonna die, drop a loaded gun and there's a fair chance it may discharge"

<shrug> If it shot you, it would be your own fault for being too irresonsible to use the safety, a trigger lock, dropping it in the FIRST place, or even handling a firearm without knowing how to do it safely. As with whatever fools tried to stop a chainsaw with their hands, I would have no sympathy for you.

**Rambler: "look I used a "fyrestar" style of argument..I can be petty too."

You wanna cookie or a medal?

**Rambler: ""I'll answer that by quoting your last post:

"Simply put, people are trying to take that right from us. Hence, we fight for it"

How about putting some thought behind your actions first?""

As evidenced by the thrashing you have received, I have. :)

**Rambler: "Playing ignorant again?"

Naw, I stopped when I realized that you were better at it. (sorry, sorry, couldn't resist :) )

**Rambler: "Now tell me how owning a gun makes you living in the city, or gives you a mechanical advantage in ordinary tasks"

I have no idea what the first half of that sentence means. However, I can answer the second. IT DOESN'T. There are certain purposes for which guns are used. Just like any other item. Am I going to use the gun to change the TV channel? No. Are you going to use a damned spatula to do the same? NO!!! Egad..

**Rambler: "So you right to own guns gives you a sense of security your not afraid of anything"

You're lying again. Don't put words in my mouth.

**Rambler: "whereas this whole crime thing and the problems involved with it are just a result of people who don't wnat guns to be a part of their peaceful lives"

No, nervousness is. I'm beginning to suspect your level of reading comprehension.

**Rambler: "Name 15, not 101 just fifteen, that aren't related to crime."

You'd be better off asking somebody who uses guns more than once every three or four years. I'll do some general ones though. Target shooting, in its myriad forms. I don't know how many there are, but I think you'd be hard pressed to confine it to fifteen. Military purposes. Police purposes. Hunting. Starting a race :) Flare guns, or any special purpose guns.

**Rambler: "It facilitates crime."

Close. It facilitates certain types of crime. Just as other things facilitate other types of crime.

**Rambler: "It removes the perp' from the act of hands on violence"

What are you saying here, that hands on violence is ok? Clarify.

**Rambler: "Please tell me what meks my statement evil?"

You're advocating the suppressal of what you think to be right to go along with what is popular. It sickens me.

**Rambler: "Or are you one of these people who believes their principles are faultless?"

In a word, yes. At least, until somebody can prove a fault. If your principles have faults, why on earth do you live by them?

Please try to focus your posts a bit more. Thanks.

FyreStar

Rambler

05-29-00, 10:14 PM

Fyrestar,
Now I know your arguing for arguments sake. Don't give me any bullshit about making points because for you to make a point you have to misinterpret what I'm saying. Here's a good example:

From post by fyrestar 29/5:

-----------
**Rambler: "gives me a fighting chance..unlike you Americans I don't believe I'm faster then a speeding bullet."

So you are a firm supporter of violence so long as it doesn't involve guns? Ahh, admirable.
-----------

I was talking about defending myself, I know your bright enough to realise that, if you want to continue this debate don't put words into my "mouth" (well at my k/board) which I didn't say. I don't support violece that is why I don't support a socitey with guns. I'm not saying that if you are confronted with a situation where you MUST defend yourself that you just sit on your arse and wait to be beaten. I'm saying that minus a gun I would feel like I have a fighting chance to survive the ordeal...not that hard to understand is it.

Fyrestar***"Right.. its the rational-reason-thing you're sorta missing out on.."

Whats irrational about not wanting guns in society, or to leave them where they are needed, i.e. Armed forces, police, some forms of security. What's so irrational about the idea that less guns would mean less gun related deaths? Whats so irrational about wanting a lifestyle that doesn't make me suspicous of people in the street...are they carrying a gun, is the junkie down the road going to car jack me to get a fix, or rob my place of business with a gun taking away my right to feel safe or at the very least giving me a chance to fight for whats mine?

Fyrestar***"So why isn't it the fault of the idiot? And I'll remind you again that this applies to cars, other weapons, lightning, and Jehovah's witnesses. "

It is the fault of the idiot, however survivng an incident involving a baseball bat is far greater then survivng a gunshot wound. BTW how is it the fault of lightning???

Fyrestar**"I sense anger.."

Bet your arse you do, Read the first few lines of your FIRST post here. Need I remind you that you put me on the back foot, then started to take my points out of context, or twisted the meanings to suite your counter, then you give me shit like "are you upset or dense". Mate if you want to throw insults around I'm here to tell you that I'm not above throwing them back.

Fyrestar***"You understand it."

I don't think I do, the only thing I can see is yet another poor atempt at sarcasm. "I gave up my right to be afraid of guns"...please if you want to display your powers of witt..make it better then that it weakens your position to post that kind of drivle. ;)

Fyrestar***"What are you saying here, that hands on violence is ok? Clarify."

No I'm not saying hands on violance is OK, jeeeeeezus, I'm saying that guns make it EASIER to do the act, there are alot less people who would be willing to do the crime if it meant they had to get there hands dirty. It's takes the act to a different level one we are'nt desensetised to.

Fyrestar***"You're advocating the suppressal of what you think to be right to go along with what is popular. It sickens me. "

What a load of shit, if its popular its only popular in the states, you couldn't imagine the back lash the government here suffered for restricting gun laws. BTW we still have a right to own a gun, its just the type the has been restricted, i.e. automatics of any kind. I've alwayts felt this way about guns, They do nothing for me, my dick doesn't get any bigger when I hold one. I would feel sick to my stomach if I killed something with it, I don't believe the right of an idividual to quench their blood lust, or surpress their fallick insecurities, or any of the other 101 reasons to own a gun (as you put it) would be worth paying for with inocent lives. Like I said you can get your fill of these things in other ways, like the army, or police force.

Fyrestar***"In a word, yes. At least, until somebody can prove a fault. If your principles have faults, why on earth do you live by them?"

Delusions of perfection....now I feel sorry for you. I do realise I'm human and their for flawed, I haven't learned everything there is to learn, I can accept to live is to learn and therefore adapt. I wasn't born with perfect ideals or principles. I have the ability to learn and evolve....pitty you closed that door to your existance. I'm here to tell you that your principles are far from faultless....no one is perfect.

Fyrestar***"Please try to focus your posts a bit more. Thanks."

Nice ending, is this your last attempt at witt, trying to sound condesending...I focused my post as a response to your arguments, if its flawed then its a direct result of your arguments. This will happen if you twist the meanings of arguments, or take them out of context. Now please make a valid argument, stop nit picking at trivial bullshit or just finish the argument here.

FyreStar

05-30-00, 02:27 AM

Rambler -

**Rambler: "Don't give me any bullshit about making points because for you to make a point you have to misinterpret what I'm saying."

No, I'm simply not hesitant to draw the conclusions that will lead from your beliefs. Regarding the example you quoted: It seems that if somebody held a gun on you, you would be less inclined to try to fight your way out of it, thereby lessening the risk of injury to your person. But if they held a knife or a bat to you, you would be more likely to fight. It seems rather clear cut to me. On one hand, less violence but more assurance that they'll get what they want. On the other, more violence, but as you said, a fighting chance. Now I ask you, which is more valuable: yourself or your possesions?

**Rambler: "I don't support violece that is why I don't support a socitey with guns."

We've been over this. Guns don't cause violence, violence has been around since before guns, and removing guns won't remove violence.

**Rambler: "Whats irrational about not wanting guns in society.."

Nothing. Suprised? The choice of wanting guns or not is up to you. The choice of removing other citizens' rights to them is not.

**Rambler: "..or rob my place of business with a gun taking away my right to feel safe.."

Again, when should your right to a feeling come before the rights of others? When should the rights of the feelings of others come before yours?

**Rambler: "It is the fault of the idiot, however survivng an incident involving a baseball bat is far greater then survivng a gunshot wound."

So its a matter of degrees. Tell me, where is the line drawn, and what gives you the right to draw it? I do not ask this in hostility or sarcasm, I seriously want to know your answer.

**Rambler: "Mate if you want to throw insults around I'm here to tell you that I'm not above throwing them back."

Fine, just be sure that it is in fact an insult.

**Rambler: "I don't think I do, the only thing I can see is yet another poor atempt at sarcasm."

Well, it wasn't, but I don't know how to state it more clearly.

**Rambler: "there are alot less people who would be willing to do the crime if it meant they had to get there hands dirty"

Keyword: people. To me it seems a far easier, more elegant, and morally correct solution to 'fix' the people rather than an inanimate object.

**Rambler: "I've alwayts felt this way about guns, They do nothing for me, my dick doesn't get any bigger when I hold one."

Well, mine doesn't either.

**Rambler: "I would feel sick to my stomach if I killed something with it"

As would I. This is why I choose not to use it to kill anything. *Choose*.

**Rambler: "I don't believe the right of an idividual to quench their blood lust.."

To what are you referring? Crime, or hunting, or both? Please expand upon this.

**Rambler: "or surpress their fallick insecurities"

'Phallic'

**Rambler: "Delusions of perfection....now I feel sorry for you."

I never said I was perfect. Its quite simple, really.. I have noticed and have been shown no flaws in my fundamental philosophy. Therefore, in my eyes, they are flawless, literally meaning 'without flaws'. If somebody were to point one out, I would change my principles to compensate. This may sound arrogant. I assure you that it is.

**Rambler: "I'm here to tell you that your principles are far from faultless..."

I know you are. But you have neither proved nor demonstrated a fault yet.

**Rambler: "trying to sound condesending..."

Well, this wasn't the case, but I can see how it would appear to be.

**Rambler: "This will happen if you twist the meanings of arguments, or take them out of context."

<shrug> Pick the instances in which this has occured and I shall clarify or demonstrate the chain.

**Rambler: "Now please make a valid argument.."

I believe I have. If you'd like, I'll repost all of my major points(which you have not attempted to refute yet).

FyreStar

ozarky

05-30-00, 03:26 AM

Tiassa,
Are you not being held accountable when you are arrested for putting a bullet thru a persons heart ? For that matter, a bullet thru a persons leg ?

I knew a woman that was awakened in the middle of the night by a man crawling through her bedroom window. She said that she told him she was armed, that she would shoot, he kept coming. She fired, the force of the bullet striking the man on the top of the head drove his body out of the window and onto the lawn. She was taken to jail, where she stayed untill the police investigation proved - blood splatters inside the room - that the man - the womans ex husband - was intending on entering the room. He was also armed. Was her ex planning on killing her ? We'll never know.
Was she held accountable ? The trauma she suffered, and may still be suffering, more than makes up for the taking of a life that may have intended on taking hers. The law says " a clear matter of self defence".

I have here an article from the editorial page, "A CHANCE FOR BETTER GUN LAWS". It reads "fot the first time, there's a chance we might get some practical gun laws in this country. It depends on how well the gun control Democrats do in this years election and how involved the Million Mom Marchers get in the election".

I have news for this one. I don't think Gore could win this election, even if this gun control issue was'nt in the fore front.
How many years did it take the organizers of MADD (mothers against drunk drivers) to get organized ? These "Gun Control Mom's will never make it. They have about 50% of the country against them.

SMILE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY

Rambler

05-30-00, 03:38 AM

Ok here we go again:

Fyrestar***"Keyword: people. To me it seems a far easier, more elegant, and morally correct solution to 'fix' the people rather than an inanimate object."

I agree whole heartedly and have tried to say this previously. We are probably pretty close in our beliefs here. I think we may have lost sight of that somewhere along the line. The only difference is that I believe the "right" to own a gun is less important then protecting society from the dangers of guns when in the hands of an unstable indivdual and the arguments to support such a right do not add up to the value of life. As much as I hate the idea of losing a civil right (and believe me I do) I have to consider wheather that right is worth the fight when it has little to no positive effect on society in general.

Fyrestar***"No, I'm simply not hesitant to draw the conclusions that will lead from your beliefs"

Your conclusions are just that YOUR conclusions. I would appreciate if you let ME come to my own.

Fyrestar***"We've been over this. Guns don't cause violence, violence has been around since before guns, and removing guns won't remove violence."

We have been over this, and again I agree guns don't cause violence...perhaps I should have worded that differently. Guns don't cause violence...they do make the act of violence easier. In this day and age we're desensetised to gun fire and even the taking of a life with a gun. I mean 90% of what we call entertainment has gun related death in it. All you have to do is point and squeeze. If your at a sufficient distance you don't even get any blood on you. Now to attack with intent to cause greavous bodily harm without a firearm is a whole different ball park. Its hands on and as I said before takes a different kind of desperation to act on.

Fyrestar***"Nothing. Suprised? The choice of wanting guns or not is up to you. The choice of removing other citizens' rights to them is not"

I'm not a fascist, I am arguing against guns but given the opportunity to remove that right on my own...I wouldn't do it. This is something society would need to agree on. I am merely trying to show you that there is a different answer. Don't forget the topic of this thread...its not about removing a right its about the pro's and con's of an armed stalemate. If we could live in a world where guns were part of our lives but people didn't have a need to use them against each other I would have no problem with them. But then what would you need a gun for other then hunting, or target shooting??? I'm still waiting for that list of 15 uses that didn't involve crime.

Fyrestar***"Again, when should your right to a feeling come before the rights of others? When should the rights of the feelings of others come before yours"

If we are going to discuss rights then those rights need to be that of a collective society not a single individual. When in that context you MUST consider the impact of said rights on society, not just a handfull with a powerfull lobby group.

Fyrestar***"So its a matter of degrees. Tell me, where is the line drawn, and what gives you the right to draw it? I do not ask this in hostility or sarcasm, I seriously want to know your answer"

I suppose it is a matter of degrees. I draw the line at anything specifically made to harm. Now how many things fall in that catagory, I don't mean turning an ordinary object into a weopon I mean a device designed and made to kill or harm, particulary if the device is so efficient in its implemantaion that the target has little to no chance to defend themselves.

Fyrestar***"Fine, just be sure that it is in fact an insult."

I feel quite bad about the sarcasm and insults...If I sense that this kind of thing is aimed at me (I think we're both guilty here) a very obvious shortcoming of my own is that I can not rise above it...I will throw it back. I can only appolagise for that. Tell you what lets drop the bullshit and discuss this thing somewhat sedately.

Fyrestar***"Well, it wasn't, but I don't know how to state it more clearly"

Try to. You said I paid the ultimate price by giving up my right to fear guns....that make no sense to me. If its meant as a joke or dig at me by implying I'm scared of guns then just say so if it has a different meaning then state it.

Fyrestar***"To what are you referring? Crime, or hunting, or both? Please expand upon this"

Both.

Fyrestar***"'Phallic'"

Thanks for the correction

Fyrestar***"I have noticed and have been shown no flaws in my fundamental philosophy"

Indeed if you choose to think your philosphy is flawless then how can anyone point out what they see as flaws...you'll be inclinded to think THEY are the ones in the wrong. Untill you accept that you don't know everything you'll never see the error's you may or may not be making.

Fyrestar***"I know you are. But you have neither proved nor demonstrated a fault yet"

I'll refer you to the above point...people who believe their convictions are without fault will never recognise the faults that lie in them.

Fyrestar***"I believe I have. If you'd like, I'll repost all of my major points(which you have not attempted to refute yet)."

I thought I was...you have said this before so I took your tact of countering on each small argument. Is this still unsatisfactory. I will tell you though that on most of the posts I made you are yet to actually argue against any of the MAJOR points I was trying to make. That could be a fault of my limited literary skills but I think they were clear enough to see...however you managed to counter the small side points just ignored the main ones.

If you still want me to I'll go through the thread and post where you have taken things out of context, twisted the meaning of (by your own admission concluded on my behalf, and there by twisted the point to suit your counter argument). If you want me to do this you'll have to be patient. I don't really have that much time on my hands at the moment.

Rambler

05-30-00, 03:47 AM

Ozarky,

you said:

"was intending on entering the room. He was also armed. Was her ex planning on killing her ? We'll never know.
Was she held accountable ? The trauma she suffered, and may still be suffering, more than makes up for the taking of a life that may have intended on taking hers. The law says " a clear matter of self defence"."

Indeed we'll never know. So now you are advocating for armed citizens to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. Man if you don't see a problem with that then you should really take some time out. You said he was armed, he was probably considered to be a responsible gun owner right. I mean isn't this what you want -- people to be allowed to carry firearm. So if this was to be the case you can kill someone and then argue self defense because the right which you are arguing for allowed your victim to carry a gun, however the intent for that gun doesn't come into the equation because the victim was armed, and therefore MUST have wanted to kill.

How is any of that just, or even logical???

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited May 29, 2000).]

Tiassa

05-30-00, 04:16 PM

Ozarky--

Are you not being held accountable when you are arrested for putting a bullet thru a persons heart ? For that matter, a bullet thru a persons leg ?

Theoretically, yes.

But it seems rare that I ever hear about that happening. My opinion--mark that ... my opinion--is that prosecutors generally want to stay clear of those cases as possible.

* Drunk man in Snohomish County, Washington cleaning a pistol; round remains in chamber, discharges, punches through apartment wall, strikes and kills infant in neighboring apartment. Accidental.

* Weapons manufacturer's representative at a law-enforcement shooting range assembles and loads new demontration model, accidentally discharges. Round travels unfettered off the range, strikes school building 1/4 mile away, ricochets, strikes teacher in leg while holding child. Accidental.

* A shooter in Pierce County, Washington, firing at cans on a fencepost, figures no backstop is necessary. A .22 round travels over half a mile, striking a 5 year-old in the head and killing the child. Accidental.

* A Houston, Texas homeowner shoots a foreign exchange student for the crime of asking directions; a Texas court ruled that the act of walking up the homeowner's front walkway on Hallowe'en night (during trick-or-treat hours) constituted a threat worthy of lethal defense. For the record, the shooter's instruction to the foreign-exchange student was "Freeze, goddamnit!" Self-defense.

* A 17 year-old (1 wk shy of 18th b-day) shoots and kills an 18 year-old friend. In court papers, the shooter admitted that he knew the gun was loaded, remembered pointing it, but did not remember firing. The shooter, who was alleged to be a reasonably competent hunter, was tried as a juvenile and convicted of criminal negligence (no mention of loss of life). What's a life worth in Oregon? $1,139.47 in restitution. The shooter served six months at a boys' school.

* A 10 year-old in Oregon City, Oregon, left to babysit his 5 year-old sister, retrieves his father's loaded rifle and shoots her in the face when she refuses to lay down for a nap. All considerations aside, the DA chose not to prosecute on the grounds that prosecution would give the apperance of a religious inquisition against Latter-Day Saints.

Apparently, "I didn't mean to kill him" is a better excuse with a gun than with a car or a knife or a good swift push off a building.

Does a homeowner "protecting his family" have the right to accidentally kill a neighbor with an ill-judged shot at a burglar?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

FyreStar

05-31-00, 01:28 AM

Rambler -

**Rambler: "The only difference is that I believe the "right" to own a gun is less important then protecting society from the dangers of guns when in the hands of an unstable indivdual and the arguments to support such a right do not add up to the value of life."

This, though, is still only half of the picture. It isn't guns that threaten the safety of some, it is people with guns. More precisely, criminals with guns. Would you agree that a gun in the hands of anyone but a criminal (and negligence is a crime) do not threaten safety? Lets assume for a moment that a ban on guns was passed in the US. Let us also assume a 'better than best' scenario, in which all law-abiding citizens freely give up their guns. Will the criminals? Black marketers? Illegal producers? If the answer is yes, then we have what you want; a complete removal of guns, and hence, gun-related crimes. If no, then the criminals merely have one more advantage over the innocent. This would make them not only more bold when they had guns, but also more bold when they *didn't*. Why would they not attack the little old lady when they could be assured that she wouldn't pull a revolver out of her purse? So you tell me, which would be more likely: yes, or no?

**Rambler: "Your conclusions are just that YOUR conclusions. I would appreciate if you let ME come to my own."

Thats just it; you generally don't draw them. Your statements are eminently logical.. until we look at the consequences of them and the principles on which they stand. If you disagree with my conclusions, show me where the fault lies, and, as you said, draw your own.

**Rambler: "In this day and age we're desensetised to gun fire and even the taking of a life with a gun. I mean 90% of what we call entertainment has gun related death in it."

I'd agree that the majority of people are desensitized to gun fire.. I don't know about the taking of a life though. Its one thing to know that they are actors with stage blood, and that they'll get up and walk away after the scene ends. Its another to know that a human heart and mind have stopped functioning. Also, I feel I should point out that the 90% of entertainment does not focus on the guns themselves. Almost absolutely, they are merely the means of triumph of good over evil. Would death by sword or hanging be more acceptable?

**Rambler: "Now to attack with intent to cause greavous bodily harm without a firearm is a whole different ball park. Its hands on and as I said before takes a different kind of desperation to act on."

I really have no experience here, so I can't agree or disagree, really. However, as you said, much of our entertainment involves the use of guns. So, our society has a rather intimate notion of the effects of a bullet on human anatomy.

**Rambler: "If we could live in a world where guns were part of our lives but people didn't have a need to use them against each other I would have no problem with them."

We kind of agree on something :)

**Rambler: "But then what would you need a gun for other then hunting, or target shooting??? I'm still waiting for that list of 15 uses that didn't involve crime."

I gave you a list before, simply grouping certain uses together. As I said, I generally don't use guns, so you'd be better off asking an NRA person.

**Rambler: "If we are going to discuss rights then those rights need to be that of a collective society not a single individual."

No. Individuals have rights, NOT collectives. If we generalize everything to a collective, than individuals can be swept under the proverbial rug with no net loss. Example: China. Or perhaps I should have said 'proverbial tank'.

**Rambler: "When in that context you MUST consider the impact of said rights on society, not just a handfull with a powerfull lobby group."

A handful? A recent Gallup poll(http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr000519.asp) indicated that 51% of Americans held a favorable opinion of the NRA. Consider that many more agree with the right to guns even if they don't support the NRA. I think thats a bit more than a handful.

**Rambler: "I draw the line at anything specifically made to harm."

First, can you specify your definition of harm? Second, where would the U.S. revolution have been without items specifically made to harm?

**Rambler: "Tell you what lets drop the bullshit and discuss this thing somewhat sedately."

Deal.

**Rambler: "You said I paid the ultimate price by giving up my right to fear guns....that make no sense to me. If its meant as a joke or dig at me by implying I'm scared of guns then just say so if it has a different meaning then state it."

First, it was not intended as a joke or a dig. The point was that you gave up a right, a part of your very freedom. Furthermore, you gave it up because of an emotion.

**Rambler: "Both."

So hunting is merely blood lust? Animals yield resources, and hunting helps control populations. Also, even if it is blood lust, why should it matter when they kill an animal, if its done legally? If it were humans, I would agree that one simply doesn't have the right to harm another, but again, that fault lies with the person, not the gun.

**Rambler: "Indeed if you choose to think your philosphy is flawless then how can anyone point out what they see as flaws...you'll be inclinded to think THEY are the ones in the wrong."

Thats where logic comes in. It can prove and disprove.

**Rambler: "Untill you accept that you don't know everything you'll never see the error's you may or may not be making."

Like I said, I don't think I'm perfect, nor do I know everything. You are implying that I think I know better than everyone else. I don't think this way, but I will not compromise my principles simply on the feeling that somebody might know better, or by taking somebody's word for it. If they think I'm wrong, they need to prove that to me.

**Rambler: "I'll refer you to the above point...people who believe their convictions are without fault will never recognise the faults that lie in them."

You imply pride in the wrond place. I take pride in holding to my principles. However, I had nothing to do with the creation of the principles themselves, so I do not have some sort of paternal connection to them.

**Rambler: "I will tell you though that on most of the posts I made you are yet to actually argue against any of the MAJOR points I was trying to make."

Well, I can't argue with a feeling. I simply wait for you to post the foundations of your beliefs, and then attempt to refute those. If the foundations are compromised, the whole belief is. Also, I tend to use the easiest method of counter-arguing; I take just about everything literally. If you mean something else, say something else.

**Rambler: "If you still want me to I'll go through the thread and post where you have taken things out of context, twisted the meaning of (by your own admission concluded on my behalf, and there by twisted the point to suit your counter argument). If you want me to do this you'll have to be patient. I don't really have that much time on my hands at the moment."

I'd like that.. it would help to clear up misunderstandings on each end. Take your time. I'll be gone all this weekend, so I'm in no rush.

FyreStar

Rambler

05-31-00, 01:47 AM

Fyrestar,

Ok I will go back through this thread on the weekend and try to show you that there's more to my side of the coin then unfounded emotion.

Talk to you after the weekend, have fun....I'm looking around to buy my first home this weekend, should be cool.

ozarky

05-31-00, 03:45 AM

Tiassa, We all could list crimes that have touched us personally. Another city, another time, that case could have been reversed.
Rambler, If the stats that I posted about the crime rate in Australia since all weapons were collected and destroyed are accurate. Why should we here in the US believe that it would be any different. After all we are the same people. ( You just talk funny) "ARMED ROBBERIES ARE UP 44 PER CENT". How do you define ARMED ? A club, a knife or a gun.

That little old lady that does'nt have to worry about being accosted by a felon with a gun can just as easly get her throat cut, even if she does'nt resist. Taking the guns away from the crooks (if indeed it did happen) does not cause the crook to seek honest employment.

I don't know where you live but i'll bet you that if you put the word out on the street that in 24 hours you could have an AK-47, complete with the illegal 30 round clips. Maybe even with a laser sight. (No pun intended)

I am not a violent person. I have been put in violent positions. God knows that I have seen the effects of bullets and shells on the human body. I pray that I never will again. No, it is not the same as hunting an animal for food.

Here is a twisted statistic for you. Historians, studing records of the militias in thirteen states and two territories in 1803, have determined that one out of every 20 persons owned a gun when there were Indians and wild animals to fear.
"One out of every 20 persons". They don't say that the populace of the cities are included. Those that lived in the areas where there were Indians and wild animals were armed. I don't remember reading about the Indians riding down Broadway in New York
City looting, burning and scalping the citizens of that fair city or of any other for that matter.

SMILE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY

Tiassa

05-31-00, 04:12 AM

Ozarky--

Tiassa, We all could list crimes that have touched us personally. Another city, another time, that case could have been reversed.

Nonetheless, my way would prosecute all of those. One round = one responsibility. That way, nobody has to regulate the guns. It's the dumb shooting we regulate. (Note: Dumb as opposed to wise shooting.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

ozarky

05-31-00, 04:24 AM

The incident where the woman shot and killed her ex-husband happened at least 45 years ago. In those days you could not get a permit to carry a concealed weapon without getting an OK from a lot of people. You had to be a lot more than "a responsible gun owner". No, her ex-husband did not have a permit to carry.

Yes, I was happy to see her cleared. She was found NOT GUILTY by a jury of her peers
and released.

I may go to Hell for this belief. I believe that a person has to prove that he is worth the air he breathes when there is reason to doubt that worth. That is the job of a jury of our peers.

Tiassa

05-31-00, 07:32 PM

Ozarky--

One round = one responsibility.

Wasn't that the aspect we were on? My assertion is simply that these people never were held accountable.

So that I'm truly not assuming something, are you equating a woman shooting in self-defense to an incompetent gun salesman or a drunken idiot?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

ozarky

06-01-00, 03:57 AM

Tiassa,
You want zero tolerence ? Never happen. This country has more lawyers per capita than any other nation on this planet. You would put a lot of defence lawyers out of work. After their unemployment ran out they would run for a political office to recind your zero tolerence bill

You have to admit, some of these people get what they deserve.

There is a book written by a retired warden of Sing-Sing prison. Circa late 1930's.
In this biography he said that he had never put a rich man to death. They may have had money when they came to prison, but they were broke when they walked thru the green door.

HA HA SHE CRIED, SHOOK HER WOODEN LEG AND DIED

Tiassa

06-01-00, 06:27 AM

The funny thing about the lawyers is that there are some places they just won't go. Theoretically, if lawyers tapped the wrongs of the Drug War, they could get rich settling damage suits against corrupt police. But the courts continue to support the War (via the enforcement of certain profiling rules, carrier-weight laws, and automatic distribution convictions) in a manner that prevents the lawyers from opening their mouths. (Example: The trial of Peter McWilliams; the defendant is accused by the Fed of conspiracy to grow pot, though his actions were entirely legal under California Prop 215. The jury will not be allowed to consider that medicinal marijuana is legal in California, nor will they be allowed to know that Mr McWilliams was seeking a tool to help his fight against AIDS. If you're a lawyer, how the hell do you defend this case?)

By regulating the bullets fired, you avoid the Second Amendment, and reduce the relevant issues to the bullet fired and where it went and what it struck. By the US v. McWilliams standard, the reason you're shooting the gun wouldn't matter.

Mind you ... if you hit the burglar, fine. If you hit someone else, not fine. As it stands right now, it doesn't seem that shooters need to bear such concerns in mind, unless they intend to expend excessive ammunition.

We could go the way of other things and force gun owners to get insurance. Ensure that they can pay for what they accidentally destroy.

No matter how many lawyers sued a "there are no accidents" law, such persistent action would only reinforce that responsibility is only a catch-phrase in the gun culture.

As it is, the lawyers haven't overturned firearm disenfranchisement following a violent felony conviction.

There's plenty of things we can do to hold errant shooters accountable for their little accidents. Now, though my father was not much of a shooter, I will invoke his wonderful words--the only ones who have to worry about such laws are the ones who don't want to be responsible for their actions.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

ozarky

06-02-00, 03:47 AM

Tiassa,
"No accident" law? What about intent ? I'm
sure that you could prove intent. Is it intent that seperates manslaughter from murder? What about "an act of God". The insurance companies save a lot of money with that phrase.
A woman is walking down the street on New Years Eve around midnight. People are out firing their guns in the air. (what goes up, must come down) A falling bullet from a high powered rifle penetrates her skull and kills her. Surely, the person that fired that round did not intend to kill someone. That the person that fired the shot was stupid and should be held accountable, no one can deny. Firing a gun in the city limits, in most cases is a misdemeanor. That his shot killed some one, manslaughter at best.

Since the Earl Warren Supreme Court, you catch and wound (injure) an intruder he can sue you, so long as he had nothing on his person that he could do you bodily harm.
The supreme court has said that a person has a right to ply his trade, even if that trade is outside of the law.

I want to thank you for your input.

SMILE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY

Tiassa

06-02-00, 07:49 PM

Ozarky--

People are out firing their guns in the air. (what goes up, must come down) A falling bullet from a high powered rifle penetrates her skull and kills her. Surely, the person that fired that round did not intend to kill someone.

The problem with that is that a drunk getting behind the wheel of a car doesn't intend to kill anyone.

Guns are designed to kill. That is their primary purpose. Manslaughter, I agree, would suffice in this case. There is still the possibility that a jury will only convict the shooter of Unlawful Discharge. There is also the possibility that the jury will acquit. And that's as society wants it.

However, my objection is that dumb things done with guns aren't prosecuted. I point to the several instances I mentioned a few posts back.

I would be dismayed, of course, if a jury handed down an acquittal in the scenario you've constructed. But that would directly be the will of what we acknowledge to be the people's authority, and there would be nothing I could do about that.

In the cases I've mentioned, the jury never got a chance to decide.

To be more realistic, where I see my idea getting problematic is when a homeowner fires at a burglar, misses, and does hideous damage to someone else. I wouldn't want a homeowner hesitating because he has to consider the possibility of being prosecuted for missing, but I cannot accept that that homeowner's right to defend A) his possessions, and B) his wellbeing should come before the rights of that innocent neighbor to live unfettered by stray bullets.

The present state of things, though, seems wrong to me. If I take it out on the gun culture at large, it's because I feel its protectionist stance has the side effect of giving the appearance of endorsing the violent aspects of our culture.

But that's about what I can manage right now. The writing on the wall is screaming in pink block capitals that I must get back to the work I'm being paid for. ;)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)