Goodie, Another gun debate...

Great Debates
161

One thing I’ve noticed (all statistics and 2nd amendment bickering aside) is that the anti-gun lobby is, for the most part, an emotional argument bred from fear. The anti-gun people appear to be afraid (of guns/criminals/accidents, etc.). If we are taken to believe that the freedom for an individual to own a gun is indeed a part of our rights, then the anti-gun folk are afraid of that freedom.

I am NOT afraid of freedom. Freedom to drive means there may be an accident tomorrow, where myself or my family may be killed. But that does not mean I fear that freedom, it means I respect it, and all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.

If you wish to be free, then with that freedom comes responsibility. To quote Ben Franklin: “He who is willing to yield a little liberty to gain a little safety deserves neither [the liberty NOR the safety].”

Yet, we have yielded so many liberties in the name of safety. Perhaps as a society we do not deserve liberties. Perhaps we all need the return of a totalitarian government where we are all taken care of like little babies, free from any harm. And free from freedom.

162

Wrath, you talk about fear; fear and possibly hype, fueling the perceptions of the anti-gun crowd.

If I understand Joe M. correctly, we pro-gunners must acknowledge their fears before any legitimate, meaningful compromise can begin.

Myself, Uncle Beer, Mr. Zambezi, Demise, Freedom, PLD, Tracer, Max Torque, Spoofe, (not to be confused with Spooje, who has also chimed in; Spooje, how in the hell did you decide on that username?), with some insightful commentary from fence-sitters like Xenophon41 have tried and tried again to show that these fears are largely groundless, but no without some merit.

Violent crime is at its lowest rate since 1967, the year I was born, and is trending downward about 5% nationally every year, and I’d rather not take such drops for granted.

I would like to see if there’s something driving this trend that can be reinforced with an educated citizenry and a responsive, coherent top-down Government plan.

The FBI says “Assault Rifles” (the legal definition, not the military one) account for about 2% of violent crime. So why the need for laws banning high capacity magazines, or weapons with flash suppressors, pistol grips, synthetic stocks or bayonet lugs?

Hell, my 11-shot lever-action rifle, a design that was new and novel shortly after the Civil War, was almost included in CA’s “Assault Rifle” Ban before agitated gun owners called their legislators and clued them in.

Bottom line: yes, there is a disturbing trend in sensational mass-shooting incidents, but overall, the violence and crime problems are nowhere near as problematic and as widespread as the Anti-Gunners and the Media would have one believe.

For those who may wish to know more about the NRA without actually having to be seen in the company of or around the NRA, tonight “ABC News” will air an hour-long special on NRA and its efforts to mobilize gun owners for this year’s elections. The special is scheduled to run at 8:00 p.m. EST – prior to “Monday Night Football.”

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :wally”

163

Thank you, Wrath.

A gun is not to be feared, as long as you know what you’re doing with it. And as long as we can maximize the number of people who also know what they’re doing, the danger (yes, they ARE dangerous) they present is also minimized.

164

I AM NOT TAKING A STAND ON MIDEAST POLITICS
Having said that, I have been watching the footage of the Palestinians throwing ROCKS at the Isreali’s. I keep wondering how different Isreal would have to treat the West Bank and the Gaza Strip if 50% of the people there were armed. These guys obviously have the “will to use them.”
I only have to read the news to see different people around the world fighting against their governments with rocks, machettes and moltov cocktails. I don’t want to take a stand on who is right and who is wrong in these places, but I always wonder if things would have been prevented from going to that extreme if those countries had their own “2nd Amendments.”

165

Apologies: the ABC special is on Monday, October 9th.

:o

*ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :wally”

166

OK, For your desired education Joe…
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FIREARMS DIVISION

Assault Weapons Identification Guide

LATEST VERSION: OCTOBER 2000

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/awguide/index.html

All 96 pages of it…

167

Am I the only one who sees the stupidity inherent in this argument? If you nuke the place you’re trying to take over, then what have you gained? Who the hell wants to conquer and rule millions of square miles of radioactive glass?

If you have to annihilate the population to rule the area, then the return is not worth the risk. Nevermind the fact that, once it hits the news that Chicago or NYC was nuked, the rest of the nation skips over protest and goes directly into revolt…

There are no barriers to enforcement. The point is that the laws are NOT enforced (or selectively enforced). The end result is that Since these thousands of laws are not enforced, they are further ignored. So we (politicians) can cry about the numbers of felons with guns and use that fact as ammunition when we call for more and more restrictions, until eventually you have completely owtlawed all private ownership of all firearms (which is the stated intention of the gun-control lobby). After all, if all the laws currently on the books were strictly enforced, people would go to prison for committing crimes with firearms. Crime would drop dramatically. And there would be no hand wringing and no excuse to call for a total ban. And your little pet cause is over. No more fund-raising, no more fame, no more increasing your power at the cost of my liberty.

I can’t believe there’s been a 4-page gun debate and I’ve missed it!!! I feel left out.

168

I forget if it was mentioned in this Gun thread or in the one in the Pit (Joe, if you think things are heated here, try the other thread… whooo!), but the biggest reason is that convicting someone one a gun charge isn’t “attractive” for the DA. That is, an “Attempted Murder” or “Manslaughter” charge gets more attention, prestige, etc. etc. that can be used for future politics. In addition, convictions on firearm-related charges doesn’t bring a whole lot of punishment. As such, those charges are often plea-bargained away in favor of the “meatier” charge.

One of the reforms that many pro-gunners ask for is tougher penalties on felonies which include a firearm. I don’t know personally why such reforms don’t get passed… perhaps they’re viewed in a bad light or something? “Inhumane” to punish someone so much? I don’t know.

169

The National Guard has nothing whatsoever to do with State Militias (Militia? Militiae?). It is a part of the US Army, and as such, entirely under the authority of the President [link goes to the Perpich v. Department of Defense Supreme Court ruling].

Reasonable restrictions were met and surpassed many years before I was born, my friend. We have gone on far into the realm of “utterly ridiculous,” where we can’t reasonably pretend that it’s being done for our own good or for our safety. It’s being done for power and influence. Because people have nothing better to do than to tell me what I can and can’t own or do. If they have no hostile intentions towards me, they have no reason to fear my owning a gun.

Your local gun shows sell automatic weapons??? WOW, can I go? Is the FBI or the ATF aware of this?

**

Let’s change the question a bit, just for illustrative purposes. Let’s pretend that instead of people wanting to own guns (a right protected by the constitution), we are talking about people not wanting to be punched in the nose. Instead of people trying to outlaw guns, we have people protecting the rights of the nose-punchers. The nose-punchers offer a number of reasonable compromises, such as the idea that you are free from being punched in the nose on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and once you have passed a government background check, you have the further freedom not to be punched in the nose on Sundays, as well. Would you, as a non-nose-punchee, be willing to compromise? Not f-ing likely. You’d be more likely to punch back.

Yeah, it sounds silly, but that’s what we have happening now. A group of people whose aim is to destroy the status quo, my Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a firearm, then trying to make it sound as though they are doing me a favor by graciously allowing me the opportunity to own a gun after I jump through a series of hoops, which they dictate.

Yes, we do want your vote. But your conditions are unacceptable. Do you vote for Liberty? Or do you vote for repression? That’s the choice you have to make. The 2nd Amendment is the foundation on which all the other freedoms you enjoy is based.

Hmm…Looks like somebody has a new favorite word.

Please explain what is so special about autoloading firearms that terrifies people so much that they should be banned or regulated more than other weapons? Let’s suppose you’re going to be shot with your choice of: a bolt-action .308, a lever-action .30-30, a semi-auto .223, or a pump-action 12-ga. shotgun. Which do you prefer? Does the loading mechanism really make that much difference to you? Why?

And yes, most of us are absolutely unwilling to compromise any further. As (I think Spoofe? not sure) said earlier, we have already compromised. We already met halfway. Then half again. Then another half. We have already had our rights compromised away to a dangerous degree. And those responsible think they’re within sight of their goal. I, for one, do not intend to let it happen.

“Firearms are 2nd in importance only to the Constitution. They are the teeth of the people’s liberty.”
–George Washington

So say I.

170

That depends on whom you ask (bolding mine)…

And I’ve seen a lot of talk about Democracy and the value of opinions and perceptions in such an arrangement bandied about. One more little observation before I go to bed:

171

Joe Cool:

“Am I the only one who sees the stupidity inherent in this argument? If you nuke the place you’re trying to take over, then what have you gained? Who the hell wants to conquer and rule millions of square miles of radioactive glass?”

Hmmm, I had given up on this thread since it swayed SO far from the original post. But since someone acknowledged I even posted, I’ll reply:

I never said anything about what the corrupt government’s motives were. Sure it’s hardly a realistic situation, but neither is the concept of an American take-over. Possible? Sure. Anything is possible. Probable? Hardly. To quote a great man: “What you don’t realize is that there’s no world anymore, only corporations.” (Ten points if you get the reference.) The incentive just isn’t there. You got to love capitalism for that.

But say a government did want to take over. They have biological weapons to work with. No harm to the buildings. Fantastic. And for the revolt point. Doesn’t matter if there was a revolt, the government could overpower them if it wanted. It’s got some powerful weapons. The playing field isn’t even anymore.

Why do the gun rights crowd insist on putting guns on a pedestal? I watch violent movies, play violent games and I certainly don’t worship them. With many good arguments to keep guns in, why do they insist on the government tyranny card?

They could argue that the violent crime rate has been on the decline. They could compare banning guns to banning knives, cars etc…

Sorry for the rant, it’s just that this argument has been wearing thin with me. If there is something on the tyranny issue I haven’t addressed (or you feel I addressed incorrectly), please tell me.

172

Number Two wasn’t a great man. He was a woosie.

173

Just read an associated press article. Deaths from rollovers are trending up at 7% per year to 10,028 for 1999. Gun deaths (non suicide) were about 13,000 according to the CDC, and are trending down at 5% per year.

In two years, rollovvers will be taking more lives than guns. Yet, I don’t see a huge organized crusade against SUV’s.

Could it be possible that the fears driving gun control are truly unfounded? Could it be that more lives could be saved without sacrificing personal liberty by looking elswhere?

Ban fatty foods, SUV’s and smoking. Then you will see some real numbers on saved lives.

174

There was one in the Pit a few weeks ago. Where were you THEN, Mr. Z?!? Huh?!?

175

Lethal Lynx:

Have you ever spent any time in the military? Did you read mine and Spiny Norman’s primers on Guerilla warfare? Fighting open engagement against organized formations of tanks and helicopter gunships is hazardous for nation states; what makes you think that anyone else wants to do it?

The object of guerilla warfare is to hit them where they aren’t. To attack those soft, unarmored, poorly protected fuel trucks and maintenence depots; communications nodes, rail lines, bridges, highways, runways, warehouses, barracks, motor parks.

Using infiltration (partisans look just like any other loyal subject of the President-for-Life of Amerika), stealth, assassination, propoganda, maybe even terror, the smart, cautious guerilla fighter is effective way beyond the means of “a single man with a rifle” you seem to think he is.

It’s a little something called tactics, and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is as meaningful today as when it was written 2400 years ago.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Chemical and biological agents are classified as weapons of mass destruction, right along side of Nuclear devices.

And, they can remain active for weeks, sometimes even months after being introduced. Admittedly less time than radioactive contamination (the gift that keeps oooooonnnnn giving, millenia after millenia!), but no less potentially harmful to the new occupants of these buildings.

At least a nuclear blast has a rather tidy way of disposing of the unwanted bodies; all the dead people lying about from chemical or biological agents are just as much a biological hazard, and must be “properly” disposed of, prior to “relocation of assets” mandates from our supposed President-for-Life.

Lethal Lynx:

We don’t put the gun itself on a pedestal. If some do, then they’re missing the point. We enshrine what firearm ownership represents, an idea that was espoused in our Original Founding Document, The Declaration of Independence:

The Minute Man statue isn’t about a guy with a gun; it’s about armed citizen’s standing vigilant guard against tyranny; not to overcome existing tyranny, but to prevent it in the first place.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :wally”

176

Gun control (sort of) update:

I have been asked to take down a picture of an M-16 I recently put up outside my cubicle at work. (Our release milestones are all “M” followed by a number; the current one happens to be called M16, so I thought it was appropriate.)

I wouldn’t have minded, except for the reason they asked. The picture made a few of my co-workers feel uneasy because of, quote, “those kids getting shot in schools.” What? School shootings are rare as hell. I don’t even think we’ve had any in the San Francisco Bay Area for as long as there has been a San Francisco Bay Area. I asked, “Were their kids personally getting shot at?”, but to no avail. I guess if some guy goes berserk in another part of the country, everybody gets paranoid. Gah.

177

Mr.Zambezi wrote:

Don’t think some people aren’t trying. shudder

178

[qute]I have been asked to take down a picture of an M-16 I recently put up outside my cubicle at work.
[/quote]

Put up a picture from a hardcore porn magazine. Kids are being taught THAT in school :smiley:

179

My friend at school got suspended for having a picture of him at a shotgun range in his locker because some kid felt “endangered” that someone with a locker near his knew how to shoot a gun.

Of course, the kid that complained was promptly discovered and “dealt with” by angry friends of the other kid, but that’s another story.

180

We are a nation of little babies raising a generation of pussies, in the name of safety.

Can someone please tell me where, in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, the right to Not Be Afraid supercedes all other rights?