BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 10:02 AM

Oh sorry !Read this wrong. It says Virginians

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 12:26 PM

Sensible: well thought out and considered.

For instance, I fully support the idea that ANYONE -- ANYONE -- who wants to own firearms should be thoroughly trained in not only their use and care, but the ramifications of owning them.

I would like to see the current hodge-podge of laws made uniform, so that if I were traveling from, say, Pennsylvania to Vermont I could legally carry my firarms through Massachusettes without getting a permit to do so.

Precisely because there are so many guns available I'd like to see a gun safety course taught in every school.

I'd like for Hollywood to give over the idea that a gun or an explosion is a solution for every problem, that a gun is a tool and not a solution in itself. (I'd just like them to realize that not every car accident ends in a flaming explosion, or that shooting a car doesn't automatically cause it blow up, even if you hit the gas tank.)

I'd like the media to report ALL news as news, not as yellow journalism or as a screaming tabloid. I'll settle for reporters who know something about what they're sent to cover.

I don't view the problem in isolation, Bill. Gun worship has been ingrained in our culture by movies and television. There really were not all that many gunfights in the Old West, but Hollywood would have you think otherwise.

I'm between "Ban 'em all" and "I'll give it up when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." And a rational approach is, I think, possible. Nothing will satisfy either fringe, of course.

And no, I'm not going to give you that "guns don't kill people" stuff. Literally it's true; but that's not what's meant.

As for wading around in blood, well, I exagerated and I apologize. I was trying to make the point that nearly all gun owners are decent, rational people.

It's also a problem facing a society moving from rural to urban. What is appropriate here in Idaho is not appropriate in Washington, DC. It's a problem with many facets, such as hopelessness among inner city youth; a feeling that some people are less than others; a disintegration of cultural mores, and lots more.

I'd like to see a holistic approach to it and other societal ills, not this piecemeal business. But I don't see it happening, because it would require those in power to think rather than simply respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 12:38 PM

GregF is right--Washington DC is a great example of that--between the time I posted last and now, there were two shooting incidents--in one, five were shot, one killed, one in serious condition, in another, a fourteen year old boy shot an 11 year old in the back with a shotgun, while the 11 year old was watching TV--

Between 1990 and 2000, more than 4000 people were murdered in Washington--rather startling considering the population (in 2000) was only 570,000--nearly 1% of the population--or slightly less than 1 person out in every hundred was murdered--given that the average person knows between 1000 and 1500 people, each person would have had between 10 and 15 friends murdered during that decade--

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 12:45 PM

Bill, you and I are good friends, but you are employing the typical tactic of those that "just don't get it". You state a premise that is not correct. It does not matter what the original framers intended, the fact is that guns are a part of the fabric of this country. Further, when one examines the the stat's region by region, what we find is that the incidence of violent crime is significantly less in areas with "shall issue" concealed weapons permits. I agree with you on the issue of concealed versus openly carried. In fact, that is the rule here in Michigan. You may not "brandish" a weapon openly. There are very strict guidelines with regard to when it is appropriate to draw the weapon, and if one does that for any reason other than those reasons, they will lose their permit and weapon.

The bloodbath has never occurred anywhere that the laws have been liberalized. I wonder if someone could investigate whether the incidence of illegal weapons is higher or lower in these states.

One of the posters above wanted to make the point that gun violence happens more frequently in certain areas than other. Right you are. DC is one such area, and it has some of the most restrictive gun laws around. The argument falls apart because it doesn't make the distinction of legally owned guns/gunowners versus areas where folks are not allowed to own legally. The data simply does not support this as justification.

If one could put forth any decent data that demonstrates that by me giving up my legally owned weapons, it would save lives and create solutions to societal problems, I would give them up. But no has, and bear in mind that many of my peers are leaders in the gun control movement.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 12:46 PM

And in Washington DC, it is against the law to possess a gun. In nearby VA, where they are carrying in public, the number of people being shot is far less.

Just as in the mid-late 1960s, one went to NYC to get weapons, since that was where they were illegal, and thus there was a large crimianl market for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 12:56 PM

in most places it is a heck of a lot easier to get an ILLEGAL weapon then it is to get a LEGAL one.

I grew up in a very rural community - and even *I* knew who to contact for a gun; but I don't have a clue as to who sold them legally at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 01:00 PM

In addition, it is not at all difficult to make a gun. During WWII, the US produced simple shotguns to be dropped to partisans- a piece of 2x4, two pipes, and a nail.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 01:36 PM

I find it interesting to note that some similar arguments with regard to the legality/illegality made here that are often made with regards to pot. I note, too that no one has ever been killed when someone pointed a loaded joint at them. Curious how we accept and reject things.

I would also like to point out that the fact that guns may be legal or not is only part of a given local picture. There are many other factors which no doubt affect the equation. Correlation does not necessarily equal causality. Haven't we had that notion expressed in other threads, here?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 02:01 PM

Exactly, Saul. That's what I was trying to say when I said a holistic solution is needed.

I've noticed that there is very, very rarely a truly simple solution to any problem, no matter WHAT the politicians say or what we'd like to believe.

As for totin' guns openly...no, I don't agree with it. All you're doing then is bragging that you can. You can do that in Idaho, too, but it's very rarely done. (I exempt cops, historical reenactments, and such.)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 02:11 PM

Don't brag too much, beardedbruce--violent crime in Virginia is on the rise, gun-toting civil liberties advocates not-withstanding--just yesterday, in Arlington, a man with a gun tucked into his belt walked up to a 15 year old girl at a bus stop and told her that he would use the gun if she didn't come with him into the adjecent parking facility, where he attempted to cut her clothes off with a knife--mercifully, he was frighten off by a passerby(who was not armed)--

It is a lot easier to slap the hands of law abiding citizens who, though they are far away from the problem, happen to have guns, than it is to go down to the areas where the problems really exist and deal with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 03:03 PM

Yes, and somewhere in the US yesterday someone who was legally carrying a gun saved someone from serious injury, M.Ted. But what do stories such as these prove??? It is the statistical data that will tell us the story, not one off stories designed to further an agenda. Remember Willie Horton? Stories such as these are used as tactics. I am interested in facts, and answers. So far, no one has delivered a convincing argument as to what greater good would be served by taking guns away from folks like me.

Saul, you use a faulty bit of logic for the point you are trying to make. When you say, "Correlation does not necessarily equal causality..", it is just as valid to say that correlation may indeed equal causality. Again I ask folks to drop their group think and ask critical questions. It is fair enough to say that most folks on my beloved Mudcat don't share my view, but I only ask that they examine fact instead of the old groupthink that they have on this issue.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 03:33 PM

I didn't say that some correlation may not in some cases be a part of causality. In any particular case, though, we need something to prove that the correlation IS causality other than just the fact that they both occured in the same time or space. We can make all sorts of correlations, many of which will obviously not have any causal relationship. However, some may SEEM to have one. In those cases, we need some evidence to tie them together. They COULD have a causal relationship, or they could just as easily be BOTH caused by some outside factor that has not beem mentioned.

That is not a viewpoint; it is just logic. It plays no favorites. It is neutral. One hopes that we would rather base much of what we do on some logic rather than just emotion, especially in the area of public policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 03:49 PM

Rapaire..thanks for making the point for me that what is appropriate in Idaho is not in DC...and others have pointed out the ease of obtaining them in Virginia...and that is where many of DCs illegal guns come from. And as demographics change, it IS becoming more of a problem in VA. and other places. I disagree...for now...that gun laws should be made uniform across the country. (It is the correct theory, but is not practical until it can be reasonably controlled on the East coast as well as in Idaho or Montana...and that is gonna be tough!)

Mick...I try VERY hard to be realistic about guns being "part of the fabric of this country", but as I tried to say earlier, it simply is not a given that what made sense and was a 'tradition' once should always be so. Population density, culture ('pop' and otherwise), technology changes, demographics...etc...all affect how ANY issue (drugs, guns, autos, alcohol, voting rights,...and more) should be viewed and/or regulated.

It is a conundrum....if guns could be restricted to only sane, responsible, trained people like you and Rapaire, then you wouldn't need to carry one....but the more places that they can be obtained, the more they WILL be obtained by those who shouldn't have them. It may NEVER be a 'bloodbath', but it is worse now than it was when I was young, and I HATE the idea of it gradually becoming worse until my grandchildren MUST carry in order to feel even half-way protected.

It is my carefully considered opinion...(like, 25-35 YEARS of thinking about this in both Kansas and the DC area) that we should change some aspects of "the fabric of this country" until guns are strictly limited in caliber, use, ownership, technical construction..etc..and NOT glorified in pop culture. (No, sadly, I don't think I am likely to GET my way)

(Rapaire had it right that Hollywood MUST bear a lot of responsibility for the idea that a gun is 'the easy solution'...we have TRAFFIC altercations settled with guns here regularly!...I have twice in 7-8 years been 'dared' by obvious motions suggesting that the other driver would use a weapon if I challenged his right to be obnoxious!)...so, it's not that way in Pocatello? great! I can tell you that it didn't USE to be that way in Wichita, Kans..... but with drugs and labor problems and changing demographics and such, it is now. .....I once worked in the most upscale grocery store in the city (1963 or so)...when I went by there a few years ago, it was seedy and the office was behind bullet-proof barriers...

I could go on, but 'most' people's feelings about this issue are already set....and usually for reasons which have more to do with emotion than reason. It ends up just a matter of opinion whether it is better to get rid of most guns...or get one for yourself. In my opinion, adding that into the already complex problem of coping with life is more than I want to deal with.

(oh..by the way...tobacco (especially cigarettes) was once "part of the fabric of this country" ...it is FAR less so now...and although the issue of relevant danger is not the same...it IS possible to change that fabric over time!)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 03:57 PM

Bill, you know I have great respect for your opinions. It is my opinion that you are one of the most respected folks in these precincts. But I still have a basic disagreement in the logic you follow on this one. I do, however, think we will just agree to disagree and go on being good friends.

Saul, thanks for the clarification. I don't have any problem with the discussion of this issue, but I am troubled greatly by folks that just make pronouncements because that is how we are supposed to think if we are liberal, conservative, whatever. It is apparent to me that I made an assumption about your feelings on this and failed to grasp your point.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 04:09 PM

Bill, the problem becomes that freedom of religion was also once part of the fabric of this country- If you allow the erosion of any part of the Bill of Rights, you weaken the rest. How long until someone decides that religions that are not "western" are a threat to our well-being? Or that freedom of speech is to be sacrificed for the greater good? I have, and will continue to object to the "patriot act", because I feel it is an unreasonable intrusion on our collective rights.No matter how well meaning, I do not wish to establish the precident that the Bill of Rights can be changed in a casual manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 04:33 PM

What I find interesting is that if you want a gun you can get a gun. Making gunpowder isn't hard (potassium nitrate, charcoal, sulphur -- or just potassium nitrate and sugar will work, or potassium nitrate and citric acid, or...), just messy if you have to make the KNO3. A projectile (rocks will work), a barrel to control the flight (a piece of pipe is okay). Or just use a sharpened stick. Do in someone who has a gun, like a cop or a soldier and take the gun and ammo.

Were I King Of Everything, I'd decree that all handguns had to be gate-loading, smoothbore, single action revolvers or, better still, flintlock single shot smoothbores.

Back to the 17th Century, I say!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 04:38 PM

sorry, in massachusetts that muzzle-loading, smoothbore flintlock single shot longarm is considered a dangerous assault weapon, and will get you mandatory jail time... They even put a criminal on their quarter!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 07:40 PM

awww..piffle, bruce! The part of the Bill of Rights that deals with guns has LONG been debated and interpreted differently. This search gets 33,000 hits...you can read every position imaginable. You know what it says .."A well-regulated militia..." etc... What has guys swaggering around with Berettas on their hips got to do with a well-regulated militia? If we need citizens to enhance a militia at some point, training and weapons can be provided. This is about people wanting to have a gun on them no matter where they are, whether in service to country or not! Are we really to hold to the interpretation that makes it easiest to kill one another?

As to other parts you mention, I could begin a LONG discussion about who might be wanting to restrict "Freedom of Religion" or "Freedom of Speech"... but those are different KINDS of freedom than "keeping and bearing arms". One is largely a matter of practicality, while others speak to basic moral precepts....and it does not follow that rethinking one will ruin the others!. I simply do not subscribe to the domino theory of causality..*wry grin*....neither do I assume that the Bill of Rights, as excellent as it is, is somehow "holy", and perfect as handed down. It is a guide, and a good one, and should not be messed with lightly, as it is part of the foundation of this amazing experiment in Democracy....but 250 years DO alter circumstances, and had that document been written today, I will bet that circumstances would affect the wording and flavor. The Founding Fathers were good, not omnicient!

(well, Mick...my logic, even if you consider it flawed, is right out there in moderate detail...to be picked apart by anyone who cares to. Amazing how reasonable people can look directly at the same facts and see totally different conclusions, hmmm?)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 08:36 PM

As I sat eating supper and pondering what I and others who disagree with me have posted here, I had this thought, which I would have worked into the above, had I gone slower..
    Logic is a funny thing...the internal logic of your argument can be perfect, but your conclusion can totally wrong or distorted depending on the premises you start with. In the same way, you can be absolutely RIGHT...for the wrong or illogical reasons. In most debates in forums like this, little attention is given by the participants to all those picky distinctions....but we all DO enter most discussions with pre-conceived ideas of what the answer ought to be...and I am as guilty as the next guy. My only claim is that with 127 hours of **Philosophy** strung thru my brain cells, I do try to stay aware of my own prejudices and apply a few filters when I try to enter discussion of substance. And in issues like **gun control**, there is no real way to show that one side or the other is right...except after the fact, and after trying it BOTH ways...and we know how unlikely it is that either side will agree to one of them double-blind experiments on this little polarizing issue, hmmm?      ;.)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 09:52 PM

I don't bring up stories such as these, Mick, to prove a point--It's what's happening, here, not "one off stories designed to further an agenda".--they are the problem, and no one really wants to address it head on----I don't advocate gun control, (though I don't really think people should display them in Virginia)--

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 02:14 AM

continued'

I don't advocate gun control--but I do think that a lot of folks who oppose gun control are pretty much indifferent to the epidemic of violence that we are experiencing--

Comments like this-"I am interested in facts, and answers. So far, no one has delivered a convincing argument as to what greater good would be served by taking guns away from folks like me." seem to me to reflect that indifference--you seem to say that the only reason that this stuff comes up is because people are using it as an excuse to take your guns away--it isn't true--you can keep your guns, as far as I am concerned--but I would like it if you would acknowledge that there is a real, severe, problem with violence in this country--

As to the "gun control" folks--I'd really like them to acknowledge that the problem is not based in the availability of guns, it has to do with the fact that, for whatever reason, people are more inclined to act out toward one another violently--

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 06:32 AM

yep, M. Ted.....if everyone were sane and reasonable and honest, as I said before, we could have guns for sale in K-Mart and 7-11, with no rules...PEOPLE are indeed the problem. But, this being the case, I would like to see stringent rules (and enforcement) keeping guns AWAY from most people. Programs to teach gun safety and explain proper use etc., are of limited use in many areas... (You live near enough DC to know...)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: saulgoldie
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 08:12 AM

Rights and dominoes...and after they take away the guns, the next thing you know, they'll be telling people how to behave sexually. And then, they'll tell you that you must pray to G-d. And not only that, but they'll tell you which G-d and in what way you must pray. But maybe they'll first take away the books. Oh, sorry, they're already doing those things. Wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 08:25 AM

yes indeed folks its not guns that kill.....

the moral of this thread seems to be if you inhabit solid structures or are occasionally the occupant of a car - time for a major lifestyle re-think!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 08:58 AM

Yeah, that's why the walls of my house are padded and the nice doctors take me where I want to go in a nice padded wagon.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:52 AM

It isn't guns that kill--they make it easy, but are not necessary--as BillD knows, the latest thing is car theft/joy rides that end in multiple fatalities--

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 08:58 PM

*nod*....I do indeed read the local papers about the rash of testosterone fueled auto deaths....but, at least it is theoretically possible to limit GUN deaths without severly inconveniencing society as a whole. I am vaguely sorry that the 'right' to own assault rifles and 357 Magnum pistols would have to be limited in order to reduce the tragedies....but perhaps society could manage to struggle on anyway, hmmmm?

(what, me?..cynical?...nawwww...)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: TS
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:09 PM

oh..sorry...read the wrong thing on the title of this thread...thought it read "VIRGINS Wearing Guns in Public"...terribly sorry..

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:27 PM

Well gol danged... Ain't this some perdicament? I was jus' getting ready to go down to my loco gun shop and plunk down a few hunner bucks fir a big ol' Stroker Ace Magnum PI 659 with the extra slinky bore fir smooth action... Yup, I even had that baby on lay away and had me a big ol' real leatherette holster fir it that had fitted with the Slick 300 XT Swivel so that all ya gotta do is look the bad guy in the eye and it automatically locks in on him, swivels and shoots him dead without even having to get up from the table down a the local Walmart cafeteria...

But now?

M Ted is the man! I mean *is* the man!!! Heck, why go spend that dough when I could just steal my couzin Rufus's Chevette, run over a couple of folks, and have a few bucks left over at the end of the night fir a cold 6 pack of Iron City??? I mean, life is good....

I don't know why I didn't think of this myself...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:39 PM

I'd like to have a time machine to go back and ask the framers of the Bill of Rights exactly what they had in mind.

What the second amendment specifically says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The constitution talks about "a well regulated Militia, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the right to bear arms to private citizens who are not part of the Militia.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:45 PM

didn't I just say that, Alonzo?....or mebbe I said 'Zilch'...or mebbe I say it with too many extra thoughts attached....I dunno...

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 01:20 AM

In the words of the great Professor Irwin Corey: Guns don't kill people, and people don't kill people. Bullets kill people; therefore, let us outlaw bullets.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 06:48 AM

30,000 deaths a year
that's a medium sized town every year, every man woman and child.
If the majority of right thinking American people don't perceive a problem there.....

I suppose we have to acknowledge there is a cultural difference between us and wish you happiness in the state of affairs that you have chosen for yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 10:24 AM

The trouble with discussions on gun control is the same trouble with discussions about guns: they get boring.

Frankly I don't give an owl's hoot in hell whether the flatter trajectory of the .308 increases your chance of grouping five shots within .5 centimeters at 350 meter over the "rainbow" trajectory of the .45-70 "government" or not. Discussions on the stopping power of the 9 mm vs. the 10 mm are redundant: the FBI tested it several years back. Whether or not the use of boattail bullets in your 30-06 will wear out the rifling in 125,00 rounds instead of 130,000 is of little consequence to me, 'cause neither you nor I can afford that many shots.

Likewise it's hard to ask Tom Jefferson and the rest what they meant by the Second Amendment and whether or not they'd do it differently this time around. There is a gap in many areas between the US and the UK, and gun ownership is one of them. 30,000 gun-related deaths -- most of them homicides -- in a nation of 280,000,000 is .001071%, an amount only slightly larger than what I'd get if I spit into the local reservoir.

I've said earlier that I'd support a holistic approach to gun control, one that including a plan to cultural change. One that recognized that passing a law won't change things very much if the underlying society isn't changed. One that realized that such change doesn't happen overnight and that you'd better plan for (and stay with the plan!) ten or twenty years out.

I've said that I dislike folks flaunting the guns in public ("Show us your guns!").

Phooey. It's a fruitless discussion, because damned few are actually listening or reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 10:35 AM

Druid in Court Accused over Ceremonial Sword
Scotsman News.com ; Ben Mitchell; 07/14/2004

A druid swordbearer appeared in court today charged with possessing an offensive weapon. Merlin Michael Williams, 26, of Edgell Road, Westbourne, Emsworth, Hants, was arrested on Friday, July 9, after he was stopped by a security guard in a branch of Wilkinson general stores with his sheathed 3ft ceremonial sword slung over his shoulder. He appeared before Portsmouth Magistrates today dressed in a green robe, blue cloak and with talismans around his neck.

Acting as his legal adviser during the short hearing today was chief druid King Arthur Pendragon, swordbearer of Britain, who was dressed in white robes with a red lion emblazoned on the front. About a dozen fellow members of the Insular Order of Druids, to which Williams belongs, supported him by sitting in the public gallery, some dressed in robes.

Williams' sword, which he calls Talisen, was detained as evidence by police after his arrest in Arundel Street, Portsmouth. The case was adjourned after prosecutor Colin Shackel requested time to examine case histories which Williams claimed had set a precedent for druid ceremonial swords being not deemed as offensive weapons. Mr Shackel said: "The charge before the court results from the defendant being found in possession of a sword in a public place in a shop in Arundel Street. "It is accepted by the Crown this was sheathed and there was no offensive action by the defendant. The issue is whether this is an offensive weapon per se." The case was adjourned until August 3 and Williams was bailed until then.

A druid's ceremonial sword is used for casting spells and casting circles spaces of safety, according to a spokesman for the Insular Order of Druids.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 02:33 PM

well, Rapaire, I do agree that the discussion, like MANY debates here, gets wearing and followed by only a few...but...*sigh*...you did toss in one more misleading statistic.

30,000 deaths a year is a much larger % of the total deaths...and a VERY high % of the needless & preventable deaths. If were were discussing cigarette smoking I'd say similar things, and I am not arguing with you, personally, but only leaving MY thoughts out here just in case they cause someone to think.. (Max swears that Mudcat will be around a long time...who knows what our discussions will inspire 20 years from now?..*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 03:45 PM

"From: weelittledrummer - PM
"Date: 24 Jul 04 - 06:48 AM

"30,000 deaths a year"

If it's a misleading statistic, it's not my statistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 05:01 PM

(Add in 28,217 murders and suicides and firearms discharge accounted for 29,573 deaths, or 18.5% of all exterally caused deaths.)

sorry if I misunderstood this sentence - there was no intention to mislead

if you're happy with the situation, what's the problem anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 06:13 PM

That's what I said earlier. I was just quoting someone quoting me, and I knew that. I wasn't just "toss[ing] in one more misleading statistic." I just couldn't find my earlier post.

Pull the deaths by suicide and murder out of the figures and the death rate for firearms discharge falls dramatically.

It reinforces the point I've been trying to make all along: we need a complete change in US culture vis-a-vis firearms. A deep, cultural change. Not a half-assed patchwork of feel-good laws put in place after some horrific shootings.

"2. Special Regulations for Military Firearms, Sporting and Hunting Guns

Due to the long tradition and the special organization of the Swiss armed forces as a militia army, special rules are applicable for army weapons. Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities. Special rules also govern hunting or sporting rifles.

3. Firearms and Crime

The use of firearms in crimes in Switzerland is relatively rare. In 1998, official police statistics reported 66 cases in which guns were used in attempted or successful homicides, 64 cases in which they were used to inflict bodily harm and another 475 cases in which firearms were used in armed robberies."

This is cut and pasted from a fact sheet published by the Swiss Embassy in DC.

Swiss soldier bring their weapons home with them! In the US Army, they are looked up in an Arms Rooms. The Military and Defense section of the same site says:

" The Swiss Constitution states that "every Swiss male is obliged to do military service." Every Swiss male has to serve for at least 260 days in the armed forces. For privates and NCOs, excluding senior NCOs, until the end of the year in which they reach the age of 30 or, if they have not yet completed their training by that time, no longer than until the end of the year in which they become 34.

Women are accepted on a voluntary basis but are not drafted. In the event of war, up to 220,000 men and women can be mobilized."

Remember that after discharge, former Swiss soldiers take their firearms with them into civilian life.

My point is not to argue the superiority of the Swiss over the Americans, but to point out that there have to be a helluva lot of guns -- including modern assault weapons -- in Swiss civilian hands. But the Swiss cultural identity wasn't forged by Hollywood and dime novelists into revering firearms as some sort of magical solution to all problems. The US had that happen. I suspect that changing it would go a long, long way to changing the problems the US has, not just with firearms but in a lot of other areas.

Yeah, I have a concealed carry permit.

I have it because it forces me to review safety procedures for the guns I own.

I've never carried concealed; I've never felt the need to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 08:59 PM

well if you want to ignore all that suicide and murder as irrelevant, fair enough.

Switzerland is a nice country to retire to. My dad did.....It has few of the social problems that our two countries have, and any way they're too busy eating chocolate and yodelling. Switzerland is like the poshest suburb of the nicest city in England - Exeter maybe. The two countries aren't really comparable.

However if the present state of affairs in the States with gun ownership being so widespread makes you happy - I wish you and your fellow citizens joy of it.

Personally I hope to God gun ownership in England stays as it is, pretty much just a few farmers, the criminals and the cops.

all my very best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 10:55 PM

I guess no one liked the Chevette idea?......

But really, how many folks out there think the founding fathers could forsee handguns becoming so important in solving domestic differences?

I mean, if we look at the 2nd Ammendment the right to bear arms is *tied* to the establishment of a militia and not a carte blanche direction fir every danged school kid in the inner city to pack heat. That sometimes gets lost in the discussion.

Now when these Virginia knotheads strap on their pieces, where does the militia part come into play???

(But Bobert, it says right here in the Constitution that...)

Shut up and read the entire 2nd Ammendment. Then tell me how the right is not connected in any way with the right to establish a militia...

And keep in mind the times when the Bill of Rights was written.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 03:40 PM

I'm with Rapaire on this. Maybe it's because I live in the other end of Idaho.

But practically speaking, how are you going to enforce prohibition law against guns or drugs or dirty books? Why don't the places with restrictive laws always have fewer shootings?

(Why don't we have a law against crime on Sunday so the cops can have a day off?)

A long time ago I read this in a book whose name and author I've forgotten, so I quote from memory:

The major means for effecting social change today are preaching and legislation. Both are ineffective because they aim for results in a short period of time and they do not affect ritual.

So here we are all preaching about legislation...

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 05:28 PM

Actually, this is getting us nowhere.

Bobert, I kinda suspect that that law, like the one about Sunday that VA recently screwed up, should be rethunk and rewritten. I really don't want to go to Arlington, say, for some shopping and have a bunch of yahoo exhibitionists running around showing their guns.

"Mine's bigger than yours!"
"Is not!"
"Is!"
"Whip 'er out and we'll measure 'em right here on the bar!"

And I really can't imagine a nubile young lady cooing, "Oh, honey, what a great big ol' Dan Wesson .357 you have!"

Iffen they want to tote guns, let 'em tote muzzle-loading flintlocks! That's what was around in 1789.

'Bye, y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 07:13 PM

Well, Clint. Fir starters the gun can be traced to a purchaser. Dirty books and drugs cannot.

Yeah, Rap. I think the 2nd ammendment was poorly written but probably written reflecting the realities of the times... Might of fact, I think most of the3 Constitution could use a good rewrite but I certainly don't see how that could happen in today's culture of partisanship and corporate influence...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 07:43 PM

Bobert, then how come people in DC & New York can still get guns?

Prohibition begtes bootleggers.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 07:59 PM

that's "begets." "Begtes" is a nice word, but hard to say. Writing is hard

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 08:47 PM

Yo Clint,

Notice I didn't say this was actually occuring... Just that it is possible...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 11:14 PM

Please don't worry about it getting us nowhere. It was nice to hear you point of view and if we don't agree, well it wouldn't do for us all to think exactly the same.

as Bob Dylan wrote
" you're right from your side, and I'm right from mine..."

from One too many mornings

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 06:18 AM

BillD,

Please note the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The entire Bill of rights was to secure the individual rights of the people, regardless of how you may wish to read it. Or would you say the phrase "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" means only a specific group? What about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? I think it is clear that the intent of the phrase "OF THE PEOPLE" does not limit the 2nd amendment to the militia, which, at the time was the body of all male citizens.


........................
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginians Wearing Guns in Public
From: el ted
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 06:19 AM

100. I thank you.