PDA

View Full Version : APP - can we disarm the police



SmarterthanYou
08-06-2009, 08:42 PM
http://thesop.org/usa/2009/08/06/can-we-disarm-the-police




I begin with an insight offered by Professor Carroll Quigley (1910 "1977), who taught history to Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. He had such a profound impact on Clinton that Clinton referred to him in his 1992 nomination acceptance speech. Quigley is famous among conservatives for his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966), in which he devoted 20 pages to the connections between Wall Street banking firms and American foreign policy, which has been dominated by the liberal left (pp. 950ff). But Quigley was also an expert in the history of weaponry. One of his books, Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History, was printed directly from a typewritten manuscript and is known only to a handful of specialists, was a 1,000-page history of weaponry that ended with the Middle Ages. In Tragedy and Hope, he wrote about the relationship between amateur weapons and liberty. By amateur, he meant low cost. He meant, in the pejorative phrase of political statists, Saturday-night specials.

In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . . But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840 a Colt revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them).

According to Quigley, the eighteenth-century`s commitment to popular government was reinforced " indeed, made possible " by price-competitive guns that made the average colonial farmer a threat to a British regular. Paul Revere`s midnight warning, "The regulars are out!" would have had no purpose or effect had it not been that the "minute men" were armed and dangerous. With this in mind, let me present my thesis. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FAR TOO WEAK The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right " the legal immunity from interference by the State " of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night. It doesn`t go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England`s bobbies are not allowed to carry them.
Every child, male and female, beginning no later than age six, would be trained by parents regarding the moral responsibility of every armed citizen to come to the aid of any policeman in trouble. Unarmed people deserve protection.
Children would be also taught that the first person to pull a gun to defend an unarmed policeman or any other unarmed person deserves the lion`s share of the credit. Late-comers would be regarded as barely more than onlookers. This is necessary to offset the "Kitty Genovese phenomenon." In 1964, this young woman was attacked and murdered in full view of 38 onlookers, in their Queens, New York, neighborhood. Despite her screams for help, no one even bothered to call the police. This is the "who goes first?" problem.
Anyone so foolish as to attack a policeman would be looking down the barrels of, say, a dozen handguns. "Go ahead, punk. Make our day!"

A policeman would gain obedience, like James Stewart in Destry Rides Again, through judicial empowerment. He would not threaten anyone with immediate violence. He would simply say, "Folks, I`ve got a problem here. This person is resisting arrest. Would three of you accompany me to the local station with this individual?"

He would blow his whistle, and a dozen sawed-off shotguns accompanied by people would be there within 60 seconds.

Every member of society would be trained from an early age to honor the law as an adult by being willing to carry a handgun. Everyone would see himself as a defender of the law and a peace-keeper. Guns would be universal. Every criminal would know that the man or woman next to him is armed and dangerous. He would be surrounded at all times by people who see their task as defending themselves and others against the likes of him.

The only person he could trust not to shoot him dead in his tracks for becoming an aggressor would be the policeman on the beat. The aggressor`s place of safety would be custody.

There would be another effect on social life. When every adult is armed, civility increases. In a world of armed Davids, Goliaths would learn to be civil. The words of Owen Wister`s Virginian, "Smile when you say that," would regain their original meaning.

The doctrine of citizen`s arrest would be inculcated in every child from age six. Then, at the coming of age, every new citizen would take a public vow to uphold the constitution. He or she would then be handed a certificate of citizenship, which would automatically entitle the bearer to carry an automatic. Note: I did not say semi-automatic.

THE EXPERIENCE OF ENGLAND

In England, where the police have not carried guns for well over a century, violent crime remained low until the mid-twentieth century. This changed when the government began banning the private ownership of guns. This development is presented in full academic paraphernalia by Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Oxford University Press, 2002). Dr. David Gordon summarized her findings in a recent book review in The Mises Review.

She proceeds by a learned study of violent crime in England, from the Middle Ages to the present. In her survey, a constant theme emerges. As guns became more prevalent, violent crime decreased. This trend culminated in the nineteenth century, when death by murder was rare but guns were widespread. The seizure of guns during the twentieth century has been accompanied by a marked increase in violent crime. At present some types of violent crime are more common in England than in America. As usual, the statists have their facts exactly backward.

Professor Quigley would have understood the following bit of historical information.

Developments in the eighteenth century should by now come as no surprise. "[A]t the very time that the individual right to be armed was becoming well established and guns were replacing earlier weapons, the homicide rate continued its precipitous decline" (pp. 88 "89). But Professor Quigley`s most famous student and his wife would not understand this: Readers will not earn a reward for correctly guessing Malcolm`s conclusions about the nineteenth century. Once again, the number of guns increased while violent crime declined. "The nineteenth century ended with firearms plentifully available while rates of armed crime had been declining and were to reach a record low" (p. 130).
So far, we have a vast example of an inductive argument. Increases in the prevalence of guns have always accompanied decreases in violent crime. Does this not strongly suggest that guns in private hands deter crime? The twentieth century, especially its latter half, gives us a chance to test our induction, since ownership of guns during that period came under strict control. If it turns out that violent crime increased, then as Hume once remarked, "I need not complete the syllogism; you can draw the conclusion yourself."

And of course violent crime did increase. "Scholars of criminology have traced a long decline in interpersonal violence since the late Middle Ages until an abrupt and puzzling reversal occurred in the middle of the twentieth century . . . a statistical comparison of crime in England and Wales with crime in America, based on 1995 figures, discovered that for three categories of violent crimes " assaults, burglary, and robbery " the English are now at far greater risk than Americans" (pp. 164 "65).

Gun control advocates, faced with these facts, will at once begin to yammer uncontrollably, "a correlation is not a cause." Indeed it is not; but in this instance, a strong correlation holds in two ways: when guns increase in number, violent crimes decrease, and when guns decrease, violent crimes increase. Further, a plausible causal story explains the correlation: the prospect of armed resistance deters criminals. This is about as good as an inductive argument gets. But I do not anticipate that those who wish to take away the right to self-defense will alter their position. They aim to make everyone totally dependent on the all-powerful state.

SELF-GOVERNMENT UNDER LAWFUL AUTHORITY

Unarmed police, now fully deserving of protection by gun-bearing citizens, would gain immense respect. They would rule by the force of law, meaning respect for the law, meaning widespread voluntary submission by the citizenry. This is properly called self-government under lawful authority. The policeman`s word would be law. He just wouldn`t be armed. A criminal would not escape from the scene of the crime by shooting the cop on the beat. He would not get 20 yards from the cop`s body. Citizens would regard a law enforcement officer as they regard their mothers. They would do what they were told with little more than rolling their eyes. If anyone physically challenged a police officer, he would risk facing a dozen Clint Eastwoods who have been waiting for two decades to get an opportunity to make their day. To make this system work, the courts would have to enforce strict liability. Injure the wrong person, and (assuming you survive the shoot-out) you must pay double restitution. Kill the wrong person, and you must pay the ultimate restitution: eye for eye, life for life. But no faceless bureaucrat hired by the State would do the act. A group of armed citizens will execute you under the authority of the court. Remember, the police are unarmed. The fact that citizens in no society think this way is evidence of how well the defenders of State monopoly power have done their work. They want their agents armed and the rest of us unarmed. A free society would reverse this arrangement.

CONCLUSION

There are those who will reply that my proposal is utopian, that civilians do not have sufficient courage to come to the aid of an unarmed policeman. Furthermore, they will complain, the common man is not sufficiently self-disciplined to live under the rule of law as I have described it. Both objections have validity. I can only respond by pointing out that a society in which its citizens possess neither courage nor self-discipline is not a free society. I am not here proposing a technical reform that will produce a free society. Rather, I am describing why freedom has departed from this nation ever since, for lack of a better date, 1788.

by Gary North

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 08:59 PM
Lynchocracy.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 09:04 PM
Make Krispy Kreme a Gun Free Zone - No Exceptions

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:07 PM
I am honestly sort of disgusted by reading this. I've gotta take a bath to wash the filth off. Do people doubt me anymore when I say that conservatives are pure evil?

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:08 PM
You know what's funny? That the UK's gun ban is so much more controversial in America than the UK. BTW, the gun ban had practically no effect on the amount of citizens that owned guns, since gun ownership was already below 0.1%. Sorry bout the factmongering. I know fact is what gun nuts hate most.

Damocles
08-06-2009, 09:13 PM
You know what's funny? That the UK's gun ban is so much more controversial in America than the UK. BTW, the gun ban had practically no effect on the amount of citizens that owned guns, since gun ownership was already below 0.1%. Sorry bout the factmongering. I know fact is what gun nuts hate most.
Boy that makes it better, the people in the UK were more willing to give up their guns so that means that the US should too...

Ugh..

The gun ban wasn't a big deal... eh?

YouTube - England Gun Ban Update

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:14 PM
Boy that makes it better, the people in the UK were more willing to give up their guns so that means that the US should too...

Ugh..

The gun ban wasn't a big deal... eh?

YouTube - England Gun Ban Update (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec)

You guys are such drama queens. Yet another documentary made by the NRA.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:15 PM
LOL

I didn't even look at the producer before I said 'NRA', then I go to youtube and I'm right.

No true Englishmen who values decency would say the things these traitors say.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:16 PM
We should ban the NRA.

Damocles
08-06-2009, 09:20 PM
We should ban the NRA.
First they came for the Communists,
--and I didn’t speak up,
----because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
--and I didn’t speak up,
----because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
--and I didn’t speak up,
----because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
--and by that time there was no one
----left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:22 PM
First they came for the Communists,
--and I didn’t speak up,
----because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
--and I didn’t speak up,
----because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
--and I didn’t speak up,
----because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
--and by that time there was no one
----left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

The "they" in this quote is the NRA.

USFREEDOM911
08-06-2009, 09:23 PM
The "they" in this quote is the NRA.

No it isn't.

Damocles
08-06-2009, 09:25 PM
The "they" in this quote is the NRA.
The they in the poem is the government.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:26 PM
The they in the poem is the government.

The NRA is basically the government these days. Fascism coming back in style.

USFREEDOM911
08-06-2009, 09:27 PM
The they in the poem is the government.

Don't confuse waterstain with facts.
It totally fucks up the rest of his "rant-du-jours"

Damocles
08-06-2009, 09:30 PM
The NRA is basically the government these days. Fascism coming back in style.
The NRA is not any more like the government than the ACLU is, now you are just trolling.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:32 PM
No respect for human life and authoritarianism = Concentration camps
No respect for human life and anarchy = Lynch mobs

You guys are two sides of the same coin.

Beefy
08-06-2009, 09:33 PM
The NRA is not any more like the government than the ACLU is, now you are just trolling.

Water's trollery need not be identified sir, it is self evident.

ib1yysguy
08-06-2009, 09:40 PM
STY is trolling as well. You can't really think his question about disarming the police and replacing them with vigilantes with guns was serious.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-06-2009, 09:42 PM
There is little doubt in my mind that SMY considers lynchocracy the ideal form of government.

Beefy
08-06-2009, 09:44 PM
STY is trolling as well. You can't really think his question about disarming the police and replacing them with vigilantes with guns was serious.

He's probably half serious. I think he should pack is .22 and head to Mogadishu, try it out.

Taichiliberal
08-06-2009, 09:45 PM
What's really pathetic/scary is not that some twit would pen this drivel, but that others would actually buy into yet another NRA paranoid fantasy to the point of posting it.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-06-2009, 10:08 PM
STY is trolling as well. You can't really think his question about disarming the police and replacing them with vigilantes with guns was serious.

you mean like watermark's

YOUR HEAD BELONGS ON A PIKE

?

ib1yysguy
08-06-2009, 11:06 PM
you mean like watermark's

YOUR HEAD BELONGS ON A PIKE

?

Cept STY probably believes the stupid shit he says.

Minister of Truth
08-07-2009, 01:34 AM
Cept STY probably believes the stupid shit he says.

Paging the Irony Police.

charver
08-07-2009, 02:47 AM
Boy that makes it better, the people in the UK were more willing to give up their guns so that means that the US should too...

Ugh..

The gun ban wasn't a big deal... eh?

YouTube - England Gun Ban Update (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec)

No, the "gun ban" wasn't a big deal. It was and continues to be supported overwhelmingly by the population.

Those people on that march there were part of the "Countryside Alliance", not exclusively, but mainly marching under the banner of opposition to the Labour government's proposed ban on the hunting of foxes with hounds. The vast majority of people on those marches were certainly not there to demand a right to be armed. Most were involved directly in fox hunting and many others were there to protest the Labour government's urban centric approach to government services.

(the legislation was passed but the practice of fox hunting has pretty much carried on as before and the police have much better things to do with their time than wander around the countryside chasing after chaps on horses chasing beagles chasing foxes)

I got up to "for the first time bobbies are carrying firearms" before stopping. Seeing as this thing was made post-1997 i do sort of wonder if my memories of armed response units flying round city centres chasing IRA bombers in the 1980's and "blaggers wiv shooters" in the 1970's was all in my imagination.

I do keep on saying the UK is an incredibly bad example to use in comparison to the USA when discussing gun control, whichever side you're arguing for.

Cancel7
08-07-2009, 05:13 AM
No, the "gun ban" wasn't a big deal. It was and continues to be supported overwhelmingly by the population.

Those people on that march there were part of the "Countryside Alliance", not exclusively, but mainly marching under the banner of opposition to the Labour government's proposed ban on the hunting of foxes with hounds. The vast majority of people on those marches were certainly not there to demand a right to be armed. Most were involved directly in fox hunting and many others were there to protest the Labour government's urban centric approach to government services.

(the legislation was passed but the practice of fox hunting has pretty much carried on as before and the police have much better things to do with their time than wander around the countryside chasing after chaps on horses chasing beagles chasing foxes)

I got up to "for the first time bobbies are carrying firearms" before stopping. Seeing as this thing was made post-1997 i do sort of wonder if my memories of armed response units flying round city centres chasing IRA bombers in the 1980's and "blaggers wiv shooters" in the 1970's was all in my imagination.

I do keep on saying the UK is an incredibly bad example to use in comparison to the USA when discussing gun control, whichever side you're arguing for.

How so? Is it cultural?

charver
08-07-2009, 06:49 AM
How so? Is it cultural?

Yes.

We are poles apart on how we view weapons. I appreciate that not all Americans all gun crazy but there is a definite divide between those who see the right to bear arms as a cherished right and the advocates of gun control. We've never had anything like that polarisation here, so when reference is made to the banning of guns in the UK it is from a position of overwhelming public support.

Maybe it's the legacy of the 'frontier society' or maybe some Americans just really like guns. I don't know. However, the policies adopted here, amid little fuss, would be totally unthinkable over there. Moreover the sheer number of weapons floating round America creates all kinds of practical problems which, thankfully, we never faced.

So when US pro-gun types point at crime rates rising and attribute it to the UK being "disarmed" or when gun control types point to us and say "look they managed to get rid of guns easily", suffice to say they are both being rather simplistic.

Cancel7
08-07-2009, 06:59 AM
Yes.

We are poles apart on how we view weapons. I appreciate that not all Americans all gun crazy but there is a definite divide between those who see the right to bear arms as a cherished right and the advocates of gun control. We've never had anything like that polarisation here, so when reference is made to the banning of guns in the UK it is from a position of overwhelming public support.

Maybe it's the legacy of the 'frontier society' or maybe some Americans just really like guns. I don't know. However, the policies adopted here, amid little fuss, would be totally unthinkable over there. Moreover the sheer number of weapons floating round America creates all kinds of practical problems which, thankfully, we never faced.

So when US pro-gun types point at crime rates rising and attribute it to the UK being "disarmed" or when gun control types point to us and say "look they managed to get rid of guns easily", suffice to say they are both being rather simplistic.


Interesting, and this has been my impression. I don't have any idea why we are like this either.

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 07:31 AM
There are some serious cultural differences, and I think they account for much of the difference.

Also, the time when guns provided food for the table is only a generation or two out here, whereas it has been far more in the UK. And only in the last 150 years has the government been able to make any serious inroads towards protecting the population, but it was far mre able to do so in the UK.


So the time when guns were vital assets to the majority of the population would have been within our grandparent's lives.

cancel2 2022
08-07-2009, 08:52 AM
No, the "gun ban" wasn't a big deal. It was and continues to be supported overwhelmingly by the population.

Those people on that march there were part of the "Countryside Alliance", not exclusively, but mainly marching under the banner of opposition to the Labour government's proposed ban on the hunting of foxes with hounds. The vast majority of people on those marches were certainly not there to demand a right to be armed. Most were involved directly in fox hunting and many others were there to protest the Labour government's urban centric approach to government services.

(the legislation was passed but the practice of fox hunting has pretty much carried on as before and the police have much better things to do with their time than wander around the countryside chasing after chaps on horses chasing beagles chasing foxes)

I got up to "for the first time bobbies are carrying firearms" before stopping. Seeing as this thing was made post-1997 i do sort of wonder if my memories of armed response units flying round city centres chasing IRA bombers in the 1980's and "blaggers wiv shooters" in the 1970's was all in my imagination.

I do keep on saying the UK is an incredibly bad example to use in comparison to the USA when discussing gun control, whichever side you're arguing for.

Anyone who knows anything about the UK, knows that the protests were nothing to do with gun bans and everything to do with banning foxhunting. This is a prima facie example of how lies and spin take something and turn it on its head.

Damocles
08-07-2009, 09:03 AM
Anyone who knows anything about the UK, knows that the protests were nothing to do with gun bans and everything to do with banning foxhunting. This is a prima facie example of how lies and spin take something and turn it on its head.
Do they use guns in fox hunting? Do they have to have permits for them?

Seriously, I don't know where this line is drawn.

charver
08-07-2009, 09:29 AM
Do they use guns in fox hunting? Do they have to have permits for them?

Seriously, I don't know where this line is drawn.

Shotguns are used to dispatch the fox, saving it from being killed by the hounds supposedly. Shotguns are not banned although you do require a licence.

Damocles
08-07-2009, 09:31 AM
Shotguns are used to dispatch the fox, saving it from being killed by the hounds supposedly. Shotguns are not banned although you do require a licence.
So they ban the sport but you can still get a license for the shotgun?

charver
08-07-2009, 09:37 AM
So they ban the sport but you can still get a license for the shotgun?

They ban was solely concerned with "hunting with hounds" as this was viewed as "cruel" by some people.

Shotguns were never part of the fox-hunting ban.

SmarterthanYou
08-07-2009, 09:57 AM
STY is trolling as well. You can't really think his question about disarming the police and replacing them with vigilantes with guns was serious.

I wasn't trolling. I'm deadly serious about disarming the police. I'm sure you're quite comfortable being abused by government agents though.

seriously, do you bother to keep tabs on police officers and the 'only ones' attitude? or is it just 'a few bad apples' type thing to you?

USFREEDOM911
08-07-2009, 10:05 AM
They ban was solely concerned with "hunting with hounds" as this was viewed as "cruel" by some people.

Shotguns were never part of the fox-hunting ban.

They weren't part of it.......YET!

cancel2 2022
08-07-2009, 10:31 AM
So they ban the sport but you can still get a license for the shotgun?

Foxhunting is still going on all the time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078655/How-hunt-shot-Labours-fox-Although-hunting-banned-years-ago-sport-MORE-popular-ever.html), the act had so many loopholes that it is impossible to police. Shotguns are used by farmers for many reasons including shooting foxes, rabbits, hares and badgers as well as sick and lame livestock.

charver
08-07-2009, 11:39 AM
Foxhunting is still going on all the time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078655/How-hunt-shot-Labours-fox-Although-hunting-banned-years-ago-sport-MORE-popular-ever.html), the act had so many loopholes that it is impossible to police. Shotguns are used by farmers for many reasons including shooting foxes, rabbits, hares and badgers as well as sick and lame livestock.

It's weird isn't it?

Before the ban - groups of red coated horsey types would follow a pack of hounds all over the countryside until the hounds caught up with the fox and killed it.

After the ban - groups of red coated horsey types follow a pack of hounds all over the countryside until the hounds catch up with the fox and a huntsman steps in and shoots it. If the hounds kill it you've broken the law.

That's progress. :D

FUCK THE POLICE
08-07-2009, 03:22 PM
Yes.

We are poles apart on how we view weapons. I appreciate that not all Americans all gun crazy but there is a definite divide between those who see the right to bear arms as a cherished right and the advocates of gun control. We've never had anything like that polarisation here, so when reference is made to the banning of guns in the UK it is from a position of overwhelming public support.

Maybe it's the legacy of the 'frontier society' or maybe some Americans just really like guns. I don't know. However, the policies adopted here, amid little fuss, would be totally unthinkable over there. Moreover the sheer number of weapons floating round America creates all kinds of practical problems which, thankfully, we never faced.

So when US pro-gun types point at crime rates rising and attribute it to the UK being "disarmed" or when gun control types point to us and say "look they managed to get rid of guns easily", suffice to say they are both being rather simplistic.

Maybe I'm not even really all that much of a gun control advocate. But when someone put "the right to bear arms" up there with freedom of speech without even blinking (or usually even above it) it definitely pisses me off to no end.

LadyT
08-08-2009, 11:15 AM
Maybe I'm not even really all that much of a gun control advocate. But when someone put "the right to bear arms" up there with freedom of speech without even blinking (or usually even above it). it definitely pisses me off to no end.

The thing I don't get is that it arbitrarily stops at guns. Why can't I have the right to weapons grade plutonium?

USFREEDOM911
08-08-2009, 01:34 PM
contents banned

You were warned

Minister of Truth
08-08-2009, 05:49 PM
The thing I don't get is that it arbitrarily stops at guns. Why can't I have the right to weapons grade plutonium?

http://fail.com.br/inc/img.functions.php?pic=../galleries/topfail/fail1.jpg&maxS=505

You can do whatever you want, so long as big brother says so.

Taichiliberal
08-08-2009, 08:27 PM
The thing I don't get is that it arbitrarily stops at guns. Why can't I have the right to weapons grade plutonium?

Here's what I don't get: until last year, the only state that practically prohibited it's citizens to own guns was the Washington DC .....and after 30 years those laws were overturned. If you're a law abiding citizen and homeowner/resident, you can own a gun. And fulfilling certain guidelines, you can also carry a gun in public concealed on your person. Each state has it's rules and regulations as to background checks, etc., but essentially that's the deal. Hell, in most cases it's easier to own a rifle.

So why all the panic by the NRA and gun owners?

AS I SEE IT (i.e., humble opinion), the panic is based on a total distrust of our gov't and fellow citizens. Period. More so, the gunners (my short hand extremely liberal gun law advocates) don't feel safe unless they can walk around strapped 24/7 and have access to the latest near or exact military issue personal firearm. And they want as little as possible gov't knowledge as to what and how many weapons they own. So in effect, the gunners want to turn back the clock to the frontier days, when any schmuck with the cash could strap on a gun. Or better yet, let's go back to the turn of the century, were industrial city dwellers could do the equivalent.

Problem is....been there, done that...hence all the current regulation. Gunners like to overlook all the recorded shoot outs and deaths, which seemed to happen to folks strapped 24/7. They also seem to forget that in the event of a shootout, it's highly possible that arriving police will NOT be able to discern the good guys from the bad guys (in real life, they don't wear different colored hats), which could have some REAL nasty results. So you have to ask yourself, who profits from the TOTAL liberlization of our current gun laws? Hint: manufacturers, sellers of weapons.

And as a side bar, since the majority of gunners and the NRA are conservatives with an allegeric reaction to all things liberal, isn't it ironic that they want to have more liberal gun laws?

USFREEDOM911
08-08-2009, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by LadyT: contents banned

You were warned



Here's what I don't get: until last year, the only state that practically prohibited it's citizens to own guns was the Washington DC .....and after 30 years those laws were overturned. If you're a law abiding citizen and homeowner/resident, you can own a gun. And fulfilling certain guidelines, you can also carry a gun in public concealed on your person. Each state has it's rules and regulations as to background checks, etc., but essentially that's the deal. Hell, in most cases it's easier to own a rifle.

So why all the panic by the NRA and gun owners?

AS I SEE IT (i.e., humble opinion), the panic is based on a total distrust of our gov't and fellow citizens. Period. More so, the gunners (my short hand extremely liberal gun law advocates) don't feel safe unless they can walk around strapped 24/7 and have access to the latest near or exact military issue personal firearm. And they want as little as possible gov't knowledge as to what and how many weapons they own. So in effect, the gunners want to turn back the clock to the frontier days, when any schmuck with the cash could strap on a gun. Or better yet, let's go back to the turn of the century, were industrial city dwellers could do the equivalent.

Problem is....been there, done that...hence all the current regulation. Gunners like to overlook all the recorded shoot outs and deaths, which seemed to happen to folks strapped 24/7. They also seem to forget that in the event of a shootout, it's highly possible that arriving police will be able to discern the good guys from the bad guys (in real life, they don't wear different colored hats), which could have some REAL nasty results. So you have to ask yourself, who profits from the TOTAL liberlization of our current gun laws? Hint: manufacturers, sellers of weapons.

And as a side bar, since the majority of gunners and the NRA are conservatives with an allegeric reaction to all things liberal, isn't it ironic that they want to have more liberal gun laws?

Topspin
08-10-2009, 05:41 AM
could somebody post Englands gun murder rate vs ours. thanks

Minister of Truth
08-10-2009, 06:03 PM
could somebody post Englands gun murder rate vs ours. thanks

Could someone post London's violent crime rate vs New York's? Thanks.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-11-2009, 04:25 PM
Could someone post London's violent crime rate vs New York's? Thanks.

Yes, because it is logical to compare what mostly amounts to low-level thuggery instead of the trivial crime of murder. Murder is, bizarrely, much lower in the UK, and I have no idea why that is. Also, the murder rate in europes most murder prone city is as high as some state averages. No idea why that is. Bizarre.

I guess a rash of brutal murders is just the price we pay for a slightly lower burglary rate.

Minister of Truth
08-12-2009, 02:20 AM
Yes, because it is logical to compare what mostly amounts to low-level thuggery instead of the trivial crime of murder. Murder is, bizarrely, much lower in the UK, and I have no idea why that is. Also, the murder rate in europes most murder prone city is as high as some state averages. No idea why that is. Bizarre.

I guess a rash of brutal murders is just the price we pay for a slightly lower burglary rate.

Its not slight.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-12-2009, 02:40 AM
Its not slight.

Well I'd totally trade a quarter as many burglaries (wild figure I'm pulling out of my ass) for five or six times as many brutal murders. Gotta get your priorities straight somewhere.

Conservatives = pure evil

Minister of Truth
08-12-2009, 02:44 AM
Well I'd totally trade a quarter as many burglaries (wild figure I'm pulling out of my ass) for five or six times as many brutal murders. Gotta get your priorities straight somewhere.

Conservatives = pure evil

The fact that you are arguing for utility (i.e. fascism) over principle is why you are wrong and Liberals = pure undiluted evil

FUCK THE POLICE
08-12-2009, 02:46 AM
The fact that you are arguing for utility (i.e. fascism) over principle is why you are wrong and Liberals = pure undiluted evil

Yes, utility, like saving lives. Pure evil, that preventing people from being brutally murdered thing is.

Minister of Truth
08-12-2009, 02:54 AM
Yes, utility, like saving lives. Pure evil, that preventing people from being brutally murdered thing is.

Yes, utilitarianism is a philosophy with little value in a free society. After all, wasn't downtown Moscow a perfectly safe place to park your car when the Soviets were running the show?

charver
08-12-2009, 03:03 AM
Yes, utilitarianism is a philosophy with little value in a free society. After all, wasn't downtown Moscow a perfectly safe place to park your car when the Soviets were running the show?

Yes, but then again who in their right mind would have wanted to steal a Lada anyway?

Minister of Truth
08-12-2009, 03:10 AM
Yes, but then again who in their right mind would have wanted to steal a Lada anyway?

The fact that the trunk would have been loaded up with crates of vodka might have made it tempting. The car could be abandoned, but the memories of vodka-induced drunken orgies would live on in the minds of all would be car jackers.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-12-2009, 03:16 AM
Yes, utilitarianism is a philosophy with little value in a free society. After all, wasn't downtown Moscow a perfectly safe place to park your car when the Soviets were running the show?

1. I don't know what the soviet crime rate was, and I doubt there were accurate statistics published on it.

2. Utilitarianism has no value in a free society? If freedom had no use, there'd be no reason to have any of it. Clearly you don't value freedom very much.

I'm not even a utilitarian. I wasn't born in the frikkin' 19th century.

Minister of Truth
08-12-2009, 03:25 AM
1. I don't know what the soviet crime rate was, and I doubt there were accurate statistics published on it.

2. Utilitarianism has no value in a free society? If freedom had no use, there'd be no reason to have any of it. Clearly you don't value freedom very much.

I'm not even a utilitarian. I wasn't born in the frikkin' 19th century.

You sure act like it. Utilitarianism undercuts freedom by stating that, society could be more efficient/safe/moral/etc. if we simply infringed upon this or that existing freedom. We are not talking about usefulness, we are talking about a worldview that simply seeks to arrange society in such a way that maximum utility is gained at the expense of whatever the governing principles may be.