BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM

Perhaps some are thinking too that our elected representatives are supposed to provide "leadership" as well as follow what their pollsters tell them is the "will of their constituents."

That *was* the theory.... But the over-riding real-world goal is to get elected and then stay in office.

This was frankly explained nearly fifty years ago in an Esquire article by Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who later managed to get re-elected right after he was kicked out of the House for corrupt practices. (An extreme case, to be sure).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:56 AM

There's no constitutional right to go around with guns if you bring in a law to say so.

There's nothing in any constitution about it. The nearest is something about the right to be drafted into an army or militia to defend The USA. I believe it is called the right to bear arms.

I know you are living in a lawless third world country but the democratic majority of your decent citizens want this criminal activity stopped. Take lessons from democracies and work as they do.

Eventually, you might get there. After all, the people wish it to be so. And your President is embarrassed when being lectured by world leaders about getting his house in order before criticising others.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:31 AM

> The same lawmakers can ban smoking in public places so they can ban guns too.

Wrong.

There's no Constitutional guarantee of a right to smoke.

A Constitutional guarantee is inviolable. And guns are more popular than cigarettes, so to speak.

What's more, wiseguys, people have been organizing and urging and lobbying for stricter gun laws (not an unconstitutional "ban on guns") since the 1960s. And they still are.

Limited results, including a law ending the manufacture of assault weapons for civilians (1994). But Congress allowed it to expire ten years after they passed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:05 AM

One concurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:37 AM

So penis inadequacy is the fault of corruptible government?

Keep banging the rocks together..

Anyway, that's a stupid response. The same lawmakers can ban smoking in public places so they can ban guns too. Despite all the bullshit about land of the free, I found that taking over businesses in The USA subjected us to far more red tape and regulation than in any other country we operated in.

So don't come out with that crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:57 AM

See.......every time you're given the solution, out you come with the same old same-old - "Oh yes, you're absolutely right, but it's too difficult".

So.......back to my first post - 75% of you aren't interested in firearms! Why aren't you organising and forcing your will on your government and the small (25% FFS!) minority? Oh sorry, I forgot - it's too difficult. WTF happened to the 'Can-Do' nation we non-Yanks used to admire so much?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 08:00 PM

"You just introduce them in law and regulate."
LOL
50 times..with amendments....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:38 PM

> You just introduce them in law and regulate.

Any idea what it takes nowadays to pass a new law in the US on any "controversial" matter?

Or "noncontroversial," come to think of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:05 PM

Regulations don't need to be a goal. You just introduce them in law and regulate.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:02 PM

Ok Stim... in that context, I can see why one has concern about gun owners being at a higher risk for suicide. That is quite apart from an opinion about "if someone wants to shoot himself, it is his right." That question is about suicide as a right, not the method.

And I certainly agree with Backwoodsman that "having SANE regulations" is the goal.

Gosh... now all we need to do is unravel 250 years of history and attitudes! Easy-peasy, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 05:45 PM

We must be making headway when the gun lobby have to import outside talent to defend themselves - and if that's the best they've got, it's even more encouraging. I suppose it becomes understandable when charges of corporate manslaughter could lead to the American justice system.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:52 PM

Bill, my point references the fact that the great majority of gun deaths among white males are suicides. This has been pointed out our multitudinous gun threads. Carl, for his part, said that if someone wants to shoot himself, it is his right.

Vermont, incidentally, has a substantially higher rate of suicide than the national average, and a lower rate of violent crime. Neither of those is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:30 PM

One concurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:10 PM

Bill, guns CAN be a hobby in the UK but, having SANE regulations brought in many years ago by a government which actually had some balls, those guns are very, VERY closely controlled indeed.

Anyone who wishes to follow such a hobby has to show, amongst other things, very good reasons why he should be allowed to own a gun, and claiming to need one for 'self-defence', or to 'restrain our government' would immediately put the claimant in the category of 'Complete Fucking Crackpot' and debar him from ever having access to firearms of any sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 02:48 PM

Musket knows...or at least should... that that is not what I was discussing. I very specifically would NOT trust anyone who ostentatiously shows off by "roaming around with guns".

Careless interpretation of others' posts seems to be as popular a hobby as carrying guns...especially in areas where guns can't be the hobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 02:42 PM

Cool is as cool does.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

Bill uses the word "probably" when discussing the sanity and competence of people who think roaming around with guns makes you look cool.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 12:44 PM

"Some express it by collecting guns, some by making nasty posts in online forums."

True, but you'll have a heck of a job walking into McDonalds/school/shopping mall and blowing the living shite out of everyone with a nasty post from an online forum when the red mist comes down.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:55 AM

Yeah, but there'd still be German airplanes.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:46 AM

"As a white American male, Carl is a lot more likely to shoot himself than anything else. "

Nonsense! Carl and many others, like olddude, are probably quite careful and competent when handling weapons... and it has nothing to do with "having small dicks". It 'may' have to do with an excess of testosterone, but that is a problem in lots of places. Some express it by collecting guns, some by making nasty posts in online forums.

The problem is all the not-so-careful, stupid, bigoted, aggressive idiots who are able to get guns thru the same ridiculously lax laws that allow them to Carl & others.

I do not approve of Carl, Dan, and various others who have debated this in Mudcat for a few years, having so many guns, but I would feel safe around most of them, even when I knew they were 'carrying'. That is quite apart from my fear & disgust with the myriads of others I don't know who treat guns like they did playing games at 10 years old!

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd soon have only hunters, ranchers who need to control vermin, police and a few carefully screened others who demonstrate a **need** able to access most weapons.... but we are far past that except as a fantasy.

   Gee... it must be nice to have such simple views of the world's problems. Too bad simple solutions¹ are not also on the menu.



1.simple solutions- like when Will Rogers was asked in the 1940s- "What can we do about the German submarines?"


paraphrased:
"Simple." replied Will. "Boil the ocean!"
"Oh c'mon Will, that's nonsense, how could we boil the ocean?"
"Oh, I'm just the idea man," Will said, "We have technical experts for the details."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:09 AM

"Charlton Heston is indubitably a most accomplished actor."

Really? Apart from Planet of the Apes I can't think of one good thing he's been in. All subjective I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM

> Charlton Heston is indubitably a most accomplished actor.

Sadly, "was."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:41 AM

No, I don't think so -- Charlton Heston is indubitably a most accomplished actor. Just shows that such status doesn't necessarily bring good judgment in all matters.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:13 AM

How anyone in their right mind can consider that the American Government is constrained by their gun owning citizens beats me. But then of course, the NRA lobby don't seem to have minds, let alone hearts.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 07:34 AM

"I am at a loss why Charlton Heston became associated with an organisation for inadequate men to compensate for having small dicks?"

Because he's a shite actor?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM

Of course Backwoodsman, being a Derbyshire lad, I'd rather live in Hope than die in Staveley.

But this is about The USA and it wasn't really funny the first time.

But neither is the subject title. Although with his Hollywood credentials, I am at a loss why Charlton Heston became associated with an organisation for inadequate men to compensate for having small dicks?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 02:25 AM

We live in hope, Stim. Him and the other crackpots like him.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 01:43 AM

As a white American male, Carl is a lot more likely to shoot himself than anything else.   He seems to be OK with that. Who am I to argue?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:50 PM

awwwkkk!! I just discovered Carl from Vermont's post.

It would take me a week to unravel the convoluted reasoning there.

The most important point to deal with is the 2nd Amendment, its history, its meaning or lack thereof, and it relevance to today's society... along with the practicality of even trying to update it.

I am too busy this decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:08 AM

Which leads on to what to me, and a good many others, is the fundamental reason for having an armed people: The need to restrain our own government.

Oh, Lord, not one of THOSE loonies.

RE: the boxes metaphor, which originated with Stephen Decatur Miller, South Carolina "fire-eater", Congressman and Senator in 1830- and those cartridges were to be used to protect the "freedom" of southern slave owners to own property in human beings.

RE: Douglass using this same metaphor: the speech was made at the time that large numbers of Blacks in the South were being regularly murdered for attempting to exercise theit right to vote (which is what Douglass was talking about if you don't take his quote out of context. And it wasn't the government doing the killing: it was the Ku Klux Klan.

Note to VT Yank- its not 1830 or 1867 any longer - time you realized its 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:45 AM

> blaming the parents of the shooters

Sounds more relevant to me than blaming licensed gun owners generally, even if it's nowhere near the whole story.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:28 AM

"... the NRA president, Charlton Heston, gave an interview blaming the parents of the shooters, and the permissive culture that had allowed them to wear black trench coats to school"
----------------------------------------------------
Above is Mr Heston's view on the Columbine tragedy.
Says it all really.
Trench coats should be banned, not guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:58 AM

Bloody hell, a real NRA member, complete with cut and paste from their propaganda. This Carl specimen positively chills your bones, reading his awful bullshit.

To think, I like going to Vermont, skiing in Killington. I just thought it was the bears at the end of the season that were a danger to people. Seems some of the locals need key worker input before being let loose in public too...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:51 AM

Two screenfuls of pompous guff like Carl's says to me that your typical American gun nut doesn't have enough self-control to be trusted with anything more dangerous than a popgun that spits out a BANG flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:29 AM

> American freedom depends on three things: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

He was talking about the Civil War. Makes a difference, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:11 AM

"The need to restrain our own government."

it doesn't work. Your government spies on your every move and allows corporations to do the same. It gathers data on where you are, allows business to construct profiles of you to target advertising and who knows what else. Your phone allows them to track your physical movements. They're fucking you (and everyone else) over and all your guns can't do a thing about it. Heck, most people don't even know it's happening.

Your gun might allow you to take a pot-shot at a soldier or copper, but it's useless in the face of threats to your freedom other than violence, and even then if it's between you and a marine I know who'd I be betting on.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Carl, Yank from VT
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:00 AM

Well, if I were to start from the top & respond on down it would be quite an entry, so I'll mention a few highlights & argue a little & when I next have time to get bogged in Mudcat maybe answer a bit of the firestorm resulting. :)

Preface - OP, you didn't perchance hunt up olddude and recruit him for a foil before you started? I'll believe you if you deny it, but I've sure got to wonder.

Prologue - where I'm coming from: (physically, rural Vermont, small peaceful place in New England, no concealed carry permits here because it has never been illegal to carry either concealed or openly in this state) I am "pro-gun", an NRA member, and in fact even a Libertarian party member - apparently my ilk is mainly what is mostly wrong with the U.S. these days.

1. Greg E. & the hideous jihadist Obama - You're right, there are people who believe that crap, and you may well believe we are often bedevilled with them in the Libertarians. But the great majority of Libertarianns have no use for it, and even fewer of the country at large.

2. Various posts - There seems to be an impression that the NRA is supported by the firearms industry. I have no doubt they contribute, as virtually every business in this country supports those whose lobbying is favorable to their interests, but I believe the NRA is overwhelmingly financed by the voluntary contributions of us members. (I stand correctable if you will produce reliable data contra.) We(NRA members) hardly feel our political spendings to be improper when we are faced with the same from opposing views. I saw the very conservative Koch brothers mentioned above, but no mention of the vast expenditures of Bloomberg, the anti-gun activist from NYC. I am however delighted to hear that the NRA has "unlimited" funds for lobbying, and won't have run into the kitchen and send them a big check as a result of being scared by this thread.

3. Little Amish girl - coincidentally, my first gun, which my non-hunting, non-gunning-owning dad let me buy when I was 16 was a .44 mag Ruger. Dozens of woodchucks have bitterly regretted it.

4. Bill D. et al. - The other 75% of the country "allow" us to keep on owning guns (If enough of them wanted, the constitution could be amended) because most of them, tho not believing that they personnally need a gun, do not see most of us 25% people as threats. This might also be the place to ask the statistics-citers if they could kindly post per-capita gun death statistics. I daresay the U.S. will still lead the pack, but I think some of what's posted is absolute numbers, and when there are about 400 million of us (milliards to you Brits, no?) we are likely to have very absolute impressive numbers. Also, a comparison of overall murder rates might be enlightening - 'tis no pleasure to be shot, as RK remarked, but it's not noticeably better to be hatchetted or bludgeoned or carved.

5. Advance apologies to punkfolkrocker and anyone else closely touched by gun suicide, but it's part of the discussion. A good many of us, and I, believe that a person's life is primarily his/r own, and that s/he has a right to end it if so desiring. We don't advocate suicide, we believe in trying to talk our friends out of it if possible, but in the end we think a person is not a possession of the Socialist Collective, or a Resource of the Aryan race, or a Subject of his Most Royal Majesty; s/he is a human being that has a right to dispose of him/herself. Without guns would there be fewer successful suicides? No doubt of it - guns do provide a quicker and deadlier way of killing people than a lot of other things, and there are some suicides (and murders) that would not happen without a gun available. But first, how many? And second, what right do the rest of us have to coerce determined suicides into less reliable, quite possibly painful and mutilating ways of trying to end themselves? Why do we need laws permitting physicians to "assist" suiucides (a hot topic in these our incomprehensible ex-colonies these days) rather than simply saying to them "We recognize your right to shoot yourself if you insist"?

6. Con Law lecture: When the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd amendment prohibits the Federal (National) government from "infring[ing] the right of the people to keep and bear arms" it did not "corrupt" anything. The first ten amendments were put into the constitution at the insistence of the individual states, as a condition of their adherence to the constitution, to keep the Federal government from interfering with state dispositions in various matters, and when the court rules that the Federal government therefore can't do so, they interpret it precisely as it was intended to be. Whether that idea is still a good one is another question, but nothing has been "corrupted" or distorted thereby. Next, for what it's worth, the framers did *not* say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of such militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they said that the right of the *people* to do so might not. They may have been crude backwoods colonial upstarts if you insist, but they understood how to say what they meant. Further, look at the thing in the light of common sense - just how much help does the well-regulated militia provide when an irritated algonquian unexpectedly arrives to torch your house, or the bear is devouring the family pig? And most particularly, what happens when the sovereign, who controls the army & administration, needs to be restrained, either by fear of the power of the general population or worse-coming-to-worst by their use of it? It was very much on the minds of those constitution-makers that the government was responsible to the people and the people were to have the means to enforce that that relation. The militia *is* the armed people, which constituted itself, elected its own officers, and responded more or less as it felt inclined to its state governors. The necessity was for a "well-regulated" one as nobody, especially a bunch of well-to-do landed gentry but also the people in general, wanted miscellaneous mobs roaming around raising hell, but it was not conceived of as being merely an arm of the government. Again, maybe or not that's pertinent to today's conditions (arguments to follow that it still is), but as far as the constitution as she stands being "corrupted" when the court construes the 2'Am. as it has - balls.

7. I admit the opposition to what seem reasonable measures to curb the worst of the gun killings. But at least a significant part of this is indeed a fear of the "slippery slope", and the circumstance that most of the people in favor of "gun control" do not sound, when you study their ideas, as if they want to make & enforce only reasonable limits and restrictions, but wish to essentially disarm the people as a whole. I see very little in this thread to contradict that impression. If the "gun-controllers" stood up and said something like "I believe we must put significantly enhanced machinery in place to ensure that only sane persons of mature understanding and with basic safety-&-firearms-handling training are permitted access to firearms or ammunition, but **I firmly and adamantly support the right of such persons to own, carry & as legally permitted use them in self-defense, and in the militia**", and could still be believed when they did, they would find at least somewhat more of a willingness to compromise. I don't know anybody, even the idiotfringers, who don't support some "gun control". I don't know anybody who thinks a 5-year-old should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a .45 and and ammo; I don't know of anybody who thinks convicted arsonists, murderers, rapists, aggravated assaulters should be allowed to possess guns; nobody thinks the evidently mentally unhinged should. So we all favor "gun control", and the debate is over what is a reasonable degree; and we "gun-people" say that a general disarming of the people is too much, and that much of the "anti-gun" legislation appears headed in that direction. Lord knows, not much of it seems to be consistent with other stated objectives.

8. Which leads on to what to me, and a good many others, is the fundamental reason for having an armed people: The need to restrain our own government. This is *not* an outdated notion, quite the contrary. The ability of the modern state, especially a high-tech one like the U.S., to become crushingly tyrannical is a hell of a lot greater than was Napoleon's, or Alexander II's, or ... you name them. Right, how could I forget George III? ;) It can't happen, people wouldn't let it, the Hitler stuff, and the Stalin stuff, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Darfur, that's all past, we're not like that anymore? Plenty of people still walking around who can tell you we haven't grown out of it. But the internet, underground publishing, modern telecommunications, it couldn't happen in any advanced country? Most countries have military & security planners who sit around working out responses to more or less far-fetched attack scenarios, and surely there are contingency plans for shutting that stuff down in a hurry if it comes to that. And those plans are to be carried out by the sort of people who are trained to carry out orders without a debate. Are these plans and capabilities aimed at their own countrymen by those who devise them? Rubbish. But if the capacity is there, the system is in place, sooner or later someone will come along who will pervert it if he believes he can make it work. So in the absolutely worst case, far-fetched but possible, the people have to be able to restrain the government & military by force. In the still remote but much more likely case, they restrain the would-be power-grabbers simply by their presence & numbers making a successful putsch look a very long shot. Do the people need howitzers and bombers, and tanks? No, they couldn't fight a conventional war against a conventional army anyway, and the government isn't going to be taking over the country by destroying it. What the people do need is to be a force of maybe 200,000,000 people who are, or at least might be, armed not too less effectively than a government soldier, facing a government military of perhaps 2 or 3 million. And those civilians will never need to fire a shot, because any administration will know that a putsch would be nothing but a huge messy disaster, and the attempt will never be made.

I realize that to most of you this sounds like the kind of paranoia people get from calling their crisps "chips" and their chips "Fries", but this stuff happens, it never has happened until it does, and it is most likely to happen to those who are not in a position to resist it. I have a copy of Conrad's novel *The Secret Agent*, with an introduction to the translation by a prominent author. He goes on (after mostly explaining various literary things about Conrad)
to tell the readers how it will be difficult for them to understand the mindset of the characters, because they (the readers) live in a country where authoritanism and czarist-style repression are so far behind them, where their degree of civilization will make the whole atmosphere of the story seem bizarrely improbable. I can't say how much difficulty those readers did experience, but I can say that within ten years of his introduction Thomas Mann had left the country where his works were being thrown on bonfires. The land of Goethe & Schiller & Rilke, of study & science & modernity, the last place anyone would have nominated for it, had been subjected to National Socialism. Would a true armed German people have prevented it? Maybe not, a lot of them embraced it, at least for a while, but by the time most of them were disenchanted with it, they *couldn't* realistically do much about it. Did the army rebel against what much of its leadership considered to be simplistic, ill-advised, ruinous policy? OK, was that because Germans are particularly prone to blind obediance to orders & constituted authority? That's what soldiers of any country are trained to do, follow their orders, and mostly they do. Anybody taking over a country is going to make it look to as many people as possible as if it's the only reasonable thing to be done under pressing circumstances, and he'll probably do it with utmost sincerity.

Ahem. Sorry about the long rant, but there's been plenty of wondering what can possibly be the matter with our Americans' minds on here, so some evening-up can't hurt you. One further pargr. and I will leave w/o addressing the entire rest of the thread.

9. Crime & self-defense: The victim is the first responder. As it is said, when seconds count the police are just minutes away. The police are a response force, not an on-the-spot deterent. A general deterent, yes, but most criminals attempt to operate when the police aren't present. What is an on-the-spot deterent is a suspicion that the victim is present, armed, & incalculably likely to resist lethally. Most people don't want to fight it out with somebody who's shooting at them, even if they suspect that person might not be too much of a marksman. (Tho that is one reason why what seem to be absurd amounts of firepower are not necessarily so. If the housebreaker/assaulter/&c. is confronted with a shaky, nervous victim who doesn't look like shooting straight, he might decide to risk one or two shots taken at him (the bad guy). If he sees 3 inches of clip sticking out of the bottom of the gun confronting him, it's going to cross his mind that *some* of those shots are going to hit him, just on random odds, and maybe it's time to call it a day. And if he doesn't, I hope some of them do.) Where I live, up in the hills, there is no cell phone service, no local cops (township of <700)and the state troopers minimum 10-15 minutes away - if we're lucky. And places do occasionally get burgled hereabouts, tho Vermont being a fairly high gun ownership place, most burglars are at considerable pains to be sure nobody's home when they set to work. Now, to actually have enough police to "protect" people, how many would you have to have? How much would it cost if you actually wanted that? The thing is impossible, even if it weren't horrible, and that would apply as well in the city as out here in the sticks. I doubt if there are a dozen houses in Vermont where you can't perfectly safely walk up to the door and knock like a civilized person, but there are quite a few where opening the door with a crowbar would be a very poor idea, and whatever statistics may claim, I can't believe that doesn't have a substantial deterent effect. An added bonus of our system vs. the Brits' is that you can credibly indulge in a little propaganda. ;) Shoot yourself a couple nice groups in paper targets, at a distance of 2 yards if necessary, or have a friend do so if you don't have a gun, and leave them lying carelessly on the porch, maybe with the widest shot circled and marked with appropriate vernacular. In merrie olde England they'll know your lying thru your teeth, but here it should give 'em pause. The idea, in re crime as in re tyranny, is to prevent the worst right from the beginning by a credible threat of resistance, but to be able to deliver on it if necessary.

One further advantage of on-the-spot crime-fighting: Say the convenience store/gas station gets held up, let's say at night. Bad guy[s] get nervous, one clerk gets shot/head-bashed with handy fire extinguisher/squashed with getaway car. After due investigation cops give the prosecutor their best suspect, other clerk is pretty sure it was him, B. S. can't clear himself, off he goes to clink for a nice long sit (specially, in all too many places still, if he's black). Eventually, after he's lost multiple years of his life behind bars, turns out it wasn't him. Very sorry Sir, but do have a nice life from now on. Now if, on the other hand, the perp is shot by the clerk right in the midst of his red-handed perpetrating, there will be no such confusion. Come on then, Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense, eh what? Seems fair to a lot of us.

Speaking of black men, let us close this overgrown post with a quote from Frederick Douglas, approximate, like most of the quotes I can't lay my eyes on at the moment, but guaranteed close:

"American freedom depends on three things: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." He was right when he said it, and he's still right.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

sheesh I do believe that if I felt the need to 'conceal carry', I'd spring for a holster meant to carry. Putting a loaded pistol in one's pocket... For pete's sake.

Interestingly enough, when Congress decided that it was the right of armed people to attend all these places, they did NOT include the halls of Congress itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

But the hunting season for your own feet seems to have started:

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/03/idaho-professor-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-in-chemistry-class/

Heck, some Americans don't even need a gun:

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/03/washington-state-hunter-mistakenly-stabs-himself-with-arrow/

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:29 PM

Russian roulette has never really caught on.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

hmmmmm... dueling as a recognized 'sport', with round robin tournaments like jousting... using modern, rapid fire guns.

Might be useful to thin out the testosterone fueled bunch .......

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 11:09 AM

Yup, I DO know, and didn't say that the U.S. invented it.

But the U.S. sure as hell practiced and institutionalized it for a good chunk of the 19th Century - with devastating results. I'll have to look up the stats some time.

Now I think on it, its a wonder that the National Rifle Assassination doesn't promote duelling to increase firearms sales.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 11:03 AM

"duel - that equally idiotic testosterone-poisoned American institution.-"

As you must know, Greg, dueling is far from being an American-inspired institution.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:58 AM

He wasn't setting policy, and he wasn't whipping up jingoes.

But perhaps he was reflecting policy and was a jingo himself?

One might, but who cares?

Apparently, you & Rap do - I did't bring up Decatur, YOU did.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:52 AM

> One might rather observe that Decatur meant ....

One might, but who cares?

He wasn't setting policy, and he wasn't whipping up jingoes. He was being convivial.

Anyway, "nations" and their policies are never morally pure or 100% right.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:27 AM

Actually, I know quite a bit about the Commodore, Rap. Particularly his service in the War of 1812- posible the most idiotic war the U.S. was ever inviolved in, barring Viet Nam and Iraq.

And that he was killed in a duel - that equally idiotic testosterone-poisoned American institution.-

What precisely is your point? That he was a "patriot" & that he's lionized as a "hero" by some and thus can have done or said no wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 10:50 PM

You obviously don't know about Stephen Decatur.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:00 PM

One might rather observe that Decatur meant that it was most important that the U.S. be successful, even if in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM

> Unfortunately, most U.S. folks using the phrase today aren't referencing the Schurz version.

Or even the original version, an after-dinner toast proposed by Commodore Stephen Decatur in 1816, and reported in its earliest appearance as the rather less bellicose,

"Our country – In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong."

It was a dinnertime witticism and a hope rather than a fervent declaration of aggressive nationalism.

Observe too that Decatur thought being "in the right" nearly as important as being "successful."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:23 PM

well if you have intercourse with foreigners, you have only yourself to blame....
I dunno....shagging foreigners and shooting each other!

You yanks know how to live...!