PDA

View Full Version : On personal liberties


MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 09:08 AM
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
September 23, 1950
Congress passes the McCarran Act (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/mccarran-act-intro.html), also known as The Internal Security Act of 1950, overriding Harry Truman's veto. The act provides for severe restrictions on civil liberties, suspension of free speech, and placing of undesirable Americans in concentration camps. The act has never been repealed.
Named after then Senator Pat McCarran, the Act is still screwing people over today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49517-2003Sep22.html).
And while traveling Nevada freethinkers voice their opinions on their freedoms being taken away when they fly, they're doing it all the while in the airport (http://www.mccarran.com/) that was named after the d*ck who passed the Act.

Nyarlathotep
23rd September 2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux



Only if we fly in or out of Las Vegas. There IS an airport in Reno you know.:p

But I agree with the gist of your post. I pretty much see todays political climate as merely McCarthyism Part Deux.

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep



Only if we fly in or out of Las Vegas. There IS an airport in Reno you know.:p


Oops. I had originally posted that on my blog (plus some choice swear words), which has mainly Vegas readers.
No offense meant to Reno folks.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
<The act has never been repealed.
Named after then Senator Pat McCarran, the Act is still screwing people over today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49517-2003Sep22.html).


By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 23, 2003; Page A03


The Bush administration has decided to pursue a 16-year-old effort to deport two Palestinian activists who as students distributed magazines and raised funds for a group the government now considers a terrorist organization, despite several court rulings that the deportations are unconstitutional because the men were not involved in terrorist activity.




I hope that the American people realize that it's only a matter of time for the Police to knock on their door ...

You must RESIST.

Nyarlathotep
23rd September 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


Oops. I had originally posted that on my blog (plus some choice swear words), which has mainly Vegas readers.
No offense meant to Reno folks.

No offense taken, but then I'm not from Reno either.

But your post got me thinking, Nevada is one of the most schizophrenic states in the Union with regards to personal liberties. We were the first to legalize gambling (and the only one for many years), we are the only state with any form of legalized prostitution, yet we have the toughest drug laws in all 50 states and (though I couldn't swear to this because it is simply something I remember hearing on the radio once)overall the highest percentage of our populace incarcerated overall, higher than Iraq under Saddam Hussein. We are a weird weird state.

BTW, since you mentioned that your blog has a mostly Vegas readership, can I assume that you are from Vegas?

bignickel
23rd September 2003, 09:26 AM
I'll toss you some beads if you show us your blog.

Chaos
23rd September 2003, 09:28 AM
I hope that the American people realize that it's only a matter of time for the Police to knock on their door ...

You must RESIST.

Indeed. Beware the beginnings of such things.

We Germans had a certain period in our history (which I will not name because this would certainly inspire some "Chaos compared Bush to Hitler" rant) that also started out pretty harmlessly - at least, harmless compared to what happened later.
But then, so did many other dictatorships, I think. People prefer to close their eyes and ignore the writings on the wall. And in the end, when all is over, they say "We had no idea it would come to that."

So relax, Americans, yours will not be the first democracy that dies because its citizens are more interesting in their own comfort than in their rights and freedom.

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


yet we have the toughest drug laws in all 50 states and (though I couldn't swear to this because it is simply something I remember hearing on the radio once). We are a weird weird state.

BTW, since you mentioned that your blog has a mostly Vegas readership, can I assume that you are from Vegas?

I've lived in Vegas for several years now, but for the next few months I'm in Florida.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that NV has the toughest drug laws. It's a state that consists mainly of Mormans, and it was founded by Mormans.
In last years election, there were two very important personal liberty issues up. Question 2 and Question 9.
9 was to legalize up to 2 ounces of marajuana, and 2 was regarding gay unions. I voted for legalizing drugs, and for gay unions. However, it was no surprise that both of the issues lost.
The Mormans are bigots, and the people who are actually using drugs are too damn lazy to get out and vote. Yeah, it's a weird state.

Nyarlathotep
23rd September 2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


I've lived in Vegas for several years now, but for the next few months I'm in Florida.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that NV has the toughest drug laws. It's a state that consists mainly of Mormans, and it was founded by Mormans.
In last years election, there were two very important personal liberty issues up. Question 2 and Question 9.
9 was to legalize up to 2 ounces of marajuana, and 2 was regarding gay unions. I voted for legalizing drugs, and for gay unions. However, it was no surprise that both of the issues lost.
The Mormans are bigots, and the people who are actually using drugs are too damn lazy to get out and vote. Yeah, it's a weird state.

I don't think that we are as Mormon Controlled as Utah, but ther is a definate Mormon Presence here. THat could account for the loss on the Marijuana initiative but I chalk the loss on question 2 up to the fact that the proponents of it were much better organized. I don't know how it was in Vegas but up here, you couldn't without seeing a commercial or drive down the street without seeing a billboard that stated that gay marriages were a threat to families. I saw nary a commercial and very few billboards that presented the opposite view. It is sad that people are so influenced by advertising, but they are. I think the Marijuana initiative sufferedf romt he saem problem to alesser extent.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 09:59 AM
Sorry for interrupting but don't you have anything to say about those two people ?

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


I hope that the American people realize that it's only a matter of time for the Police to knock on their door ...

You must RESIST.


:i: :id:

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Chaos

So relax, Americans, yours will not be the first democracy that dies because its citizens are more interesting in their own comfort than in their rights and freedom.


Im one American very interested in freedom and my rights, and I can assure you, there are millions like me.

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Tony



:i: :id:

You'll have to explain the irony to me.

Have you ever been harassed by an overzealous cop? Maybe you're too young to have had that happen to you. I have. I'm not in favor of giving them any more power over my life.

Wait and see, they'll be knocking our doors down to carry us away for enjoying a quiet toke if this kind of thing goes on. They consider us the enemy.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Tony



Im one American very interested in freedom and my rights, and I can assure you, there are millions like me.

Also, don't forget that you have a gun and you can shoot whoever tries to take away your personal liberties...:rolleyes:

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Sundog


You'll have to explain the irony to me.


The irony is, Cleopatra is anti-gun and favors the control and/or complete ban of guns, but here she is saying we need to RESIST police state policies and stand up for our rights. Let me guess Cleo, we need to RESIST and stand up for our rights (but only the ones you agree with). Sorry if I am skeptical.

Have you ever been harassed by an overzealous cop? Maybe you're too young to have had that happen to you. I have. I'm not in favor of giving them any more power over my life.

I have MANY ideas regarding police power and what should be done about it, but I dont want to hyjack this thread. To make it simple, lets just say I agree with you.

Wait and see, they'll be knocking our doors down to carry us away for enjoying a quiet toke if this kind of thing goes on. They consider us the enemy.

Why do you think I am such a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment?

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Also, don't forget that you have a gun and you can shoot whoever tries to take away your personal liberties...:rolleyes:

Perhap you're bullet proof, however, I am not, how do propose we "resist" when we have guns to our heads?

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Tony


Perhap you're bullet proof, however, I am not, how do propose we "resist" when we have guns to our heads?

Are YOU asking ME after the endless lectures you have given us that you need your guns to protect you from those that will try to deprive you from your personal liberties????

Give me a break.

Your constitution has given you the right and the means to protect your freedom, shoot the policeman, shoot those that they enforce the Patriot Act.

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Are YOU asking ME after the endless lectures you have given us that you need your guns to protect you from those that will try to deprive you from your personal liberties????


Yes I am asking you, How do you propose we "resist" tyrannical police state policies?

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Tony


Yes I am asking you, How do you propose we "resist" tyrannical police state policies?

Ummmm....vote the b*stards out of office?

Nyarlathotep
23rd September 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Sorry for interrupting but don't you have anything to say about those two people ?

Sorry, I just so rarely meet a fellow Nevadan with political views that I even somewhat agree with that I got carried away.


But I will agree that a lot of the laws that got pushed through in the wake of 9/11, and many of our countries policies since then are, shall I say, overzealous. I don't know anything more about the two activists or their organization so I can't, honestly, form any real opinion beyond that. But I do agree that many of the new laws that are designed to go after terrorists now, have the potential to bite us in the butt and allow unscrupoulous elements among our governemnt to go after any one they darn well please later. It's a real probelm.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Tony


Yes I am asking you, How do you propose we "resist" tyrannical police state policies?

Will you give up your pro-gun theories If I tell you??? Will you admit that you are wrong to believe that you need the gun to protect your personal liberty?

Not that I care, I just mentioned it because you had the nerve to point to me logical fallacies to discussions about gun-control.

What about waking-up and trying to persuade people around you to participate in the elections?

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 10:48 AM
I'm pro-gun.
All the anti-weapon laws are killing people. If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Sorry, I just so rarely meet a fellow Nevadan with political views that I even somewhat agree with that I got carried away.


But I will agree that a lot of the laws that got pushed through in the wake of 9/11, and many of our countries policies since then are, shall I say, overzealous. I don't know anything more about the two activists or their organization so I can't, honestly, form any real opinion beyond that. But I do agree that many of the new laws that are designed to go after terrorists now, have the potential to bite us in the butt and allow unscrupoulous elements among our governemnt to go after any one they darn well please later. It's a real probelm.

American governments are easy to accuse people and countries for being terrorist organizations affiliates without providing enough evidence to support these claims, so none can really check if they know of what they are talking about.

How do you know that tomorrow the cooking club you belong to won't be considered by the government a terrorist organization?

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Sundog


Ummmm....vote the b*stards out of office?


So much for "resisting". :rolleyes:

Peach Jr.
23rd September 2003, 10:52 AM
After putting the Littlest Peach down for a well-deserved nap, I finally got to look at MoeFaux's link. Wow. It's sad, but not unbelivable (unfortunately) that the McCarran Act is being invoked today. Has it been ruled unconstitutional? I had a hard time figuring that out from the article. Of course, my lack of sleep might have something to do with that...

Nevada's a Mormon state too? I thought Utah and Colorado had the lock on religious nuts. Apparently not...

Tony
23rd September 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Will you give up your pro-gun theories If I tell you??? Will you admit that you are wrong to believe that you need the gun to protect your personal liberty?


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy abounds.

Peach Jr.
23rd September 2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
I'm pro-gun.
All the anti-weapon laws are killing people. If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.

My Mr. is pro-gun also. He's been urging me to take safety classes before we move and he takes his new job. The job would involve a *lot* of travel on his part and leave me and the baby alone for long periods of time.

Guns frighten me to death, and I can't make him understand that. I *really* don't want to learn how to use them...I'm not certain I could get good enough to not have it taken from me.

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Tony


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy abounds.

Your guns give you the ILLUSION of security. Like a nuclear deterrent, they are useless if you ever have to use them against the authorities. Where do you think your freedom would be ten minutes later? Laying on the ground dead along with you.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Tony


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy abounds.

These were your arguments, dear Tony.

Don't roll your eyes that much, they will fall off your head and you won't be able to see whom you will be voting. Again.

Nyarlathotep
23rd September 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Peach Jr.
After putting the Littlest Peach down for a well-deserved nap, I finally got to look at MoeFaux's link. Wow. It's sad, but not unbelivable (unfortunately) that the McCarran Act is being invoked today. Has it been ruled unconstitutional? I had a hard time figuring that out from the article. Of course, my lack of sleep might have something to do with that...

Nevada's a Mormon state too? I thought Utah and Colorado had the lock on religious nuts. Apparently not...

Well, let me put it this way, Nevada started part of the Utah Territory. Our earliest settlement was called Mormon station and we have the biggest Mormon population outside of Utah (in terms of % not in sheer numbers). We aren't as bad as Utah by any means, but there are enough Mormons here to be a force in politics.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 11:03 AM
MoeFaux

I apologize for derailing your thread but young Tony has been lecturing us for weeks that he needs guns to protect his personal freedoms and that this is the reason the Constitution gave him the right to carry guns...

The thread is about personal freedoms and how to protect them; guns is not one of the ways for a citizen to defend his freedom.

Tony
23rd September 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


These were your arguments, dear Tony.


My argument with you was:

The irony is, Cleopatra is anti-gun and favors the control and/or complete ban of guns, but here she is saying we need to RESIST police state policies and stand up for our rights. Let me guess Cleo, we need to RESIST and stand up for our rights (but only the ones you agree with). Sorry if I am skeptical.


.....and you won't be able to see whom you will be voting. Again.

Huh?

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 11:07 AM
Skeptical Tony, where did you post this?

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 11:07 AM
Peach, there's nothing wrong with being afraid of guns. Guns are meant to destroy. However, with the proper education and training, you could learn how to be in control. You might be surpirsed to find that you actually like shooting.
There's all different kinds of uses for guns, from paintball to skeet shooting. Knowing how to use a gun doesn't make a person a killer. It just gives you a quirky hobby.
It never hurts to try something once. Hire a sitter and have the hubby take you to a practice range. Insist on a nice dinner afterwards, so you'll have a nice time no matter what.

gnome
23rd September 2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
September 23, 1950
Congress passes the McCarran Act (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/mccarran-act-intro.html), also known as The Internal Security Act of 1950, overriding Harry Truman's veto. The act provides for severe restrictions on civil liberties, suspension of free speech, and placing of undesirable Americans in concentration camps. The act has never been repealed.


I'm on your side, MoeFaux, just wanted to correct an inaccuracy:

From the link you posted:

In seeking the deportation in 1987 of Hamide, Shehadeh and six other Palestinian immigrants allegedly associated with the PFLP, the Reagan administration's Justice Department invoked a provision of the Cold War-era McCarran-Walter Act, which barred membership in communist groups. But a lawsuit filed by the so-called L.A. 8 led a federal appeals court to declare the law an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, and Congress repealed it in 1990.

So it seems that this law has been repealed after all. Which isn't stopping the "Justice" department from abusing people's rights under the Patriot act or other legislation, just that this law is not the problem.

LW
23rd September 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.

I'd say there is a doubt about that, because in that case also the terrorists could have been carrying guns on the planes. I (or anyone else) can't say for certain what would have happened then. It might be that passangers would have shot the terrorists. Or it might be that the terrorists having an element of surprise could have intimidated everyone to stay put.

hgc
23rd September 2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
snip...

the people who are actually using drugs are too damn lazy to get out and vote. ...If only you could vote through your television, via remote control, the potheads would take over the world, and then look at it really intensely until it starts to look really, really wierd, man. Got anything to eat?

Tony
23rd September 2003, 11:15 AM
If so, why your support for the president and admiinistration responsible for the biggest inroads into personal freedom in the entire history of the country.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

Tony
23rd September 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Skeptical Tony, where did you post this?

Seek and yee shall find. :D

(a few posts up when Sundog asked me to explain the irony)

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 11:19 AM
Cleo, when someone says that they need a gun to protect their freedom, they're usually saying that figuratively. Tony (I'm assuming here, I haven't seen the original statement by him) isn't going to go shooting people who infringe on his personal liberties. What a gun enthusiast and fighter for freedom is doing is usually championing the RIGHT to own a gun. When that right is taken away, that freedom is gone. The U.S. Constitution is all about rights, and they're slowly being taken away from us as people either don't care, don't notice, or are too stupid to pay attention.
No one should say who I have a right to sleep with. The governement should not be in my bedroom.
No one should say what my belief system should be. That's my own business and the business of those who I share it with.
What I do on my personal time is MINE. Owning a gun is my RIGHT, based on the freedoms that this country established all those years ago.
Where do you draw the line on what is personal and what is the governments business?
The moral rule that most freethinkers abide by is: Live your life your way without harming others.
That our government is now imprisoning people who have merely THOUGHT about a crime is disheartening - see
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Noteworthy/03NewsNOTE06092003.htm

If guns are outlawed, then only criminals own guns.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Tony


The irony is, Cleopatra is anti-gun and favors the control and/or complete ban of guns, but here she is saying we need to RESIST police state policies and stand up for our rights. Let me guess Cleo, we need to RESIST and stand up for our rights (but only the ones you agree with). Sorry if I am skeptical.



Come-on Tony you can do better than that!!!!

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by LW


I'd say there is a doubt about that, because in that case also the terrorists could have been carrying guns on the planes. I (or anyone else) can't say for certain what would have happened then. It might be that passangers would have shot the terrorists. Or it might be that the terrorists having an element of surprise could have intimidated everyone to stay put.

Think of what weapons you and your friends may own.
Do you own a pocketknife? Maybe one of your female friends owns some mace or even a stun gun. Someone you know probably owns a gun.
I often cary a knife. Most folks have SOMETHING on them. Maybe not everyone packs heat, but a lot of people have a cherised swiss army knife.
Now, if you were allowing to just take what you usually had on you onto a plane, there would be a lot of mace, a lot of pocket knives, several stun guns, and yes, some guns.
If a terrorist were to decide to hijack a plane, they would first have to look at EVERY person on the flight. See that old granny over there? Boy, she looks fierce with those knitting needles. The big girl with the short hair and no make-up looks like she hates men, maybe she's got the stun gun. What about that biker looking guy with the big grey beard and leather jacket in the POW & MIA hat? He might have a gun.
A terrorist would have to look at every person and decide who is thier threat. And the second he whips a gun out, that old granny takes out her pearl handled revolver and shoots him.

The situation now is, when a terrorist decides to hijack a plane, there's NOTHING stopping him.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
[B]Cleo, when someone says that they need a gun to protect their freedom, they're usually saying that figuratively. Tony (I'm assuming here, I haven't seen the original statement by him) isn't going to go shooting people who infringe on his personal liberties.

Tony and others have been lecturing us for weeks about this issue and they were deadly serious. We are talking about endless lectures in which he pointed to us that the Founding Fathers gave you this right in order to protect the citizens from the politicans that would attempt to abuse citizens' freedoms.

MoeFaux, keep your gun and your rights. Relax, none will take your gun!!! Once you have a gun your problems are resolved.I am the last person that will spoil the pleasure you find in playing the cop :)

I think that the Founding Fathers would want you to use your gun to protect the man who wrote fiction about child molestation.They would be proud of you if you did.

Tony
23rd September 2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra



Come-on Tony you can do better than that!!!!

Nice dodge.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Tony


Nice dodge.

I am sorry Tony, for one more time your theories collapsed.

If you suggested that you are pro-guns because you are afraid of rapists as Moe Faux did, I wouldn't be that harsh but when you insist that you need the guns to protect your political freedom then you must enjoy the party :)

Tony
23rd September 2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am sorry Tony, for one more time your theories collapsed.


You havent even addressed what I said. You continue to dodge.

If you suggested that you are pro-guns because you are afraid of rapists as Moe Faux did, I wouldn't be that harsh but when you insist that you need the guns to protect your political freedom then you must enjoy the party :)


Im "pro-gun" for both reasons stated.

LW
23rd September 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux

Do you own a pocketknife?

Yup. And I carry one with me almost always. I also sometimes carry my set of twin-knives (one 12 cm and one 18 cm blade in a combined sheath) in my backbag.

However, if someone came and threatened me with a gun I definitely would not try to use the knives for my self-protection. The guy with the gun could shoot me dead several times over before I got a knife ready.

Maybe one of your female friends owns some mace or even a stun gun.

Probably not as they are not particularly legal here (I don't know the details of legislation).

Someone you know probably owns a gun.

The only cases that I know for certain are two hunting rifles. One friend of my brother had once a licence to carry a handgun but I don't know if he still has it (or if he ever had a gun, I'm certain only of the licence).

If a terrorist were to decide to hijack a plane, they would first have to look at EVERY person on the flight.

No. They would have to disperse over the plane, and then by common signal draw their guns at the sime time and shout: "The next person who moves dies!" and then kill the next person who moves.

After this all bets are off.

In general, people don't want to make overtly self-destructive moves. It is not easy to make an offensive move when it may result in immediate death. Luckily, I've never been in a situation where I would have had to make the decision. I don't know whether I would be brave enough to risk my life if inaction seemed to offer better changes to survive.

Remember that the 9/11 attacks were the first case when hijackers deliberately crashed the planes. Before that hijackers generally flew to some airport, issued demands to authorities, were surrounded by police and special forces, and gave up after several hours (or days) of negotiations. Or alternatively special forces stormed the plane killing hijackers. In both cases inaction was a survival strategy that probably offered better changes than trying to resist the hijackers.

I reiterate, we can't know what would have happened in those planes if there had been guns aboard. It is possible that the passangers would have resisted, true, but it is also possible that they wouldn't. If the terrorists had managed to gain control of the situation they could have closed all windows of the plane so that no passanger would have known that they were flying low over New York heading towards WTC.

Suddenly
23rd September 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


Think of what weapons you and your friends may own.
Do you own a pocketknife? Maybe one of your female friends owns some mace or even a stun gun. Someone you know probably owns a gun.
I often cary a knife. Most folks have SOMETHING on them. Maybe not everyone packs heat, but a lot of people have a cherised swiss army knife.
Now, if you were allowing to just take what you usually had on you onto a plane, there would be a lot of mace, a lot of pocket knives, several stun guns, and yes, some guns.
If a terrorist were to decide to hijack a plane, they would first have to look at EVERY person on the flight. See that old granny over there? Boy, she looks fierce with those knitting needles. The big girl with the short hair and no make-up looks like she hates men, maybe she's got the stun gun. What about that biker looking guy with the big grey beard and leather jacket in the POW & MIA hat? He might have a gun.
A terrorist would have to look at every person and decide who is thier threat. And the second he whips a gun out, that old granny takes out her pearl handled revolver and shoots him.

The situation now is, when a terrorist decides to hijack a plane, there's NOTHING stopping him.

But if the passengers have guns, so will the hijacker, unless he's an idiot. Seven or eight guys suddenly jump up and shoot a few passengers for effect. Then they order everyone to put their hands in the air and shoot anyone that doesn't. They then disarm the passengers and take care of the captain and crew. Maybe they then shoot the passengers anyway. Odds are they can easily take control of the plane due to firepower and suprise. By the time the passengers realize they should shoot they are either dead or at a disadvantage.

Now if nobody had a gun the passengers could possibly rise up en masse and attack the hijackers....

Not to mention the possiblity of just putting a single person on an airliner who starts shooting out windows at altitude....


I would agree that guns being common would put a damper on property crime, but I'd bet that there is an increase in violent crime and murder. A criminal has two options if he thinks a victim has a gun, either pass on the victim or remove the threat (shoot first or blunt object to the head). If the criminal is about to go into withdrawl or has a loan shark threatening his family, guess which he will pick?

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by LW


Yup. And I carry one with me almost always. I also sometimes carry my set of twin-knives (one 12 cm and one 18 cm blade in a combined sheath) in my backbag.

However, if someone came and threatened me with a gun I definitely would not try to use the knives for my self-protection. The guy with the gun could shoot me dead several times over before I got a knife ready.
.

That's probably wise. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
My point, however, was that no one would know who was carrying what.

There's a lot of people who would fight to the death, I being one of them. Even the folks with NO WEAPONS on one of the planes fought back. Imagine what strength one could have fighting agains terrorists with even a stun gun? People will always fight back. Have you even watched an ant fight for it's life? It always keeps trying to get away, even if it's adversary is someone he has no chance against. Some folks just don't sit around waiting to die.

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by gnome


I'm on your side, MoeFaux, just wanted to correct an inaccuracy




Thanks for the correction, I'm glad someone was paying attention.

bignickel
23rd September 2003, 12:09 PM
When anti-biotics are outlawed, only criminals will be healthy.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

OK, one more.

When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."

LW
23rd September 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux

Even the folks with NO WEAPONS on one of the planes fought back.

After they heard that they would die in any case if they couldn't stop terrorists.

People will always fight back.

I would suggest you to read some military history before stating that as a certainty. The cases where a military force fights to the last man are vastly outnumbered by the cases where they either flee (risking death while incapable of fighting back) or surrender (even if the other side is known for mistreating prisoners).

shanek
23rd September 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Sundog
Your guns give you the ILLUSION of security. Like a nuclear deterrent, they are useless if you ever have to use them against the authorities. Where do you think your freedom would be ten minutes later? Laying on the ground dead along with you.

"[T]he arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men rather than to live slaves." &mdash;Thomas Jefferson and John Dickenson, Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by shanek


"[T]he arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men rather than to live slaves." &mdash;Thomas Jefferson and John Dickenson, Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone please explain to me why it isn't simpler and just a BIT more practical to simply vote the b*st*rds out of office?

shanek
23rd September 2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly
But if the passengers have guns, so will the hijacker, unless he's an idiot. Seven or eight guys suddenly jump up and shoot a few passengers for effect. Then they order everyone to put their hands in the air and shoot anyone that doesn't. They then disarm the passengers and take care of the captain and crew. Maybe they then shoot the passengers anyway. Odds are they can easily take control of the plane due to firepower and suprise. By the time the passengers realize they should shoot they are either dead or at a disadvantage.

Why was this never the case before 1973, when anyone who wanted to could bring a gun onboard a plane?

Not to mention the possiblity of just putting a single person on an airliner who starts shooting out windows at altitude....

Yes, because we all know it works exactly like it does in the movies... :rolleyes:

Educate yourself. (http://gunzone.sccltd.net/091101/goldfinger.html)

shanek
23rd September 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by LW
After they heard that they would die in any case if they couldn't stop terrorists.

And after the preceding inaction which only resulted after being told by the authorities that doing nothing was the best course of action in a hijacking.

shanek
23rd September 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Sundog
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone please explain to me why it isn't simpler and just a BIT more practical to simply vote the b*st*rds out of office?

Because you have to wait four years to do that. Besides, it's not effective if they decide to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution.

Three stages, remember: Ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. You resort to the cartridge box after the ballot and jury boxes fail you.

Grammatron
23rd September 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Sundog


Your guns give you the ILLUSION of security. Like a nuclear deterrent, they are useless if you ever have to use them against the authorities. Where do you think your freedom would be ten minutes later? Laying on the ground dead along with you.

A person is a fool if they think a gun will leave them completely safe. However, you can't be more wrong if you label a gun an " ILLUSION of security." Let me ask you, is a door illusion of security, is a lock? You do nothing to protect your property because any effort is an illusion to you?

No one will ever be 100% safe, but you can get really close to 100% if you take some logical steps.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by shanek


Three stages, remember: Ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. You resort to the cartridge box after the ballot and jury boxes fail you.

So, the ballot and the jury boxes haven't failed you so far.... If you resort to the catridge box after the ballot and the jury boxes that is called Junda.

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Grammatron


A person is a fool if they think a gun will leave them completely safe. However, you can't be more wrong if you label a gun an " ILLUSION of security." Let me ask you, is a door illusion of security, is a lock? You do nothing to protect your property because any effort is an illusion to you?

No one will ever be 100% safe, but you can get really close to 100% if you take some logical steps.

Let's separate the home-intrusion, shoot-burgler scenario from the Gestapo-stormtrooper scenario. If you have guns to protect yourself from an overreaching government, you will achieve exactly the same end result by "protecting" yourself with poisoned koolaid.

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by bignickel
When anti-biotics are outlawed, only criminals will be healthy.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
OK, one more.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."

Score two for bignickel.

And SHANEK! How much do I love you? I bow down before you, baby. Thanks for posting that link, I was just looking for that information. You rock my world.

Grammatron
23rd September 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Sundog


Let's separate the home-intrusion, shoot-burgler scenario from the Gestapo-stormtrooper scenario. If you have guns to protect yourself from an overreaching government, you will achieve exactly the same end result by "protecting" yourself with poisoned koolaid.

As stated before by shanek, guns are a last resort. As of this moment, I don't see myself using weapons to fight the government at all. However, that does not mean this type scenario will never come up and if it does, I'd like to have a choice with how to deal with the problem.

Chanileslie
23rd September 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Peach Jr.


My Mr. is pro-gun also. He's been urging me to take safety classes before we move and he takes his new job. The job would involve a *lot* of travel on his part and leave me and the baby alone for long periods of time.

Guns frighten me to death, and I can't make him understand that. I *really* don't want to learn how to use them...I'm not certain I could get good enough to not have it taken from me.

I was once married to a man who wanted me to learn to shoot and to get a concealed weapons permit, and I had to put my foot down, not because I am against gun ownership, but because I know me - I am not likely to shoot anything, and if I did it probably would miss (no matter how much practice I got in). I got a cell phone instead. Now a cell phone I know how to use, and use well!! :-)

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Grammatron


As stated before by shanek, guns are a last resort. As of this moment, I don't see myself using weapons to fight the government at all. However, that does not mean this type scenario will never come up and if it does, I'd like to have a choice with how to deal with the problem.

Well, yes, if it came down to it I agree. But hey, here's an idea: Let's vote the b*st*rds out.

Suddenly
23rd September 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by shanek


Why was this never the case before 1973, when anyone who wanted to could bring a gun onboard a plane? For roughly the same reason no one had used a plane as a missle to knock down a skyscraper before 2001. That didn't mean it wasn't plausible, did it? There just wasn't anyone who thought of it or had a reason to take such action.





Yes, because we all know it works exactly like it does in the movies... :rolleyes:

Educate yourself. (http://gunzone.sccltd.net/091101/goldfinger.html)

From the site you cite: Outflow valves are over a square foot on the 737, up to two square feet on the 757, and so on. You can lose three windows and still keep the cabin pressurized.


There isn't much of a problem assuming that a person isn't trying to bring the plane down. Yes, a spare bullet or three will have no effect. However, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about someone who wants to kill as many people as possible. Not many better places than an enclosed airliner.


So, if he shoots more than three or four windows, start shooting panels, maybe out the wing at the engine.... I'm talking about a person with a specialized weapon, with the advantage of total suprise. I know that one little hole isn't a big deal. I never said people would be sucked out the hole. A person with an specialized weapon is going to have a minimum of three seconds before any one reacts, and likely much more given the panic. Then all these armed passangers shoot back in an enclosed area...

The point is, that if passengers have guns, so do those who which to cause trouble. Firepower is relative, and the person seeking to disrupt will have the advantage of suprise. How is raising the level a destructive force available to the individual going to help anything?

shanek
23rd September 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, the ballot and the jury boxes haven't failed you so far...

They're trying. Ballot access restrictions and restrictions on challengers running campaigns are stifling the ballot box option, and the loss of jury nullification plus the ability of the government to take people like Jos&eacute; Padilla and hold them without charging them with a crime are stifling the second.

shanek
23rd September 2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
And SHANEK! How much do I love you? I bow down before you, baby. Thanks for posting that link, I was just looking for that information. You rock my world.

Please, please; I require not adoration. Large cash donations are sufficient. :D

shanek
23rd September 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly
There isn't much of a problem assuming that a person isn't trying to bring the plane down. Yes, a spare bullet or three will have no effect. However, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about someone who wants to kill as many people as possible. Not many better places than an enclosed airliner.

So, if he shoots more than three or four windows, start shooting panels, maybe out the wing at the engine....

...Then there still isn't any reason to believe the plane would fare any worse than the one with the bomb or with the roof that flew off.

I'm talking about a person with a specialized weapon, with the advantage of total suprise.

Like a bomb? That plane landed safely with only three deaths.

I know that one little hole isn't a big deal. I never said people would be sucked out the hole. A person with an specialized weapon is going to have a minimum of three seconds before any one reacts, and likely much more given the panic. Then all these armed passangers shoot back in an enclosed area...

Then why did you bring up the whole decompression thing to begin with?

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 01:57 PM
Shanek, will you marry me? Wait, are you male or female?
I guess it really doesn't matter.

Peach Jr.
23rd September 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Peach, there's nothing wrong with being afraid of guns. Guns are meant to destroy. However, with the proper education and training, you could learn how to be in control. You might be surpirsed to find that you actually like shooting.
There's all different kinds of uses for guns, from paintball to skeet shooting. Knowing how to use a gun doesn't make a person a killer. It just gives you a quirky hobby.
It never hurts to try something once. Hire a sitter and have the hubby take you to a practice range. Insist on a nice dinner afterwards, so you'll have a nice time no matter what.
The ironic thing about all this is, I was the one who posted last night (on another, unrelated thread)of almost leaving my then-fiance over his wanting to pursue intensive probation. That job would have required him to carry a gun and be available to pop in on his clients 24/7. I can't believe I've gone from that to even considering using a handgun in such a short time.

And I have used a gun before...when I was 12, my grandfather showed me how to use a 12-gauge. One dislocated shoulder later, I haven't touched one since.

shanek
23rd September 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Shanek, will you marry me? Wait, are you male or female?
I guess it really doesn't matter.

It matters to me; I'm a guy, and I like the ladies. My bread's only buttered on one side. ;)

Nikk
23rd September 2003, 02:41 PM
I would like to thank all of you who appear to sincerely believe that unrestricted access to guns on planes will mean safer flying. I am currently working on plans for a "free energy" machine and it's a great comfort to know that "there's one born every minute".

Zep
23rd September 2003, 02:44 PM
How many times must we rehash this topic? When will people go outside their doors and have a long hard look at the reality out there?

Many American citizens do NOT own guns, or maybe a handgun or two. The US military, with the President as command-in-chief, owns lots of guns. Big guns that shoot lots of bullets fast and far. And tanks and howitzers and combat aircraft and naval vessels...

So you can bleat all you like about protecting yourself from "the government" but let's face it, in a fire-fight, YOU WILL LOSE! Big time.

Sundog is right - want to protect your rights? Then VOTE. Funny - it has always seemed to work for the last 200+ years...

shanek
23rd September 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Nikk
I would like to thank all of you who appear to sincerely believe that unrestricted access to guns on planes will mean safer flying. I am currently working on plans for a "free energy" machine and it's a great comfort to know that "there's one born every minute".

Except that, as the pre-1973 experience shows, unrestricted access to guns on planes actually works. There has been no such previous experience with free energy machines.

gnome
23rd September 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by shanek


And after the preceding inaction which only resulted after being told by the authorities that doing nothing was the best course of action in a hijacking.

I don't believe it had anything to do with the authorities. Based on previous experience with hijackings, the idea that the hostages' best chance of survival was cooperation was quite natural. Nobody had to be "told" by the government.

Of course, it's a whole new world now. Even with nobody having any guns on the plane, I would like to see somoene try to take the plane without concealing it from the passengers.

bignickel
23rd September 2003, 03:02 PM
I wouldn't be too surprised to see this headline:

"Terrorist tries to take over airplane with box cutter.
Passengers give him Sicilian necktie."

OK, I only wish that it was worded that way. But you get the idea.

Taking over an airplane with crude weapons, in order to turn it into a missile is a SPENT nickel since 9/01. From this point on, anytime a hijacker tries to take a plane, the passengers, if American, will instantly go '9/11! 9/11'. If the hijackers aren't packing, they can probably expect to be de-limbed.

sorgoth
23rd September 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
I'm pro-gun.
All the anti-weapon laws are killing people. If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.


And if guns were allowed on airplanes, it would be ten times as easy to hijack one. All you would have to is get a couple of people with guns on, shoot whoever else can defend themselves, and murder has never been so easy.


Might begin to like shooting


That's what I'm afraid of.

Sundog
23rd September 2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by shanek


Except that, as the pre-1973 experience shows, unrestricted access to guns on planes actually works. There has been no such previous experience with free energy machines.

There are examples of pre-1973 hijackings foiled by passengers with guns? Interesting. Got any cites?

shanek
23rd September 2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Sundog
There are examples of pre-1973 hijackings foiled by passengers with guns? Interesting. Got any cites?

There generally wasn't the need. There were comparitively few hijackings or even attempted hijackings until after the gun ban. But I do have one example of an armed pilot taking out a hijacker. It was on July 6, 1954 when a teenager attempted to comandeer a plane and was shot dead by its pilot, Bill Bonnell:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1087467

See, here's the thing: guns protect invisibly. If pilots or anyone else had had guns on 9/11, a similar situation might have transpired, and it would be seen as a thwarted series of hijackings. Even if their plans had come to light, it's still the case that we wouldn't have had any idea that they would have completely taken out two of the world's tallest buildings and the lives of over 3,000 people. And people would still be calling for gun control to prevent those hijackers from trying to take the plane in the first place.

Nikk
23rd September 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by shanek


Except that, as the pre-1973 experience shows, unrestricted access to guns on planes actually works. There has been no such previous experience with free energy machines.

The increasing security restrictions of the 70's came after a spate of hijackings by armed individuals and groups. I dimly remember there was a fad for hijacking airliners and taking them to Cuba. In other words the aircraft were hijacked even though there was nothing to stop other passengers going on board armed.

Given that there is a very real risk of suicidal terrorists attacking planes with no other intention other than to down the plane, current security precautions such as x-ray screening would continue to be needed in order to ensure that only lethal handguns could be taken on the plane but not bombs/grenades etc.

Ever stop to think that the magazine of a handgun could contain cartidges filled with semtex or similar? Two or three guys with such "guns" and a few minutes work in the toilet and you have a potent little bomb which could blow a hole in the hull. You do know what even a crudely shaped charge can do to thin metal don't you? Care to envisage the consequences? Care to bet 300 or so lives on the hull holding?

shanek
23rd September 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Nikk
The increasing security restrictions of the 70's came after a spate of hijackings by armed individuals and groups.

That just isn't true. Congress had been trying to pass a comprehensive gun ban since 1961, when they made carrying a concealed weapon on an airplane a misdemeanor. The hijackings prior to 1973 occured at a much lesser rate than the ones to follow it in the late 1970s. And those hijackings occured after 1969, when Congress made carrying a concealed firearm on a plane a felony. The antihijacking act in 1973 made the carrying of all firearms on airplanes, openly carried or otherwise, a felony.

I dimly remember there was a fad for hijacking airliners and taking them to Cuba. In other words the aircraft were hijacked even though there was nothing to stop other passengers going on board armed.

Except that they had to openly carry the weapon on their person; they couldn't keep it in their carry-on unseen. This meant that the hijackers could easily tell when they would or would not meet armed resistance.

Ever stop to think that the magazine of a handgun could contain cartidges filled with semtex or similar?

So could the spare battery compartment in my laptop. Your point?

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by shanek


It matters to me; I'm a guy, and I like the ladies. My bread's only buttered on one side. ;)

Preach it, brother. You keep fighting that good fight.

And I'm a girl, by the way. Don't you go worrying about where I'm putting your butter.

shanek
23rd September 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Preach it, brother. You keep fighting that good fight.

And I'm a girl, by the way. Don't you go worrying about where I'm putting your butter.

As intelligent as you obviously are, I'm sure you could butter me up anytime... ;)

MoeFaux
23rd September 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by shanek


As intelligent as you obviously are, I'm sure you could butter me up anytime... ;)

I could make a joke in reference to Last Tango in Paris, but that would just be disturbing.
And we'd have to move the thread.

So Mr. Libertarian, will you be attending TAM2?

shanek
23rd September 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
I could make a joke in reference to Last Tango in Paris, but that would just be disturbing.
And we'd have to move the thread.

So Mr. Libertarian, will you be attending TAM2?

If finances allow, yes.

a_unique_person
23rd September 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Sundog


Ummmm....vote the b*stards out of office?

Everyone knows it's more fun if you shoot them first.

Cleopatra
23rd September 2003, 11:43 PM
And I'm a girl, by the way. Don't you go worrying about where I'm putting your butter


It's amazing to have a troll that has been an administrator of this forum...

Cleopatra
24th September 2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by shanek


They're trying. Ballot access restrictions and restrictions on challengers running campaigns are stifling the ballot box option, and the loss of jury nullification plus the ability of the government to take people like Jos&eacute; Padilla and hold them without charging them with a crime are stifling the second.

Cheap rhetory shanek that's why your words sounded that appealling to the Moe-troll-Faux--at least you found a wife who insists that knows where to butter you...

Gun ownership failed so far to protect the personal freedoms and if they'd ever been used, this would initiate a civil war. As you probably know civil wars end with further restrictions of personal freedoms and to compromises individuals wouldn't need to have made in the first place.

The Fool
24th September 2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
I'm pro-gun.
All the anti-weapon laws are killing people. If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.

So, your Idea of letting people carry guns onto planes...Hmmmmm.... Are you talking about armed guards on all planes, or just letting passengers pack heat?

No need to worry about children shooting each other with mommy's rape prevention gun eh?. You know the one...Its the one you want in all womens handbags, and presumably on their person around the house...and in the car when picking the kids up from school.... Its a very special sort of gun that promises only to go off if its pointed at a rapist....It refuses to work if its pointed at some kids head. Or the owner of the guns foot...or anyone else who may end up in front of it.....

I must admit that is the one thing I find really really strange about some people...Its the belief that if everyone packed bloody great big shooters everything would be calmer, safer and generally nicer...


Warning, Warning, Danger Will Robinson...another Gun thread has been sighted....:roll:

Grammatron
24th September 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


So, your Idea of letting people carry guns onto planes...Hmmmmm.... Are you talking about armed guards on all planes, or just letting passengers pack heat?

No need to worry about children shooting each other with mommy's rape prevention gun eh?. You know the one...Its the one you want in all womens handbags, and presumably on their person around the house...and in the car when picking the kids up from school.... Its a very special sort of gun that promises only to go off if its pointed at a rapist....It refuses to work if its pointed at some kids head. Or the owner of the guns foot...or anyone else who may end up in front of it.....

I must admit that is the one thing I find really really strange about some people...Its the belief that if everyone packed bloody great big shooters everything would be calmer, safer and generally nicer...


Warning, Warning, Danger Will Robinson...another Gun thread has been sighted....:roll:

Oh won't somebody think of the children!!!

Listen, lets ban cars while we at it, because we all know that children can get the keys from mommy's handbags. Because it's a very special kind of car that only starts when mommy is behind the wheel, and it certainly refuses to accidentally drive over other kids, or trees, or any one else who may end up in front of it.

I have to be honest with you; I find it really odd that some people find that personal transportations can make things calmer, safer and generally nicer.

I also find it odd how some people want personal freedoms, because obviously people are stupid and don't know anything about anything. The more we control their lives the better things get, I mean just look at history! :rolleyes:

LW
24th September 2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by shanek

See, here's the thing: guns protect invisibly. If pilots or anyone else had had guns on 9/11, a similar situation might have transpired, and it would be seen as a thwarted series of hijackings.

I emphasized the word might. I agree, having guns in the plane might have stopped the terrorists. This is different from saying that guns would have prevented the hijacks which was what I argued against.

The Fool
24th September 2003, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Grammatron


Oh won't somebody think of the children!!!

Listen, lets ban cars while we at it, because we all know that children can get the keys from mommy's handbags. Because it's a very special kind of car that only starts when mommy is behind the wheel, and it certainly refuses to accidentally drive over other kids, or trees, or any one else who may end up in front of it.

I have to be honest with you; I find it really odd that some people find that personal transportations can make things calmer, safer and generally nicer.

I also find it odd how some people want personal freedoms, because obviously people are stupid and don't know anything about anything. The more we control their lives the better things get, I mean just look at history! :rolleyes:

Pretty standard strawman. I don't remember suggesting the banning of anything. Why am I constantly asked to justify the proposal to completely ban all guns?

Yes, I do think of the children. Children who live in households with guns all over the place are not safer. Despite all the cute stories we read on this forum about how Pa taught me everything I could possibly need to know about how to be safe with machines designed to kill people.... Remember, drunken domestic gunfights happen in other people's homes. Guns get stolen from other peoples homes, other peoples children shoot themselves.

I find it amusing how some posters think of themselves as against restrictions on gun ownership, but then they will tell you who they think shouldn't have guns.... Stupid and dangerous people should not have guns. Children should not be able to take guns to school, people who have been convicted of certain crimes (the crimes vary)..... They are gun control advocates just like me, the problem is that they cannot comprehend how their guns could possibly be a problem. Their guns are good guns that don't participate in accidental deaths or crimes. Their guns make things safer. Its other peoples guns that are the problem So where do all the undesirable people and criminals get their bad guns from? Any guess?
Don't you just love gun threads? Strawman heaven :roll:

Ok.....thats my Strawman anyone want to throw in any more?

Sundog
24th September 2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Cheap rhetory shanek that's why your words sounded that appealling to the Moe-troll-Faux--at least you found a wife who insists that knows where to butter you...


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Grammatron
24th September 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


Pretty standard strawman. I don't remember suggesting the banning of anything. Why am I constantly asked to justify the proposal to completely ban all guns?

Yes, I do think of the children. Children who live in households with guns all over the place are not safer. Despite all the cute stories we read on this forum about how Pa taught me everything I could possibly need to know about how to be safe with machines designed to kill people.... Remember, drunken domestic gunfights happen in other people's homes. Guns get stolen from other peoples homes, other peoples children shoot themselves.

I find it amusing how some posters think of themselves as against restrictions on gun ownership, but then they will tell you who they think shouldn't have guns.... Stupid and dangerous people should not have guns. Children should not be able to take guns to school, people who have been convicted of certain crimes (the crimes vary)..... They are gun control advocates just like me, the problem is that they cannot comprehend how their guns could possibly be a problem. Their guns are good guns that don't participate in accidental deaths or crimes. Their guns make things safer. Its other peoples guns that are the problem So where do all the undesirable people and criminals get their bad guns from? Any guess?
Don't you just love gun threads? Strawman heaven :roll:

Ok.....thats my Strawman anyone want to throw in any more?

Strawman indeed.

By the way, don't be shy about using facts supported by evidence in your posts.

MoeFaux
24th September 2003, 11:56 AM
Cleo, I can tell you're a woman who prefers margarine. ;)

I did go off topic a bit, but, I was just so pleasantly surprised to find someone picking up where I left off that I couldn't help but throw in a little tease.

I don't think any sane Libertarian believes that there will ever be a government that allows guns on airplanes or letting people do as they wish. It's mainly about the ideas. A Libertarian's perfect world is based on a world filled with sane, respecting folk who would never harm another person. Anyone over the age of 10 knows that the world we live in is not such a world. But it's gradual suggestions that change things, one step at a time.
It's ludicrous that people should receive government handouts. So the Libertarian says, "no government handouts", that idea gets mixed in with all the others, and we come out somewhere in the middle.
It's fighting the good fight.
Now, I really am for gun rights. I do not own a gun. I don't own a gun because I haven't taken the proper training and therefore I don't think I'm qualified to own one. When I say that people should be allowed to have guns, I'm not just saying that any old fool should be toting a Magnum. I'm basing my idea of gun rights on a world where people are safe, sane, and consensual, where one knows not to harm another person, where people would know that learning everything about a gun before even firing it at a range is the right thing to do. That's not that way things are, but by throwing that idea in the mix, maybe someone who would go buy a gun will think, "I should know what I'm doing first".
My belief system, for both atheism and politics, has mainly been influenced by the writings of Ayn Rand. There's no doubt that I'm a political whackjob. No doubt. But, I don't fit into the mold of a democrat or a republican, and the basis of objectivism and libertarianism is free thought. I respect that very much. It sickens me that any government would say to one of my male friends that he can't sleep with his boyfriend. It's not right. I want people to make choices for themselves, to live their life their life in a sane, reasonable way while not harming others. I want people to be able to LIVE.
So when I say that I'm for guns, it's NOT just for women to pack heat to prevent rapes. It's for everyone. I want people to have that right, that freedom, and to use it wisely.

The Fool
24th September 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Grammatron


Strawman indeed.

By the way, don't be shy about using facts supported by evidence in your posts.

Deal.......you first ok? You can start by listing all the gun controls you agree with. Then tell me how these don't infringe on the "personal freedoms" you believe you value above all else.

Then I can list all the gun controls I agree with and we can see how much common ground there is. After all, we both want to violate people's personal freedom to have a gun....Its just a matter of who and how much.

Having said that, there is always the possiblility that you value "personal freedom" so highly that you would allow anyone to buy guns from all night convenience stores no questions asked. Is this the case? After all, If I supposedly advocate complete restiction, you must be advocating absolutely no restriction????....

I suspect we are fellow gun control advocates. I'm sure we can reach common ground;)

The Fool
24th September 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Now, I really am for gun rights.........

(some text clipped by me)

When I say that people should be allowed to have guns, I'm not just saying that any old fool should be toting a Magnum.

(some more text cliped by me)

So when I say that I'm for guns, it's NOT just for women to pack heat to prevent rapes. It's for everyone. I want people to have that right, that freedom, and to use it wisely.

Cool.....Now there are at least 3 gun control advocates here....Myself, Grammatron and now you too!

Although, I am a bit worried how you intend to determine who are the "old fools" who are not allowed guns and who are not "old fools" and are allowed to have guns. And this "wisdom" you should have to be allowed personal freedom with guns...how is that to be measured?

Together we can win over the "personal freedom above all else" crowd !!!!!! Lets get on with it!!!!!

ALL TOGETHER NOW!!!!

Whadda we want?
Gun controls
when do we want it?
NOW!!!

Cleopatra
24th September 2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Cleo, I can tell you're a woman who prefers margarine. ;)

For you I am just Cleopatra. You attempted to flame me using the topic of child molestation so, spare the sweet BS when addressing to me Ok?

Now let's see what makes you feel that exceptional ( apart from the proper use of butter):

A Libertarian's perfect world is based on a world filled with sane, respecting folk who would never harm another person.

This is part of a communist's, socialists's, republican, christian democrat's world too. So, maybe you are a communist and you don't know it.

Anyone over the age of 10 knows that the world we live in is not such a world. But it's gradual suggestions that change things, one step at a time.

By the moment that somebody becomes 10 starts learning History at school so, he can actually realize that society changes. It's the pro-gun people that want to keep the society to the era of the Founding Fathers.... Are you younger than 10 or you don't know of what you are talking about?

It's ludicrous that people should receive government handouts. So the Libertarian says, "no government handouts", that idea gets mixed in with all the others, and we come out somewhere in the middle.
It's fighting the good fight.

So, this is the reason that government gives you the guns: to go hunt.

When I say that people should be allowed to have guns, I'm not just saying that any old fool should be toting a Magnum.

Really? And how you are going to define that?

I'm basing my idea of gun rights on a world where people are safe, sane, and consensual, where one knows not to harm another person, where people would know that learning everything about a gun before even firing it at a range is the right thing to do.

So, you are basing your idea on a perfect world that --according to you-- if it existed we wouldn't need guns. Right!

That's not that way things are, but by throwing that idea in the mix, maybe someone who would go buy a gun will think, "I should know what I'm doing first".

Now you are asking us to count on good faith,you are asking us to trust society? Hey Faux in case you haven't noticed, these are the arguments of the pro-gun control people.

My belief system, for both atheism and politics, has mainly been influenced by the writings of Ayn Rand.

Now that explains everything!!!!

There's no doubt that I'm a political whackjob. No doubt. But, I don't fit into the mold of a democrat or a republican

Have you tried the butter mould?

It sickens me that any government would say to one of my male friends that he can't sleep with his boyfriend. It's not right. I want people to make choices for themselves, to live their life their life in a sane, reasonable way while not harming others. I want people to be able to LIVE.


Where have you been all these years Faux. I haven't read such original slogans before! Your posts are a life changing experience.

So when I say that I'm for guns, it's NOT just for women to pack heat to prevent rapes. It's for everyone. I want people to have that right, that freedom, and to use it wisely.

Faux wants people to life their life in a sane and reasonable way while not harming others therefore she is pro-guns.

You are a troll.

Grammatron
25th September 2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


Deal.......you first ok? You can start by listing all the gun controls you agree with. Then tell me how these don't infringe on the "personal freedoms" you believe you value above all else.

Then I can list all the gun controls I agree with and we can see how much common ground there is. After all, we both want to violate people's personal freedom to have a gun....Its just a matter of who and how much.

Having said that, there is always the possiblility that you value "personal freedom" so highly that you would allow anyone to buy guns from all night convenience stores no questions asked. Is this the case? After all, If I supposedly advocate complete restiction, you must be advocating absolutely no restriction????....

I suspect we are fellow gun control advocates. I'm sure we can reach common ground;)

Good :)


Well I think it should be the same as cars, actually. If you want to use a gun on public property you need to pass a test to show you know how to use one and get a gun license. We can separate the licenses based on types of guns. This way the rights are still there just that guns are registered and licensed.

MoeFaux
25th September 2003, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra

For you I am just Cleopatra. You attempted to flame me using the topic of child molestation so, spare the sweet BS when addressing to me Ok?

Faux wants people to life their life in a sane and reasonable way while not harming others therefore she is pro-guns.

You are a troll.

Okay, you're right. I'm sorry.

Chaos
25th September 2003, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Grammatron


Good :)


Well I think it should be the same as cars, actually. If you want to use a gun on public property you need to pass a test to show you know how to use one and get a gun license. We can separate the licenses based on types of guns. This way the rights are still there just that guns are registered and licensed.

For your interest:
Many countries, including my own, do already have such legislation in place. Although it does not work perfectly, we do have significantly lower deaths for guns per capita.
We also have fewer guns per capita, and we´re not missing anything.

BPSCG
25th September 2003, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Zep
How many times must we rehash this topic? When will people go outside their doors and have a long hard look at the reality out there?

Many American citizens do NOT own guns, or maybe a handgun or two. The US military, with the President as command-in-chief, owns lots of guns. Big guns that shoot lots of bullets fast and far. And tanks and howitzers and combat aircraft and naval vessels...

So you can bleat all you like about protecting yourself from "the government" but let's face it, in a fire-fight, YOU WILL LOSE! Big time.

Sundog is right - want to protect your rights? Then VOTE. Funny - it has always seemed to work for the last 200+ years... Okay, first my bona fides. Until September 11, I had never owned a gun; nor had I any desire to do so. And when, a week or so later, I broached the possibility to She Who Must Be Appeased, I was prepared to drop the subject entirely if she did not immediately and wholeheartedly sign on.

But she did, and we bought a revolver. We took the appropriate safety courses, and I've spent enough time at the range to be confident in my ability to drop anyone who breaks into my house. But I'm not happy about it.

We bought a gun, not because we were frightened of our own government - we're not - but because we were easily able to visualize a scenario where terrorists wiped out the power grid in our nation's capital and in the ensuing confusion and panic, and before the militia could restore order, roving gangs of bad guys (rioters, mobs, call them what you will) might decide that our comfortably middle-class neighborhood presented a tempting target.

So I'm not some wild-eyed "gun kook", but I do sleep a little better at night knowing it's there.

Now, does owning a .38 Special make us safe from our own government in the hypothetical event of a military coup?

By itself, of course not.

What makes us safe from our own government is not the fact that tens of millioins of Americans own their own guns. It's not our Constitution. It's not our detestation of tyranny. It's not our military's respect for civilian institutions.

It's ALL of those things, together. No single one of them guarantees our freedoms. But we have a military that respects civilian control; if you don't believe that, ask Douglas MacArthur or any other general the president or secretary of defense has fired for popping off his mouth too much. Without that, we'd be no better off than some banana republic whose military steps in every time they don't like the general drift of things.

And even if our military were to overthrow the elected government, we have millions of armed citizens who hate hate hate the idea of being ordered around by a military junta. Is my .38 Special a match for a howitzer? Of course not. But an armed citizenry can make life miserable even for a modern army. Look what a relatively small number of Iraqis are doing today. By contrast, look at what happened in Tiennamen (sp?) Square. Those brave Chinese students could stand up to the tanks with nothing more imposing than their chests.

And, FWIW, I never fail to vote on election day. Never.

BPSCG
25th September 2003, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Chaos


For your interest:
Many countries, including my own, do already have such legislation in place. Although it does not work perfectly, we do have significantly lower deaths for guns per capita.
We also have fewer guns per capita, and we´re not missing anything. If you're suggesting that more gun ownership = more gun deaths, may I just say "Switzerland"?

BTW, don't you think you should be fair and reveal what your country is if you're going to cite it as People's Exhibit A?

Chaos
25th September 2003, 06:51 AM
My country is Germany.

In Switzerland, guns, or more precisely, rifles, are given to military reservists; these people know how to handle guns, they are taught to be responsible with their guns.

I think most Americans who own guns act just as responsibly with their guns. I´m thinking of soldiers, policemen, security personnel, hunters and such. I don´t know how many people who get guns for self-defense are as careful as you are, though. Is there any legal mechanism that requires people to take these courses? I am not 100% certain because I was never interested in getting a gun, but I am quite sure such a course is mandatory if you want to get a gun permit in Germany.

Remember, it is not the responsible people like you that make some degree of gun control necessary, it is the dangerous, violent people and those who act carelessly with their guns that cause most deaths.

Flo
25th September 2003, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by BPSCG
If you're suggesting that more gun ownership = more gun deaths, may I just say "Switzerland"?


Bad comparison. In Switzerland, ordinary people (i.e. those having not been in the military) are subjected to gun control, variable from canton to canton . Gun ownership is limited to citizen having served in the military (usually assault rifles, carefully stored in their attic behind some other stuff to make sure they won't be misused or stolen, thus leading to a frantic last minute search everytime a military period is due :D ), people whose job justifies a special need for carrying a handgun, and hunters. "Civilian" gun owners are in a minority as people view protection of their safety as a task for the police forces and are certainly not encouraged to take it into their own hands given what happens in more gun-friendly countries.

Gun control is going to be strickter following a number of crimes and killings involving guns and assault rifles, none motivated by self-defense, and outside a minority of arms collectors and right-wing nuts, nobody is complaining about it.

Just so that you know, I work in Switzerland and have Swiss stepfather and brother ...

shanek
25th September 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by The Fool
No need to worry about children shooting each other with mommy's rape prevention gun eh?. You know the one...Its the one you want in all womens handbags, and presumably on their person around the house...and in the car when picking the kids up from school.... Its a very special sort of gun that promises only to go off if its pointed at a rapist....It refuses to work if its pointed at some kids head. Or the owner of the guns foot...or anyone else who may end up in front of it.....

Why weren't these kinds of things happening before the gun bans?

The Fool
25th September 2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by BPSCG

We bought a gun, not because we were frightened of our own government - we're not - but because we were easily able to visualize a scenario where terrorists wiped out the power grid in our nation's capital and in the ensuing confusion and panic, and before the militia could restore order, roving gangs of bad guys (rioters, mobs, call them what you will) might decide that our comfortably middle-class neighborhood presented a tempting target.


Maybe you should consider the probablility of you or a member of your family ever being killed or injured by a mob during a riot in your home street against the probablilty of you or a member of your family being killed or injured by that handgun you just purchased.... I think you may have decreased your anxiety levels but actually increased your danger levels.

EvilYeti
25th September 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
There's no doubt that I'm a political whackjob. No doubt.

Well, you are right about one thing at least. No if only we could get shanek to admit to being mentally handicapped....

BPSCG
26th September 2003, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by The Fool

Maybe you should consider the probablility of you or a member of your family ever being killed or injured by a mob during a riot in your home street against the probablilty of you or a member of your family being killed or injured by that handgun you just purchased.... I think you may have decreased your anxiety levels but actually increased your danger levels. Sure, that's certainly a possibility. And my wife and I discussed it and weighed the pros and cons and we believe that overall, we'd be safer with a gun in the house.

Note - I said we decided. Not some bureaucrat somewhere who reviewed our application and ruled on whether or not we had a real "need".

BPSCG
26th September 2003, 04:56 AM
My belief system, for both atheism and politics, has mainly been influenced by the writings of Ayn Rand. There's no doubt that I'm a political whackjob. How does having been influenced by Ayn Rand make one a whackjob? Atlas Shrugged, despite its faults as literature, strikes me as being uncommonly sensical. I must admit, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't have more fans in this forum, given Rand's unyielding rationalism and atheism.

The Fool
26th September 2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by BPSCG
Note - I said we decided. Not some bureaucrat somewhere who reviewed our application and ruled on whether or not we had a real "need".

But, no doubt, you would like the bureaucrat to try to keep guns out of the hands of people with anger management problems? Or long lists of assault convictions? Or do these people deserve to decide for themselves too?

My opinion is you have just bought into your house the gun most likely to kill or seriously injure you or a member of your family. I am absolutely sure you don't see it that way and would never do anything to endanger your family... I urge you to investigate the probabilities and get rid of the damn thing.

The Fool
26th September 2003, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by shanek


Why weren't these kinds of things happening before the gun bans?
Sorry shane...what things? I know you believe that more guns=less gunshot wounds but I've got no Idea what you are getting at here??

BPSCG
26th September 2003, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by The Fool
But, no doubt, you would like the bureaucrat to try to keep guns out of the hands of people with anger management problems? I don't know what you mean by "anger management problems". I yell and curse at drivers whose navigation skills I disapprove of, but never in my wildest dreams would I shoot one of them. Okay, maybe in my wildest dreams... ;)
Or long lists of assault convictions? Or do these people deserve to decide for themselves too?
The guy with the long list of assault convictions can NOT legally buy a gun in this country. The problem is, he can very easily ILLEGALLY buy a gun.

My opinion
and an excellent one it is, too ;)

is you have just bought into your house the gun most likely to kill or seriously injure you or a member of your family. I am absolutely sure you don't see it that way and would never do anything to endanger your family... I urge you to investigate the probabilities and get rid of the damn thing. We've also brought into our house the gun most likely to protect us from someone who would do us bodily harm. Until September 11, 2001, we believed the risk/reward scenario for having a gun tipped the scales against having a gun. But on that day, we realized that, for at least the third generation in a row, there are people out there who want to kill us, not for anything we have done, but simply for what we are. In our calculus, the scales have now tipped the other way. If you disapprove of guns in the house, fine, don't have one. And if you disapprove of a government that won't severly restrict your right to own one, then fine, don't live in that kind of country. Guess which kind of country I prefer.

shanek
26th September 2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by The Fool

Maybe you should consider the probablility of you or a member of your family ever being killed or injured by a mob during a riot in your home street against the probablilty of you or a member of your family being killed or injured by that handgun you just purchased.

And maybe you should consider the possibility that that ratio is much higher than you think it is.

shanek
26th September 2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by The Fool

Sorry shane...what things?

Whaddya mean, what things? The very things you were talking about in your post! The things you said were bound to happen if people were allowed to carry guns!

MoeFaux
26th September 2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by BPSCG
How does having been influenced by Ayn Rand make one a whackjob? Atlas Shrugged, despite its faults as literature, strikes me as being uncommonly sensical. I must admit, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't have more fans in this forum, given Rand's unyielding rationalism and atheism.

I refer to myself as a political whackjob because what I believe is considered nuts. Just read what people have written in response to my initial post. How easy it was to become a pariah.

I love Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged changed my life. And obviously, limited my social circle.

Cleopatra
26th September 2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


I refer to myself as a political whackjob because what I believe is considered nuts. Just read what people have written in response to my initial post. How easy it was to become a pariah.

I love Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged changed my life. And obviously, limited my social circle.

Come on Faux.

Trolls get what they deserve.

Flame baits about child molesters, cheap humor about buttering shanek, vague references to writers that represent the worse version the establishment...

MoeFaux
26th September 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Come on Faux.

Trolls get what they deserve.

Flame baits about child molesters, cheap humor about buttering shanek, vague references to writers that represent the worse version the establishment...


Yup, you're right about everything. I'm putting up flame bait (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/f/flame.html) and I'm a troll (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html). I'm sorry.:rolleyes:

Cleopatra
26th September 2003, 11:47 AM
What do you mean that you are sorry? Do you mean that you won't repeat it?

Well, we will see :)

MoeFaux
26th September 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
What do you mean that you are sorry? Do you mean that you won't repeat it?

Well, we will see :)

I didn't mean to waste your time or upset you, and I'm sorry. Should I put a warning up next time?

Cleopatra
26th September 2003, 12:05 PM
Well, if addressing to me you used as an example of violation of personal liberties a case that is related to the issue of child molestation you did it to upset me.

When I first read it, I didn't reply, I let it go but when I saw the butter crap the day after, I realized that what you posted you posted it on purpose to provoke people pretending that you were joking...

:bs:

Well, better luck next time.

Tony
26th September 2003, 12:17 PM
Hey Cleo, are you going to account for your hypocrisy, or are you going to dodge?

Cleopatra
26th September 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Tony
Hey Cleo, are you going to account for your hypocrisy, or are you going to dodge?

If you rephrase your sentence to a more civilized one dear peasant, I might consider replying you.

Tony
26th September 2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


If you rephrase your sentence to a more civilized one dear peasant, I might consider replying you.


So you're going to dodge. I thought so.

Cleopatra
26th September 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Tony



So you're going to dodge. I thought so.

So you will remain a rude peasant. I thought so.

Tony
26th September 2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


So you will remain a rude peasant....


Thats funny coming from someone who wants the nanny state to protect her from the big bad guns.

Cleopatra
26th September 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Tony



Thats funny coming from someone who wants the nanny state to protect her from the big bad guns.

Tony please, go flame Faux who shares your sense of humor and probably your IQ rates...

shanek
26th September 2003, 12:35 PM
And yet another potentially great thread about liberty is derailed by those who are uncomfortable with the subject but don't want to specifically address it. Typical, unfortunately...

Tony
26th September 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Tony please, go flame Faux who shares your sense of humor and probably your IQ rates...


I’m not flaming, you just can’t handle it when someone challenges your hypocrisy. Your disdain for personal liberties and your hypocritical nature is noted.

Suddenly
26th September 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by shanek
And yet another potentially great thread about liberty is derailed by those who are uncomfortable with the subject but don't want to specifically address it. Typical, unfortunately...

I thought it was about guns and air pressure? Did I miss something? :confused:


Also, what's the deal with the peasantry?

Tony
26th September 2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly

Also, what's the deal with the peasantry?


Cleo's weak attempt at ad hom.

MoeFaux
26th September 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well, if addressing to me you used as an example of violation of personal liberties a case that is related to the issue of child molestation you did it to upset me.

When I first read it, I didn't reply, I let it go but when I saw the butter crap the day after, I realized that what you posted you posted it on purpose to provoke people pretending that you were joking...

Well, better luck next time.

All right, I'll play along.
The topic heading is "On personal liberties", under "Politics, current events, and history". The link you are refering to is this (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Noteworthy/03NewsNOTE06092003.htm), about a man who was sent to jail for WRITING FICTIONAL STORIES.
I did not post this link to intentionally upset you; I don't know you and therefore it would be ridiculous for me to target you. If child molestation has hit you close to home, I'm sorry. But, child molestation is not what my link was about. It was about free speech, and our right to it. The issue of free speech runs right along with the initial post I set up, which was about right to privacy. I posted this link to provoke thoughts on freedom. I am still on track.
You, however, have derailed this thread considerably, and have been nothing but hostile towards me, with your comments meant to annoy and disrupt the discussion. Thusly, this makes YOU the troll setting up flame bait.
If you would like to attack my personal beliefs, you may do so at your leisure in the flame war thread. You may also PM me if you like; I'll bare my breast for you to stab that dagger in as much as you like.
However, this isn't the place for it. If you'd like to continue to post on this thread and give us your anti-gun arguements, I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear them. If not, take the comments somewhere else.
Contribute, don't tear down.

Sundog
26th September 2003, 01:33 PM
Gee, thanks, Linda.

Grammatron
26th September 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


All right, I'll play along.
The topic heading is "On personal liberties", under "Politics, current events, and history". The link you are refering to is this (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Noteworthy/03NewsNOTE06092003.htm), about a man who was sent to jail for WRITING FICTIONAL STORIES.
I did not post this link to intentionally upset you; I don't know you and therefore it would be ridiculous for me to target you. If child molestation has hit you close to home, I'm sorry. But, child molestation is not what my link was about. It was about free speech, and our right to it. The issue of free speech runs right along with the initial post I set up, which was about right to privacy. I posted this link to provoke thoughts on freedom. I am still on track.
You, however, have derailed this thread considerably, and have been nothing but hostile towards me, with your comments meant to annoy and disrupt the discussion. Thusly, this makes YOU the troll setting up flame bait.
If you would like to attack my personal beliefs, you may do so at your leisure in the flame war thread. You may also PM me if you like; I'll bare my breast for you to stab that dagger in as much as you like.
However, this isn't the place for it. If you'd like to continue to post on this thread and give us your anti-gun arguements, I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear them. If not, take the comments somewhere else.
Contribute, don't tear down.

Cleopatra, if all this man did was write fictional stories, and from the article it appears that to be the case, I don't see why you are so upset with MoeFaux? I didn't see her advocate child molestation; all she is trying to show is how people are willing to curb free speech if it they don't agree with it. Using the same twisted logic, one could argue that a person writing a novel where a man gets killed should be held for attempted murder.

Linda
26th September 2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Sundog
Gee, thanks, Linda.

Huh?:confused: You talking to me?

Cleopatra
27th September 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by shanek
And yet another potentially great thread about liberty is derailed by those who are uncomfortable with the subject but don't want to specifically address it. Typical, unfortunately...

In her opening post Faux, mentioned the case of Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh that although it dates back in 1987,both of them face the risk to be deported because of a provision of the Mac Carran Act that whilst it was repealed in 1990, Congress's action didn't affect pending disputes.

When I said that American people must resist, young, skeptical Tony suggested that I cannot ask people to resist without being pro-gun ownership and this is where the dispute started.

So, since you are against the gun control and you quoted verbatim Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms" can you or somebody else explain to me why don't you use your guns to resist to the abuse of personal freedoms under the Patriot Act?

shanek
27th September 2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, since you are against the gun control and you quoted verbatim Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms" can you or somebody else explain to me why don't you use your guns to resist to the abuse of personal freedoms under the Patriot Act?

I have told you this before. The cartridge box is the last resort when the ballto box and the jury box fail. Although government in many ways is rigging elections and constraining what juries can do, I don't think it's hopeless enough to abandon those measures.

What am I doing to combat the Patriot Act? I drafted a resolution (http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/patriot.html) and presented it to our County Commissioners. I also made a supporting page (http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/supporting-patriot.html) to provide evidence and convince people about the evils of the act.

All over America, over 300 municipalities and five states have passed resolutions refusing to cooperate with the Patriot Act's violation of our liberties. So this is a method that works.

I'm also running for County Commissioner in the hopes of having a greater effect on all of this. In the process, I am battling the ballot access and campaign finance laws.

The use of force must always be the last resort.

MoeFaux
27th September 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


In her opening post Faux, mentioned the case of Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh that although it dates back in 1987,both of them face the risk to be deported because of a provision of the Mac Carran Act that whilst it was repealed in 1990, Congress's action didn't affect pending disputes.

When I said that American people must resist, young, skeptical Tony suggested that I cannot ask people to resist without being pro-gun ownership and this is where the dispute started.

So, since you are against the gun control and you quoted verbatim Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms" can you or somebody else explain to me why don't you use your guns to resist to the abuse of personal freedoms under the Patriot Act?

Not wanting to harm others. That's it.

I guess the point I'm trying to get accross about gun rights can be explained by this:
The Eiffel Tower.
I've never been to the Eiffel Tower, and I don't think I'll ever go visit it. But, it's there. And I like knowing it's there, just in case I decide to go.
Boy, when the WTC collapsed, I was bummed (not just for the obvious reasons) because now I'll never get to see it.
Like the Eiffel Tower, personal freedoms are great to have around. Maybe not everyone appreciates them, but, they're there, and it would be a sad thing if they were to go away.

But...you can't just whip out a gun and shoot someone if they're going against you.
The best defense is the one Shanek has already suggested. Vote, speak up, run for office.

The Fool
27th September 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by shanek


Whaddya mean, what things? The very things you were talking about in your post! The things you said were bound to happen if people were allowed to carry guns!

groan...I should have known better than to ask for a simple explanation.

Shane... I was making the point that if, as was suggested, all women carry handguns to ward off rapists then a lot of other consequences would occur due to the mass of guns being carried around. Mothers and their families would start shooting themselves and each other with these "anti-rape" guns. They would simply raise the usual levels of domestic violence to far more fatal levels. Thats what I was talking about. If more people carry more guns more people get shot. Everywhere in the world where people have a lot of guns, a lot of people get shot.

Now....WTF is this "gun ban" you talk about?? and I'll (with hopeful anticipation) ask yet again what on earth you were going on about when you posted..

Why weren't these kinds of things happening before the gun bans?

"before the gun bans"....what gun bans?? Is there a shortage of guns somewhere?

Cleopatra
28th September 2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by shanek



What am I doing to combat the Patriot Act? I drafted a resolution (http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/patriot.html) and presented it to our County Commissioners. I also made a supporting page (http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/supporting-patriot.html) to provide evidence and convince people about the evils of the act.

All over America, over 300 municipalities and five states have passed resolutions refusing to cooperate with the Patriot Act's violation of our liberties. So this is a method that works.

I'm also running for County Commissioner in the hopes of having a greater effect on all of this. In the process, I am battling the ballot access and campaign finance laws.


Shanek

The text of Jefferson you quoted dates back in 1775.

From 1775 until today I am sure that they were occasions that would justify the use of guns...

Guns is Greece are outlawed and in USA are not. Let's say that both of us, in both countries belong to groups that believe that our personal freedoms are infrindged upon a government's act and we think that guns are our last resort, if we decided to use them, the law wouldn't stop my group in Greece from using them.

If both of us decide to resort to armed violence to defend our rights, tell me how will we differ from the terrorist groups that are engaged in urban partisan warfares?

Don't reply that is enough for you to have the option to use guns because you always have the option to use guns whether they are legal or not.

Moe Faux, my ideas about Liberty were influenced by the writings of Isaiah Berlin. Therefore I prefer to be raped or murdered rather that getting a gun and start playing by the rules of the criminals. If what distinghuishes a criminal is the use of a gun ( as you implied in a previous post of yours) then I have nothing in common with criminals.

I do not wish to deprive you of your right to own guns I want to persuade you that you don't need them.

I am against prohibitary laws, I am pro-persuasion.

edited to correct the usual grammatical and spelling mistakes...

shanek
28th September 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by The Fool
Shane... I was making the point that if, as was suggested, all women carry handguns to ward off rapists then a lot of other consequences would occur due to the mass of guns being carried around. Mothers and their families would start shooting themselves and each other with these "anti-rape" guns.

And I'm making the point that that simply does not happen to any appreciable degree.

If more people carry more guns more people get shot.

That depends on who's carrying the guns.

Now....WTF is this "gun ban" you talk about??

The airline gun ban. Why did these kinds of things not happen on airplanes at a time when anyone who wanted to could carry a gun onboard?

shanek
28th September 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Guns is Greece are outlawed and in USA are not. Let's say that both of us, in both countries belong to groups that believe that our personal freedoms are infrindged upon a government's act and we think that guns are our last resort, if we decided to use them, the law wouldn't stop my group in Greece from using them.

But how would you obtain them?

If both of us decide to resort to armed violence to defend our rights, tell me how will we differ from the terrorist groups that are engaged in urban partisan warfares?

The same reason our founders differ from said terrorists.

Therefore I prefer to be raped or murdered rather that getting a gun and start playing by the rules of the criminals.

Okay, fine; but what business do you have forcing that choice on others?

If what distinghuishes a criminal is the use of a gun

Why is that what distinguishes a criminal? Your argument's gone circular...They're criminals because they use a gun, and they use a gun so they're criminals!

I do not wish to deprive you of your right to owe guns I want to persuade you that you don't need them.

Fair enough.

I am against prohibitary laws, I am pro-persuasion.

Then you are against gun control, right?

Cleopatra
28th September 2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by shanek


But how would you obtain them?

Hunting guns are enough to kill people but I guess that we would obtain them the same way my ancestrors found guns for the War of Independance against the Ottomans...

The same reason our founders differ from said terrorists.

Do you mean that the terrorist groups might be justified in their actions?

Why is that what distinguishes a criminal? Your argument's gone circular...They're criminals because they use a gun, and they use a gun so they're criminals!

Well.. isn't going that way indeed? Seriously. I replied to a comment MF made above that if we outlawed guns only criminals we would be armed.

Then you are against gun control, right?

Yes I am, the same way I am against any prohibiting Law regarding drugs. But I start from a significant different point than yours.

You need to have the option to use a gun something that doesn't stand because if anybody wants to use a gun he can find the way regardless if Law permits it or not, I want that this option is out of consideration. If a political system fails to satisfy our needs I want it to be replaced by something else with way you fight against the Patriot Act-thanks for the links BTW.

You cannot appeal to Jefferson Shane, because that way you drag the society back to 1775...

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Guns is Greece are outlawed and in USA are not. Let's say that both of us, in both countries belong to groups that believe that our personal freedoms are infrindged upon a government's act and we think that guns are our last resort, if we decided to use them, the law wouldn't stop my group in Greece from using them.

If both of us decide to resort to armed violence to defend our rights, tell me how will we differ from the terrorist groups that are engaged in urban partisan warfares?

Don't reply that is enough for you to have the option to use guns because you always have the option to use guns whether they are legal or not.

Moe Faux, my ideas about Liberty were influenced by the writings of Isaiah Berlin. Therefore I prefer to be raped or murdered rather that getting a gun and start playing by the rules of the criminals. If what distinghuishes a criminal is the use of a gun ( as you implied in a previous post of yours) then I have nothing in common with criminals.

I do not wish to deprive you of your right to own guns I want to persuade you that you don't need them.

I am against prohibitary laws, I am pro-persuasion.

edited to correct the usual grammatical and spelling mistakes...

You're very right in saying that just because a gun is illegal doesn't mean you don't have access to it. Think of the success of America's Prohibition. How about drugs? It's a joke. Outlawing guns doesn't mean a damn thing.

I'm going to Venture a guess and say that Greece is a far more peaceful country than the USA. It's probably more centered on culture and so people are more considerate.
I love living in the States...but, we're a bunch of inconsiderate slobs, amid a high crime rate. I'm not sure at this point if I don't need a gun.
And I'm pretty sure that if I were living in Iraq right now that I would need a gun.
I think the base desire of your anit-gun plea is that you just don't want people shooting other people. In that case, I'm right along with you.

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted in this thread yet:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030928_750.html

This is an awful story. Just awful. Does anyone have the right thing to say about this? I don't know where to start.

Cleopatra, I had never heard of Berlin before, and a google search on him didn't provide enough information to satisfy me. Is there an essay of his that you can recommend to me?

Chaos
28th September 2003, 10:55 AM
Posted by shanek:
The same reason our founders differ from said terrorists.

By any definition of terrorism that goes beyond "it´s what those evil guys do", the Bosten Tea Party was a terrorist attack. As were all those assassination attempts on Hitler, Heydrich etc. - or, on the other hand, the Rote Armee Fraktion, Brigade Rosso, Action Directe, ETA, ... (I could compile a nearly endless list here)

All these people felt that they had to resort to the cartridge box, or the pipe bomb.

Tony
28th September 2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra

Therefore I prefer to be raped or murdered rather that getting a gun and start playing by the rules of the criminals.


You're pretty sick.

EvilYeti
28th September 2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Tony

You're pretty sick.

On the contrary, Miss Cleopatra is very brave to be willing to make sacrifice like that for her beliefs. Can you say the same?

Considering all the crying you do about the big mean gub'mint taking away your precious pop-guns you should pay attention. You might learn something about what real bravery is.

The Fool
28th September 2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by shanek


And I'm making the point that that simply does not happen to any appreciable degree.




Hmmm.....doesn't happen to any appreciable degree? Do you watch the news?
As for Airlines. If you are saying that airlines should allow any passengers to carry whatever guns they like onto flights I don't think there is much point discussing this topic much further.. There are more hijackings since people were stopped from taking guns on flights? There have also been more hijackings since Jet engines, we should go back to piston engines and we would be safer.

Honestly shane....how do you expect people to take you seriously.

shanek
28th September 2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hunting guns are enough to kill people but I guess that we would obtain them the same way my ancestrors found guns for the War of Independance against the Ottomans...

...who, as an Empire, were on their way out anyway.

Do you mean that the terrorist groups might be justified in their actions?

No, I said they differ.

Well.. isn't going that way indeed? Seriously. I replied to a comment MF made above that if we outlawed guns only criminals we would be armed.

My point is that it's about as useful as saying drugs should be illegal because drug users are criminals...but they're only criminals because drugs were made illegal in the first place.

You need to have the option to use a gun something that doesn't stand because if anybody wants to use a gun he can find the way regardless if Law permits it or not,

But it's very difficult to do so, and takes time...time that the person defending himself may not have.

You cannot appeal to Jefferson Shane, because that way you drag the society back to 1775...

And why would that be a bad thing? Jefferson's ideals were way ahead of his time. We would do very well to heed them. Are the ways of Marx so much better just because he came later?

shanek
28th September 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Chaos
By any definition of terrorism that goes beyond "it´s what those evil guys do", the Bosten Tea Party was a terrorist attack. As were all those assassination attempts on Hitler, Heydrich etc. - or, on the other hand, the Rote Armee Fraktion, Brigade Rosso, Action Directe, ETA, ... (I could compile a nearly endless list here)

All these people felt that they had to resort to the cartridge box, or the pipe bomb.

The difference, in my mind at least, is that the other cases you mentioned were attacks directly against those who were causing the problems in the first place. The 9/11 attacks, OTOH, were not. They might have been able to justify the attack on the Pentagon on these grounds, but certainly not the World Trade Center.

If you kill someone because he's trying to kill you, that's defense. If you kill someone's sister because he's trying to kill you, that's murder.

hammegk
28th September 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Chaos


By any definition of terrorism that goes beyond "it´s what those evil guys do"...

Phooey. Terrorists' targets are mostly civilian, undefended, soft, targets having little or no military or political power-structure value.

Tony
28th September 2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


On the contrary, Miss Cleopatra is very brave to be willing to make sacrifice like that for her beliefs.


:bs:

Letting yourself get raped or murdered because you are too much of a coward to defend yourself is absolutely pathetic. There is no bravery, no chivalry, and her "sacrifice" would be meaningless.

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Tony


:bs:

Letting yourself get raped or murdered because you are too much of a coward to defend yourself is absolutely pathetic. There is no bravery, no chivalry, and her "sacrifice" would be meaningless.

Hey, c'mon, don't slam her just because she differs from you. While there's something admirable about fighting for yourself, there's also something pretty respectable about a person who believes in pacifism.

EvilYeti
28th September 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Tony

Letting yourself get raped or murdered because you are too much of a coward to defend yourself is absolutely pathetic. There is no bravery, no chivalry, and her "sacrifice" would be meaningless.

Whats brave about defending yourself with a gun? I can defend myself with nothing other than my two bare hands.

Carrying a gun is cowardly.

Tony
28th September 2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


....there's also something pretty respectable about a person who believes in pacifism.


Yeah, who cares if she is raped or dead, at least she stood by her "beliefs". :rolleyes:

Tony
28th September 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Whats brave about defending yourself with a gun? I can defend myself with nothing other than my two bare hands.

Carrying a gun is cowardly.


:dl:

Getting desperate? Come back when you got a real argument.

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Whats brave about defending yourself with a gun? I can defend myself with nothing other than my two bare hands.

Carrying a gun is cowardly.

Have you ever seen "The Americanization of Emily"? Harry Browne recommended it to me. The base idea is, there's nothing brave about being a soldier, and that runs along the line of the idea of using a gun as "brave".
It's a great movie.

Tony, don't be an ass. Just say you disagree.

shanek
28th September 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Hey, c'mon, don't slam her just because she differs from you. While there's something admirable about fighting for yourself, there's also something pretty respectable about a person who believes in pacifism.

True, but I do have to question the wisdom of someone who would just submit to a rapist, and rape is from what I understand one of the worst things that can happen to a woman short of murder, and he may even end up murdering her for all she knows, just so she doesn't have to use those awful, evil guns.

Here's a question for Cleopatra:

What if someone were raping you, you were screaming out for help, and a passerby used a gun to stop the rapist? Would you call him a criminal, or would you thank him for his help?

shanek
28th September 2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
Whats brave about defending yourself with a gun? I can defend myself with nothing other than my two bare hands.

Carrying a gun is cowardly.

Ah, yes, that's the answer. 80 year old women should defend themselves with their two bare hands; they don't need guns at all.

Twit.

shanek
28th September 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Have you ever seen "The Americanization of Emily"? Harry Browne recommended it to me.

You know Harry Browne too???

http://websmileys.bei.t-online.de/div179.gif

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by shanek


You know Harry Browne too???

http://websmileys.bei.t-online.de/div179.gif

"Know" isn't really the term; I merely met him once at a conference in Vegas that I attended with some high profile friends. I've listed to some of his stuff on tape, and he corresponds with my friend, but, he would never remember me.
It was an honor to meet him, he's a very good man.

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by shanek


True, but I do have to question the wisdom of someone who would just submit to a rapist, and rape is from what I understand one of the worst things that can happen to a woman short of murder, and he may even end up murdering her for all she knows, just so she doesn't have to use those awful, evil guns.

Here's a question for Cleopatra:

What if someone were raping you, you were screaming out for help, and a passerby used a gun to stop the rapist? Would you call him a criminal, or would you thank him for his help?

Boy, that's a very touchy subject. As a woman, I'd like to say that maybe we shouldn't be throwing this around.
She just doesn't want to use a gun.

I'd like to include an article from Reason titled "Arm the Chicks" I think it has a humorous look on women owning guns.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n3/finalword.pdf

But, I really hate it being said, "if someone were raping you". Let's be nice.

EvilYeti
28th September 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Tony

Buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, bacagh, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk…BACAGH, buk, buk…


Sorry dude, I don't speak chicken.

Tony
28th September 2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Sorry dude, I don't speak chicken.

If attacking me makes you feel like a big man, so be it.

EvilYeti
28th September 2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by shanek

Ah, yes, that's the answer. 80 year old women should defend themselves with their two bare hands; they don't need guns at all.

Oh thats a great idea, that way when the criminal is done robbing the woman he will have two guns, instead of just one! You Libertarians are really a godsend to the American felon.

Twit.

Retard.

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 07:23 PM
Mommy, Daddy, please don't fight. :con2:

Let's not ruin a perfectly good thread by throwing names. Why don't you instead throw out arguements?

shanek
28th September 2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Boy, that's a very touchy subject. As a woman, I'd like to say that maybe we shouldn't be throwing this around.
She just doesn't want to use a gun.

As I said, that's fine. I was asking her how she felt about someone else using a gun to protect her.

But, I really hate it being said, "if someone were raping you".

It's a very real possibility, and quite germaine to the conversation. Besides, she's the one who brought it up, so I don't think it'll be any great attack on her emotionally to ask her to consider a different aspect of it.

shanek
28th September 2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
Retard.

The difference is, you ARE a twit (a twit is someone who delights in the ridicule and embarrassment of others, which describes you to a "T." You are a twit, your posts atr twits (since "twit" also applies to the taunt itself), and you twit constantly in almost every single post ("twit" is also a verb)). I'm NOT a retard; I graduated cum laude on the National Dean's List.

I call you a twit because you behave exactly like one. You only call me retard because I disagree with you on certain things.

EvilYeti
28th September 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux
Mommy, Daddy, please don't fight. :con2:

Go wait in the toolshed sugar, Daddy will be right out when he's done.

Let's not ruin a perfectly good thread by throwing names. Why don't you instead throw out arguements?

Any thread shanek participates in is ruined by default.

MoeFaux
28th September 2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Go wait in the toolshed sugar, Daddy will be right out when he's done.


Well, I can't be mad at you for long, with you talking to me like that. ;)

However, back on the subject...
I don't think that Cleopatra would just "let it happen" to her. I'm sure she would fight back; there's plenty on ways for a person to fight against another person.
I am for guns, but I don't own one. If I happended to be attacked by a rapist brandishing a gun, I would most certainly fight to the death rather than be raped. There will be thumbs gouging out eyes.
Just because she doesn't want to use a gun doesn't mean she won't harm someone else who attempts to harm her.
I would like for her to chime in on this, though, as I really shouldn't be speaking for her.

Suddenly
28th September 2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by shanek


The difference is, you ARE a twit (a twit is someone who delights in the ridicule and embarrassment of others, which describes you to a "T." You are a twit, your posts atr twits (since "twit" also applies to the taunt itself), and you twit constantly in almost every single post ("twit" is also a verb)). I'm NOT a retard; I graduated cum laude on the National Dean's List.

I call you a twit because you behave exactly like one. You only call me retard because I disagree with you on certain things.

Isn't dedicating a post to insulting someone with a term that means they insult others just maybe a little bit ironic?

You did nicely skip over the fact that the likely result of a rapist attacking an 80 year old woman with a gun will be a violent rape after which the rapist will have a shiny new gun. It's not like rapists announce their intent, especially if the victim might have a gun. The rapist will likely "announce" his presence with a sharp blow to her head.

Thats kind of why I don't think widespread gun ownership is too good of an idea. Property crime might decrease, but the more hard core criminal will just assume his target has a gun and take appropriate precautions to ensure they won't be suprised.

When I investigate cases I often have reason to believe I might be in danger. I don't carry a gun for two reasons. First, if someone wants to shoot me they need to bring their own gun. Second, I'd rather be killed than have to live with killing someone else by accident. I might get over it if I knew they were going to kill me, but life just isn't that simple. Most people who speak of defending themselves have never seen what it really looks like to shoot someone, or the feelings of guilt even when the killing is justified.

Regnad Kcin
28th September 2003, 08:33 PM
Well, I've just waded through this fairly interesting thread for the first time. And though now on page 5, I feel compelled to comment on this, from page 1:Originally posted by MoeFaux
I'm pro-gun. All the anti-weapon laws are killing people.Hyperbole.If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.Conjecture.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape. Generalization.

LucyR
28th September 2003, 08:41 PM
If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.


I'd say there was doubt. Didn't see the original post, but surely if guns were allowed on planes the terrorists would have also carried some?

EvilYeti
28th September 2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux

Well, I can't be mad at you for long, with you talking to me like that. ;)

See, I'm not such a bad guy.

I am for guns, but I don't own one.


Well, maybe you should rethink your position. The idea that owning a gun makes you any safer is a myth. Less than 3% of homicides annually are considered justifiable. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, followed by homicides and accidents. Did you know gun owners are 37 times more likely to kill themselves then a criminal?

In fact, pulling a gun on an armed assailant whom was only planning on robbing you is a great way to get killed. Its much safer to just hand your money over.

Regarding rape, consider the following:

Approximately 66% of rape victims know their assailant. [2000 NCVS.]
Approximately 48% of victims are raped by a friend or acquaintance; 30% by a stranger; 16% by an intimate; 2% by another relative; and in 4% of cases the relationship is unknown. [2000 NCVS.]


A woman is most likely to be raped by someone she knows and whom likely already knows she has a gun. So he can catch her off guard, all he needs is for her to be unarmed one time.

And as Suddenly also pointed out, its pretty likely the rapist will just assault the vicitm, beat them into submission and walk off with a shiny new gun.

If you are interested in rape prevention, it makes much more sense to avoid situations that can lead to rape then playing a victim and carrying a gun.

Grammatron
28th September 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti

A woman is most likely to be raped by someone she knows and whom likely already knows she has a gun. So he can catch her off guard, all he needs is for her to be unarmed one time.


That's a very misleading statement. The way authorities classify "know their assailant" is very lose. It could be something as basic as she knew the name of the guy it won't necessarily mean he knew where she lived or hid her gun.

Cleopatra
29th September 2003, 12:54 AM
Tsk tsk tsk...

This is why I like this forum; you go to sleep leaving peaceful threads behind you and when you wake up you may enjoy the traces of debauchery that took place while you were sleeping...

Moe Faux wondered about Isaiah Berlin and I open a parethesis here to give a short account about him and I will be back to the topic because it turned out to be more exciting than I expected.

Young skeptical Tony open your eyes cheri, you might learn something new today...


How can a love of liberty lead to totalitarianism and murder on an epic scale? This is what Isaiah Berlin spent most of his life thinking about. He was born in Latvia but emigrated very soon with his family in England. Oxford’s University became the center of his life. He was among the first who introduced serious studies of Philosophy in Oxford in early 30ies. I don’t say more because you can find a detailed CV of his on line.

Berlin never composed a book, he expressed his thoughts in essays instead. His writing style is fascinating and he doesn’t remind you the dull or dry writings of common professors of philosophy. Have you had the opportunity to listen to him speaking it’s something you wouldn’t forget. :)

His most famous essays are : “Against the Current” an essay on Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Hamann. “ Four Essays on Liberty” Where the famous quote: “." Liberal governments should recognize that all political values must end up in conflict, and all conflicts require negotiation” comes from.

The most influential essay of his is the one I strongly suggest you to read—it will take you an afternoon and it’s a very pleasant reading: “ The Fox and the Hedgehog” You can read an excerpt
here (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/Essays/Hedge_n_Fox.htm)

This one is in many ways relative to our discussion: The title refers to a verse of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus: "The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing."

The Hedgehog needs only one principle that directs its life. Typical examples are Plato, Dante, Pascal, Nietzsche and Proust. The Fox, pluralist, travels many roads, according to the idea that there can be different, equally valid but mutually incompatible concepts of how to live. The roads do not have much connection, as is seen in the works of Aristotle, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Moliére, Goethe and Balzac.

It was very in fashion in the late 80ies middle 90ies for… pretentious students of English colleges like...moi to play the game that was inspired by this magnificent essay.

We argued over whether our favorite authors, professors, and friends were Hedgehogs (like Plato), who had an overarching scheme for understanding the world, or Foxes (like Aristotle), who found meaning in particularity.

After stating that I’d rather being murdered than getting a gun I don’t think that I need to state whether I am a hedgehog or not :)

If you are interested in the human’s role in History then you must read "Historical Inevitability" where he debunks in the most impressive way Carr’s marxist view on the topic. Maybe all I need to say about this debate is that after its publication only Greek Stalinist relics refer to Carr anymore…

Of course I will be back and yes, this is a threat.

Chaos
29th September 2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by shanek


The difference, in my mind at least, is that the other cases you mentioned were attacks directly against those who were causing the problems in the first place. The 9/11 attacks, OTOH, were not. They might have been able to justify the attack on the Pentagon on these grounds, but certainly not the World Trade Center.

If you kill someone because he's trying to kill you, that's defense. If you kill someone's sister because he's trying to kill you, that's murder.

I was deliberately listing political terrorist groups. Al Quaida is a religious terrorist group.

In a nutshell, religious terrorist do what they do because they think god tells them to do it.

On the other hand, the Rote Armee Fraktion (I know a bit more about them because they were active in Germany) had some really smart and reasonable people among them; Ulrike Meinhof was reputed to be one of the most brilliant journalists of post-war Germany.
Before they became terrorists, these people were not much different from some people here in this forum. They believed that the ballot box was useless because the politicians were all unrepentant former Nazis - which, to a certain degree, they were. They´d committed arson at a department store in Frankfurt (not sure about the location) and got indicted for that, so they thought the jury box was also in the hands of the "Nazi" state - so they became terrorists.

I admit that their perception of the political reality was, to some degree, warped; however there were some less than democratic things going on in Germany in the sixties, the SPIEGEL affair, for example, or what happened around the Persian Shah´s visit to Berlin (?) in 1968 (?). Honestly, if had witnessed these things first hand, I am not sure if I would not have at least sympathized with the Rote Armee Fraktion.

And, by the way, the Rote Armee Fraktion (for ther most part) directly targeted those it thought were responsible for the problems they saw - judges, CEOs etc.

MoeFaux
29th September 2003, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra

His most famous essays are : “Against the Current” an essay on Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Hamann. “ Four Essays on Liberty” Where the famous quote: “." Liberal governments should recognize that all political values must end up in conflict, and all conflicts require negotiation” comes from.

The most influential essay of his is the one I strongly suggest you to read—it will take you an afternoon and it’s a very pleasant reading: “ The Fox and the Hedgehog” You can read an excerpt
here (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/Essays/Hedge_n_Fox.htm)

If you are interested in the human’s role in History then you must read "Historical Inevitability" where he debunks in the most impressive way Carr’s marxist view on the topic. Maybe all I need to say about this debate is that after its publication only Greek Stalinist relics refer to Carr anymore…

Thank you for the information :). I'm leaving for work in a minute, but I'll read the link during lunch and do some more searching on google with the essay titles you provided.

shanek
29th September 2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Suddenly
You did nicely skip over the fact that the likely result of a rapist attacking an 80 year old woman with a gun will be a violent rape after which the rapist will have a shiny new gun.

Why is that at all a likely result? Present data, please.

Second, I'd rather be killed than have to live with killing someone else by accident.

Again, this is fine, but what possible justification is there for forcing this choice on others?

shanek
29th September 2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
Well, maybe you should rethink your position. The idea that owning a gun makes you any safer is a myth. Less than 3% of homicides annually are considered justifiable. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, followed by homicides and accidents. Did you know gun owners are 37 times more likely to kill themselves then a criminal?

This is all from that bogus, long-refuted Kellerman "data." And you accuse others of spouting out junk science!

shanek
29th September 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Chaos
On the other hand, the Rote Armee Fraktion (I know a bit more about them because they were active in Germany) had some really smart and reasonable people among them; Ulrike Meinhof was reputed to be one of the most brilliant journalists of post-war Germany.
Before they became terrorists, these people were not much different from some people here in this forum. They believed that the ballot box was useless because the politicians were all unrepentant former Nazis - which, to a certain degree, they were. They´d committed arson at a department store in Frankfurt (not sure about the location) and got indicted for that, so they thought the jury box was also in the hands of the "Nazi" state - so they became terrorists.

Well, I don't know about their particular situation so I can't comment on them, but often terrorism is used in much of the same way Ben Franklin said about treason: that it was "a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."

EvilYeti
29th September 2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by shanek

This is all from that bogus, long-refuted Kellerman "data." And you accuse others of spouting out junk science!

That stat is right from the FBI, not Kellerman, anyone can look it up.

Unless you are claiming otherwise?

Why don't you educate us and tell us what percentage of annual gun homicides are justifiable? Be sure to name your sources, I'm curious if you are going to use an astrologer again.

Tony
29th September 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by shanek


Well, I don't know about their particular situation so I can't comment on them, but often terrorism is used in much of the same way Ben Franklin said about treason: that it was "a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."

I'd also ad "war criminal" as a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers.

gnome
29th September 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Tony


I'd also ad "war criminal" as a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers.

That's a cynical comment on who might be accused of war crimes, and relevant enough...

But I maintain that there can be reasonable standards that distinguish a war criminal, that have nothing to do with whether they won or lost.

Nyarlathotep
29th September 2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by gnome


That's a cynical comment on who might be accused of war crimes, and relevant enough...

But I maintain that there can be reasonable standards that distinguish a war criminal, that have nothing to do with whether they won or lost.

True enough but if the war criminals are on the winning side, it is highly unlikely that they will ever see trial.

Suddenly
29th September 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by shanek


Why is that at all a likely result? Present data, please.

Present data that an 80 year old woman is unlikely to be able to protect herself from a rapist regardless of her weaponry? Maybe you should yourself produce data that a gun would be of any use in that situation as you are the one that asked
Ah, yes, that's the answer. 80 year old women should defend themselves with their two bare hands; they don't need guns at all.

You gave no data for the implied conclusion that they would be safer with a gun. Do you really believe it is even feasable that an 80 year old person could identify a threat, get the gun, and shoot an assailant before that person was overpowered? The only way that is even remotely possible is if the assailant has no idea that the woman is armed, and that assumption would be unfounded were guns more widely carried.

Maybe she gets confused and plugs a boyscout offering to help her cross the street. Then there are hand/eye coordination and stray bullet issues. Trained officers sometimes shoot unarmed and innocent people by mistake, how's an armed 80 year old with minimal or no training going to do?



Again, this is fine, but what possible justification is there for forcing this choice on others?

Nothing except that you did question the wisdom of those that would rather suffer violence than use a gun. Life isn't that simple. If I knew for certain someone was out to kill or rape me, I'd shoot them. It's just that from what I've seen the instances where having a gun makes you more likely to get shot outnumber those where having a gun helps. Thus, I'm safer in a number of ways, and one of them is the fact I am certain I will never shoot an innocent person, wrongfully believing he/she is attacking me.

I'm all for gun ownership as a right. I just think absent deer hunting and having it just in case the British invade again there isn't a good reason for it.

shanek
29th September 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
True enough but if the war criminals are on the winning side, it is highly unlikely that they will ever see trial.

How about Cally? He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, only to be released by Nixon after three years.

Cleopatra
29th September 2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Tony



You're pretty sick.

Nope. When you take a decision you have to take your risks, it's not a matter of stupidity or heroism.

I am not a hero, I am scarred to death of rapists or murderers but I choose not to take a gun.

Those that take the decision to own a gun take a risk too;they risk to see their child killed for example.

Life is about choices dear Tony :)

Shanek

1. First if somebody rescued me by using a gun I'd be grateful but I'd be terribly sorry for his becoming a murderer for my sake.

2. Chaos brought you some pretty good examples why the catridge box isn't the best resort.

You keep mentioning the Founding Fathers.

Well, the Founding Fathers haven't elected the British to whom they opposed. If you take your gun to oppose to the Patriot Act you'd oppose to an elected government and you 'd be nothing but a terrorist.

Terrorism is not the last resort if the ballot and the jury box fail.

Let me put it in a different way:

You might achieve freedom with the catridge box but it's the ballot box that you need to defend it.

Tony
29th September 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Nope. When you take a decision you have to take your risks, it's not a matter of stupidity or heroism.

I am not a hero, I am scarred to death of rapists or murderers but I choose not to take a gun.

Those that take the decision to own a gun take a risk too;they risk to see their child killed for example.

Life is about choices dear Tony :)



I guess I can respect that, but personally, i'd rather not live in fear.

1. First if somebody rescued me by using a gun I'd be grateful but I'd be terribly sorry for his becoming a murderer for my sake.

Except that he/she wouldnt be a murderer. Killing in self defense or the defense of others is not murder.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

Ian Osborne
29th September 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by shanek
How about Cally? He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, only to be released by Nixon after three years.

Lt William Calley? There's a great site about the Mai Lai massacre here. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html)

Also, Reagan and North got away scott-free after Contra-gate. If a Nicaraguan who lost family to the Contras killed one or both of them, would anyone blame him? I certainly wouldn't...

shanek
29th September 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly
Present data that an 80 year old woman is unlikely to be able to protect herself from a rapist regardless of her weaponry?

I submit that she is more likely to be able to do so with a gun, a claim that should be self-evidence to any but the most biased thinkers.

Anyway...according to The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, May 8, 2000, a 65-year-old mail delivery man was accosted by an armed criminal and he successfully defended himself with his gun.

According to WBRE-TV in Wilks-Barre, PA, April 27, 2000, an elderly couple ran off two intruders who had broken into their home.

According to the San Francisco Examine on February 22, 2000, an 83-year-old widower shot an intruder armed with a tire iron, the only time he had fired his weapon on another person in 30 years of gun ownership.

A similar instance with an intruder armed with a knife was reported by the Chicago Tribune on March 2, 2000.

Another such instance was reported by The Tampa Tribune, on November 11, 1999, where a 74-year-old man scared off an intruder by firing warning shots.

There's a Washington Times story about two elderly grandmothers who used their guns to repel an attack by four men. There was a local incident I read in the police blotter where an elderly woman shot an armed assailant. On and on and on.

Deny it all you want, but it does happen.

And all you have are unsibstantiated fears with nothing at all to back them up; wild stories of grannies getting assailants confused with Boy Scouts. Give me a break!

Cleopatra
29th September 2003, 12:19 PM
Tony

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

But Tony, you carry a gun because you are afraid more than me.

Also, dictionaries are about uses of words and not definitions, we have said this many times.

Tony
29th September 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tony

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.


It would be in defense of another though. It would not be murder.

But Tony, you carry a gun because you are afraid more than me.

Huh? No I dont. There is a big difference between being afraid and being prepared

shanek
29th September 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

I know in NC defending others is included as "self-defense." My understanding is that some other states have a separate "defense of others" plea but it's treated the same way as self-defense.

Either way, it's the same concept.

Ian Osborne
29th September 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by shanek
Deny it all you want, but it does happen.

I'm sure it does, but how you feel about widespread gun ownershp if an armed Tony moved in next door to you, and an armed Bigfig moved into the house on the other side of yours?

Cleopatra
29th September 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Tony

Huh? No I dont. There is a big difference between being afraid and being prepared

Ok, at least we got over the argument that you need the guns to protect your personal liberties from the politicians they'd attempt to abuse them...

Tony
29th September 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ok, at least we got over the argument that you need the guns to protect your personal liberties from the politicians they'd attempt to abuse them...


I dont think I ever made that argument.

Suddenly
29th September 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by shanek


I submit that she is more likely to be able to do so with a gun, a claim that should be self-evidence to any but the most biased thinkers. Of course, that really isn't the issue. Maybe there is a tiny chance of self-defense because of the gun, depending on the circumstance. I thought we were talking about an elderly woman attacked by a rapist. I have been working on the assumption of a street crime type attack. This would be much different than an attack on a home, for obvious reasons. Either way, and particularly in the former situation, the gun also brings into play many other tragic results, all of which I say are much more likely. All I have to back that up is my experience in the criminal justice system. Guns do frighten burgulars and others, but that isn't always a good thing, especially if the burgular is carrying a gun as well.

Anyway...according to The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, May 8, 2000, a 65-year-old mail delivery man was accosted by an armed criminal and he successfully defended himself with his gun.

According to WBRE-TV in Wilks-Barre, PA, April 27, 2000, an elderly couple ran off two intruders who had broken into their home.

According to the San Francisco Examine on February 22, 2000, an 83-year-old widower shot an intruder armed with a tire iron, the only time he had fired his weapon on another person in 30 years of gun ownership.

A similar instance with an intruder armed with a knife was reported by the Chicago Tribune on March 2, 2000.

Another such instance was reported by The Tampa Tribune, on November 11, 1999, where a 74-year-old man scared off an intruder by firing warning shots.

There's a Washington Times story about two elderly grandmothers who used their guns to repel an attack by four men. There was a local incident I read in the police blotter where an elderly woman shot an armed assailant. On and on and on.

Deny it all you want, but it does happen.

And all you have are unsibstantiated fears with nothing at all to back them up; wild stories of grannies getting assailants confused with Boy Scouts. Give me a break!


The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence." Counting positives doesn't really mean anything without a number of occurrences and number of negative outcomes to compare it to, such as instances where guns stolen from homes or from persons end up used in a later crime, or where the presence of the gun turns what would have been a property crime into an assault or murder.

Suddenly
29th September 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tony

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

But Tony, you carry a gun because you are afraid more than me.

Also, dictionaries are about uses of words and not definitions, we have said this many times.

Depends on the state, but it is pretty universal that it must be "reasonable" force. In most circumstances the shooter will be OK as long as some attempt to stop the rapist via a threat was made before shots were fired, and as long as those shots were not particularly designed to kill.

If he snuck up behind the guy and blew his head off with no warning, there could be a problem. If he warned, and then shot him in the leg and he bled to death, or if was reasonable that a head shot without warning was necessary (rapist had a gun) there wouldn't be a problem.

It all comes down to what is reasonable force.

shanek
29th September 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly
The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence."[/B]

But I only need one example to rebut the assertion that guns are useless as self-defense to an elderly person.

EvilYeti
29th September 2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by shanek

But I only need one example to rebut the assertion that guns are useless as self-defense to an elderly person.

Except, as always, no one made that claim. It's the usual strawman B.S. from you.

If an action has a negative result 97% of the time and a postive result 3% of the time, do you really think it is fair to only consider the positive 3%? Especially when peoples lives are involved?

Cause thats what you are claiming.

Suddenly
29th September 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Except, as always, no one made that claim. It's the usual strawman B.S. from you.

If an action has a negative result 97% of the time and a postive result 3% of the time, do you really think it is fair to only consider the positive 3%? Especially when peoples lives are involved?

Cause thats what you are claiming.

Yeah. This was the part he left out. He always leaves out the good parts, like "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." :)

(Just kidding about that last part shanek - we've had enough discussions of 18th century etymology.)

shanek
29th September 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
Except, as always, no one made that claim. It's the usual strawman B.S. from you.

Oh, so then did you misspeak when you said:

Oh thats a great idea, that way when the criminal is done robbing the woman he will have two guns, instead of just one! You Libertarians are really a godsend to the American felon.

Because you didn't allow for any other possibility at the time.

If an action has a negative result 97% of the time and a postive result 3% of the time, do you really think it is fair to only consider the positive 3%? Especially when peoples lives are involved?

It's THEIR life. Let THEM make the evaluation. It's not like I'm advocating forcing people to carry guns.

Suddenly
29th September 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by shanek


It's THEIR life. Let THEM make the evaluation. It's not like I'm advocating forcing people to carry guns.

Except that not all the negative results are negative for the decision maker. If someone gets killed because they carry a gun I wouldn't worry about it. It's the possible innocent victims that are the problem.

What about the children? :p

EvilYeti
29th September 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by shanek

Because you didn't allow for any other possibility at the time.


I said "when he's done robbing her", so if a criminal sucesssfully robs an armed vicitim they will get a handgun out of the deal.

Since the criminal has the upper hand anyway, as he knows he is going to rob you, and you don't, most confrontations are going to end with him as the victorious party.

So not only does carrying a handgun increase the risk to yourself and others, it increases the chances of another weapon falling into the hands of a felon.

Just ask the NRA, most criminals steal their guns!

Suddenly
29th September 2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti



Just ask the NRA, most criminals steal their guns!

Often they buy them from burglars. People with drug habits tend to dislike confrontation, so the most active crime they will engage in is burglary (other faves seem to be forgery and ID theft). Guns are a favorite target because they are easy to fence. We have a dandy crack/guns trade between southern West Virginia and a few big cities, mostly Detroit. Stolen guns are plentiful in West Virginia, and expensive in Detroit, conversely crack is more expensive in West Virginia than Detroit. Thus, some enterprising individuals buy guns here, sell them in Detroit and buy crack, sell that here .....

Just a fun story, but I just wanted to point out that there is a whole economy in these things, and many burglars tend to look for houses with guns, as it is a lot easier to fence a gun than a TV set.

a_unique_person
29th September 2003, 07:56 PM
In Australia, with strict gun laws, guns for criminals command a high price, even on the black market. This keeps them out of the hands of the most desperate criminals. The smarter, wealthier ones tend not to use them so much because they know if they just go around killing indiscriminately, they will get caught pretty quickly.

The biggest cause of gun deaths recently has been a criminal war. The only people dying have been criminals.

shanek
29th September 2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
I said "when he's done robbing her", so if a criminal sucesssfully robs an armed vicitim they will get a handgun out of the deal.

You still didn't allow for any other possibility. The idea of defending yourself is to foil the robbery, not to do bad things to the robber after he's successful.

Just ask the NRA, most criminals steal their guns!

This isn't true. Most of them get them through straw purchases or through the black market. A comparatively small amount are stolen from legal gun owners.

EvilYeti
29th September 2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly


Yeah. This was the part he left out. He always leaves out the good parts, like "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." :)

(Just kidding about that last part shanek - we've had enough discussions of 18th century etymology.)

How is that even debateable? The courts enforced by the constitution to interpret the constitution have ruled 100% of the time the second amendment isn't an individual right. It allows states to form well regulated militias, i.e. a police force.

If the courts are wrong then the constitution is wrong and the second amendment gets flushed along with it.

Has anyone ever pointed this out to the Libertarians?

shanek
29th September 2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
How is that even debateable? The courts enforced by the constitution to interpret the constitution have ruled 100% of the time the second amendment isn't an individual right.

That is completely, utterly, and pathetically untrue. Presser v. Illinois, U.S. v. Miller, Lewis v. U.S., and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez are all cases where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment referred to individual rights.

Has anyone ever pointed this out to the Libertarians?

Yes, and the Libertarians have pointed out that they are WRONG.

EvilYeti
29th September 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by shanek

That is completely, utterly, and pathetically untrue. Presser v. Illinois, U.S. v. Miller, Lewis v. U.S., and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez are all cases where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment referred to individual rights.


Thats funny, U.S. vs Miller ruled:


In this oft-cited case, the court ruled that The National Firearms Act was constitutional and that the Second Amendment must be interpreted with a view to its purpose of rendering the Militia effective. The court defined the militia as being "comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." The type of weapon called into question was also examined.


and Lewis v. U.S. wasn't about the second amendment


Though this case was not directly related to the Second Amendment, the court restated the Miller court's focus on the type of firearm under consideration.


Nor was U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, which was about the fourth. Whether the "people" referred to in the second amendment referred to state militias or the public at large was not addressed.

With leaves us with Presser v. Illinois way back in 1879 and lets see what thats all about..... oops the supreme court rejected his second amendment claim.

I can see the LP shares your passion for error.

Cleopatra
30th September 2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by shanek


It's THEIR life. Let THEM make the evaluation. It's not like I'm advocating forcing people to carry guns.

True but what if their child kill mine while playing together?

gnome
30th September 2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
How is that even debateable? The courts enforced by the constitution to interpret the constitution have ruled 100% of the time the second amendment isn't an individual right. It allows states to form well regulated militias, i.e. a police force.

If the courts are wrong then the constitution is wrong and the second amendment gets flushed along with it.

Has anyone ever pointed this out to the Libertarians?

To be honest, I've always thought of this as a weak debating point. Though I'm in favor of reasonable gun controls, I don't know if I agree with SC precedents that state gun ownership is not an individual right.

But it isn't really necessary for the kind of arguments that I like to make.

Suddenly
30th September 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by shanek


That is completely, utterly, and pathetically untrue. Presser v. Illinois, U.S. v. Miller, Lewis v. U.S., and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez are all cases where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment referred to individual rights.



Yes, and the Libertarians have pointed out that they are WRONG.

Presser v. Illinois: This case held that state governments are not bound by the second amendment by operation of the 14th amendment: (this reasoning was eventually discarded by the Supreme Court)

[T]he Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government ...

I can find no discussion of the nature of 2nd amendment rights in this case, and the context seems to indicate that they are not taking the individual rignts stance you suggest:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think (p.266)it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

Not that any of this really matters because the Supreme Court in U.S. v, Miller says:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The second amendment according to this enforces a personal right only if it can be shown that it has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This would mean weaponry owned for the purpose of hunting or defense of self isn't covered.

Furthermore, there is now a split between the circuits whether that right is personal or a matter of collective right, that is does one have a 2nd amendment right to own a weapon with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" even though that person is not an active member of such a militia. (Compare U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir., 1996) with U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir, 2001))

There seem to be several "Lewis v. U.S." cases. You may want to at least include a date.


As far as U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez goes, that was a fourth amendment right case dealing with illegal immigrants. In deciding whether the fourth and fifth amendments applied to illegal immigrants, the court said: While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law").

So, in a case not about the second amendment to begin with, that court makes an offhand comment about the second amendment while deciding whether "people" includes those who are not citizens, and you want to use that to mean that the Supreme Court has overruled itself?

If that is true, can you explain how the Supreme Court isn't overstepping it's jurisdiction and powers granted by the constitution? Ever hear of Article III section 2? The first part extends the judicial power to particular cases and controversies. In other words, if these is no dispute before the court on a particular issue, the court has no right to speak to that issue?

Saying that the Supreme Court legitimately made new second amendment precedent in a case where no second amendment issue was raised implies the court can speak to any issue at any time. Do you really agree with that?

Of course, even that assumes that the above is a clear statement, which it isn't. The right on some level is personal, the question is the extent of the right. A right to bear arms only in the direct service of a militia is still a personal right, just not a very broad one.

Which leads to the point that even if the second amendment contained a broad personal right, that right is subject to reasonable regulation just like any other right mentioned in the bill of rights (Can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)

Grammatron
30th September 2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Suddenly

Which leads to the point that even if the second amendment contained a broad personal right, that right is subject to reasonable regulation just like any other right mentioned in the bill of rights (Can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)

Yes but your definition of reasonable does not seem to be the same as mine. Few will argue the importance of screaming fire in a crowded theatre (if there is no fire), but there is a heated debate on what guns people are allowed to own and where could they carry them. Also, here's something Kodiak posted a while back.

Amendment II --

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.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

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

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

and

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

shanek
30th September 2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
With leaves us with Presser v. Illinois way back in 1879 and lets see what thats all about.

Yes, let's:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

That was statewd in dicta, which is a side opinion made so that people like you don't misconstrue what the main opinion was talking about.

shanek
30th September 2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
True but what if their child kill mine while playing together?

Why are you letting your child play with a gun?

Grammatron
30th September 2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


True but what if their child kill mine while playing together?

I take it you also don't keep knifes in your house.

Suddenly
30th September 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Grammatron


Yes but your definition of reasonable does not seem to be the same as mine. Few will argue the importance of screaming fire in a crowded theatre (if there is no fire), but there is a heated debate on what guns people are allowed to own and where could they carry them. Also, here's something Kodiak posted a while back. I'd think the definition of reasonable is pretty much set in case law w/r/t regulation of constitutional right. Lots of first amendment cases to draw paralells to.


I'm going to note here as well that I think the root of the problem is one of terminology. I cover this at the end of my post. I'm adding this as a note that I think the problem may lie in what the words "collective" and "individual" mean in a particular context. They have straight "dictionary" meanings, but in the context of second amendment jurisprudence they have other meanings in certain circumstances. It may help to read the last part of this post first.

Amendment II --

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.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

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

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

and

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Everybody has an opinion. Same with Volokh. I've been an editor on a law review and taught classes in law. So what? His statements have no more binding authority in law than mine, or Franko's for that matter.

Plus, his last sentence makes little sense. What justification clause in the 1st amendment? Furthermore, who is completely denying gun rights? Restricting the right to "Militia" related activities is hardly an outright denial that a right exists, its just a restriction, be it a rather large one. His next to last sentence makes little sense as well. That types of clauses may exist in law does not somehow require that all of them are going to be construed with identical weight w/r/t the rest of a sentence. That's silly.

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

I'm pretty confident that such a mention is dicta in the first two cases. Offhand comments not directly related to the issue to be decided have no force in law, as they are not made within the court's grant of power under the constitution. The third I'll just suspect absent knowledge of context.

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller As pointed out above, this right is restricted by a "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"" test spelled out by Miller. Again, you are arguing with the strawman that these cases ban all personal rights to own a gun. They don't. The argument is that personal right only exists where some relationship to militia activity exists. Miller stands for the proposition that the weapon itself must be of a type commonly used for militia type purposes. The question remaining today is whether or not ownership of a gun that passes the "Miller test" is protected by the second amendment even if the person owning it does not do so in relation to actual militia activity. The circuits are split on this....

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331 This is one half of the split I mentioned above. Read the whole case and you will see that the above text fits in with what I am saying. In Emerson, the court limited Miller to only speak to types of weapons. It doesn't contradict Miller, or overrule it. The principle that a weapon must in type have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is not disturbed. The Emerson court refuses to take the next step and find that Miller implies that for the second amendment to apply a person must be engaged in some sort of militia activity. Then if you read the other half of the split, the Rybar case I mention in an above post, that court does take the next step and refuses to find second amendment protection because while the guns (they were machine guns) passed the "Miller" test, the owner had no relationship whatsoever to a militia.

This is the split. Emerson goes with a relatively "individual right" in that participation in militia is not necessary. Rybar takes the opposite view, embracing the so called "collective" right.

Both views still follow Miller, in that only guns of the type commonly used for militia purposes are protected by the second amendment.

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

Are you serious? If 88% of people believe 2+2=73 that doesn't make it so. Plus, I'd love to see the actual question. Thanks to certain groups uses of ellipses, I wonder how many people know the actual text of the second amendment?

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

This would be great if the federal courts were bound by state courts, or if law was a question of statistics rather than binding authority. It isn't. It is just a footnote in a case that is part of a circuit split.

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

Authorship doesn't automatically confer authority. Furthermore, like a said before, this statement is not really contradictory to the "collective" right theory. The "collective" right as stated in Rybar does confer a right on the individual, it just conditions that right on membership in a militia. The right is not held collectively but individually. However, that individual right is conditioned by membership is a "collective" group, In that "I" have a right to own a gun, as long as it is in the context of militia membership."

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

Maybe in your opinion. I have serious doubts that the "debates" you mention have ever settled down. Furthermore, the 14th amendment and decisions about the commerce clause have dramatically changed the nature of federal power over domestic concerns. These insights seem simply out of date.

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons. Yes. The whole so called "collective" versus "individual" rights argument is simply an argument over whether or not the test in Miller extends beyond the type of gun to require that the ownership interest be realted to militia purposes. That is it. That's all the argument is.

Either way, you definately have an individual right under the second amendment to own a gun that is of a type suitable for militia purposes, if the ownership interest relates to militia activity. (The so-called "collective rights view")

Some circuits hold that only the type of weapon is important, the owner need not actually be involved in the militia. (individual rights view)

Legally, that is the question. Confusion results when people use the words "collective" and "individual" both as terms of art as explained above and with their common meanings.

"Collective" in the above context includes a (restriced) individual right, and the "individual" right still is affected by a collective flavor, in that the right is justified by a showing the weapon is of a type used for the collective defense.

What a mess.

Suddenly
30th September 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by shanek


Yes, let's:



That was statewd in dicta, which is a side opinion made so that people like you don't misconstrue what the main opinion was talking about.

Huh?

There is no such term as "in dicta."

"Dicta" is a term. Also called "obiter dictum." It is part of the opinion by a judge that goes beyond the facts and is not binding.

The Presser case did not deal with the question of "individual" versus "collective" rights, either in their dictionary meaning or in the meaning of these terms in modern 2nd amendment jurisprudence. The case turned on the question of whether the 2nd amendment applied to the states. They found it didn't, but later cases found that it did. Either way, the issue of the nature of 2nd amendment rights was not at issue, so any statement to that fact would be dicta and not binding.

Grammatron
30th September 2003, 11:04 AM
Thank you for you reply Suddenly, it's great to have some one on the forum who understands the legal system so well.

As I understand your post, and please correct me if I am wrong, the right to bear arms is guaranteed to an individual so long as the arms are the kind that might be used by a militia?

Cleopatra
30th September 2003, 11:07 AM
I second that. Thanks Suddenly for the time you spend to compose such informatory posts.

Suddenly
30th September 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Grammatron
Thank you for you reply Suddenly, it's great to have some one on the forum who understands the legal system so well.

As I understand your post, and please correct me if I am wrong, the right to bear arms is guaranteed to an individual so long as the arms are the kind that might be used by a militia?

In the circuits taking an "individual rights" view (5th Circuit is one), yes. In those with the "collective" (3rd circuit) view, you need to own it for the purpose of militia ownership.

This doesn't really answer the question though, because regardless of the nature of the right, it is subject to reasonable regulation, an obvious one being you can't own a surface to air missle battery. Other laws could fall under this heading.

Also, the lack of a right does not make something illegal. There still must be some law against the particular ownership.

shanek
30th September 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly
"Dicta" is a term. Also called "obiter dictum." It is part of the opinion by a judge that goes beyond the facts and is not binding.

But it does go to show that EY's evaluation of the case is incorrect.

Suddenly
30th September 2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by shanek


But it does go to show that EY's evaluation of the case is incorrect.

Not really. He said:

With leaves us with Presser v. Illinois way back in 1879 and lets see what thats all about..... oops the supreme court rejected his second amendment claim.

That is a factually true statement. The petitioner/appellant in that case did lose on second amendment grounds. The court found the second amendment did not apply in that case.

Saying that this case "held" anything about the nature of the second amendment rights outside of that they don't apply to the states via the 14th amendment is incorrect. Maybe "alluded to in passing there being an individual right" could be considered fair, but only if it were clear you were not using the "individual rights" term as it is used to describe the legal theory as set out in the Emerson case.

I think much of the debate on this issue is badly confused by different meanings used for the term "indvidual rights," but I went over that above.

Also, the legal principles at the root of this case were discredited by later opinions, and this case has little more than historical value.