24-hour armed police 'in all boroughs' as guns fear rises

[Quetzal]

24-hour armed police 'in all boroughs' as guns fear rises

Scotland Yard is to take dramatic action to meet the mounting threat of gun crime in London.

Yard chief Sir John Stevens has ordered a review of the police response to armed criminals, signalling a significant increase in the number of police carrying guns.

The move could mean each borough in London getting its own armed response car on 24-hour patrol. Some detective units such as Operation Trident, which tackles armed gangsters, may also be issued with firearms. Another proposal is to issue fastresponse teams such as the Territorial Support Group with non-lethal weapons like Taser stun guns.

Already 50 extra officers are being drafted into armed response teams patrolling London so they can reach incidents more quickly.

more...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10305623?source=Evening%20Standard

[Pert_UK]

1. Holy Shit!

You mean that gun crime in London is so bad that we may have to increase our armed police to the level of.........

A whole ONE CAR per borough?!?!?

Unbelievable! Roughly 23 permanently armed patrol cars for a city of over 7 million people!

And maybe even "some" of the detectives assigned to combat armed crime "may also" be issued with firearms!

It's like living in Baghdad out there! I'm off to hide under my bed!

For the unaware, ARVs are basically very quick Police Patrol cars with 3 highly trained firearms officers in them. As far as I am aware, they patrol like any other police car but can also be called upon for a quick response to any crime where firearms may be involved and an armed police response is necessary. In addition to ARVs, there are specialist firearms units who can be called upon.

"If an armed containment is deemed necessary to isolate an armed suspect from the public, then two of the crew will deploy leaving one to control the incident, calling for further armed support and liasing with the local senior police officer. All these officers are personally armed with 'Glock' 17 self-loading pistols and two of the officers have access to 'Heckler and Koch' MP5 carbines as shown here."

See here:

http://www.met.police.uk/so19/arv.htm

P.

[demsrule4life]

2. Pert remember the poster said none of this

A British News Paper did.

[Pert_UK]

3. I wasn't having a dig at the poster.....

nor the newspaper article, which isn't particularly alarmist.

I was just attempting to put these developments into context through the medium of sarcasm.

The original poster didn't draw any conclusions from the article, but I suspect that if this article is discussed at all it will turn into a debate on the increasing number of gun crimes in the UK. I thought I'd pre-empt any accidental misuse of the article by adding some detail and context.

No offense was intended.

[MrBenchley]

4. No offence taken here...

But then I'm not somebody trying to pretend there's a bloodbath in Britain...or Australia...or Sweden...

[LibLabUK]

5. Armed Bobbies

It's worth noting that the most recent poll (4/03) of police officers countrywide (conducted by the Police Federation of England & Wales) reports that the cops overwhelmingly (80%) wish to refrain from routinely arming police officers, a figure which is largely unchanged since the last poll conducted in 1995.

http://www.polfed.org/wherewes/firearms.htm

[enfield collector]

6. armed gangsters? how can that be? thatcher and her cohorts

grabbed all the guns from from us law-abiding owners. could it be that crims don't obey gun laws?

[saigon68]

7. I thought all guns were banned

How did they get the guns?

[Pert_UK]

9. Oddly enough...

criminals sometimes break the law in order to get hold of illegal weapons illegally. It's illegal for crims to buy guns in the US, but they still do so.

The UK gun ban was aimed solely at preventing the misuse of LEGALLY held firearms by their legal owners, as happened in Dunblane where Thomas Hamilton wandered into a school and shot dead many children.

The gun ban was never intended to address the problems of illegally held weapons, which were always obtained outside the law anyway. We have different laws and policies to attack that problem.

[natasha1]

20. A few bad apples...

criminals sometimes break the law in order to get hold of illegal weapons illegally. It's illegal for crims to buy guns in the US, but they still do so.

The UK gun ban was aimed solely at preventing the misuse of LEGALLY held firearms by their legal owners, as happened in Dunblane where Thomas Hamilton wandered into a school and shot dead many children.

The gun ban was never intended to address the problems of illegally held weapons, which were always obtained outside the law anyway. We have different laws and policies to attack that problem.

This is a perfect example of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch.

By your admission, the gun ban doesn't address criminal firearm ownership or use - it only served to take them out of the hands of law-abiding people, in case one of them might one day use them illegally.

This sort of idea will never fly here in the US, thankfully. It flies directly in the face of "guilty until proven innocent". It tramples on the right of many to guard against the insanity of a few.

Nat

[Pert_UK]

21. Some sense, some hogwash......

"By your admission, the gun ban doesn't address criminal firearm ownership or use"

This is true, but there seems to be an implied criticism (if not, please forgive me). You might as well say, "This ban on hardcore pornography doesn't address the problem of speeding motorists."

"This is a perfect example of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch."

I agree entirely, it is. A few "bad apples" spoiled it for the rest of us. The "bad apples" showed that no matter how well-regulated you make firearm ownership, there is always scope for an owner going bonkers with their weapon - human nature is unpredictable. Guns are a uniquely efficient and easily concealable means of wreaking wholescale havoc or forcing your will upon other people, and therefore it was decided that as we couldn't make it reasonably safe for the public to own guns, we wouldn't let them.

"flies directly in the face of "guilty until proven innocent".

Well, kind of.....But regrettably this kind of thing is always the case. You give a bunch of kids some scissors to cut out pics from magazines - if only one of them slices off his own finger, you take the scissors back from all of them just to be sure.

"It tramples on the right of many to guard against the insanity of a few."

Again, kind of....But in the UK (and arguably the rest of the world) gun ownership was a privilege and never a "right" (unless you mean "legal right", which is intrinsically true right up until the point you ban guns).

You see, here's where the US is different from the UK. In the US, the cry (from some) is, "We must have guns to defend ourselves. There are so many guns out there, legally and owned by criminals, that we should be allowed them to defend ourselves." In the UK, the cry was, "Shit, there have been several massacres, and gun-ownership is becoming both more popular and more casual, like in the US. Let's ban it now before we reach saturation point, and normal people HAVE to arm themselves to feel safe."

And that's about the point - in the UK, we have NEVER (recently) needed to arm ourselves to feel any safer. There were simply never enough guns to make your average person feel they needed one for self defense. Virtually nobody had them. And still, virtually nobody has one.

You say, "bad apples spoiled it" and I agree - the actions of the irresponsible gun owners demonstrated clearly that gun-ownership posed a genuine threat to a safe and civilised UK society. In the US, guns are such a part of the society that they can't ever be removed - we nipped it in the bud.

[iverglas]

22. "implied criticism"

By your admission, the gun ban doesn't address criminal firearm ownership or use
This is true, but there seems to be an implied criticism (if not, please forgive me).

Yes, well, that would be in the use of the word "admission" to characterize a statement of fact, as is often done

(a)when the fact is something that the speaker wishes to portray as bad and that yer average decent person would never be caught at,

or

(b) when the speaker wishes to portray the person characterized as "admitting" something as having previously attempted to deny it.

It's a common bit of demagoguery.

So -- you admit that you're a Brit??

.

[natasha1]

24. A response...

I agree entirely, it is. A few "bad apples" spoiled it for the rest of us. The "bad apples" showed that no matter how well-regulated you make firearm ownership, there is always scope for an owner going bonkers with their weapon - human nature is unpredictable. Guns are a uniquely efficient and easily concealable means of wreaking wholescale havoc or forcing your will upon other people, and therefore it was decided that as we couldn't make it reasonably safe for the public to own guns, we wouldn't let them.

And now, should you ever have to reign in your own government by force, you are up shit creek with no paddle. Hopefully, that will never happen.

Well, kind of.....But regrettably this kind of thing is always the case. You give a bunch of kids some scissors to cut out pics from magazines - if only one of them slices off his own finger, you take the scissors back from all of them just to be sure.

When dealing with children, you are of course correct. When dealing with adults, I shake my head and say, "Stupid adult, you get what's coming to you for being stupid - suffer your consequences."

You see, here's where the US is different from the UK. In the US, the cry (from some) is, "We must have guns to defend ourselves. There are so many guns out there, legally and owned by criminals, that we should be allowed them to defend ourselves." In the UK, the cry was, "Shit, there have been several massacres, and gun-ownership is becoming both more popular and more casual, like in the US. Let's ban it now before we reach saturation point, and normal people HAVE to arm themselves to feel safe."

In my opinion, being able to defend oneself from common criminals, while useful, legitimate, and certainly within the prerogitive of any human being, is not the primary reason for owning firearms. The primary reason for owning them is to protect oneself from tyranny. As they say, those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not. And armed citizen is free - a disarmed one is a slave. Yes, I understand a lot of you on here think this is simply "paranoia". But what none of you seem to want to answer is 1) do you think your currently benign government will forever remain so, and 2) if it doesn't, what will your citizens do about it? By allowing yourselves to be disarmed, you've made it a lot harder to do anything about it.

You say, "bad apples spoiled it" and I agree - the actions of the irresponsible gun owners demonstrated clearly that gun-ownership posed a genuine threat to a safe and civilised UK society.

I would rather live in an armed society with the problems that go with it than live at the mercy of the government and whatever protect or abuse it sees fit to give me.

Nat

[Cooper]

25. well said.

[iverglas]

33. tsk tsk

And a finger wag for good measure.

When dealing with children, you are of course correct. When dealing with adults, I shake my head and say, "Stupid adult, you get what's coming to you for being stupid - suffer your consequences."

Maybe natasha1 could tell us what she says to the people the stupid adult killed.

Oops, they can't hear her. They're dead.

And armed citizen is free - a disarmed one is a slave. Yes, I understand a lot of you on here think this is simply "paranoia".

Paranoia? Nah. Untruth.

.

[natasha1]

55. Maybe you will answer?

Maybe natasha1 could tell us what she says to the people the stupid adult killed.

Oops, they can't hear her. They're dead.

If I have to choose between having liberties and the risks that come with those liberties, or not having those liberties, I'll take the liberties and the risks.

A free society is full of risks and dangers from people who abuse their liberties. The liberty of firearms ownership is just one of them.

I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Paranoia? Nah. Untruth.

Iverglas, will you answer the following questions:

1) do you think your currently benign government will forever remain so?

2) If it doesn't, what will your citizens do about it?

Nat

[iverglas]

58. wrong question

If I have to choose between having liberties and the risks that come with those liberties, or not having those liberties, I'll take the liberties and the risks.

If I have to choose between YOUR "liberties" and the risks to OTHER PEOPLE (which, if they materialize as we KNOW they sometimes will, will result in SERIOUS HARM to other people) that come with YOUR choice as to how YOU exercise your liberties, I'll take restricting your choice as to how you exercise your liberties.

You are being pretty obviously disingenuous.

YOU are not taking the risks that come with your choice as to how to exercise your liberties. So there is no choice for YOU to make here.

What YOU are choosing between is (a) exercising your liberties as you choose to do and (b) the harm that other people suffer when someone else exercises those same liberties as they choose to do.

Consider how one of those other people might frame the choice:

everybody being able to have all the firearms
they want with no restrictions on where and how
they possess them, and me being dead

and

restrictions being placed on access to firearms,
and me being alive

It's just damned unfortunate that there's nobody around who can tell us their answer. Because the only ones who could ARE DEAD.

YOU, of course, see that choice as:

me being able to have all the firearms I want
and do what I want with them

and

my access to firearms being restricted.

And when YOU choose the first option, YOU are making a choice FOR SOMEONE ELSE. The risks TO YOU that come with your choice are minimal and are risks that you are willing to accept -- but the REAL risks that are part of the real choice to be made are risks to OTHER PEOPLE, that YOU just do not get to impose on them by making a "choice" of your own. IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE.

So the "choice" you have presented goes even beyond being a false dichotomy. Neither of the "choices" you name is real.

You have created a straw first alternative -- the real first alternative is having the completely unfettered ability to exercise my liberties as I and only I see fit regardless of the risks to other people that exist when everyone has the same unfettered ability to exercise his/her liberties as they and only they see fit -- not "having liberties".

And you have created a straw second alternative -- which is really having restrictions placed on my and everyone's ability to exercise our liberties -- not "not having those liberties". I mean, unless you're pretending to talk to someone who advocates that all firearms be confiscated from all private individuals, for instance.

So hell, it was a really easy choice for you, wasn't it?

What would you rather do: hit that Negro
over the head with this sack of shit,
or beat out that rhythm on a drum?
-- Firesign Theatre, circa 1970, from assisted memory

Or perhaps more à propos-ly, from the same source:

Give me immortality, or give me death!

The choice YOU are claim to be entitled to make for OTHER PEOPLE is between your interests and THEIR INTERESTS, like their interest in being alive, and you just don't hold the trump card in that game.


1) do you think your currently benign government will forever remain so?

I don't actually regard my current government as "benign". I regard it as corrupt, although certainly to a lesser degree than yours.

But the idea of blowing it away is just pretty risible, not to mention damned rude.

2) If it doesn't, what will your citizens do about it?

Not much, I expect -- because they would have elected the government in question, wouldn't they then? Just as they elected this one and as I expect they will be re-electing it shortly. That's life in the 21st century in our version of a liberal democracy. **I** do not get to choose the government for **us**. Just like **you** do not get to choose how you are permitted to exercise your liberties. It's really a very simple concept.

.

[MrBenchley]

63. You don't understand, Iverglas....

(being a craven gunless slave of the Queen, and all)...you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You SHOOT the baby...and afterwards thump your chest and natter about "liberties" and "tyranny" to the grieving parents.

[natasha1]

66. My mistake...

My mistake; I didn't clarify the definition of "benign". A "benign" government, for purposes of discussion, is one that responds to the will of its people, i.e., you get to have elections. Conversely, a government that is not benign (i.e. a tyranny) does not pay attention to the will of its people, and does not bother with elections.

Quite obviously, or it should have been from my postings, one does not need firearms to deal with a government where free elections are still available to the citizens. One needs firearms as a recourse for when the ballot box no longer works.

So, in this context, I ask the questions again:

1) do you think your currently benign government will forever remain so?

2) If it doesn't, what will your citizens do about it?

Now, onto the rest of your post:


If I have to choose between YOUR "liberties" and the risks to OTHER PEOPLE (which, if they materialize as we KNOW they sometimes will, will result in SERIOUS HARM to other people) that come with YOUR choice as to how YOU exercise your liberties, I'll take restricting your choice as to how you exercise your liberties/

First, it is not just my choice, but the choice of millions. Second, the risks of living in an armed society are shared by all, not just "other people". Third, good luck restricting my "choice".

And when YOU choose the first option, YOU are making a choice FOR SOMEONE ELSE. The risks TO YOU that come with your choice are minimal and are risks that you are willing to accept -- but the REAL risks that are part of the real choice to be made are risks to OTHER PEOPLE, that YOU just do not get to impose on them by making a "choice" of your own. IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE.

First of all, I share the risks of living in an armed society to the same degree as everyone else. In fact, the risks are minimal, both for me, and for all other law-abiding people. But there are indeed risks. I could be the next victim of senseless violence just like the next guy. I'm not going to give up the keys to liberty in a likely fruitless effort to eliminate that risk, though.

Secondly, it is my choice to make, as part of a government where I get to vote. As of today, my choice, and the choice of millions of others, dictates that things are going my way. However, even if the rule of law ever turns against me, I will still make that choice!

And this is something you anti-RKBA folks obviously don't understand. I am not going to let you, or anyone else, make the choice for me as to whether or not I can be armed. I have already drawn my line in the sand. Should firearms ever be required to be registered, I will quietly do nothing and not comply. Likewise should they ever be required to be turned in. And woe unto anyone who comes knocking with the intent of forcing me to comply, for that will be the heralding moment, as far as I'm concerned, that the time for armed resistance has come.

Fortunately, we are a long ways away from that brink. But I am constantly astounded by the lack of foresight on the part of anti-RKBA folks. Do you not understand the consequences of pushing RKBA folks to the edge of that brink? Do you think we are going to quietly fall over the edge? Not this girl.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

70. Weirder and weirder....

"As of today, my choice, and the choice of millions of others, dictates that things are going my way."
And what a SWELL way it is, too...



of course, speaking of the "choice of millions of others"...


And what a help to America gun owners were in the difficult days that followed THAT election....NOT.

" I am constantly astounded by the lack of foresight on the part of anti-RKBA folks. Do you not understand the consequences of pushing RKBA folks to the edge of that brink?"
Jeeze, gun nuts are a danger to themselves and others? Who'd have guessed that in a million years? (snicker)

"Should firearms ever be required to be registered, I will quietly do nothing and not comply."
Ah, those law-abiding responsible gun owners...sure wish I could find EVEN ONE.

[natasha1]

81. If only...

And what a help to America gun owners were in the difficult days that followed THAT election....NOT.

Think of how easily the selection could have gone the other way - if only we had America's gun owners on our side. This is why I work to change this plank of the Democratic Party's platform.

I believe most gun owners are "average joe" Americans. They are not corporate fat-cats. They are working stiffs, just like me. They are the stuff that the Democratic Party is made of.

Jeeze, gun nuts are a danger to themselves and others? Who'd have guessed that in a million years? (snicker)

We are not dangerous at all, until you try and take away my freedom.

Ah, those law-abiding responsible gun owners...sure wish I could find EVEN ONE.

I am one. The only law I have ever broken is once I caused an accident by "improper left hand turn". I have never even gotten a speeding ticket. I've certainly never committed a crime with a weapon.

Nat

[OpSomBlood]

86. There's millions of responsible gun owners.

Benchley just pretends we don't exist because we don't correspond with his closed-minded stereotypes.

[MrBenchley]

88. Yeah, op?

How many are sitting around creaming their jeans over revolution fantasies?

[OpSomBlood]

90. You tell me.

You're the only one who seems to think that we do.

[MrBenchley]

104. Op...maybe you ought to read your NEW buddy's posts

[MrBenchley]

87. Too fucking funny

You mean you think we ought to pander to racist dimwits like Grover Norquist, Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent? Fuck that shit, as we said in Brooklyn.

"I believe most gun owners are "average joe" Americans."
Yeah, most average joe Americans responded to news of the Beltway sniper by murmuring "How effective."

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[natasha1]

97. Exactly, Ops, thank you...

Acknowledging the effectiveness of a crime is not approval of it.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thank you.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

100. You two are amusing the hell out of me...

So op, do YOU want to tell us what military force the Beltway snipers faced?

[OpSomBlood]

101. They weapon they used was not an assault weapon.

...according to the AWB. Post-ban and perfectly legal. And the exact crime could have been committed more accurately and powerfully with a bolt-action (i.e., not "military-style") hunting rifle as well.

Maybe the gun isn't to blame for the crime.

[MrBenchley]

106. What military force did the Beltway snipers face?

That's what Nat said made these humholes "effective"...their response to a military force.

"more accurately and powerfully with a bolt-action (i.e., not "military-style") hunting rifle as well."
Then YOU don't need an assault rifle to do whatever you want to do, do you?

[OpSomBlood]

111. It has never been a question of needs.

I don't know what your own personal hobbies are (besides morbidly researching news stories about gunshot wounds), but I'm sure we could scour them for things that you have no "need" for.

There's no "need" for fast cars, skydiving, bungee jumping, alcohol, tobacco. But as long as we are not using these things to intentionally harm other people, we are free to enjoy them. But we are also subject to severe consequences for abusing these things.

[MrBenchley]

116. Tell us about questions, op..since you seem to be ducking this one

Against what military force were the Beltway Snipers so effective?

[OpSomBlood]

118. The answer you seek.

They were effective in scaring the living dogshit out of everyone (military included) within a three-state radius for about a month.

[MrBenchley]

122. In other words...

they did just what your new little buddy wants to do...but they faced no military force, making the term "effective" as she wished to define it abso-fucking-lutely inappropriate.

[natasha1]

125. Completely appropriate...

Obviously, the beltway snipers were not up against military forces. They were a couple of nut-jobs shooting randomly at civilians.

Such a technique could, however, be quite effective as guerilla tactics against a tyrannical government or its armed forces.

The point was, and still is, small arms could be quite effective against regular troops and tyrannical governments.

I did provide one example of how small arms in Iraq have been quite effective at engaging regular troops - Iraq. Mogadishu could be considered another such example. The Afghanistan resistance against the former Soviet Union could be another. There are countless examples of guerilla warfare waged with small and/or improvised munitions.

That was the point. Small arms are effective against even regular forces.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

127. In other words, you're hoping to do the same...

And the Beltway snipers were not up against any military force, rendering your repellent summary meaningless as well.

[OpSomBlood]

132. No military force can match...

...the unrivaled power of MrBenchley's amazing ability to not understand a simple point.

Ask a Vietnam veteran if sniper fire is effective against a superior military force.

[MrBenchley]

137. You don't seem to get it at all, op...

--Nat claims she needs her precious popgun because revolution is about to break out
--Pert rightly scoffed at the notion that her popgun was useful in any way
--Nat then boasted that small arms like hers are effective against larger military forces, just like the Beltway sniper had been effective
--Nat has been trying to run away from the repulsively silly statement
--And you jumped into the middle to do what? Babble about assault weapons?

[OpSomBlood]

141. Tactics are more important than weaponry.

And using sniper fire would be the most effective technique in a guerilla war situation.

The Beltway snipers managed to terrorize a huge area because nobody knew where or when they would strike. Our own Marine snipers are using these exact same techniques in Fallujah right now, where they are heavily outnumbered.

So, in conclusion:

[MrBenchley]

143. And I guess blank denial of fact

is the tactic you've decide to use...

Hey, why not put up that picture making fun of retarded people again? It's not like you got any arguments worth hearing, and it sure cements your claims to be liberal.

[natasha1]

161. More untruths...

--Nat claims she needs her precious popgun because revolution is about to break out

I have never claimed that "revoution is about to break out".

I do, however, hold that firearms (not "popguns") are necessary in case armed revolution is required.

There is a huge difference, but I can understand why you would like to slander it into such a negative light, to help bolster your position.

Pert rightly scoffed at the notion that her popgun was useful in any way

And I have provided numerous examples of how this is not true - Iraq, Afghanistan, Mogadishu, and, yes, the beltway snipers.

Nat then boasted that small arms like hers are effective against larger military forces, just like the Beltway sniper had been effective

Again, to correct your mischaracterization, there was no "boasting" on my part, merely a statement of fact. As I have repeatedly said, I do not hold the actions of the beltway snipers (or they themselves) in high regard. As I have repeatedly said, they are sickos who should be put to death for their crimes.

Nat has been trying to run away from the repulsively silly statement

No, I have not. All I have been doing is correcting your continued mischaracterizations of my posts.

You would like to paint me as someone who feels the beltway snipers were some kind of misunderstood heroes. That paint won't stick, no matter how many times you try to brush me with it.

Nat

[natasha1]

160. No, I'm not.

"In other words, you're hoping to do the same..."

No, I am not, no matter how many times you say it.

Nat

[OpSomBlood]

162. Isn't it fun?

He'd rather agitate than debate.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[natasha1]

95. Almost right...

You mean you think we ought to pander to racist dimwits like Grover Norquist, Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent?

I don't know who these people are, so I have no idea. But I would like to see us "pander" to people who are staunchly behind Democratic ideals but who also happen to be pro-gun.


"I believe most gun owners are "average joe" Americans."
Yeah, most average joe Americans responded to news of the Beltway sniper by murmuring "How effective."

Followed by murmuring, "I hope they get the death penalty for their sick crimes."

Nat

[MrBenchley]

110. Says it all....

"I don't know who these people are"
Nothing like an informed opinion, is there? Certainly not among the RKBA crowd.

[OpSomBlood]

112. Benchley-to-English translation:

"You are pro-gun, therefore all of your views are representative of every scumbag asshole in history who has ever also been pro-gun."

[slackmaster]

113. I'm glad you've figured out the core fallacy of his arguments

A blend of post hoc ergo propter hoc and genetic fallacy: Your views intersect with those of some outspoken undesirable individuals, ergo their speech and writing, rather than your own thought processes, must be the source of your view.

Certainly not an open-minded way of thinking.

[MrBenchley]

117. No translation needed, op...

[OpSomBlood]

120. No shit, Sherlock.

We all know that you understand your own pretzel logic. I'm translating for everyone else.

[iverglas]

80. alrighty then

But I am constantly astounded by the lack of foresight on the part of anti-RKBA folks. Do you not understand the consequences of pushing RKBA folks to the edge of that brink?

Apparently I, in any event, don't understand those consequences.

You raised the issue. Would you care to make a plain statement in respect of it, or do you prefer to rely on vague intimations of woeful "consequences"?

You might define "that brink" while you're at it. As it all stands, what you said just makes no sense at all.

.

[natasha1]

82. Sorry...

Apparently I, in any event, don't understand those consequences.

You raised the issue. Would you care to make a plain statement in respect of it, or do you prefer to rely on vague intimations of woeful "consequences"?

You might define "that brink" while you're at it. As it all stands, what you said just makes no sense at all.

Sorry, I've been carefully choosing my words so that my posts do not get construed as some kind of personal threat or otherwise threatening. They are not meant to be either.

The "consequences" I speak of is armed revolt.

The "brink" I speak of is firearm confiscation.

Nat

[iverglas]

102. that's your paradigm

A "benign" government, for purposes of discussion, is one that responds to the will of its people, i.e., you get to have elections. Conversely, a government that is not benign (i.e. a tyranny) does not pay attention to the will of its people, and does not bother with elections.

Not mign.

benign gentle, mild, kindly; ... not malignant

I can think of a number of governments that do bother with elections, that are quite malignant. Yours comes to mind.

Form and substance are different things, y'know.

So I repeat: I do not regard my government as especially benign. I regard your government as pretty damned malignant. And I think you and your popguns are entirely irrelevant, except to the extent that you do nothing whatsoever about the malignancy, in which case yer pretty much part of the malignancy, regardless of what you're doing with the popguns.

Can't think of anything I've heard you mention doing about anything, actually. Just a lot of blah blah about what you *would* do if anybody tried to take your guns away.

It's really quite plain that the guns are ends in themselves, to you, and not means to anything. Well, that's maybe not quite accurate. I have no doubts as to what the blah blah about guns is in aid of, and it ain't a less malignant government.


First of all, I share the risks of living in an armed society to the same degree as everyone else. In fact, the risks are minimal, both for me, and for all other law-abiding people. But there are indeed risks. I could be the next victim of senseless violence just like the next guy. I'm not going to give up the keys to liberty in a likely fruitless effort to eliminate that risk, though.

And so all you've done is repeat yourself. YOU are willing to "accept" the risks to OTHER PEOPLE.


Secondly, it is my choice to make, as part of a government where I get to vote. As of today, my choice, and the choice of millions of others, dictates that things are going my way. However, even if the rule of law ever turns against me, I will still make that choice!

Incoherency upon incoherency.

First, you say that you get to make the choice as part of a collective process of choice making. I'm with you there: it is a collective choice. You get to participate in it just as everyone else does.

Then, you say that you reserve the right to reject the collective choice and refuse to abide by it. Hey, make up yer mind, eh?

You aren't really participating in the collective choice. You're crossing your fingers behind your back, you're only pretending to participate in the collective choice. Genuine participation in a collective decision-making process presupposes adherence to the process, i.e. agreement to accept the outcome.

All you're doing is trying to make sure that the collective choice that you do not recognize as having any authority goes the way you want it to go. Kinda like a foreigner getting to vote in an election, and why it isn't allowed. People who aren't committed to abiding by the outcome ought not to have a say in it. No way to prevent them, in instances like this -- but no reason to take anything they say at face value, either.

And that's really all that anything you say ever comes down to. As long as decisions go your way, you'll pretend to be abiding by them, when all you're really doing is doing what you bloody well like. If things stop going your way, you'll still do what you bloody well like.

What idiot would trust you an inch about anything?? By your own admission, you're not to be trusted at all.


However, even if the rule of law ever turns against me, I will still make that choice!

Here's a handy reference to what "the rule of law" means.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1145785#1146112

The only time that "the rule of law" would be "against" someone would be when s/he were seeking to subvert the processes or institutions that ensure that the law is applied equally to everyone. Hey ... kinda like you say you'd be doing.

.

[Pert_UK]

37. Well-written gibberish.....

I'm sorry, I've tried 3 times to write a sensible response to this, picking holes in your comments, but after about 20 lines I just lose the will to carry on and have to accept that you're never going to see logic when it's right in front of you.

We're not living in revolutionary France, or Iraq, or even Russia. I'm afraid it simply is paranoia to believe that you need to arm yourself to defend against tyranny, and it's farsical to pretend that a bunch of armed citizens could have any meaningful impact on a tyrannical government -> it would be a massacre, and anyway, I reckon that half the population would back the bloody government anyway.

We live in Democracies, and it's frankly ridiculous and unDemocratic to pretend that a sensible part of that is arming yourself against the potential threat of government repression.

You've clearly convinced yourself that your gun-ownership is a worthy and necessary thing, and there's no way anybody is going to convince you otherwise.

Yet another frightening example of someone effectively saying, "I believe I have the right to bear arms, this isn't open to discussion by the government or society, and I'll shoot anyone who tries to disarm me."

[iverglas]

42. it's only paranoia

I'm afraid it simply is paranoia to believe that you need to arm yourself to defend against tyranny ...

... if it's a genuine belief.

Do you sincerely believe that it is? ;)

.

[Pert_UK]

43. So my options are....

1 - somebody is stupid enough to think that I'm stupid enough to fall for a patently ridiculous argument for gun-ownership, or

2 - somebody is both armed and genuinely paranoid.

The agony of choice....

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

48. ya left one out

I usually forget about your # 2 when I'm trying to decide why people say bizarre things: mental illness.

I usually just think to myself: hmm, dim or disingenuous? (A more plain-spoken person might say: hmm, stupid or evil? But certainly not at DU!)

Sometimes, a combination of the two is at work; and the cumulative effect of both can be truly awful.

In forming an opinion, I usually consider: what's in it for him/her?

If the person's position or statements are really obviously contrary to his/her own interests, I might opt for "dim". For instance, it's quite likely that someone who says s/he votes for Bush because tax cuts create jobs, and who has just been laid off, would be on the dimmer end of the spectrum.

But if the person's position or statements seem more to reflect his/her own interests, I'd be more likely to opt for "disingenuous". The CEO of the company that just laid off our dim voter has a rather large stake in persuading people like him/her that tax cuts create jobs, and can really be presumed to know that the tax cuts in question are not going to create jobs. So in the CEO's mouth, the statement that tax cuts create jobs can fairly confidently be taken as disingenuous.

The CEO doesn't likely think that the union president is going to fall for his/her statement that tax cuts create jobs. But as long as enough of the rank and file do, that doesn't matter. The union president will be outvoted at the polls.

Now, the CEO is probably best off portraying the union president as dim, because any discussion of the self-interest of the opposing parties is pretty certainly going to come back and bite the CEO in the bum.

And so, one sees why it is so important that Dianne Feinstein be perceived as a moron, and what lengths must be gone to, to accomplish that. Voters must be persuaded that the firearms control position is dumb, since that's easier than persuading them that someone is advocating it deceitfully out of self-interest.

Of course, we'll also find the odd salvo being aimed at her (using her as an archetype, as they do) from the self-interest standpoint; you know, all the "rich folks want to have guns but don't want you to have them" stuff. And there's the "racist roots of gun control" stuff.

That stuff has such an awful tendency to turn around and bite back, though, for instance when we look at the racist roots of, oh, the NRA leadership. And where the actual money trail leads, when we look at profits made by the firearms manufacturers and the negligent firearms dealers, and at the politicians' campaign funds.

Bottom line is that it's smarter for them to try to portray firearms advocates as dim rather than disingenuous. And the truly dim, whom they are trying to impress and persuade, don't have the wherewithal to distinguish: consider all the people who think Bush is smart.

But firearms control advocates should always remember that while some of their adversaries, like some Bush voters, may be genuinely dim, the ones using them aren't. They know exactly which side their bread is buttered on -- be it in strictly pecuniary terms, or more broadly in terms of their social and political goals -- and all their fancy facts and figures are mere tinsel for them to dangle before the dim.

.

[MrBenchley]

60. I think for some people

it's a convenient hook upon which to hang fantasies about shooting their fellow citizens down scot-free....similar to gleefully imagining oneself lying to the police after gunning somebody down over a box of Froot Loops...

Of course, it could be someone acting as an agent provocateur, here to stir up trouble and give Sean Hannity or some such talentless numbnutz with a public forum....



...an opening to shout "Look at those subversive Democrats and what they say"....

But I think the simplest answer is probably true...in this case.

[OpSomBlood]

49. Historical perspective.

The American colonists weren't supposed to have a chance against the Redcoats' superior arms, either.

[MrBenchley]

61. Good thing they had collective guns

and aid from France....

Of course they also had an actual cause that was a little more inspiring than "Eddie Eagle ought to be in the public schools."

[natasha1]

69. Where are the today?

Good thing they had collective guns

Where are the collective guns kept today to keep in check the power of the federal government?

Nat

[MrBenchley]

72. Gee, nat....

Here's details on the National Guard in New Jersey for a handy example...

http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/economic_impact/economic_impact_detail.asp?state=NJ

I'd bet if you put your state and the words "National Guard" into a search engine, you could find a similar list for your state...

I doubt there's many people lying awake at night in New Jersey fretting about the possibility that the Census Bureau is going to drop paratroopers into Parsippany.

[slackmaster]

73. The NJ National Guard is only part of the NJ state militia

From the New Jersey Permanent Statutes, as retrieved from http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=325820&depth=2&expandheadings=off&headingswithhits=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&softpage=TOC_Frame_Pg42 (search for keyword "militia"):

New Jersey Permanent Statutes
TITLE 38A MILITARY AND VETERANS LAW
38A:1-2. Composition of militia

38A:1-2. Composition of militia
38A:1-2. Composition of militia

The militia, except as hereinafter provided, shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this State and all other able-bodied persons residing in this State who have made a legal declaration of intent to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 17 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 45 years of age, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein in accordance with federal or State law and regulations.

Amended 1991,c.195.

38A:1-3. Classes of militia
The classes of the militia are:

(a) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard, the Naval Militia and the State Guard; and

(b) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the organized militia.

L.1963, c. 109. (Underlining added for emphasis)

[natasha1]

77. Hah!

Well done, Slackmaster!

:cheers:

Nat

[natasha1]

76. Ah, I see...

Do you feel that the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government?

Nat

[MrBenchley]

79. Yeah, I do....

But then I'm not cheering for the Beltway Snipers and their "effective" action, either....

[OpSomBlood]

84. You have bigger fish to fry, Benchley.

Why don't you address your false interpretation of the NJ militia instead of trying to imply that Natasha approved of the sniper killings. Why don't you explain exactly what an "unorganized militia" is?

[MrBenchley]

91. Small fry with lame right wing talking points

"Why don't you explain exactly what an "unorganized militia" is?"
Easy...it's one that's not "well regulated."

[OpSomBlood]

99. But prescribed by the NJ Statutes.

I wonder what this non-well-regulated, unorganized militia is supposed to be armed with.

[slackmaster]

105. Article 1, Section 1 of the New Jersey Constitution

ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Sounds like the original intent was for people to decide for themselves what to own, say, and do.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

[MrBenchley]

115. I wonder how much lamer the RKBA crowd can possibly get

Trot the statute out, and we'll all have a big fucking laugh at your expense AGAIN.

If you need help, it's section 38...

Of course, most of it is concerned with various legal protection for New Jerseyans who serve in the National Guard so they're not fired, evicted, etc. while serving.

[OpSomBlood]

134. That's great, now answer the question.

>> (a) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard, the Naval Militia and the State Guard; and

(b) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the organized militia. <<

Okay...members of the National Guard are covered by (a). What is (b), then?

Who are the "unorganized militia" then? Tick-tock.

[MrBenchley]

138. I answered it, op

they're not the well regulated militia.

Now go peddle your right wing fantasies to somebody else.

P.S.: Why don't you link to the part of the New Jersey code of statutes you're pretending to quote, op?

[natasha1]

157. Why not...

...they're not the well regulated militia.

Why can't you bring yourself to simply say "the people"?

Nat

[MrBenchley]

163. Let's see op post a link to the NJ statute

he "quoted" first...

Or do you want to try doing that? After all, I posted a link to the entire body of New Jersey statutes and even pointed to the section concerning the militia.

Or even funnier, want to tell us why he can't do it?

[OpSomBlood]

166. The link was already posted...

But here goes:



http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=89735&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&jump=TITLE%2038A&softpage=Document42#JUMPDEST_TITLE%2038A

TITLE 38A MILITARY AND VETERANS LAW

38A:1-1 Definitions.

38A:1-1. The following definitions apply to this Title:

(a)"Militia" means all the military forces of this State, whether organized, or active or inactive.

(b)"National Guard" means the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.

(c)"Army National Guard" means that part of the organized militia that is a land force, is trained and has its officers appointed under the 16th clause of section 8, Article I of the Constitution of the United States, is organized, armed and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense, and is Federally recognized.

(d)"Army National Guard of the United States" is the reserve component of the Army of the United States all of whose members are members of the Army National Guard.

(e)"Air National Guard" means that part of the organized militia that is an air force, is trained and has its officers appointed under the 16th clause of section 8, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States, is organized, armed and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense, and is Federally recognized.

(f)"Air National Guard of the United States" means the reserve component of the Air Force of the United States all of whose members are members of the Air National Guard.

(g)"Armed forces" means the land, air and sea forces established by State or Federal laws, as applicable.

(h)"Military" means any part of or all of the armed forces.

(i)"Active duty" means duty in the active military service.

(j)"Active duty for training" means duty in the active military service for training purposes.

(k)"Inactive duty training" means duty performed by a member of the organized militia other than active duty or active duty for training.

(l)"Officer" means commissioned officer or warrant officer.

(m)"Grade" means a step or degree, in a graduated field of office or military rank, that is established and designated as a grade by law or regulation.

(n)"Rank" means the order of precedence among members of the armed forces.

(o)"Permanent duty status" means full-time employment of a member of the organized militia ordered to active duty by the Governor to serve in the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs.

(p)"Shall" is used in an imperative sense.

(q)"Will" is used in a permissive sense.

(r)"Regulations" means the rules and regulations on the governing and training of the militia.

(s)"Federal service" means duty in the active service of the United States.

(t)"Armory" means any building or training installation utilized by the organized militia.

Amended 1988, c.138, s.1; 2001, c.351, s.2.

38A:1-2. Composition of militia
38A:1-2. Composition of militia

The militia, except as hereinafter provided, shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this State and all other able-bodied persons residing in this State who have made a legal declaration of intent to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 17 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 45 years of age, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein in accordance with federal or State law and regulations.

Amended 1991,c.195.



The statute acknowledges the militia, organized or not. Again, who is this "non-organized" militia and what are they supposed to be armed with?

[MrBenchley]

170. And so the well regulated militia

is the organized militia...

All else is right wing fantasy...

[OpSomBlood]

172. Stop deflecting.

Yes, the organized militia is defined as the National Guard. But the statute also states that the overall miltia is composed of all able-bodied citizens, whether organized or not. The distinction between organized and non-organized is made with the word "whether" in section (a).

So for the tenth time, who are the non-organized militia and what are they armed with?

[MrBenchley]

173. So your quote was false

the New Jersey statutes don't have the passage you claimed was there, and you think this merits further discussion of your "argument?"

For the tenth time, tell it to the stentorian. Or funnier yet, go find somebody to snivel to about how unfair it is to show a picture of this inbred bunch of loonies.



Hope that wasn't a rented tux--the humhole on the right sure looks like he enjoyed seeing Cheney fondling his gun a little too much...

[natasha1]

89. Well, I disagree...

But then I'm not cheering for the Beltway Snipers and their "effective" action, either....

And again, despite how many times you may repeate it, I am not "cheering" for the beltway snipers, no matter how effective their terrorist attacks were.

But, back to the subject at hand.

Myself, I view the National Guard as just that - a National guard. National Guard troops are constantly used to augment the regular armed forces. If anything, it enhances the power of the federal government - not restricts it.

How do you believe the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government? Could you elaborate?

Nat

[slackmaster]

94. State NGs are federalized state militias

National Guard troops are constantly used to augment the regular armed forces. If anything, it enhances the power of the federal government - not restricts it.

Yes, it's a perversion of the original intentions of the militia system; a symptom of the ongoing usurpation of power by the federal government.

How do you believe the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government? Could you elaborate?

I put the odds at 20-to-1 against you ever getting a straight answer to that question. Smart money is on some kind of personal attack.

[natasha1]

158. Exactly.

You are exactly right, Slackmaster.

This is why the argument that the people do not need to be armed against tyranny, since we have National Guard units, holds no water.

The National Guard is, today, merely an extension of the regular armed forces - they are an extension of federal military power, not a counter to it, which was the intent of the founding fathers

Thus, well regulated, unregulated, whatever, there is no counterbalance against federal power to be found in any modern militia today - except the private armed citizen.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

98. But the courts don't...nor do most people....

"How do you believe the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government? Could you elaborate?"
The Second Amendment says nothing at all about the power of the Federal Government, now, does it? The whole "it's about the federal government" is a very recent invention by some very scummy characters.

[slackmaster]

107. About as wrong as you can be

The Second Amendment says nothing at all about the power of the Federal Government, now, does it?

The Second Amendment plainly limits the power of the federal government.

[natasha1]

156. That's nice, but...

The Second Amendment says nothing at all about the power of the Federal Government, now, does it?

I don't recall asking you anything about the 2nd Amendment.

I asked you:

Where are the collective guns kept today to keep in check the power of the federal government?

You replied:

Here's details on the National Guard in New Jersey for a handy example...

Suggesting that the National Guard was the source of collective guns needed to keep in check the power of the federal government.

I then asked you:

Do you feel that the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government?

And you responded:

Yeah, I do....

So clearly, you feel that the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government.

I disagreed with this, and said:

How do you believe the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government? Could you elaborate?

No where have we talked about the 2nd amendment.

I just want to know how you think the National Guard serves to keep in check the power of the federal government.

So - how does it?

Nat

[natasha1]

54. An exactly correct assement!

We're not living in revolutionary France, or Iraq, or even Russia. I'm afraid it simply is paranoia to believe that you need to arm yourself to defend against tyranny, and it's farsical to pretend that a bunch of armed citizens could have any meaningful impact on a tyrannical government -> it would be a massacre, and anyway, I reckon that half the population would back the bloody government anyway.

Pert_UK, will you answer the following questions:

1) do you think your currently benign government will forever remain so?

2) If it doesn't, what will your citizens do about it?

The fact is, poorly armed and poorly organized revolutionaries DO make significant impacts on their societies. Iraq is a perfect example. The two sniper shooters we had in Washington several months ago are another. Remember - military success, in the traditional sense, is not necessary to topple a government. All one need do is topple the economic base. It doesn't take much civil unrest to have serious economic consequences, which may have more direct impact on a government than the deaths of its soliders. It won't be pretty, and it won't be some glorified version of "Rambo" or "Red Dawn". But at least we have the ability to resist. This is what puts the teeth in our liberty.

Yet another frightening example of someone effectively saying, "I believe I have the right to bear arms, this isn't open to discussion by the government or society, and I'll shoot anyone who tries to disarm me."

This is an exactly correct assessment, and I'm glad you are frightened of me. This is precisely why I choose to be armed - and why my government fears me, and all like me, too. I seek no fight with anyone. But if the fight is brought to me, I will fight back, and I am able to do so.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

62. Boy howdy, there's a pair of aces to draw to!

"The fact is, poorly armed and poorly organized revolutionaries DO make significant impacts on their societies. Iraq is a perfect example. The two sniper shooters we had in Washington several months ago are another."
Those misunderstood patriots....the Beltway Snipers....


"why my government fears me"
Yeah, just look at the stark terror on the tyrant Cheney's face as those gun owners confronted him....

[natasha1]

64. Of course, I never said that...

"Those misunderstood patriots....the Beltway Snipers....

Of course, I never said that, and in fact, in previous posts, I have refered to them as "nuts", which, of course, they were.

My use of the beltway snipers was to provide an example of just how effective people can be when acting with small arms (contrary to Pert_UK's claim), not to lend credibility to their actions or justify their morality.

The beltway snipers are sick individuals who should be put to death for their crimes.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

65. I quoted EXACTLY what you said....

"My use of the beltway snipers was to provide an example of just how effective people can be when acting with small arms"
Hell, we got trigger happy shitheels killing peaceful citizens all day every day, thanks to the gun lobby. I think few decent people would describe that as "effective"...or use that bloodshed approvingly to bolster their own claims for a just cause.

"The beltway snipers are sick individuals"
They're not the only ones around.

[natasha1]

67. Yes, but not this part...

Those misunderstood patriots....the Beltway Snipers....

I never said, nor implied, that the beltway snipers were misunderstood patriots.

Hell, we got trigger happy shitheels killing peaceful citizens all day every day, thanks to the gun lobby. I think few decent people would describe that as "effective"...or use that bloodshed approvingly to bolster their own claims for a just cause.

Similarly, one can describe the terrorist attacks on 9/11 as "effective". Does this mean that I approve of, admire, or any other wise hold in high regard those attacks? Of course not. This does not change the fact that, as a military and economic attack, the impact was extremely effective.

The exact same thing can be said about the beltway snipers. Perk_UK was making the claim that small arms are useless in resisting against a government. Clearly, they are not.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee, you were the one holding them up approvingly

as "effective" action of the sort you hoped to have.

"Similarly, one can describe the terrorist attacks on 9/11 as "effective"."
And the Oklahoma and Olympic Park bombings too. Hell, you can describe the two-bit thug who shoots a cab driver during a stick-up as effective, by that "logic" or whatever it is.

"This does not change the fact that, as a military and economic attack, the impact was extremely effective."
<sarcasm>And so the American dictatorship fell in ruins to the triumphant forces of Al Qaeda....</sarcasm>

Je-e-ezus....

[natasha1]

75. NO! You continue to ascribe approval when I have constantly denied it!

as "effective" action of the sort you hoped to have.

"Similarly, one can describe the terrorist attacks on 9/11 as "effective"."
And the Oklahoma and Olympic Park bombings too. Hell, you can describe the two-bit thug who shoots a cab driver during a stick-up as effective, by that "logic" or whatever it is.

"This does not change the fact that, as a military and economic attack, the impact was extremely effective."
<sarcasm>And so the American dictatorship fell in ruins to the triumphant forces of Al Qaeda....</sarcasm>

Je-e-ezus....

You continue to mischaracterize my statements.

Again, and for the final time, Perk_UK made the argument that small arms are ineffective against larger military forces.

In that context, the beltway snipers use of small arms demonstrates that they can be effective.

In the context of attacks, the 9/11 attack, and indeed the Oklahoma City bombing, were effective. I don't consider the Olympic Park bombing to have been terribly effective at furthering anyone's goals.

And again, I do not hold any of these events "approvingly", despite your best efforts to paint me as doing so.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

83. Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

"Perk_UK made the argument that small arms are ineffective against larger military forces.
In that context, the beltway snipers use of small arms demonstrates that they can be effective."
Since you insist on discussing this mind-numbingly awful remark of yours at length, let me point out that the Beltway Snipers never faced ANY military force of any size, although they turned out to be hell on civilians peacefully pumping gas or loading purchases into their car. That alone renders your remark both offensive AND ludicrous as I have several times indicated.

And the only reason you are defending "the use of small arms against a larger military force" in the first place is because you are trying to justify your own bloody-minded fantasies about armed revolution.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pert_UK]

155. Probability and Decision Theory.......

I've studied this topic (a few years ago now). If I get the time, I might try to do something more formal, but in the meantime try this.

Try weighing up:

The negative impact that widespread, poorly regulated handgun ownership has.

vs

(The probability of a Western democratic government becoming so tyrannical that armed resistance is necessary) x (the probability of other Western countries allowing it to happen) x (the probability of armed resistance being effective) x etc. etc. etc.

At a rough guess, I'd say that your argument in favour of an armed populace is basically, "There's a 10 million to 1 chance that armed resistance will be necessary and effective, so I'd better keep those guns".

My biggest problem here is that you seem to consider yourself the sole, infallible arbiter of this particular position. I.E. "I am right about this. So right, that I'll be within my rights to shoot you if you try to take my guns away."

There just IS no debate with you.

[natasha1]

159. Ah, the light dawns...

There just IS no debate with you.

Perhaps you finally begin to understand. You can debate with words all you like. But there will be no disarmament of my person, that much is certain.

Nat

[iverglas]

174. so, Pert_UK

You can debate with words all you like.
But there will be no disarmament of my person,
that much is certain.

Care to compute the probability that this statement is accurate, for us? ;)

There's nothing like a little fortune-telling to win a debate, eh?

I suppose the way that the statement in question -- "there will be no disarmament of my person" -- could be interpreted as certain is if we add that "cold, dead hands" bit to it. "Give me my guns or give me death!"

I wonder about the probability that natasha1 is actually a flabby middle-aged accountant ...

.

[malkia]

128. Yugoslavia was a nice democratic country

up until the government started to kill people who disagreed with it.
It happened before, why do you think it will not happen again?
Why are you so sure it will be a massacre? “A few terrorists” with small arms and improvised bombs are doing pretty bloody job in Iraq against a professional army.

[MrBenchley]

130. Here's some of the nice democracy Yugoslavia enjoyed...

Under "Political Life in the 1920s"

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/yutoc.html

[malkia]

136. Wake up, Bench!

1920s???????????

[MrBenchley]

139. Tell us, malkia...

When was there any democracy in Yugoslavia since then?

[malkia]

142. Have you been to Yugoslavia, Bench? Ever?

Yeah, I figured so.
But 1920s!!!! Man, you have to buy me a new keyboard!!!!
Reminder to Bench: It's April 22nd, 2004.

[MrBenchley]

144. As a matter of fact, I have been to Yugoslavia...

"Reminder to Bench: It's April 22nd, 2004."
Wonder what the date will be when Malkia answers this very simple question? When DID Yugoslavia have any sort of democracy EXCEPT in the 1920s?

[malkia]

148. Well, correct me if I’m wrong

but a multi-party Sabor in Croatia declared independence.
And then the serbs didn’t like it and all hell broke loose.
That’s for the technicality.
You are right, there wasn’t democracy in Yugoslavia and I shouldn’t say so. But Yugoslavia was an example for all the other East European countries – a lot of freedoms we could only dream about, good living standard.
Despite that these civilized people were killing each other and that’s the point I was making. Somebody said once that the civilization is a thin layer over the animal in us.

[MrBenchley]

149. And I did

"there wasn’t democracy in Yugoslavia and I shouldn’t say so."
Hell, if the RKBA crowd was limited to fact, they'd be mute as stones.

[malkia]

152. Relax, man!

Take it easy, it's just a game.
You wana play? OK! In 1991 the multi-party democratically elected Sabor in Croatia (still in Yugoslavia at the time) declared independence. It may be the first freely elected in 50 years, but nevertheless it was free. How about that for a democracy, a?
That’s a fact.
BTW can you remind me were did I state that I’m pro-anything?
Just having fun, you know…

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

164. Hey, I AM relaxed...

but then I wasn't lying about the "nice democracy" in Yugoslavia either....

[malkia]

168. Still mising the point?

[MrBenchley]

175. No, I long ago got the point...

The RKBA cause is sewage from stem to stern...

[malkia]

176. I like this game!!

Did I say it’s not? Can you show me were?:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

171. When you were in Yugoslavia...

...Did you stay at the YMCA?

:freak:

[iverglas]

145. I just have to complement you

On how much your, uh, halting English has improved since a scant few days ago. Brava! Most improved ESLer (EFLer) of the year.

_________________

Pfft! It's such a good joke I'll leave it, even though it's on me.

-- That's "compliment", up there in the header ... but the button had been clicked before I saw the error of my ways.

.

[malkia]

146. Actually it's a very good idea!

I can send you my answers and you can write them down.
Oh, never mind, we still have the problem with the translation…
But I’m doing good, don’t I?
Uh, what's ESL or EFL?
Damn, you made me blush!

[MrBenchley]

147. Isn't that something?

And isn't it strange how our friend seems unable to answer that simple question about the "nice democracy?"

[Pert_UK]

131. Goddamit!

I hate it when people come up with good counter-arguments that I can't instantly rebut!

:evilgrin:

OK, good point about Yugoslavia

However.......

I believe that in Yugoslavia the violence was largely due to inherent ethnic tensions which were, indeed, fostered by the government who supported one side against another (i.e. their own side). That is different from a totalitarian, repressive government seeking to enslave its entire population.

OK, I agree that I've not exactly refuted your point, but it's a start.....maybe.

Secondly, your Iraq point doesn't hold water:

1 - it's not a totalitarian, comprehensive, repressive, tyrannical Iraqi government who are being rebelled against. It is a reasonably small number of foreign soldiers. Many Iraqi people had access to weapons under Saddam's regime, but they were hardly able to overturn or influence the government.

2 - it's not (largely) the Iraqi people making this rebellion against an unjust government, it's international terrorists attacking (what they see as) an occupying foreign power, and trying to destabilise the whole process.

I suppose my conclusive point here is that armed militant uprising in Iraq is clearly only going to create a bigger bloodbath, rather than an improved, sensible, democracy.

Unless you genuinely feel that democracy is likely to fail entirely in the US in your lifetime, then I can't see how you can justify bearing arms solely as a defence against tyranny. I'm sorry, but it's just bullshit.

[MrBenchley]

133. I find it hard to envision the sort of person

who can look at the mess that was Yugoslavia in the years following the First World War, and say "Damn, what a nice democracy...wish we had one like that." (see my post above for a thumbnail history)

It's interesting that the folks trying to pretend that they need those guns because the Chimp and his handler are tyrants about to sunder the country and cause an armed revolution have nary a cross word for their fellow gun owners, who are doing such a swell job propping up this unelected drunk.

[malkia]

135. I’m not sure if there are so many foreign terrorists in Iraq

but nevertheless they are keeping a very well equipped and trained army very, very busy. It comes to show that if there is a willing group of people AND the means to do so (i.e. weapons) they can stand against oppression. Although in the case with the Iraqi resistance I agree with you that it will not result in US leaving the country. Too many and too big of interests are at stake there.
I do not believe that in MY lifetime there will be a dictator in USA. But the people in Germany didn’t think so either. Remember, at the beginning of the 20-th century there were no indications that something like Hitler is in order.
I really hate history!

[Pert_UK]

154. Just a quick one...

the comparison with Germany is fallacious as, IIRC, Hitler was in fact freely elected and maintained wide-spread public support throughout his time in office and during the war.

Of course, you could argue that the situation for the Jews would have been better if they'd been armed, but that's only trivially true - it couldn't have been worse for them.

Regrettably, there was popular resentment of the Jews during WWII and prior, so an armed uprising/resistance by them would only have led to even swifter and more brutal suppression.

[malkia]

169. My point!

A very advanced, democratic and civilized country sank willingly into hell.
Since it happened once before with them were is the guarantee that it will not happen again somewhere else?

[Pert_UK]

8. Hooray! Nobody has made this stupid remark for ages!

Well done! Congratulations on not participating in the debate!

I'm not even going to bother telling you why your remark is pointless and stupid because you wouldn't care if I did. In fact, if you don't understand that you are being deliberately misleading and totally ignoring the point of the UK gun ban, then you probably don't even understand sentences this long.

P.

[enfield collector]

10. thank you for being so condescending. I notice you favour

pre-emption, why not just lock everyone up to prevent them commiting crimes in the future?

[OpSomBlood]

11. It would work!

That's a foolproof plan!

[iverglas]

12. or

why not just eliminate all speed limits in school zones, and focus on prosecuting the evil doers who run down and kill children in crosswalks?

Surely it is not fair to make ALL of us drive real slow, and turn all us honest law-abiding car drivers into criminals if we drive fast, just because a few stupid or evil people might abuse their right to drive fast and run down a few children.

Liberty or death!

Preferably somebody else's death, of course.

.

[OpSomBlood]

13. Faulty analogy...

There's no safe way to speed through an area where children often randomly wander into the street.

We've got some great parting gifts for you, though!

[MrBenchley]

14. Seems to me right on the money....

Of course, I'm not pretending I don't know what Pete Coors stands for, either....

[iverglas]

15. of course there is

There's no safe way to speed through an area where children often randomly wander into the street.

Get Harry Humvee to make a video explaining to children that when they see a vehicle speeding toward them, they must stop, drop and roll ...

.

[OpSomBlood]

16. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Is that supposed to be a satirical jab at efforts to educate kids never to touch guns without an adult present? Or to teach adults how to properly handle and store firearms so that it is mechanically impossible for them to accidentally discharge?

Those seem a tad more reasonable than your ludicrous analogy.

[iverglas]

17. duh

Is that supposed to be a satirical jab ...

And an excellent and hilarious one it was, too. It just worked on so many levels.

("Stop, drop and roll" -- that's what kids are supposed to do when they catch on fire, you know. "Stop, drop and roll" when you see a vehicle speeding toward you -- about as good an idea as kids handling firearms "safely", you see ... . I just love explaining my jokes. Ask anytime.)


Those seem a tad more reasonable than your ludicrous analogy.

And the sky is green, and Pete Coors isn't a filthy right-wing Republican, or whatever bald unsubstantiated expression of opinion you might like to make.

I do gather that it's your opinion that my analogy was ludicrous. If only we all appreciated how little interest our opinions hold for others when all we do is yammer them out with nary a shred of fact or argument offered to back them up ...

.

[MrBenchley]

18. Come and see Harry at the auto show

(snicker)

[Cooper]

26. you don't want kids to know how to handle firearms safely?

you'd rather kids be ignorant about the dangers of firearms?

[OpSomBlood]

27. No, they just want to ban them all.

To them, such efforts are merely the NRA brainwashing our youth with their evil right-wing agenda.

[MrBenchley]

29. That's because it IS the NRA

and spectacularly ineffective...even counter-productive.

[iverglas]

34. well now, how interesting

No, they just want to ban them all.

Benchley and I are the "they" in issue in that statement.

There is simply no question about that. This is a thread in which Benchley and I have spoken. The question asked was in response to a post by ME. The statement above was made about ME, the person to whom the question being responded to was addressed, and the only other person who could conceivably be included in the "they" is Benchley.

The statement has just been made that Benchley and I want to ban all firearms.

Now, everybody -- everybody -- knows that this is a false statement. The person who made the statement knows that it is false. The person who made the statement has knowingly made a false statement.

That just sounds so ... innocuous. "Knowingly made a false statement."

In some circumstances, it would actually be a crime: knowingly make a false statement on your income tax return, and you're in deep road apples.

But hereabouts, it's just a common RKBA tactic. Charming, isn't it?

.

[MrBenchley]

39. It's what Pete Coors would do....

[iverglas]

59. now how about this one?

Big man that you are, you admitted that your statement about the costs of Eddie Eagle was false.

How 'bout "they just want to ban them all"?

It seems that the Eddie Eagle flub was a genuine but mistakenly held opinion.

The explanation for this false statement would be ...?

.

[MrBenchley]

28. Holy Koresh!

Let's get some pimp in an Eagle costume to suck up public school funds!

[OpSomBlood]

30. Really?

Please document where NRA youth safety programs have ever cost a dime of taxpayer money. Can you provide a link?

Or maybe you're the dishonest one.

[MrBenchley]

31. Yeah, really, op....

Go pimp for Eddie Eagle to your freeper pal...

[OpSomBlood]

32. Benchley's note to self...

"Whenever OpSomBlood makes a particularly cogent point that proves my utter lack of knowledge on the topic, always be sure to refer to Stentorian or Pete Coors or the NRA in a juvenile attempt to discredit him."

[MrBenchley]

35. Op, do let us know if you EVER make a cogent point

So far all we've seen are right wing talking points from the Heritage Institute and the NRA, and a shitload of sniveling.

[OpSomBlood]

36. Persistence without substance.

You in three words.

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee, op, if you don't love it...

You know what you can do....go snivel to Pete Coors...maybe he can give you more of that steaming brown "substance" the Heritage Foundation and the NRA churn out...

[OpSomBlood]

41. Benchley's note to self:

"Whenever OpSomBlood makes a particularly cogent point that proves my utter lack of knowledge on the topic, always be sure to refer to Stentorian or Pete Coors or the NRA in a juvenile attempt to discredit him."

At least you're predictable.

[MrBenchley]

44. Op, where are these cogent points?

I sure as shit haven't seen anything but the standard NRA talking points every other tedious "enthusiast" wobbles around chanting.

[iverglas]

40. ah, cogent points

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/whyteach.asp

To order materials, visit the NRA Program Materials Center or call [phone].
http://materials.nrahq.org/

Free, do you suppose they are?


http://www.gazette.net/200414/frederickcty/education/210269-1.html

Board of education members are considering whether to allow Eddie Eagle to land in Frederick County Public Schools.

Representatives from the sheriff's office would present the program at no cost to schools and at their request, Hagy said.

Gosh, I wonder who pays those sheriff's office folks? And where they got the program materials? And who paid for them?

My my. Not all law enforcement types seem to be gushing about Eddie:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddieap1.htm

And while the NRA was eventually successful in Dade County, other cities were less receptive to the organization's overtures that year. In the fall of 1988 the NRA urged adoption of the Eddie Eagle program in Chicago schools after an 11-year-old girl was accidently injured by a revolver her playmates had found in a schoolyard bush. The idea was widely criticized by educators and law enforcement officials. As Chicago Police Department Deputy Superintendent Joseph DiLeonardi told the Chicago Tribune, "We will not sit back and see this garbage given to our children. This will not be tolerated and condoned by the Chicago Police Department....It's sickening to inject this type of garbage into the minds of our youngsters. It's a disgrace."

(Anybody who wants to claim that the secondary source has invented or misrepresented the quotation, feel free.)

Eddie seems to have some strong views about ... well, maybe we could call it "personal responsibility". Children's. Rather than insisting that adults assume their responsibility for protecting children from harm, we'll place that responsibility on children. Take Indiana:

The synopsis of the original bill stated that it would make it:

a Class A infraction for an adult to knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, or negligently store or leave a loaded handgun or an unloaded handgun that is accompanied by ammunition in a location where the adult knows or should reasonably know that an unsupervised child is likely to gain access to the handgun if: (1) a child gains access to the handgun; and (2) the child violates the law concerning carrying a handgun without a license or uses the handgun to cause bodily injury to the child or to another person.

Ah look, apparently my (forgive me) snide assessment of Eddie's position is shared by others (emphasis added):

Before floor debate on the original bill could begin, an NRA-backed amendment was approved without debate. The NRA-backed amendment:

recognize the many excellent accomplishments of the Eddie Eagle program; and...in view of the great need for the lessons that are taught, encourage the use of the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program and other National Rifle Association firearm safety education programs in the Indiana school system to help prevent firearm accidents among children.

As a result of the NRA amendment, the CAP bill died. According to Amy Friedman, a member of the Indianapolis SAFE KIDS Coalition and a supporter of the original bill:

The Eddie Eagle amendment was used as a political tool to prevent debate of the CAP bill from occurring in the Indiana House of Representatives. The original CAP bill would have placed the responsibility for safe storage of handguns on the adult owner. The NRA-backed amendment relieved the owner of the obligation to properly store handguns and instead mandated Eddie Eagle classes for Indiana schoolchildren. By recommending gun safety classes for children instead of requiring safe storage of handguns, the burden of safety was inappropriately placed on the children themselves.

Anyhow, back to following the money.

Here's a fun one:

http://www.mtssa.org/news.phtml?newsid=11

People have asked why we don't just use the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. There are two reasons. First, the primary message of the Eddie Eagle program is, "If you see a gun, leave the room and tell an adult." We don't think this is a credible or suitable message for Montana kids. We estimate that about 90% of Montana households contain firearms, many in glass-fronted gun cabinets in a den, family room, or living room. What's a kid going to do with the Eddie Eagle message in such a home, "Leave the room"? ...

Second, the Eddie Eagle materials are very colorful, pretty, and slick, and also expensive. It costs between $2 and $2.50 per kid to deliver the Eddie Eagle materials. The NRA can only afford to give away enough Eddie Eagle stuff to service about 1,000 Montana kids each year. Somebody else must pay for any more NRA materials.

Ah yes ... the free samples.

So ... has no school board anywhere ever ordered and paid for materials in excess of the free samples? Let's have some more of those cogent points, friend.

.

[OpSomBlood]

45. The horrible brainwashing propaganda:

From http://www.nra.org/display_content/show_content.cfm?mod_id=61&id=1005

>> With firearms present in about half of all American households, all young children should know the single most important rule of being "GunSafe." If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult. <<

>> Young children must learn that guns are not toys, and they must know what to do should they find a gun left accessible to them. <<

Just because the NRA's political activism is questionable doesn't mean their safety programs aren't top-notch.

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee, op....

every study ever done on the program says the goddamn thing is worthless...

"Just because the NRA's political activism is questionable doesn't mean their safety programs aren't top-notch."
But just because shit smells, that doesn't mean it's going to taste like candy. And this "safety program" is a whopping load of shit.

[iverglas]

50. and now

If you'd care to address the issue you raised and I responded to -- the cost of the Eddie Eagle program to the public, which you stated to be non-existent and I demonstrated to be very real -- instead of babbling off into some flock of herring or other, I'll be pleased to read those cogent points I was anticipating.

.

[OpSomBlood]

53. Mea culpa.

I was not aware that school boards were diverting funds to NRA safety training. That's why I asked for a link, and I appreciate that you did.

While I disagree with the notion of this training being worthless, I also question this diversion of funds. But the question needs to be pointed at the school boards, not the group providing the training.

As far as I can tell (I've seen an Eddie Eagle class before), there is no promotion or mention of the NRA or firearms ownership within these classes. I think the classes provide solid information to children about how dangerous guns are and what to do when they encounter one.

[MrBenchley]

46. And let's not forget

that every study ever done of this imbecility finds that the foul fowl makes kids MORE likely to play with guns than if they received no instruction at all.

But then for most people it's enough to note that it's a program by an organization that puts ALL the responsiblity for gun safety in the home on the child and NONE at all on the idiotic gun owner who might leave a loaded gun where a child could get it.

[iverglas]

51. over here

Please document where NRA youth safety programs have ever cost a dime of taxpayer money. Can you provide a link?

Or maybe you're the dishonest one.

We're all waiting with bated breath for your response to the links I provided.

In view of the herrings being floated, one might think we were in fact waiting with baited breath ...

.

[MrBenchley]

52. Don't hold your breath...

I don't think op can find an answer in the pages of the stentorian...

[OpSomBlood]

56. See post 53.

The measure of a man is his ability to acknowledge when he's wrong.

Give it a try sometime, you might find it liberating.

[MrBenchley]

57. Gee, op, I ain't been wrong yet

So now when are you going to acknowledge that Eddie Eagle is worthless?

By the way, it's wonderful to see that you put all the responsibility for the foul fowl sucking up public school bucks on the school boards and none at all on the dishonest pieces of shit who pressured the school board into that decision.

[OpSomBlood]

68. In Benchley's world, personal responsibilty is a myth.

It is the function of the school board to decide how to allocate their funds. How is the NRA to blame when a school board contacts them requesting gun safety education materials? If the school board was so malleable that they could be "pressured" by "dishonest pieces of shit," then they are unfit to run a school district.

Do you similarly feel that anti-drug education programs like DARE are worthless? Or that sex education is just a front for the condom industry?

But then again, I guess this just runs parallel to your theory that the companies which provide products are the ones to blame when people willfully abuse those products. Everyone's responsible for a crime except the guy who committed it. He just wasn't hugged enough as a child.

[MrBenchley]

74. And in Pete Coors' world...

he funds the Heritage Foundation wihich churns out this sort of bullshit every fucking day.

"Do you similarly feel that anti-drug education programs like DARE are worthless? Or that sex education is just a front for the condom industry?"
Gee, DARE wasn't developed by a lobby representing the makers and sellers of rolling papers, disposable hypodermic needles, baby laxatives, and the like.

And it's worth noting that the same dishonest pieces of shit trying to pressure school boards into putting the idiotic Eddie Eagle rubbish into schools are ALSO trying to pressure them into dropping real sex education and funding that worthless "abstinence only" crap...

"Everyone's responsible for a crime except the guy who committed it."
Yeah, and no public school money goes to Eddie Eagle, and Iverglas and I want to ban guns. Pete would just be wetting yourself with pride if he could read your posts.

[OpSomBlood]

78. Gotta mention Pete Coors.

Because we all know how directly pertinent he is to this discussion.

And now you're claiming that you and Iverglas don't want to ban guns? Is this fucking bizzaro world?

I thought the Constitutional right of individuals to keep and bear arms was just a misinterpreted fallacy. I thought that the people who want to own assault rifles were indecent shitheels. I thought that gun manufacturers were liable for other peoples' crimes.

I guess I thought wrong about you. We should go shooting together sometime, then.

[MrBenchley]

92. Is this fucking bizzaro world?

It sure seems to be where YOU live.

[OpSomBlood]

96. Benchley's rapier wit strikes again.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

[MrBenchley]

119. As op snivels again

[iverglas]

109. drop the dead donkey

And now you're claiming that you and Iverglas don't want to ban guns? Is this fucking bizzaro world?

How's about you put the old money where the big mouth is? Be the big man. Have the courage of your convictions. Show us the cattle; the hat is getting old.

Say it: say MrBenchley and iverglas want to ban guns.

Then substantiate your allegation. Proof. On the table. Or your peace, forever held.

Get yourself a gold star and do the work, if you need to. Or ask one of your apparently cleverer colleagues, one or two of whom might just be willing and able to give you a candid answer.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/d/dropthedeaddonke_7772455.shtml

.

[OpSomBlood]

114. Ok, so if you two don't want to ban guns...

Then what in the hell is your purpose in this forum? I hate to be so blunt, but you two angrily and condescendingly engage every pro-gun person you see here.

What do you want, then? Or do you even know?

[malkia]

129. Some people just can’t pass a good discussion.

Of course they are pro-gun, but participate for the heck of it on the opposite side – since there’s nobody else…
Can't you see it from their posts?

[MrBenchley]

140. Ah, the last desperate gasp....

[malkia]

153. Still having fun?

Sorry I revealed the secret! :pals:

[MrBenchley]

121. And whaddaya know?

He couldn't fucking do it!! Instead he has to keep playing these half assed games that demonstrate only what kind of specimen swallows the sort of propaganda he regurgitates here.

[OpSomBlood]

123. You don't want to ban guns, but you hate gun owners.

So is this just a sick hobby or something?

Really, what's the fucking point? Judging by your 16,000+ posts here, you've spent literally weeks out of your life on this website telling everyone pro-gun who comes around what a degenerate asshole they are.

And now you say you don't want to ban guns? What the fuck?

[MrBenchley]

124. Gee, op...

Maybe if you weren't so busy fucking telling me what I think, you might find out.

"telling everyone pro-gun who comes around what a degenerate asshole"
Don't cry to me, op...I didn't make you post mindless crap from right wing websites, or pal around with a freeper piece of shit, or stick up for Pete Coors and repeat his propaganda, or jump in to brag about how "effective" the Beltway sniper was. All I did was point out that you did so.

You don't want to be lumped in with Larry Pratt and Tom DeLay...then don't jump in to pretend they're not doing what they're doing.

You want to pretend you're a pro-gun liberal? You won't be the only one. But it's noticeable as hell we get all pro-gun and not a speck of liberal, day in and day out.

[slackmaster]

126. Allow me to volunteer myself as a counterexample

But it's noticeable as hell we get all pro-gun and not a speck of liberal, day in and day out.

Here's a partial run-down of my political views:

- Strongly pro-gay rights. That includes same-sex marriages with all of the same benefits as heterosexual couples, not just non-discrimination in employment and anti-bashing.

Compare and contrast with MrBenchley's endorsement of the "gay rights" position of the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49018&mesg_id=49135&page=

- Strongly pro-women's rights. There are still states that allow women to be paid a lower wage or salary than a man with exactly the same qualifications doing exactly the same work. I favor an amendment to the US Constitution requiring equal pay for equal work.

Also strongly pro-choice on abortion.

- Strongly in favor of drug legalization, opposed to the War On (some) Drugs.

- Strong supporter of public education. I oppose vouchers for private school tuitions, and favor everyone pitching in to ensure that ALL children get a decent education through high school.

- Strong supporter of separation of church and state. Religion is a private matter. When government infringes on religious practices, it's tyranny. It's also tyranny when religious views become the moral compass for government.

- I see the USA as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society. It's always been that way, and life is always enriched when people from other cultures join our society. Think what life would be like without Thai food.

- I believe in social justice for all. Environmental racism/classism is one of the biggest challenges we face.

- Strongly pro-environment. Almost all of my votes for local elected officials are based on environemental and quality-of-life issues. Have been a member of the Sierra Club for about 25 years.

- Strongly opposed to the death penalty.

- And I'm pro-individual RKBA.

If anyone thinks that last bullet item disqualifies me as a "liberal", they can bite me.

[OpSomBlood]

150. Then you are a traitor.

Because unless you follow the DNC's guidebook entitled "Where to stand on every issue" to a tee, then you can't be a real liberal. Your own independent thoughts and ideas should have nothing to do with it.

Might as well tear up your voter registration card now, man. It's over.

[MrBenchley]

165. Gee, op....

If you want to peddle right wing horseshit all day, feel free. So far you ain't done much else.

But don't whine and snivel when liberals point out that it's right wing horseshit.

[OpSomBlood]

167. Who's whining?

Because your short-sighted and wrong opinion about guns (which, of course, you don't want to ban) means exactly nothing to me. I only counter your juvenile personal attacks and baseless claims in an effort to prevent you from misinforming others.

[Pert_UK]

19. Well sometimes, just sometimes, it's appropriate.....

You are criticising a law for failing to do something that it was never intended to do. That's pretty ridiculous.

The UK handgun ban was brought in solely to prevent the misuse of firearms by legal handgun owners. It was never intended to address the entirely different problem of illegal misuse of illegal firearms by criminals, during the course of their crimes.

As many people on here reasonably point out, there is a whole world of difference between the person who legally owns firearms for recreation/hunting/defense, and the criminal who owns firearms for the purpose of facilitating crimes. Given this huge difference, it makes perfect sense to address the two topics in completely different ways.

In the UK, the government (with HUGE public backing) decided that the way to address the problem of legal gun owners misusing their weapons with horrific results was to remove the privilege of gun ownership from the general public. Quite simply, individual handgun ownership represented too high a risk to the public at large. The handgun ban has been FANTASTICALLY effective, in that we have had no large-scale massacres since it came into effect.

You can argue (if you want) that this is repressing the rights of law-abiding individuals, but I'm afraid that it was repeatedly proven that guns in private hands leads to a certain level of misuse and tragedy.

I would be the first to agree that the system would be better if it just prevented psychopaths from owning guns and let the rest of us get on with shooting, but regrettably the human mind is complex and liable to change, and there can never be a guarantee that we won't see another Dunblane or Hungerford massacre.

In terms of pre-emption.....I see your point, but we pre-emptively ban people from owning grenades/anthrax spores/flickknives etc. on the grounds that they represent too high a risk to society at large with marginal (if any) positive aspect, and in the UK guns kinda get into that category too.

[enfield collector]

23. I wasn't there for the handgun ban, I left in 91

after I couldn't stomach anymore of the thatcher regime. I remember the hungerford massacre and it was a terrible tragedy, but why punish thousands of innocents for the actions of one lunatic? My guns were even kept locked up at the range, just how much of a threat were they?

[hansberrym]

151. Neither can the government guarantee the safety of every individual.

As you say, "the human mind is complex and liable to change, and there can never be a guarantee that we won't see another Dunblane or Hungerford massacre."

And to that I would add- or another murder of unarmed citizens by criminals (with or without guns), or another holocaust (or smaller scale murder perpetrated by government for that matter).

But then the law in question is not supposed to address these, so we can't measure the laws effectiveness in these terms, or so you argue.



On the one hand, you say that the unintended consequence of allowing individuals to own firearms is that it is inevitable that some one of them will go nuts and commit a massacre. But on the other hand, you disallow any criticism of the law that points out the unintended consequence of disarming citizens such as leaving them less able to defend themselves against criminals or governmental tyranny.


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You ought to apply the same standards when evaluating laws restricting private ownership as you would use in evaluating laws allowing private ownership. If unintended consequences count against laws that allow private ownership, they ought to count against laws that restrict private ownership.


For the record, I am not claiming a "bloodbath" will ensue, only that it is also inevitable that someone disarmed by this law will be unable to defend himself or others at some point in the future. The government can not guarantee the safety of every individual, therefor it ought to make allowances so that individuals can defend themselves.


Furthermore, governments can also go crazy. And when they do, they kill a whole lot more people than the lone wackos.

[Moderator]

177. I'm locking this.

This was a good thread, and very informative, I'm just locking it because it's up to 177 posts and it takes too long to load to be of futher use. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, please feel free to start another thread on this topic.