BS: Gun control

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 05:48 PM

"an unarmed populace living where only the police are armed."

It's always worked pretty well where I live. Of course we don't have cops like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 02:27 PM

Man's got a holster the size of a watermelon. Has to strap a mattress on his back and stand in front of a telephone pole to keep the recoil from knocking him out of his shoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,Hitlary
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 02:18 PM

A vision of an unarmed populace living where only the police are armed. Poor guy with a crowbar:

"These guys [the AFP's Operational Response Group] came flying down the driveway at full speed, right towards the crowd. There were two or possibly three Land-cruisers full with all the kit: bullet-proof vests, big shields, lots of weapons. The crowd just scattered. That was the first turning point. The second one was when they cleared the driveway, they started manhandling people. The first physical contact was made by the AFP officers. They weren't brutal, but they were shoving and pushing, and that's when people got cranky," Johnston told the magazine.

"Then they [the police] tried to bust the PM out. They rushed him out to the car under guard of the riot squad, and that's when the first stone came. The police began firing stuff, and that really set the crowd abuzz, because it sounds and looks like guns. They started freaking, shouting 'you're shooting us'. They went mad, just hysterical, and they trashed every vehicle, and they ran down the hill and started burning things down," he said.

The police then withdrew and seemed to allow the burning and looting to proceed. "So I had to stand on my verandah for two nights with a crowbar with the whole town abandoned to these mobs, which just grew and grew, and watch as [the police] dealt with the situation from the air. They put the helicopter over the house and they were firing tear gas out of the helicopter."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/afp2-s28.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: gnu
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 08:30 PM

Ya know... I prefer a camera security sytem... they are getting cheaper than guns... not cheaper than balaclavas, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: gnu
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 08:04 PM

Well, there ya go eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: rangeroger
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 11:37 PM

I am impressed Mr.Golgart. If you have a 45mm handgun you're one hell of man.
Let's see, an M-40 grenade launcher is 40mm. An antiaircraft gun is 40mm. And your Gluck is 45mm.
Hmm, trailer mounted?

rr

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:15 AM

The day you can guarantee a lazy person will NOT take over parking priviages because they are not too accessible.... is the day we need some kind of handicapped parking.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:10 AM

I was leaning towards the newer GLOCK with above barrel compensation.

A good friend pointed out, "You do not want to reach for your goggles everytime you fire - partularly in short in-house-conditions.

So I went with regular GLUCK 37 (45) and added lazersight for better control. A wild missed sholder or a leg hit with a soft 45mm will lay the perpetrator down. Keep them soft for the neighborhood. (Sometimes just having a lazerlight on the perpetrator's mid-section is enough for them to raise their arms and lie down.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:04 PM

The States with the strictest gun laws have much higher incidence of violent crime than the States with the most liberal laws.

Well one reason for that might be that a high rate of violent crime could be a factor leading to stricter gun laws, while a low rate ofg violent crime could have the reverse effect.

I'd imagine there'd be a lot of other possible factors involved. People are too ready to pick up a statistic and an interpretation of a statistic to bolster a pre-determined position. As often as not a statistic can be interpreted in diametrically opposed ways.

One reason I prefer our system is that when there aren't legal guns in private hands there is a lot less scope for them to be misused in domestic or neighbourly quarrels and so forth. The other is that guns in private hands are an additional potential source of guns for people who want them for criminal purposes. Not the only source, but an additional source, and I'd sooner see that source removed.

But as I said, it's our choice, either way. My feeling is that it should be your choice in the States, either way; but the fact that it is treated as a matter of human rights rather than pragmatic democratic decision somewhat clouds the issue. But then in the long run, that's your choice too.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM

"Around here, the most typical murder is not a street crime thing, it's someone coming home drunk and killing his/her own spouse."


                   I guess you have to assume they had to get drunk to get up the nerve to kill the spouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Midchuck
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:26 AM

Around here, the most typical murder is not a street crime thing, it's someone coming home drunk and killing his/her own spouse.

We already know prohibition of alcohol doesn't work.

Maybe we could try outlawing marriage? It would also shut down the whole fight over same-sex marriage and let people think about something else.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM

No argument there, Kevin. But the trend is certainly upward and, to me, that is a very important indicator of the same cause/effect relationship we see here in the States. The States with the strictest gun laws have much higher incidence of violent crime than the States with the most liberal laws.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:11 AM

I wasn't implying that direct connection, Mick. I think my previous post indicated that. It's pretty clear that other factors are also involved. However I think it is important to avoid getting or giving the impression that gun crime in the UK is at a level comparable to equivalent communities in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:13 PM

.....incredibly low if they were translated to equivalent big cities in some countries where legal gun possession is widespread. McGrath of Harlow.

But what does that mean, Kevin. By implication you seem to think that legal gun ownership is the cause of the high crime. That is a simplistic view and not a correct comparison. For example, it doesn't answer why areas of high legal gun ownership per capita seem to have the lowest violent crime rates. It is the areas that have the high amounts of illegally obtained guns that have high crime.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:03 PM

McGrath - Is it your possition that newcomers will become gun owners more readily than natives, or avoid guns in larger numbers than natives?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:32 PM

I would think it a lot more likely that newcomers to this country will come to share the aversion of most locals to guns, rather than that locals will start picking up an appetite for gun possession from newcomers, even given that rather questionable assumption that newcomers will have those kinds of attitudes. Which in my experience is not generally the case.

It's very sad that in a very few places illegal gun possession and use has grown in recent years. However the numbers killed in some parts of some of our big cities as a consequence would still count as incredibly low if they were translated to equivalent big cities in some countries where legal gun possession is widespread.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Midchuck
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:38 AM

I tend to be on the side of the opponents of "gun control" in these perpetual debates. But I don't really oppose gun control at all. I would like to see guns taken away from people who are emotionally unstable, ignorant of their proper use, just plain evil, or just plain stupid.

The problem is, that the conventional approach to "gun control" is "If we take guns away from everyone, then we'll take them away from all those people who shouldn't have them, in the process." Only it doesn't work that way. The ones who shouldn't have the guns are the ones who will ignore the gun laws and get them on the black market. Then the ones who should have them to defend themselves against the ones who shouldn't, don't have them. You see that in Great Britain now.

(I assure you that I am more careful in my use of guns than I am in my syntax.)

To paraphrase Edward Abbey, the slogan, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," is not quite correct. It should be, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns."

That's worse.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:18 AM

Kat - I think most people would agree that some form of gun laws are necessary. I have a neighbor who would make me very nervous if he came home from work some day driving a Sherman Tank.

                But attitudes about guns aren't the only thing that's changed. If you go into a super market and look at the magazine rack, you will see that magazines--like "Guns & Ammo," for instance--that used to portray bolt action rifles and shotguns, now display full automatic assault rifles and automatic pistols. One can only assume that those are the guns that are selling.

                Still, to ban them would, I think, just take guns out of the people who never would have done anything criminal with them in the first place, while having no effect on the people who shouldn't be trusted with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:11 AM

That seems a facetious article in that populations have changed dramatically from the "good old days" he cites and it is no good comparing Vermont to urban population centers as a contrast on gun crime. Less people, virtually no urban centers, not compared to NYC or Washington DC, means less crime, regardless of whether there are gun laws or not. Same as for other states with low population.

Also, attitudes towards guns and use of fatal violence-as-conflict-resolution are MUCH different nowadays from those olden times, heck even from when I was growing up. We had a healthy respect for guns and NEVER used one in anger. We knew they were meant to kill and cautioned to never point a gun unless that was our intention. Today, it seems the first thing a lot of folks think of when confronted with whatever. Pop culture is full of them, use of them is shown indiscriminately during television viewing times of children, as well as on video games, even ones made for children. I know my grandson has some and I am not happy about it.

The day you can guarantee some innocent child will NOT die by "accident" from someone's gun being too accessible is the day we won't need kind of gun law.

Those of you who fear the government taking them away...it's YOUR government, probably the one a lot of you voted for. You are buying into the fear-mongering by the shrub and the rest of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:49 PM

Teribus - As the Brits experience increasing numbers of immigrants with different values and attitudes about violence, their collective view on gun control might change.

                  It seems to me that prohibition has never worked. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with the war on drugs, and it doesn't seem to work with guns either.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: gnu
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:40 PM

Ya know... that there US constitution thing has been debated to a frazzle and I just think one thing... if it was not there to debate, would there be a debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:27 PM

Well, Teribus, if the likes of Richard Manday can persuade most people in the UK they'd be safer if legal guns were readily available, the law can always be changed to allow that. Not until then. And I think and hope it'll be a long time before that happens.

Changing the constitution in the USA would be a lot harder of course, even if most people wanted to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: gnu
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM

Guns don't kill peole. Governments do.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:08 PM

Intersting article in the "Times"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:49 PM

"What we have now in America is a system where you can be "denationalized" if you're "suspected" of being a terrorist..."

                But where will George W. Bush go when he is no longer an American?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:43 PM

I am still waiting for your citation to the specific "legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge". And please lets not refer to "The USA Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act". Tell us what the law actually says, and provide a link to the legal citation. Inability to do so really indicates that you are babbling.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:03 PM

Okay, now I have some time.

Revisionist history is hard to pull off when you have living witnesses, and one of the best I've come across lately is Kitty Werthmann. She was in Germany when Hitler registered and then confiscated guns. She lectures on it and has written a book on it. She lost family in Germany, came to the U.S. and is now rather upset to see Americans being led down the same path, point by point, that Hitler used. Werthmann says Hitler's German government first announced that there were too many child-related accidents with guns, so they had to be registered. When that didn't affect the # of injuries/deaths, they moved to confiscation. She saw it. She was there. Some were allowed to keep their guns, and I've seen photos of people hunting with Goering, so guns were around, but not for the people who weren't on the "approved" list.

That Germany sounds a lot like today's Canada. You need to have a "permit" to use guns? That's a shame. In the U.S., gun ownership is a right. A constitutional right. When the government issues permits, gun ownership is a privilege. Big difference between a right and a privilege.

Anyway, Werthmann says Americans should not give up guns. In fact, it is our duty to protect the Second Amendment against those who would deny it. It is our duty to protect our Constitution. So that means that when they come to collect your guns, you need to put those guns to use. To do otherwise would be to capitulate to an oppressive government, and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say you can't do that. And if you think "laws" have been passed to make you give up your rights, the only court decision you need to refer to is Marbury vs. Madison (1805): a law repugnant to the constitution is void. Period. Same ruling mentions court decisions that violate the constitution. They are not legal.

Let's see...NRA. Shill group. Wayne LaPierre is a sellout. After Virginia Tech, the US congress passed and Bush signed a law which denies you gun ownership if you've had "mental problems." Because the shooter at Virginia Tech had "mental problems." So now, your mental history is on file in a huge database, and if you try to buy a gun, you may be denied. And the Nazi American Psychiatric Association has expanded the list of things qualifying as "psychiatric disorders" to include things like "pain following an injury," so if your hospital or doctor's records show you've taken painkillers, sorry, no gun. And LaPierre supported this. Tens of millions of dues paying members think he's looking after their right to own firearms, but he's not. Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are TRUE gun-rights groups.

What else...artbrooks and the denial of the obvious. I listened to a bit of Rush Limbaugh today and a bit of the "liberal" National Public Radio. Identical messages on both, regarding the Iraq war. Limbaugh says Republicans support it, and NPR says Democrats (a timeline, not a deadline) support it. I bring that up only because artbrooks is prickly about the Bush torture state. I've noticed more and more that Democrats are now supporting the things they once decried in the Bush Administration. War, torture, etc.

What we have now in America is a system where you can be "denationalized" if you're "suspected" of being a terrorist. Because of the USA PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, you can now be declared a suspected terrorist and be remanded to military custody. The president or his "designate" can make this determination, and you can be stripped of your American citizenship by a military tribunal. Once you are no longer a citizen, the new laws that apply to foreign "enemy combatants" can be used against you. You can be flown to Egypt, Syria, etc., and be tortured to death. If your arrest was initiated with a "secret warrant," no information need be given about your case. Codified into law and supported by directives from Attorney General Ashcroft and Attorney General Gonzales. Presidential Executive Orders and signing statements reinforce this new torture mentality, too. Tons of analyses of the situation written by legal experts are on the web.

What else...McVeigh. A patsy. He was working for the government and infiltrated a white supremacist site. Then the Oklahoma City bombing, but the government didn't pursue the "angry white men" angle. Odd. I think they dropped it because they knew it wouldn't hold water. There's lots of video on the web of the first half-hour after the bombing. Reporters are reporting other bombs being seen in the building, and you can see government bomb disposal units backing up to the building and removing unexploded devices. A TOW missile was in the FBI office directly over the daycare center, missile pointed down. Jane Graham of HUD was on her way to work and saw men putting "sticks of gray butter" on columns in the basement. BATF men were on the scene in full bomb gear one minute after the blast, and it takes 15 minutes to get suited up. Numerous explosive experts have pointed out the Ryder truck bomb couldn't possibly do the damage that was observed. The man who coordinated the government operation lied about his arrival time in OKC. He said he drove like hell that morning to get there, but a hotel receipt showed he arrived the night before. So the government got only partial detonations and left behind too much forensic evidence. They had to call off the purge of white men. But they sure learned about destroying evidence by the time 9/11/01 rolled around, didn't they?

Gun ownership is good. It keeps America free. It is your duty as an American to fight all assaults on the Second Amendment. A government that would blow up the Murrah building will kill you and your family. Don't depend on the government to protect you. Buy a gun and learn how to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,Perspective
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:15 AM

After having occupied Russian territory Hitler said:
"Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten".
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
         --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 10:02 PM

"Hitler first registered the guns, then he seized them is a myth."


               There are probably a number myths about Hitler that will come to light as time passes.

                   By the way, I see where Taurus is making a pistol that shoots .410 shotgun rounds. Isn't that illegal almost everywhere? Isn't that what started the whole thing about Randy Weaver?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:18 PM

Il lance! Il count! using my baton' d'hockey

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:20 PM

3refs.... You shoot, you score?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:58 PM

Ms. Jfnjnbvavo: Mr. Padilla's whereabouts have always been known, and he has received a trial in open court for the crimes for which he was charged, less the more ridiculous ones that were dropped. I am not sure how that constitutes legal precedent for the propriety of "legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge", or even the existence of it. I await your cite for the statue referenced.

Firearms, by the way, remained in private hands in Germany, to the extent that they ever were, throughout World War II. These were, as they still are, primarily small-caliber hunting rifles and shotguns. Hitler first registered the guns, then he seized them is a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:17 PM

I just had my firearms licence upgraded. In a two part exam, I received scores of 96% and 92%. I had to receive a score of at least 80% in both to pass. I did not take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, as it was not required, but did read the training text book from cover to cover. Having passed I will have to renew the licence after 5 years.
Now, as an on-ice-official with my credentials coming from Hockey Canada, I have to attend a recertification clinic every year. The course lasts about 8 hrs and I have to pass a test that requires me to achieve a score of 90%. I also get supervised at least twice a year to show that I can still skate, know my positioning and call a game properly.
Go figure!

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

Strikes me we basically agree on the main things, Mick - there ought to be some limits on the types of weapons which people should be allowed to hold, there ought to be a requirement for proper training before people are able to use guns, and there are some people who oughtn't to be allowed to use guns at all.

"You see the idea of protection from one's own government as an irrelevant fantasy." Not so. My point isn't that circumstances might not arise in which people will feel obliged to take up arms against their government. After all, that's what my father did back in the 20s in Ireland.

But I don't see the prior possession of arms as too significant in that situation. In those circumstances the weaponry that matters gets obtained in other ways, and the legal status of gun possession just isn't a significant matter. That's what I mean by it being irrelevant. I don't believe it's really a significant reason for gun ownership among the many sensible people who own guns.

Where we disagree, I think, is on where to draw the line when it comes to which kinds of weapons are acceptable in private hands, and perhaps on whether the training and such should be required before the weapons are obtained or before they are used, as with a car. And I think you also see the matter as one of inherent rights, whereas I would see it as something that should be dependent on the majority's wishes, either way.

I don't see stringent gun controls as a surefire (!) way to end gun violence. (It hasn't done that in the UK, though what we see here as a horrifying level of gun killings is what would count as an enviably low level in some places). And I don't see gun possession in a society as inevitably leading to widespread gun violence - Switzerland being a case in point. However, when you have a society where there is widespread gun ownership together with a pretty high level of gun violence there is a good prima facie case for linking those two things together.

One thing I am sure we agree on is preferring that discussions about these things should avoid turning into shouting matches.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 01:47 PM

No time to read the 3 posts in detail, but time for 1. artbrooks...

Controls were in place in those countries, but confiscation followed the rise of those men to power. Hitler first registered the guns, then he seized them. Ask the Jews who were...oh yeah, they're dead.

And the stuff about citing the laws. You are a piece of work. Not only were the laws passed, they were codified, and a legal precedent has upheld them (Jose Padilla). You know better than that. You're adopting the denial approach of the Republican neo-cons. Rumsfeld was taped 80+ times for television saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then one day he just announced that he never made any such claim. And Democrats think the same will work for them? Afraid not.

Everyone who's been following current events knows about the torture and "disappearing" legislation. I thought you were above such childishness. Is this the kind of evasive behavior America can look forward to under the Democrats? They'll just deny the laws the hated Republicans passed even EXIST?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:12 PM

Kevin, with great respect, I must disagree with many of your contentions. And I would suggest to you that the reason it is hard for you to understand the positions of folks here is cultural. I would point out that there are many positions that you and I have agreed on over the years here. I respect your view, and you are one of those Mudcatters for whom I will open a thread I am otherwise not interested in just to see what you have to say. I would hope that the general respect would go both ways. And so how can a couple of people who, I think, respect one anothers views, be so apart on one like this. You see the idea of protection from ones own government as an irrelevant fantasy. But in this country, that was one of the cornerstones of the establishment of our form of government. And that was only a bit over 200 years ago. That right, to keep and bear arms, for a great many of us, is ingrained in our sense of of who and what we are. It is something for which there must be a reason, and a very good one, to justify taking it away. Other than the fact that some don't see any reason for me to own my weapons, I have not heard a good one yet. It is not good enough that others don't think I should be allowed. I already am, and one must justify why they want to remove my right. Let's look at some reasons why folks want to "control" guns:

- To conrol gun violence. This is very nebulous. Are we talking about high crime area, gang style, violence? Gun control raises these types of crime. And the weapons used are virtually all illegally obtained.

- To control domestic violence. While these types of crimes get a lot of attention, most empirical data I have seen indicates that these types of crimes make up such a small portion of the total number as to be neglible.

- school shootings. See previous point. And in the two most notorious recent cases, Columbine and Virginia Tech, the weapons were obtained illegally.

Your point about training is one I happen to agree with. I believe that, in the case of obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but not to own weapons, the training standard is wholly inadequate.

As to the point about McVeigh, you actually make my point with that one. I believe that we must focus on the crimes, and enforcement of existing laws, even strengthening of existing laws, as opposed to the implements that have legal uses, as well as illegal uses.

Thanks for a reasoned post on the matter.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 11:21 AM

Gun control can mean different things. One is that certain weapons should be outlawed in private hands. I think anyone but a total nut would accept that was a good idea, though there's lots of room for disagreement about what weapons should be covered.

I doubt if there are many advocates of weapons of mass destruction in private hands, and I doubt if there are all that many advocates of private possession of heavy machine guns or artillery. When it comes to handguns I'm very glad to live in a country where it's a crime to possess them, and most people here are agreed about that. But if most people in some other countries see it differently, that is their right.

The other thing gun control can mean is that there should be rules about people having to undergo training before they are allowed to have a gun licence, and disqualifications for some people - the same system, essentially, as applies with drivers. And just as you would never expect to have motorists' organisations opposing to this kind of thing for cars, I'd expect that any responsible organisation representing gun users would see things the same way, and be strongly in favour of firm gun controls of this sort.

Stuff about needing guns in case the government needs overthrowing should be recognised as irrelevant fantasies. If it ever comes to a situation of armed insurrection there is never any problem in getting hold of the required weapons, as has been demonstrated time and time again. Timothy McVeigh didn't need legally held weapons to murder those kids in Oklahoma.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:52 AM

Well, let's see...

Dictators confiscate guns before purges. Why, then, would you support 'gun control?' Is this a reference back to the earlier comment that gun control works. Hitler, Stalin and Mao made great use of it.? Anyone who knows anything at all about history is very aware that gun ownership was highly restricted in the Kaiser's Germany, Tsarist Russia and Imperial China.

Why aren't Democrats (liberals)...working to repeal legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge? Now, that's a new one on me. Please provide a legal cite to that legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:24 AM

So, how come such highly-educated people go into brain-lock when simple but unpleasant truths are presented to them?

Dictators confiscate guns before purges. Why, then, would you support 'gun control?'

And if Democrats (liberals) are believers in individual freedom, why aren't they working to repeal legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge?

Call me a lunatic fringer, a racist, etc. all you want, but why can't you people answer these simple questions? Is it cowardice, or is simply that the liberal 'higher learning' institutions have taught you certain rote responses?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:19 AM

Osho said he loved to disturb people – only by disturbing them could he make them think.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:05 AM

They also made use of railway trains and typewriters.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:52 AM

Fine. Gun control works. Hitler, Stalin and Mao made great use of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:25 PM

Shame you don't have anything to say about gun control, or maybe the concept of a thread subject is too difficult for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 08:58 PM

The bit about 'personal freedom for the individual' is interesting. The liberals (Democrats) in America blame all things bad on G.W. Bush, yet when they take over congress they make no move to repeal things like the PATRIOT Act, restore habeas corpus, etc. If they're so big on personal freedom, why aren't they repealing these things? Answer is because the Democratic congress is in favor of the social control legislation. And what about the Real I.D. Act? Senate voted 100-0 to issue tracking cards to American citizens...won't be able to work, raise kids, buy food, etc. without one. How does that serve 'personal freedom?' Every 'liberal' in the Senate voted for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:58 PM

As usual, someone is using the term "liberal" to define what he/she/it dislikes, without any clear understanding of what the word means. Once again, according to Webster's New World College Dictionary (the one I happen to have on my desk): "Liberal - tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad-minded; specif. not orthodox; favoring reforms or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif. favoring political reforms leading toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual."

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:27 PM

So how to simplify this for the brainiacs... If you support favoritism for a group based on race now, then you can't criticize the support of favoritism based on race back then. Or, you can, but it makes you out a hypocrite. Like I say, third graders understand this simple concept. It's common sense. Favoritism for a group based on race is bad. It's divisive. It's what liberals thrive on.

And some people are just tired of the hypocrisy and the divisiveness. Lots of people are. Someone wrote a book on the subject and someone here reactivates a "Gun control" thread. One thing the liberals DO produce is superior comedians.

In my experience, liberals are more racist than conservatives. Conservatives squawk about something racial from time to time, but liberals LIVE THEIR LIVES looking through a filter of race. They interact according to skin color. How much smile to give a black man? Did I just use the word "boy" when talking about that black man's infant son? Omigod! lol. Anyway, because they consider race first in all their interactions, liberals are technically more "racist" than conservatives. And that fawning slavishness to people of color isn't doing them any good. They hate you for treating them like children.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out Mick. The truth sure clears a room.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM

OK, just for a short moment I will engage on this issue. Please be aware that I am doing so, even though it is part of your larger agenda and has little if nothing to do with the topic, and especially with your assertion that you have the corner on truth.

In a lab setting, your father's silly (and racist apologism) would have some veracity. But when the system has been gerrymandered by systematic racism, followed by artificially induced, systematic and social racist discrimination, resulting in the lack of opportunity economically and socially, then society must attempt to reverse engineer the problem and fix the evils. Denial that racism exists and is at the root of the problems among inner city youth, and among various non white groups is an evil unto itself. Whites only came up with silly terms like "reverse racism" when it was their ox getting gored. When it was just a bunch of blacks (and you know how "they" are), the problem wasn't a problem. And, I might add, the various non-white groups handled the problem for hundreds of years with a helluva lot of grace.

So now this thread can really spin out of control. But not with me. I am out of this one.

Continue on......troll.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 04:03 PM

Yes, truth is an agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:17 PM

Careful there.... your agenda is showing

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:13 PM

Yes, listen to Mick.

Meanwhile, back to the "liberals," I find it hard to believe that people who are generally well educated and articulate can find it so hard to articulate the truth. They shower degrees and academic laurels on themselves, yet they're so bad at articulating truth that I have to wonder whether they even KNOW the truth.

For example...

My father pointed out to me once that affirmative action is bad. And not for the reactionary reasons you might think (evil right winger). He said that giving someone economic advantage based on race has been PROVEN bad. It was tried before and didn't work. He was talking about slavery. Think about it. Why would you support preferential treatment based on race? And why should what used to be bad (race/class divisions reinforced by economics) now be considered good? I've talked to third-graders who understand this simple concept, yet most liberals go into a short circuit when they are confronted with the paradox. They try to rationalize and justify, but bad is bad, white, black or blue.