Gun Advocate Says Armed March On Washington Will Be Totally Safe
WASHINGTON — The libertarian activist and radio host planning a thousands-strong armed march on Washington this summer says the event will be perfectly safe and that the participants won't resist violently if stopped by police.
The District of Columbia has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Although individuals can now own guns within the city limits, it remains difficult to obtain a permit. Loaded weapons being transported across state lines into the city by unlicensed out-of-state residents would likely be treated as a highly provocative and illegal act by police.
"If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back," said Adam Kokesh, a libertarian activist and former candidate for Congress in New Mexico, in an interview with BuzzFeed on Monday. "We're not going to resist government by force in any way."
"It's all going to be very well choreographed," Kokesh said.
The march is planned for July 4 and will circle through D.C.: "we will muster at the National Cemetery & at noon we will step off to march across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge," Kokesh wrote on the Facebook page for the event.
Kokesh, a prominent Ron Paul supporter and 9/11 truther who made headlines during the 2012 campaign for publicly musing about assassinating Mitt Romney, said he couldn't say how many people the march will include. "I couldn't say right now because it's so viral," he said. On the Facebook page, he wrote that the march would go ahead with 1,000 marchers; Kokesh said it has passed that point and the march is definitely a go.
Kokesh, who owns "about a dozen" guns, said there will be strict rules for how participants can carry their guns. Those with long guns must keep them slung across their back.
"It'll be an AR-15 across my back, and that's gonna be a strictly enforced protocol in order to be part of what we're doing," Kokesh said.
He said other pro-gun bigwigs might show up as well.
"I did an interview for the Alex Jones show today, and he said that he was hoping to be there but didn't make the commitment," Kokesh said.
Though Kokesh feels "that I'm going to be a lot safer at this event than I would be on the streets of Chicago," he can't fully guarantee that no one in the group will do anything dangerous.
"No, but that's never true, and that's one of the realities in our daily lives," he said. "We largely do trust the people around us to not kill us. Human life is really fragile."
The march's Facebook page promises "coordination with D.C. law enforcement prior to the event," and invites "law enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is appropriate."
Despite the event's clear political bent, Kokesh says he hasn't been paying attention to the fate of gun control measures in Congress.
"I'm not really a congressional handicapper," he said. "I haven't been following Congress too close."
Im placing my bets now
15 gun related accidents
13 people holding a gun while drunk
23 arrest from what people say where their constitutional right to bear arms, but is actually something unrelated(Like A pot bust)
1 man running around naked with his rifle who is named "Sarah"
Jihadin wrote: Nothing wrong with naming your weapons. My M4 name Isabella Saprano.....and my personnel M4 is name Allie Sin
Oh yea. Big Brother, Brownie, Baby, and Big Baby are all names assigned by Genghis Connie and She Who Must Be Obeyed to various pistols. They seem to have a fascination with the letter "B."
"No, but that's never true, and that's one of the realities in our daily lives," he said. "We largely do trust the people around us to not kill us. Human life is really fragile."
Which is totally why he carries a gun on him all the time. For... defense?
Well....lets worry after they get a license to protest...seriously....already stated having weapons on them before they even apply for a protest license/permit....this is a lose/lose for both sides if it gets out of hand....
whembly wrote: To me... this seems like a totally wrong way to push for your rights. I don't agree with it.
Pretty much. It's just needless provocation, and riding the law as close to the line as you can without breaking it in the hope someone opposed to you overreacts.
It doesn't sound like a plan which inspires confidence in either its probability for success or the mind who conjured it...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: The pro-gun side just won a pretty big victory. I wish they'd just give it a rest for a bit and not risk giving the anti-gun side more ammo.
My M-16's name was Belladonna... I was going for the "deadly night shade/beautiful woman" thing. totally didn't know that it was a pornstar who specialized in the freaky gak.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My M-16's name was Belladonna... I was going for the "deadly night shade/beautiful woman" thing. totally didn't know that it was a pornstar who specialized in the freaky gak.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My M-16's name was Belladonna... I was going for the "deadly night shade/beautiful woman" thing. totally didn't know that it was a pornstar who specialized in the freaky gak.
Yeah... sure you didn't...
Yeah...my first introduction to Belladonna was finding her "baseball enjoyment" video on accident. She looked identical to my ex girlfriend, so much so that I thought it was my ex...it did not make for a good evening. Lol
edit: Accident=looking at totally unrelated porn that the site I was on decided somehow had a relation to the video in question, and I clicked on the image because I would have put money down that it was my recent (2 nights before) ex. Stupid site.
FMJ wrote:Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Tonight, you pukes will sleep with your rifles.
You will give your rifle a girl's name... because this is the only p____ you people are going to get.
Your days of finger-banging ol' Mary-Jane Rottencrotch through her pretty pink panties are over!
You're married to this piece.
This weapon of iron and wood.
And you will be faithful.
Port, hut!
[Recruits grabs their rifles] Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Prepare to mount!
[Recruits step back towards their bunks] Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Mount!
[Recruits quickly hop onto their bunks]
Jihadin wrote:Well....lets worry after they get a license to protest...seriously....already stated having weapons on them before they even apply for a protest license/permit....this is a lose/lose for both sides if it gets out of hand....
Oh, I dunno about that. While I'd lament the inevitable loss of life, I think the chaos of a tense situation going to Hell due to a misfire would be a pretty big "told you so" for the anti-gun side.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:So is it a common trend to name your firearm after a pornstar?
Seems like naming the firearm after male pornstars would be more apt.
d-usa wrote: Maybe military rifles. Both get drilled after all...
Yeah, but they usually only get drilled by one guy at a time
KalashnikovMarine wrote: All I know is it's bad juju to name your rifle after your girlfriend/wife/etc. Androgynous names also have the potential for bad vibes.
Sorta like showing a picture of your girlfriend or wife to a squadmate in all the films?
azazel the cat wrote: Seems like naming the firearm after male pornstars would be more apt.
Only if you like being on the receiving end of jokes about it for the rest of your military career, and then some
In Sebastian Junger's book "War" about marines in Afghanistan (Also see the Documentary Restrapo) he talks about weapons and firepower becoming a substitute for sex.
This clearly explains why you would name a weapon after a women. Especially when you have been deployed far away from women for a long time.
Gun rights activists plan to openly carry weapons as they march across the Arlington Memorial Bridge into the District on July 4 as part of a protest organized by an Internet talk show host — a plan that drew a swift and confrontational response from the city’s police chief.
“If you’re coming here to break the law, then we’re going to take action,” Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Tuesday in an interview on News Channel 8. “There is a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”
The idea of the armed march, which would start at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia and proceed across the bridge into the District — where it is illegal to carry guns on the street — was proposed by radio show host Adam Kokesh this week on his “Adam vs. The Man” show.
“This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event,” Mr. Kokesh wrote on his website. “We will march with rifles loaded and slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny.”
March organizers will coordinate with law enforcement beforehand in order to determine at what point armed marchers would risk arrest, Mr. Kokesh said.
“We will approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will proceed to volunteer myself to determine what their actual course of action with someone crossing the line will be at which point fellow marchers will have the choice of joining me one at a time in a peaceful, orderly manner, or turning back to the National Cemetery,” he wrote.
As of Tuesday, more than 2,400 people had said via Facebook that they planned to attend the march.
On Tuesday, Chief Lanier said the police department has not been in contact with Mr. Kokesh or other organizers but supported coordination between the group and law enforcement in order to educate protesters about the laws they would be breaking and the punishment they could face.
“We’ll make sure that they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia with firearms, as long as they’re in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms through the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law, and we’ll have to treat it as such,” she said.
Since a the Supreme Court struck down the District’s 30-year near-total ban on handgun ownership in 2008, D.C. residents have been able to purchase and keep handguns in their homes but are precluded from carrying them on the street.
A person caught carrying a gun outside of their own home or place of business can face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, according to D.C. law.
Easy E wrote: In Sebastian Junger's book "War" about marines in Afghanistan (Also see the Documentary Restrapo) he talks about weapons and firepower becoming a substitute for sex.
This clearly explains why you would name a weapon after a women. Especially when you have been deployed far away from women for a long time.
Gun rights activists plan to openly carry weapons as they march across the Arlington Memorial Bridge into the District on July 4 as part of a protest organized by an Internet talk show host — a plan that drew a swift and confrontational response from the city’s police chief.
“If you’re coming here to break the law, then we’re going to take action,” Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Tuesday in an interview on News Channel 8. “There is a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”
The idea of the armed march, which would start at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia and proceed across the bridge into the District — where it is illegal to carry guns on the street — was proposed by radio show host Adam Kokesh this week on his “Adam vs. The Man” show.
“This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event,” Mr. Kokesh wrote on his website. “We will march with rifles loaded and slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny.”
March organizers will coordinate with law enforcement beforehand in order to determine at what point armed marchers would risk arrest, Mr. Kokesh said.
“We will approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will proceed to volunteer myself to determine what their actual course of action with someone crossing the line will be at which point fellow marchers will have the choice of joining me one at a time in a peaceful, orderly manner, or turning back to the National Cemetery,” he wrote.
As of Tuesday, more than 2,400 people had said via Facebook that they planned to attend the march.
On Tuesday, Chief Lanier said the police department has not been in contact with Mr. Kokesh or other organizers but supported coordination between the group and law enforcement in order to educate protesters about the laws they would be breaking and the punishment they could face.
“We’ll make sure that they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia with firearms, as long as they’re in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms through the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law, and we’ll have to treat it as such,” she said.
Since a the Supreme Court struck down the District’s 30-year near-total ban on handgun ownership in 2008, D.C. residents have been able to purchase and keep handguns in their homes but are precluded from carrying them on the street.
A person caught carrying a gun outside of their own home or place of business can face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, according to D.C. law.
I'm thinking in reality all of 7 people will show, with unloaded rifles. Two of them will be wearing dorky costumes. There will be flags. There will be sun burns.
Easy E wrote: I hope someone is dressed up as a revolutionary war soldier or it is NOT a protest against tyranny!
Now we're on the same wavelength.
Frazzled's view:
*They could make it a very fun march with the above, or maybe the Village People version of the above.
*A march with unloaded firearms I am very cool with.
*A march with loaded firearms I am not cool with (unless I am ensconced on the sofa with team Wienie, some popcorn and rum). Then its video it, unleash the tear gas time and let the games begin!
Not used to figuring out the delicate affair of ensuring my government knows I am armed (the smarter thing to do is keep them guessing).
I figure harassing my local member of parliament into representing my rights and political views is a scary enough public demonstration.
We also have people from so many backgrounds in this country, just angering one ethnic group would have them running to the panic rooms.
I agree that if a law appears unfair or to repress, it is reasonable for a thinking citizen to break that law to contest it and fight it in the legal system and public opinion.
This little demonstration seems like creating a an event for chaos to ensue. One accidental discharge of a firearm could be a bloodbath. All it takes is one person in the crowd with an ulterior motive and it will go all pear shaped.
For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.
Talizvar wrote: For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.
Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.
"Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
Talizvar wrote: For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.
Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.
To say "I believe" that bearing arms is a "violent act", ah, no (it would require someone getting hurt) but it would be a joke to consider it an act of peace.
It is a thuggish way of making a point (i.e. intimidation).
"Likely" unloaded, in a sling or holstered is only a difference of a few seconds from use so I fail to see how it takes on the appearance of a flower or dove when stowed.
Is displaying firearms to the intended audience to make them feel comforted? relaxed? safe? that they will never be used?
When they are brought out other than to the gun club or hunting it is no longer a sporting tool.
It is a barely veiled threat.
Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.
Talizvar wrote: To say "I believe" that bearing arms is a "violent act", ah, no (it would require someone getting hurt) but it would be a joke to consider it an act of peace.
It is a thuggish way of making a point (i.e. intimidation).
"Likely" unloaded, in a sling or holstered is only a difference of a few seconds from use so I fail to see how it takes on the appearance of a flower or dove when stowed.
Is displaying firearms to the intended audience to make them feel comforted? relaxed? safe? that they will never be used?
When they are brought out other than to the gun club or hunting it is no longer a sporting tool.
It is a barely veiled threat.
I did not say that it was an act of peace. Furthermore, unless the firearms are brandished in an aggressive and/or threatening manner, I do not believe that you can reasonably say that their actions are "thuggish" or that there is an attempt to "intimidate".
The display of these likely unloaded firearms is nothing more than a group of individuals expressing their right to peacefully bear arms. No more no less. They have said that those taking part in the march will respect the law and submit to requests by the police.
If you see people bearing unloaded weapons, marching peacefully with full respect for the law as a "veiled threat" that is your prerogative, though the facts may not support it.
We can discuss whether or not their actions are sensible (which I do not believe they are, but that's my personal opinion) but that is a different discussion.
Talizvar wrote: Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.
Intent is very specific, and having an unloaded weapon slung on your back or holstered is unlikely to meet any objective test for causing fear. Should someone at my table be in fear of a steak knife on the table when it is not being brandished in a threatening manner?
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
To very briefly summarize Foucault on "power":
1. Power is not a thing but a relation
2. Power is not simply repressive but it is productive
3. Power is not simply a property of the State.Power is not something that is exclusively localized in government and the State (which is not a universal essence). Rather, power is exercised throughout the social body.
4. Power operates at the most micro levels of social relations. Power is omnipresent at every level of the social body.
5. The exercise of power is strategic and war-like
Power always entails a set of actions performed upon another persons actions and reactions. Although violence may be a part of some power relationships, "In itself the exercise of power is not violence" (220); it is "always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action
I'll spare you my take on it, because Talizvar has basically ninja'd me on it, and very eloquently, at that. So I'll just highlight the root idea of applying Foucault's notion of the subject-power reltationship to this situation, as expressed by Talizvar:
Talizvar wrote: For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.
Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.
To say "I believe" that bearing arms is a "violent act", ah, no (it would require someone getting hurt) but it would be a joke to consider it an act of peace.
It is a thuggish way of making a point (i.e. intimidation).
"Likely" unloaded, in a sling or holstered is only a difference of a few seconds from use so I fail to see how it takes on the appearance of a flower or dove when stowed.
Is displaying firearms to the intended audience to make them feel comforted? relaxed? safe? that they will never be used?
When they are brought out other than to the gun club or hunting it is no longer a sporting tool.
It is a barely veiled threat.
Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.
My sound byte: In other words, it's very difficult to convince a person of how safe you are with a knife if you attempt to demonstrate by holding it to their throat; irrespective of whether that person has been told the blade is quite dull.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I did not say that it was an act of peace. Furthermore, unless the firearms are brandished in an aggressive and/or threatening manner, I do not believe that you can reasonably say that their actions are "thuggish" or that there is an attempt to "intimidate".
I would suggest it is quite reasonable. Let's use a slightly different circumstance:
1. A cop approaches you, and asks "what's going on?"
2. A cop approaches you, rests his right hand atop the handle of his holdered firearm, and asks "what's going on"?
How one reacts would likely be very different between scenario 1 and scenario 2; yet the only difference is the call to pay attention to the presence of the firearm.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:If you see people bearing unloaded weapons, marching peacefully with full respect for the law as a "veiled threat" that is your prerogative, though the facts may not support it.
First: this is not done with full respect to the law; in fact the purpose of this "protest" is in challenge of it (DC's law against carrying firearms, that is)
Second: I cannot tell if a holstered handgun is loaded or not; nor can I tell if a rifle has a round chambered or not without inspecting the breach; from a distance far closer than I wish to be of someone who may or may not be carrying a loaded firearm in public.
Third: An organized, armed march into a city which was not organized by the state's own sovereignty, has never once in history not been considered a show of threat, intimidation or subjugation.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Talizvar wrote: Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.
Intent is very specific, and having an unloaded weapon slung on your back or holstered is unlikely to meet any objective test for causing fear. Should someone at my table be in fear of a steak knife on the table when it is not being brandished in a threatening manner?
One could argue that in the context of a steak dinner, that steak knife has a perfectly reasonable explanation for being brandished. It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range.
I'd imagine much like the cars/guns example there is a difference between walking around with a weapon designed to kill and walking around unarmed but having the skills to kill someone.
azazel the cat wrote: My sound byte: In other words, it's very difficult to convince a person of how safe you are with a knife if you attempt to demonstrate by holding it to their throat; irrespective of whether that person has been told the blade is quite dull.
Are you honestly trying to compare a slung or holstered unloaded firearm, which poses no immediate risk, and is clearly not being brandished in an aggressive manner, with placing a knife at someone's throat? That is a very egregious comparison.
azazel the cat wrote: I would suggest it is quite reasonable. Let's use a slightly different circumstance:
1. A cop approaches you, and asks "what's going on?"
2. A cop approaches you, rests his right hand atop the handle of his holdered firearm, and asks "what's going on"?
How one reacts would likely be very different between scenario 1 and scenario 2; yet the only difference is the call to pay attention to the presence of the firearm.
And walking along the street with an unloaded and slung/holstered firearm, and publicly declaring your intent to march peacefully, is comperable to scenario 2 in what way?
azazel the cat wrote: First: this is not done with full respect to the law; in fact the purpose of this "protest" is in challenge of it (DC's law against carrying firearms, that is)
So the organisers stating that they intend to fully comply with the law and requests from the police (including outright stating that they will not resist arrest) is not respecting the law?
azazel the cat wrote: Second: I cannot tell if a holstered handgun is loaded or not; nor can I tell if a rifle has a round chambered or not without inspecting the breach; from a distance far closer than I wish to be of someone who may or may not be carrying a loaded firearm in public.
When the group organising the march again states that it will comply with the law of the land, which included t having a loaded weapon in this particular instance I think that it is safe to say that the weapons will be unloaded.
azazel the cat wrote: Third: An organized, armed march into a city which was not organized by the state's own sovereignty, has never once in history not been considered a show of threat, intimidation or subjugation.
A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response - people organising a march intending to fully comply with the law and exercise their lawful rights would appear to fall outside the definition of threat
Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened - organising a peaceful march, on a specified day, complying with the law and carrying unloaded and slung/holstered weapons should not cause fear of injury or harm in a "person of ordinary sensibilities". Especially with such media coverage shows the organiser's less than hostile intentions
Subjugation is to bring under control and governance as a subject - once again the march falls outside this definition. It is organised as a peaceful demonstration which will involve people with firearm(s) slung or holstered and unloaded. Clearly this march, which will have police there monitoring it with their own loaded weapons, cannot bring about control of the area of the protest much less any larger area.
Sadly this point you have made is grounded in hyperbole rather than fact.
azazel the cat wrote: One could argue that in the context of a steak dinner, that steak knife has a perfectly reasonable explanation for being brandished. It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range.
And in the same vein one could argue that carrying an unloaded firearm, in accordance with the law is also perfectly reasonable. Perhaps not sensible, but still a reasonable exercise of the owner's lawful rights. These are people exercising their right to bear arms, and express their political opinion that these rights are important. Both of which are perfectly legal and permitted in a democratic society.
So is it your opinion that a firearm has no place in the protection of property, self defense in a public place, or hunting if "It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range"?
The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.
purplefood wrote: The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.
1. So are the guys with rifles.
2. Supposition on your part. I'd probably put the crime records of the protesters up against the police any day of the week.
3. if they were marching they would be trying to start something no?
purplefood wrote: The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.
1. So are the guys with rifles. 2. Supposition on your part. I'd probably put the crime records of the protesters up against the police any day of the week. 3. if they were marching they would be trying to start something no?
1. Can we be sure of that? As far as I understand the dozens of laws the US seems to have there is no real demand for people to be trained in their own firearms. Not to say people don't it just doesn't appear to be a mandated thing. 2. That would be an interesting comparison, for several reasons and I can honestly say I don't know who would win. 3. If they were marching it would be to show their dismay/opposition etc to something but not to intentionally be arrested (Or so I would hope because that would be a very poor police force). These protesters seem to be marching in order to defy the law as it stands in Washington and I might be seeing something that isn't there but at this point it seems like they would prefer to be stopped so they can shout about it. Mostly due to this "If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back"
Now that would be an epic march, especially in step with The Imperial March in the background.
Seem to be a lot of short Vaders though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
1. Can we be sure of that? As far as I understand the dozens of laws the US seems to have there is no real demand for people to be trained in their own firearms. Not to say people don't it just doesn't appear to be a mandated thing.
Your average cop sucketh mightily in the shooting arts. This is based on having shot with a group of them in the past.
2. That would be an interesting comparison, for several reasons and I can honestly say I don't know who would win.
I don't know about these guys but I do know statistically, CCers are just behind nuns in the obeying the law department. Its part of their nature.
3. If they were marching it would be to show their dismay/opposition etc to something. These protesters seem to be marching in order to defy the law as it stands in Washington and I might be seeing something that isn't there but at this point it seems like they would prefer to be stopped so they can shout about it. Mostly due to this "If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back"
And cops would be marching to say something as well. They would both be armed. They do want to be stopped. They are trying to make a case about it. I'd bet -without researching- that this is an RKBA group. Its a protest.
Rented Tritium wrote: Oh, so we trust the cops now do we? You guys were singing a different tune last time we talked about tasers. Interesting.
I'm sorry, when did I say I didn't trust police officers?
I trust them more than I trust a random person with a gun.
At least a taser won't kill me (Barring exceptional circumstances)
purplefood wrote: The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.
1. So are the guys with rifles.
2. Supposition on your part. I'd probably put the crime records of the protesters up against the police any day of the week.
3. if they were marching they would be trying to start something no?
1. Can we be sure of that? As far as I understand the dozens of laws the US seems to have there is no real demand for people to be trained in their own firearms. Not to say people don't it just doesn't appear to be a mandated thing.
2. That would be an interesting comparison, for several reasons and I can honestly say I don't know who would win.
3. If they were marching it would be to show their dismay/opposition etc to something but not to intentionally be arrested (Or so I would hope because that would be a very poor police force). These protesters seem to be marching in order to defy the law as it stands in Washington and I might be seeing something that isn't there but at this point it seems like they would prefer to be stopped so they can shout about it. Mostly due to this "If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back"
Many gun enthusiasts train regularly with their guns, way more than cops do. Imagine how much time you put into the wargaming hobby. Then transition that same time into practicing with your guns.
And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.
Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.
Many gun enthusiasts train regularly with their guns, way more than cops do. Imagine how much time you put into the wargaming hobby. Then transition that same time into practicing with your guns.
And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.
Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.
That seems fair. It still seems like it is intentionally trying to cause trouble which an unarmed protest wouldn't.
Given that many unarmed protests can turn violent and cause massive amounts of property damage/loss of life I would say the threat is no bigger here than normal. Plus many so called peaceful protests have been anything but, protests with counter protesters standing on the edge of violence. Wanting the other side to throw the first punch.
And I've yet to hear of a gun right's protest that caused massive amounts of destruction and damage.
And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.
Indeed. Often just enough to make their qualifiers which is once or twice a year. Now don't misinterpret. Thats not a slam. Their primary job isn't to engage in gun battles. I'd rather their investigatory techniques and verbal judo were top notch actually.
Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.
Yes, in the pro gun community there is a smaller segment called RKBA (right to keep and bear arms). This group believes in unrestricted Second Amendment, ie US citizens have the absoluteright to keep and bear arms in whatever public space. They are protesting the Washington laws against that (I think??? not really sure why he's doing that) I could be very wrong though, as I've not heard of an RKBA protest with loaded firearms. Then again, if they're going to Washington DC, they just might be trying to stay alive. Its not the safest place...
edit: having re-read it, its at least nominally an RKBA thing. The Alex Jones 9/11 truther stuff is pretty out there though. RKBA'r tend to be paranoid but seriously super patriots and not prone to 911 nonsense. Who knows. As an aside CCers tend to not like them as they make everyone do a collective face palm with stuff like this.
Many gun enthusiasts train regularly with their guns, way more than cops do. Imagine how much time you put into the wargaming hobby. Then transition that same time into practicing with your guns.
And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.
Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.
That seems fair. It still seems like it is intentionally trying to cause trouble which an unarmed protest wouldn't.
Agreed. They are trying to protest, and get in the news.
The Quran - written hundreds of years ago, and believed to be the word of God. In fact most strict followers of this religion will say that the word of Allah is set in stone, that due to him being a God, he knew everything that was likely to happen and it's covered in the book.
and
The American Constitution (or to be precise the 2nd Amendment) - written a few hundreds of years ago by mortal men. Many Americans also believe that the words of this amendment are set in stone, that when this amendment was written these men knew exactly how weapon technology would develop. That a piece of legislation written by men in a the black powder flintlock and musket era, would have the vision to know what was coming. Written in an era where there were many enemies at the door, restless natives, a bloodied, resentful colonial kingdom or just the neighbours wanting to steal your land. They realised that these dangerous enemies would be replaced by even worse ones... paying taxes, being told that smoking is bad for you or terror of terrors, the idea of a public health service. Oh how you will need these mighty weapons to protect yourselves from such enemies.
Who needs Scientology, you've got your own religion right there.
Oh and before you try and tear me a new one, I have this to say. As a Brit I will automatically join in bashing the French, it's what we do. However on a personal level all the French people I have met have been very nice. It's the same with American's, as a Brit I will automatically take the "st Michael" out of you, but it's not a personal thing, I've always enjoyed the banter with you guys on this board, but the crazy logic behind this type of thinking is just beyond me.
azazel the cat wrote: My sound byte: In other words, it's very difficult to convince a person of how safe you are with a knife if you attempt to demonstrate by holding it to their throat; irrespective of whether that person has been told the blade is quite dull.
Are you honestly trying to compare a slung or holstered unloaded firearm, which poses no immediate risk, and is clearly not being brandished in an aggressive manner, with placing a knife at someone's throat? That is a very egregious comparison.
Sound bytes tend to be like that
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: I would suggest it is quite reasonable. Let's use a slightly different circumstance:
1. A cop approaches you, and asks "what's going on?"
2. A cop approaches you, rests his right hand atop the handle of his holdered firearm, and asks "what's going on"?
How one reacts would likely be very different between scenario 1 and scenario 2; yet the only difference is the call to pay attention to the presence of the firearm.
And walking along the street with an unloaded and slung/holstered firearm, and publicly declaring your intent to march peacefully, is comperable to scenario 2 in what way?
This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: First: this is not done with full respect to the law; in fact the purpose of this "protest" is in challenge of it (DC's law against carrying firearms, that is)
So the organisers stating that they intend to fully comply with the law and requests from the police (including outright stating that they will not resist arrest) is not respecting the law?
It is not. Compliance to arrest and obeying the law for which the violation of leads to said arrest are two very, very different things. If I shoot your in the face, then comply with the police's shouts of "get down and lace your hands behind your head", I have still broken one law (the face-shooting) whilst complying with another (resisting arrest). Likewise, the protesters' willingness to be arrested does not mean that they are not in violation of the anti-gun-carrying laws in DC for which they will be arrested.
Dreadclaw 69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Second: I cannot tell if a holstered handgun is loaded or not; nor can I tell if a rifle has a round chambered or not without inspecting the breach; from a distance far closer than I wish to be of someone who may or may not be carrying a loaded firearm in public.
When the group organising the march again states that it will comply with the law of the land, which included t having a loaded weapon in this particular instance I think that it is safe to say that the weapons will be unloaded.
And would you be willing to take the gunman's word on that, if they were marching toward you and your family? Keep in mind, you don't know these guys personally, but you do consider (by your own admission) that they lack the good sense to not start an armed march on Washington, DC.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Third: An organized, armed march into a city which was not organized by the state's own sovereignty, has never once in history not been considered a show of threat, intimidation or subjugation.
A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response - people organising a march intending to fully comply with the law and exercise their lawful rights would appear to fall outside the definition of threat
Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened - organising a peaceful march, on a specified day, complying with the law and carrying unloaded and slung/holstered weapons should not cause fear of injury or harm in a "person of ordinary sensibilities". Especially with such media coverage shows the organiser's less than hostile intentions
Subjugation is to bring under control and governance as a subject - once again the march falls outside this definition. It is organised as a peaceful demonstration which will involve people with firearm(s) slung or holstered and unloaded. Clearly this march, which will have police there monitoring it with their own loaded weapons, cannot bring about control of the area of the protest much less any larger area.
Sadly this point you have made is grounded in hyperbole rather than fact.
1. If this isn't proposed to elicit a negative response, then what is it meant to elicit? A positive one? Are you honestly going to claim that?
2. We have already established, by virtue that it is self-evident, that this protest will be in violation of DC's no-carry firearms law. And I will repeat: would you consider it sensible to express wariness and concern if a bunch of people you do not know, but whom are demonstrating a lack of good sense, were marching -armed- in the direction of your home or your family? And I will play the race card here, simply because of its historical context: if you were a black man in Virginia, would you be afraid to see a militia of non-military, armed white men (they may not be 100%, but let's use the overwhelming demographic here) marching toward your home? I suspect you might be somewhat concerned.
3. Subjugation- again, please see the Foucault suggestion. Any use of force, albeit real or implied, which definitely includes the brandishing of a weapon can be used to subject others to its power. Even if that means you decided to stay off that street to avoid the protest -you have still been subject to its power in that the protest has affected your decision-making process.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: One could argue that in the context of a steak dinner, that steak knife has a perfectly reasonable explanation for being brandished. It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range.
And in the same vein one could argue that carrying an unloaded firearm, in accordance with the law is also perfectly reasonable. Perhaps not sensible, but still a reasonable exercise of the owner's lawful rights. These are people exercising their right to bear arms, and express their political opinion that these rights are important. Both of which are perfectly legal and permitted in a democratic society.
So is it your opinion that a firearm has no place in the protection of property, self defense in a public place, or hunting if "It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range"?
In the home or in hunting, the context is clear, which was the point of my shooting range example (which may have been lazy in not specifiying this). However, in a public setting, this context is far more nebulous and I personally do not consider it to be reasonable; particular when it is in direct violation of DC's carry laws. In fact, because the context is so wildly different than a shooting range or hunting, I would call your comparison to be egregious. However, I'll assume this is your equivalent of my sound byte from earlier.
Now, I would consider the reasonability and sensibility of exercizing a right to be linked together very closely; but this is a difference of opinion that is going to be highly subjective between the two of us, particularly given we come cultures with differing values on rights (Canada's rights are primarily based upon the limitations considered by a "reasonable person" -who is quite liberal in their definition of rights; whereas the US is a far more black-letter-law reading of codified rights. To explain in Dakka's terms, it's similar to the variation between RAI and RAW).
Since this dialogue is already unwieldly as it is, I suggest we abandon this solitary point, at least, on the grounds that it really is rooted in what we both subjectively consider reasonable.
Also of note: this is by far the most civil conversation we have had. We should get trophies or something.
azazel the cat wrote: This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.
My point though is how can force be used, or threatened, were one party has openly declared that they have neither the power or the ill to use their firearms in a threatening or otherwise illegal manner. There is not even the potential for there, barring the firearm being used as an improvised weapon.
Also this is a significant difference between "brandishing a knife within arms reach of you" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The other is the waving or flourishing of a blade "within arms length" as a threat or in anger or excitement.
azazel the cat wrote: It is not. Compliance to arrest and obeying the law for which the violation of leads to said arrest are two very, very different things. If I shoot your in the face, then comply with the police's shouts of "get down and lace your hands behind your head", I have still broken one law (the face-shooting) whilst complying with another (resisting arrest). Likewise, the protesters' willingness to be arrested does not mean that they are not in violation of the anti-gun-carrying laws in DC for which they will be arrested.
Again you are making an inaccurate comparison and ignoring that the protesters and organisers have said that they will obey the law, co-ordinate and co-operate with police.
azazel the cat wrote: And would you be willing to take the gunman's word on that, if they were marching toward you and your family? Keep in mind, you don't know these guys personally, but you do consider (by your own admission) that they lack the good sense to not start an armed march on Washington, DC.
Now the word "gunman" is a very charged word that has its own connotations, especially as it is commonly used to refer to a criminal in possession of a firearm. That is different from protesters who have made public declarations saying that they intend to be peaceful and compliant with the law.
I may not know them personally, but if they are taking part in an organised and lawful protest and co-operating with the police in the matter then that goes a great deal towards establishing their good faith and non-hostile intentions.
I do admit that that I do not believe it is sensible, that is correct, however it is also perfectly lawful.
azazel the cat wrote: Third: An organized, armed march into a city which was not organized by the state's own sovereignty, has never once in history not been considered a show of threat, intimidation or subjugation.
A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response - people organising a march intending to fully comply with the law and exercise their lawful rights would appear to fall outside the definition of threat
Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened - organising a peaceful march, on a specified day, complying with the law and carrying unloaded and slung/holstered weapons should not cause fear of injury or harm in a "person of ordinary sensibilities". Especially with such media coverage shows the organiser's less than hostile intentions
Subjugation is to bring under control and governance as a subject - once again the march falls outside this definition. It is organised as a peaceful demonstration which will involve people with firearm(s) slung or holstered and unloaded. Clearly this march, which will have police there monitoring it with their own loaded weapons, cannot bring about control of the area of the protest much less any larger area.
Sadly this point you have made is grounded in hyperbole rather than fact.
1. If this isn't proposed to elicit a negative response, then what is it meant to elicit? A positive one? Are you honestly going to claim that?
2. We have already established, by virtue that it is self-evident, that this protest will be in violation of DC's no-carry firearms law. And I will repeat: would you consider it sensible to express wariness and concern if a bunch of people you do not know, but whom are demonstrating a lack of good sense, were marching -armed- in the direction of your home or your family? And I will play the race card here, simply because of its historical context: if you were a black man in Virginia, would you be afraid to see a militia of non-military, armed white men (they may not be 100%, but let's use the overwhelming demographic here) marching toward your home? I suspect you might be somewhat concerned.
3. Subjugation- again, please see the Foucault suggestion. Any use of force, albeit real or implied, which definitely includes the brandishing of a weapon can be used to subject others to its power. Even if that means you decided to stay off that street to avoid the protest -you have still been subject to its power in that the protest has affected your decision-making process.
1. I have made no such claim one way or the other. I am merely objectively saying that this is a protest where people will be exercising their right to bear arms (albeit unloaded), their right to freedom of assembly and their right to political opinion. On the facts of the matter there appears to be no attempt at coercion and appears to be designed to garner publicity for their cause. Again this falls very short of a threat
2. Why would I be concerned about a group of white men if I was black, who have signaled their peaceful intent and who are marching on the capital and government buildings rather than my home? They are not posing a threat to me, nor to my family. Once again you are making a false comparison and attempting to appeal to emotion by injecting race and danger where none exists.
Once again, this protest march falls short of being objectively intimidating
3. Again, brandishing a weapon suggests on the ordinary construction of the word that it is being done in an aggressive or threatening manner. A slung or holstered firearms is ipso facto not being "brandished". Nor can force be real or implied if the firearm is not loaded per the very clear statements of the protest group. To continue to claim subjugation is a fallacy as the facts do do mean out your accusation.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: One could argue that in the context of a steak dinner, that steak knife has a perfectly reasonable explanation for being brandished. It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range.
And in the same vein one could argue that carrying an unloaded firearm, in accordance with the law is also perfectly reasonable. Perhaps not sensible, but still a reasonable exercise of the owner's lawful rights. These are people exercising their right to bear arms, and express their political opinion that these rights are important. Both of which are perfectly legal and permitted in a democratic society.
So is it your opinion that a firearm has no place in the protection of property, self defense in a public place, or hunting if "It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range"?
azazel the cat wrote: In the home or in hunting, the context is clear, which was the point of my shooting range example (which may have been lazy in not specifiying this). However, in a public setting, this context is far more nebulous and I personally do not consider it to be reasonable; particular when it is in direct violation of DC's carry laws. In fact, because the context is so wildly different than a shooting range or hunting, I would call your comparison to be egregious. However, I'll assume this is your equivalent of my sound byte from earlier.
And in the context of this protest in favour of gun ownership it is also very clear when the organisers have outright stated that the firearms will not be loaded. Therefore there is no way that you can claim intent to cause fear, nor harm. Especially not with the media coverage concerning this event.
azazel the cat wrote: Now, I would consider the reasonability and sensibility of exercizing a right to be linked together very closely; but this is a difference of opinion that is going to be highly subjective between the two of us, particularly given we come cultures with differing values on rights (Canada's rights are primarily based upon the limitations considered by a "reasonable person" -who is quite liberal in their definition of rights; whereas the US is a far more black-letter-law reading of codified rights. To explain in Dakka's terms, it's similar to the variation between RAI and RAW).
Since this dialogue is already unwieldly as it is, I suggest we abandon this solitary point, at least, on the grounds that it really is rooted in what we both subjectively consider reasonable.
I agree with that the rights and responsibilities makes for an unwieldy topic of discussion that may draw more heat than light. You are quite right to point out the difference between Canada and the US, however I come from neither and have only been in the US less than a year For rights vs responsibilities - I have the right to exercise freedom of speech, however if a woman asks me "Does this make me look fat?" I also know the potential ramifications of me exercising my right in a manner she may not wish to hear
azazel the cat wrote: Also of note: this is by far the most civil conversation we have had. We should get trophies or something.
azazel the cat wrote: This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.
My point though is how can force be used, or threatened, were one party has openly declared that they have neither the power or the ill to use their firearms in a threatening or otherwise illegal manner. There is not even the potential for there, barring the firearm being used as an improvised weapon.
Also this is a significant difference between "brandishing a knife within arms reach of you" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The other is the waving or flourishing of a blade "within arms length" as a threat or in anger or excitement.
I'm gonna abandon quoting the rest of the discussion, and is appears we've both funneled this down into a solitary issue: whether or not the protest is peaceful.
I posit to you that it is not, and your reason for claiming otherwise is circulus in probando: your premise (they are peaceful) happens to be dependant on your conclusion (they are peaceful); this unfortunately begs the question.
If we are to assume they are peaceful by virtue of their declaration of such, then we are quite literally taking it on faith; as common sense would suggest an armed march is not peaceful in its nature, despite the participants saying otherwise.
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm gonna abandon quoting the rest of the discussion, and is appears we've both funneled this down into a solitary issue: whether or not the protest is peaceful.
I posit to you that it is not, and your reason for claiming otherwise is circulus in probando: your premise (they are peaceful) happens to be dependant on your conclusion (they are peaceful); this unfortunately begs the question.
If we are to assume they are peaceful by virtue of their declaration of such, then we are quite literally taking it on faith; as common sense would suggest an armed march is not peaceful in its nature, despite the participants saying otherwise.
My premise is based on their intended actions and motivations. They have publicly declared their interest in a peaceful protest and thus exercising their rights to possess firearm, to freely assemble and also to political opinion. That they have declared these intentions in advance and have resolved to co-ordinate and co-operate with police and to remain peaceful even in the event of arrest goes a significant way to establishing their good faith and good intentions. I would respectfully contend that my opinions are more than circular in nature, and that there is ample evidence to support my opinions.
I would contend that a march, that is organised in advance, co-ordinated with the police, with the express and public assurance that it will be peaceful and bearing unloaded firearms that are either slung or holstered, is a very different premise to the loaded phrase of "an armed march", especially given the phrases that have been inaccurately used so far in our discussion (brandished, threaten, intimidate, subjugate, gunman) concerning this protest.
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.
That is the point.
That is theentire reason this is happening.
So then are you saying the entire point of the protest is to show that Caesar is in a good mood?
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
Perhaps that it is to show that people can enjoy their right to bear arms without infringing upon another's rights, and that not everyone in possession of a firearm intends to use it for nefarious purposes. Not being an organiser, a participant nor affiliated with the protest means that I can but speculate.
It depends on the firearm concerned. Although given the public assurances from the marchers, and the police presence I think that it is reasonable to say that those protesting will not have loaded firearms.
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.
That is the point.
That is theentire reason this is happening.
Then it will fail. Lots of onlookers will be disturbed by seeing loads of people wandering around or marching with guns. It will frighten them and they will be moved towards the side of restricting gun ownership. Can you imagine what it will look like to foreign tourists, for example? (They don't get a vote, of course, except with their travel dollars.)
azazel the cat wrote: I'm gonna abandon quoting the rest of the discussion, and is appears we've both funneled this down into a solitary issue: whether or not the protest is peaceful.
I posit to you that it is not, and your reason for claiming otherwise is circulus in probando: your premise (they are peaceful) happens to be dependant on your conclusion (they are peaceful); this unfortunately begs the question.
If we are to assume they are peaceful by virtue of their declaration of such, then we are quite literally taking it on faith; as common sense would suggest an armed march is not peaceful in its nature, despite the participants saying otherwise.
My premise is based on their intended actions and motivations. They have publicly declared their interest in a peaceful protest and thus exercising their rights to possess firearm, to freely assemble and also to political opinion. That they have declared these intentions in advance and have resolved to co-ordinate and co-operate with police and to remain peaceful even in the event of arrest goes a significant way to establishing their good faith and good intentions. I would respectfully contend that my opinions are more than circular in nature, and that there is ample evidence to support my opinions.
I would contend that a march, that is organised in advance, co-ordinated with the police, with the express and public assurance that it will be peaceful and bearing unloaded firearms that are either slung or holstered, is a very different premise to the loaded phrase of "an armed march", especially given the phrases that have been inaccurately used so far in our discussion (brandished, threaten, intimidate, subjugate, gunman) concerning this protest.
1. Marching whilst armed = armed march. You can't spin that any other way.
2. This is not co-ordinated with police; it is being done in spite of police recommendations. The police advising the protestors of the consequences does not equate to them being co-ordinated with one another.
3. Again, if I shout "I will not harm you" whilst approaching with a knife in hand, you really are taking it on faith that I am sincere in my declaration until it's maybe too late, aren't you?
4. Good faith and good intentions rarely are in direct violation of laws (such as the DC carry ban).
So again, I contend that your argument is circular. The premise (they are peaceful) is based upon your conlcusion (they are peaceful). A = A.
Ditto with Kronk and Az. They need to pick another venue to march. More likely though the permit to protest will be a "No Go" and they can still protest. Have a major disturbance/incident. So we can have a new thread similiar to OWS threads
I guess the real topic of people marching around with their "safe" guns is the feeling of how naïve it would be to assume all individuals are there for the common cause.
Many peaceful gatherings had been changed to a riot when rabble rousers of no affiliation with the organizing group get involved.
Just had a thought: Stuff a daisy in the end of the barrel to better show peaceful intent!
Guns are not tools, they have been a symbol of many things to many people (just like the flower I suggested). I like swords and it is not very fashionable to wear one around town.
People with a visible weapon, armor, studs, steel toe boots, etc. are all things that by intent or not can create an emotional response in the viewer. How scary it looks is typically a direct relation of how badly they need sensitivity training...
azazel the cat wrote: 1. Marching whilst armed = armed march. You can't spin that any other way.
I'm not attempting to spin it. At every turn I have said "firearm", I have been clear in that respect. On the other hand you have used many patently loaded phrases and inaccurate hyperbole while making your argument, and saying "armed march" can look guilty by association based on your conduct thus far. Not to mention that it seems like an appeal to authority by invoking Foucault to make your claim that this is an attempt at force, threat, intimidation and subjugation.
azazel the cat wrote: 2. This is not co-ordinated with police; it is being done in spite of police recommendations. The police advising the protestors of the consequences does not equate to them being co-ordinated with one another.
From the article in the opening post;
The march's Facebook page promises "coordination with D.C. law enforcement prior to the event," and invites "law enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is appropriate."
azazel the cat wrote: 3. Again, if I shout "I will not harm you" whilst approaching with a knife in hand, you really are taking it on faith that I am sincere in my declaration until it's maybe too late, aren't you?
If you are merely going to re-word a position that that already been covered then I will gladly re-word my prior response;
There is a significant difference between "approaching [someone] with a knife in hand" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The has a blade drawn for an unclear purpose where context may play a vital role. If it was your contention that the marchers would be approaching gun in hand then your analogy would be accurate.
azazel the cat wrote: 4. Good faith and good intentions rarely are in direct violation of laws (such as the DC carry ban).
So again, I contend that your argument is circular. The premise (they are peaceful) is based upon your conlcusion (they are peaceful). A = A.
Again I say that you are incorrect. My premise is based on their intended actions and motivations. Both of which can be tested and have been declared publicly. They have publicly declared their interest in a peaceful protest and thus exercising their rights to possess firearm, to freely assemble and also to political opinion. That they have declared these intentions in advance and have resolved to co-ordinate and co-operate with police and to remain peaceful even in the event of arrest goes a significant way to establishing their good faith and good intentions. I would respectfully contend that my opinions are more than circular in nature, and that there is ample evidence to support my opinions. If you have something that shows that these actions are not peaceful then I would be grateful to see it.
I'm anti a bunch of bubbas marching down main street with their guns hanging out.
That's basically my position on this one.
Seems we're three of a kind then. My own personal opinion is that this is more provocative than useful. However I do objectively understand their reasons (not to say that I agree with them). In fact, as I said at the start of the thread;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Pretty much. It's just needless provocation, and riding the law as close to the line as you can without breaking it in the hope someone opposed to you overreacts.
So instead of getting too far off course discussing this as a intellectual exercise maybe its best that we agree to disagree over the manner in which they exercise their right, and agree that practically its probably not a good idea
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.
That is the point.
That is theentire reason this is happening.
Then it will fail. Lots of onlookers will be disturbed by seeing loads of people wandering around or marching with guns. It will frighten them and they will be moved towards the side of restricting gun ownership. Can you imagine what it will look like to foreign tourists, for example? (They don't get a vote, of course, except with their travel dollars.)
I want you to imagine we are talking about the million man march and you just said that.
I'm really sorry but "it will fail because people will be scared" is just not good enough.
SilverMK2 wrote: If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?
Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.
So being in an organised criminal gang (since they are a group who have planned to do the following knowing it is illegal: ), carrying a loaded firearm in a zone where firearms are banned isn't a serious offence?
SilverMK2 wrote: If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?
Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.
So being in an organised criminal gang (since they are a group who have planned to do the following knowing it is illegal: ), carrying a loaded firearm in a zone where firearms are banned isn't a serious offence?
Firearms aren't banned in DC. They lost that court case.
Carrying them anywhere but to and from the range is, however. Though as Illinois has shown us, they'll lose that court case when it inevitably comes up as well.
azazel the cat wrote: This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.
My point though is how can force be used, or threatened, were one party has openly declared that they have neither the power or the ill to use their firearms in a threatening or otherwise illegal manner. There is not even the potential for there, barring the firearm being used as an improvised weapon.
Also this is a significant difference between "brandishing a knife within arms reach of you" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The other is the waving or flourishing of a blade "within arms length" as a threat or in anger or excitement.
I'm gonna abandon quoting the rest of the discussion, and is appears we've both funneled this down into a solitary issue: whether or not the protest is peaceful.
I posit to you that it is not, and your reason for claiming otherwise is circulus in probando: your premise (they are peaceful) happens to be dependant on your conclusion (they are peaceful); this unfortunately begs the question.
If we are to assume they are peaceful by virtue of their declaration of such, then we are quite literally taking it on faith; as common sense would suggest an armed march is not peaceful in its nature, despite the participants saying otherwise.
Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
SilverMK2 wrote: If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?
Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.
BUT - and here's what our dear friends are forgetting - if arrested their fine rifles will be confiscated. Given this is Washington DC, they'd have a dough's chance in hell of getting them back regardless of final verdict. So boys and girls, don't bring that fine grained rare wood Weatherby 300 mag, bring a cheap $50 .22lr instead. After all, you're donating it to the police.
The point of this protest is not to show that guys with guns can be nice and friendly. The point of the protest (we are going to march with our guns to an area where it is very illegal to do so) is to provoke in whatever way they can with the sole intention of having somebody disarm and/or arrest them.
That way they can spend the next weeks on news channels yelling about "did you see! The government took our guns! They will take yours too!!!! Also, buy my book or click on my site, I need money for more guns!"
That might be the dumbest post of the day, and getting into an argument of comparing the civil rights movement with people who think that expanding some gun laws is the same as facing death every time they speak out will just get me banned.
Time to get away from any gun thread for me because the arguments are getting pretty dang stupid. But what did I expect...
Grey Templar wrote: Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.
Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?
“This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event,” Mr. Kokesh wrote on his website. “We will march with rifles loaded and slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny.”
The US government's treatment of gun rights is what they call "tyranny".
And they're completely serious when they say that.
Bluh. I think I might sign up for that Mars mission, so that I can say that I am trying to no longer be on the same planet as these idiots.
Grey Templar wrote: Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.
Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?
Grey Templar wrote: Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.
Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?
And a Brit would say that.
Probably because most of the time Brits make sense. Carrying loaded firearms in a protest situation is to be frank playing Russian roulette, all it takes is one jackass to start firing, then all hell breaks loose. I'm glad the protest organiser thinks that there will be no fringe idiots there, myself I'm not so sure.
Grey Templar wrote: Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.
Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?
And a Brit would say that.
I don't mind you guys having guns, that's between you and your government. It's the comparison between this protest and the civil rights movement that I take issue with.
Bullockist wrote: Probably because most of the time Brits make sense. Carrying loaded firearms in a protest situation is to be frank playing Russian roulette, all it takes is one jackass to start firing, then all hell breaks loose. I'm glad the protest organiser thinks that there will be no fringe idiots there, myself I'm not so sure.
As previously mentioned multiple times through this thread the firearms in question will not be loaded.
azazel the cat wrote: 1. Marching whilst armed = armed march. You can't spin that any other way.
I'm not attempting to spin it. At every turn I have said "firearm", I have been clear in that respect. On the other hand you have used many patently loaded phrases and inaccurate hyperbole while making your argument, and saying "armed march" can look guilty by association based on your conduct thus far. Not to mention that it seems like an appeal to authority by invoking Foucault to make your claim that this is an attempt at force, threat, intimidation and subjugation.
An armed march is what it is. Let's just call a spade: a spade.
And my "invocation" of Foucault is not an appeal to authority, it is a reference to a concept with a proper citation. It would only be an appeal to authority if I simply said "X is true because Foucault says so"(which would not necessarily make it true). You are still welcome to debate and challenge the merit's of Foucault's ideas; they are not being assumed to be correct by provenance of their author. By saying Foucault's name, I merely chose not to take credit for Foucault's ideas when I expounded on them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The march's Facebook page promises "coordination with D.C. law enforcement prior to the event," and invites "law enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is appropriate."
I suspect that definition of "coordination" is being used so broadly that it is synonymous with "telling the police we're gonna do this". That's not really coordination; as coordination implies a tacit level of endorsement, which I'm fairly certain will not be the case; particularly given the response of the chief of police as stated in the OP's article.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: 3. Again, if I shout "I will not harm you" whilst approaching with a knife in hand, you really are taking it on faith that I am sincere in my declaration until it's maybe too late, aren't you?
If you are merely going to re-word a position that that already been covered then I will gladly re-word my prior response;
There is a significant difference between "approaching [someone] with a knife in hand" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The has a blade drawn for an unclear purpose where context may play a vital role. If it was your contention that the marchers would be approaching gun in hand then your analogy would be accurate.
A rifle slung over one's shoulder, or in a side carry amounts to the same thing. You might have a case if the rifle was tucked away inside a rifle bag and slung over the shoulder, but anytime the firearm is visible it serves the same effect as a knife being brandished. And "brandished" is definitely the correct term, because this is very much an ostentatious display (that's kinda the entire point to this protest). I'm really not trying to use emotional and loaded language, but the problem is that the mere observational facts happen to be highly charged by their nature, and I refuse to perform the spin-doctoring necessary in order to prevent such. That is, if a group of people are marching whilst armed, it is an armed march. But I will retract the use of "gunmen"; it was meant to imply men wielding guns and was used improperly, as the term itself colloquially denotes criminal acts, so that one was my error.
Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.
Grey Templar wrote:And that's no different than what Civil Rights protesters did.
I want you to stop for a minute, and consider the ramifications -the real, factual, non-imaginary, non-slippery-slope-fears, the real ramifications of both movements. I want you to consider the situation for each group (blacks and gun owners alike) prior to the movement. Make sure you take into account the difference between oppressing violations of human rights, and the inability to buy big expensive and extremely dangerous tools.
Ok, maybe my comparison is not as strong as I thought, but there is still one to be made.
Both involve rights that are being infringed on. Both involve using civil disobedience as a means of protest.
Unless we say our rights have varying levels of importance, which would be a subjective opinion from person to person, then the difference in importance is the same. Our right to bear arms is just as important as the right to not be discriminated against, and the right to vote, and the right to free speech, etc...
Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe my comparison is not as strong as I thought, but there is still one to be made.
Both involve rights that are being infringed on. Both involve using civil disobedience as a means of protest.
Unless we say our rights have varying levels of importance, which would be a subjective opinion from person to person, then the difference in importance is the same. Our right to bear arms is just as important as the right to not be discriminated against, and the right to vote, and the right to free speech, etc...
Thank you for reconsidering that statement.
As a side note, whilst the legal framework of the US constitution makes your new statement technically correct in the US, there is a strong argument that the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of genetic factors you had no control is a far more universal human right than an (arguably) arbitrary right, such as the 2nd amendment grants. Just sayin', the right to purchase a consumer good really doesn't stack up against the right not to be tormented by virtue of your birth status.
When we realize that all rights are arbitrary there really is no reason for one right to be held in higher standing than another, unless you arbitrarily decide that is the case.
Some rights may be common across different governments and others may be unique to a specific government, but that doesn't mean one right is more important than another because it is more common.
It sort of cheapens the idea of rights if you can put hard fast levels on them. They're my rights as given by the Constitution, I'm sure as hell not giving them back.
I'd say there is a difference between inalienable human rights, and any sort of legal right. The right to live free from persecution is the former, while being able to purchase a piece of machinery without the proposed regulation is the latter.
dæl wrote:I'd say there is a difference between inalienable human rights, and any sort of legal right. The right to live free from persecution is the former, while being able to purchase a piece of machinery without the proposed regulation is the latter.
Thank you for stating my point far more eloquently than I was able to.
Ah but is it? In my personal opinion the right to self defense, and the tools to effectively defend yourself ARE a fundamental human right. If we have a right to life, we have a right to protect that life and the lives of those precious of us with the best means we have. So yes, I'd argue that self defense, and the right to take up weapons is absolutely an inalienable human right that no one should be denied.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Ah but is it? In my personal opinion the right to self defense, and the tools to effectively defend yourself ARE a fundamental human right. If we have a right to life, we have a right to protect that life and the lives of those precious of us with the best means we have. So yes, I'd argue that self defense, and the right to take up weapons is absolutely an inalienable human right that no one should be denied.
So would you be ok with a paranoid schizophrenic being in possession of firearms? Or somebody who has served time for violent offenses?
Also, do you think that every citizen should be given a free gun by the state?
Bullockist wrote: I misread "long arms" as "loaded arms" my mistake.
Well they could have preternaturally long arms too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.
No its the correct definition. Until violence has occurred its nonviolent. Only a nattering nabob peacenik hippy would get a simple "if then" screwed up. Else everyone walking everywhere are being violent, because hey you know something could happen. Same for everyone driving as well, because theirs nothing more lethal than an automobile. Trains are pretty dangerous too. There should be a law against those multiton killing machinez O Death.
Grey Templar wrote: Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.
Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?
And a Brit would say that.
I don't mind you guys having guns, that's between you and your government. It's the comparison between this protest and the civil rights movement that I take issue with.
The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.
Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.
Rented Tritium wrote: The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.
Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.
I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.
The right to not be discriminated against is not the same as the right to bear arms, one is an inalienable human right which cannot be taken away, the other is already restricted (no nukes, alas) and for some is restricted even more (felons). They aren't equal as one is covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and is part of international law.
Rented Tritium wrote: The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.
Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.
I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.
The right to not be discriminated against is not the same as the right to bear arms, one is an inalienable human right which cannot be taken away, the other is already restricted (no nukes, alas) and for some is restricted even more (felons). They aren't equal as one is covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and is part of international law.
Frazzled wrote: Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.
So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?
The Supreme Court has determined that you can. But, that is another function of our government built in by our governing document (which is not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Frazzled wrote: Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.
So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?
The Supreme Court has determined that you can. But, that is another function of our government built in by our governing document (which is not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Frazzled wrote: Both are inalienable human rights in the US under the Constitution, Brit.
So you cannot restrict anyone's right to bear arms? Not paranoid schizophrenics in institutions? Or convicted murderers?
The Supreme Court has determined that you can. But, that is another function of our government built in by our governing document (which is not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Then it is not an inalienable right then is it?
I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.
I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.
But if one is inalienable and another isn't then their strength is not equal, now is it?
I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.
But if one is inalienable and another isn't then their strength is not equal, now is it?
All rights are alienable. It happens every day, all over the world.
If they weren't some mystical forcefield would appear to people everytime someone tried to stomp on their rights.
I believe mr. Jefferson the only Inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitituion are not inalienable rights, but legal rights provided by the Constitution, but not inalienable human rights "Endowed by their Creator". That is why the feds and the States can have different interpretations. That being said, all the Amendments int eh Constitution bear equal weight under the law. However, they were written in such a way to allow for interpreation by the government.
Granted, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but more guiding principles, while the Constitution is an explicitly a legal document.
Dang, I'm not sure if what I wrote made any sense.
I didn't say it was. I was just saying the right's gauranteed by the 2nd amendment are equally as strong as those gauranteed by the others, within the US.
But if one is inalienable and another isn't then their strength is not equal, now is it?
All rights are alienable. It happens every day, all over the world.
If they weren't some mystical forcefield would appear to people everytime someone tried to stomp on their rights.
We both know we are not discussing rights not being respected or upheld, when they are legally removed from someone that is very different. Race discrimination is an inalienable right, it is never legally restricted, same as the right to life over here. When you have two sets of rights and one is never restricted, and is also covered under international law, and is seen as more important by a reasonable person, then the other, which is always restricted, sometimes more heavily for some, then it stands to reason that the former is a natural right, while the latter is a legal right. You don't seem to quite understand that there is more in play here than your constitution.
azazel the cat wrote: An armed march is what it is. Let's just call a spade: a spade.
I stand my my assertion. You have continually used provocative and incorrect language when discussing this issue. Now it appears that you're arguing "Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one."
azazel the cat wrote: I suspect that definition of "coordination" is being used so broadly that it is synonymous with "telling the police we're gonna do this". That's not really coordination; as coordination implies a tacit level of endorsement, which I'm fairly certain will not be the case; particularly given the response of the chief of police as stated in the OP's article.
You are entitled to your opinion. However given your use of inflammatory and incorrect action, as well as inferring the worst motives upon the marchers it has to be asked whether you are being objective.
azazel the cat wrote: A rifle slung over one's shoulder, or in a side carry amounts to the same thing. You might have a case if the rifle was tucked away inside a rifle bag and slung over the shoulder, but anytime the firearm is visible it serves the same effect as a knife being brandished. And "brandished" is definitely the correct term, because this is very much an ostentatious display (that's kinda the entire point to this protest). I'm really not trying to use emotional and loaded language, but the problem is that the mere observational facts happen to be highly charged by their nature, and I refuse to perform the spin-doctoring necessary in order to prevent such. That is, if a group of people are marching whilst armed, it is an armed march. But I will retract the use of "gunmen"; it was meant to imply men wielding guns and was used improperly, as the term itself colloquially denotes criminal acts, so that one was my error.
To say that walking along the street, during a lawful public protest march with an unloaded rifle (and a public declaration of such) on a sling and not operating the firearm in a threatening manner is the same as approaching someone on a street with a drawn blade is not the same. To claim otherwise is a gross distortion of any reasonable factual basis to shore up a shaky premise.
Again, the definition of brandished is to wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. An unloaded rifle on a sling, or an unloaded pistol in a holster cannot fall within that definition. To insist that it can is not reasonable, especially when demonstrated that no legal basis of threat exists.
While you claim that you may be trying to avoid emotional language, and I appreciate it, your posts above are littered with examples of it (as already outlined) which polarise the debate by painting an inaccurate picture of the protest and are more likely to help inflame the situation.
dæl wrote: [Race discrimination is an inalienable right, it is never legally restricted, same as the right to life over here. When you have two sets of rights and one is never restricted, and is also covered under international law, and is seen as more important by a reasonable person, then the other, which is always restricted, sometimes more heavily for some, then it stands to reason that the former is a natural right, while the latter is a legal right. You don't seem to quite understand that there is more in play here than your constitution.
Does the death penalty make the right to life "inalienable"?
You're making a very strange argument.
And no, there's not anything more in play than the Constitution.
WASPs descend on Washington for an angry march about their guns?
I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).
Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).
I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**
I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).
Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).
I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**
dæl wrote: [Race discrimination is an inalienable right, it is never legally restricted, same as the right to life over here. When you have two sets of rights and one is never restricted, and is also covered under international law, and is seen as more important by a reasonable person, then the other, which is always restricted, sometimes more heavily for some, then it stands to reason that the former is a natural right, while the latter is a legal right. You don't seem to quite understand that there is more in play here than your constitution.
Does the death penalty make the right to life "inalienable"?
You're making a very strange argument.
And no, there's not anything more in play than the Constitution.
No the death penalty does not make the right to life inalienable, hence why I made the distinction between the US and the UK on that matter.
There is more, the Declaration of Independence which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Plus, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" Both of these documents cover equality and neither cover gun ownership, that is covered under the constitution as a legal right.
dæl wrote: No the death penalty does not make the right to life inalienable, hence why I made the distinction between the US and the UK on that matter.
So the death penalty - imposed on a convicted criminal - does not make the right to life inalienable, but the restriction of firearm ownership - imposed on a convicted criminal - does?
So the death penalty - imposed on a convicted criminal - does not make the right to life inalienable, but the restriction of firearm ownership - imposed on a convicted criminal - does?
Interesting philosophy there.
Well obviously not, if the right to life was inalienable then the State would not be allowed to take life. I'm not sure what you mean about gun ownership. It is an alienable right as it is restricted.
dæl wrote: Well obviously not, if the right to life was inalienable then the State would not be allowed to take life.
So the right to life is no more inalienable than the right to bear arms.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.
dæl wrote: Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.
By referencing the Declaration of Independence, oddly, where equality is never once mentioned.
What's immoral about marching through Washington 'visibly armed,' out of curiosity?
I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).
Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).
I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**
So much rage!
What's an armed gun?
One with bullets in it.
see also: loaded.
And no rage, just scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.
Frazzled wrote: Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???
My wording was a little confused, apologies. You have a right to be treated as equal before the law, that right is never legally restricted.
I thought thats what you meant but wasn't sure.
Unfortunately that right has been legally "alienated" in country after country, including this one and Britain as well.
I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).
Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).
I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**
So much rage!
What's an armed gun?
One with bullets in it.
see also: loaded.
And no rage, just scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.
And no rage, just scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.
Oh, okay. Defiance. For some reason I didn't connect an angry screed on a wargaming message board with taking a stand, but there's still things about the Cornish I don't understand.
dæl wrote: Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.
By referencing the Declaration of Independence, oddly, where equality is never once mentioned.
What's immoral about marching through Washington 'visibly armed,' out of curiosity?
He didn't say it was Immoral, just less moral then the Civil Rights Movement.
Goliath wrote: He didn't say it was Immoral, just less moral then the Civil Rights Movement.
Sure, but based on the notion that equality is inherently more "inalienable" a right than the right to bear firearms. If he wants to make that argument, he's welcome to it, but attempting to use the US judicial system under the Constitution to prove it won't help him, as it disagrees.
dæl wrote: Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.
By referencing the Declaration of Independence, oddly, where equality is never once mentioned.
"all men are created equal"
What's immoral about marching through Washington 'visibly armed,' out of curiosity?
Not immoral, just less moral. It's not a cause that carries as much weight. Firstly the right of equality is more important, as discussed. Secondly the civil rights movement were fighting to achieve equality, while this march is protesting a restriction which just adds to other restrictions. The government aren't taking people's guns away and taking away the right to bear arms.
Frazzled wrote: Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???
My wording was a little confused, apologies. You have a right to be treated as equal before the law, that right is never legally restricted.
I thought thats what you meant but wasn't sure.
Unfortunately that right has been legally "alienated" in country after country, including this one and Britain as well.
I'm struggling to think of an example since we managed to include everyone, granted women or black people didn't use to be legally classed as people but since then we've not taken away anyone's right to equality, have we?
Yeah. If you think they were genuinely talking about non-whites, you ought to look up the 3/5 Compromise. And, as has been discussed, the Declaration holds exactly zero force of law in the US.
Not immoral, just less moral. It's not a cause that carries as much weight. Firstly the right of equality is more important, as discussed. Secondly the civil rights movement were fighting to achieve equality, while this march is protesting a restriction which just adds to other restrictions. The government aren't taking people's guns away and taking away the right to bear arms.
It very much carries the same weight.
And some politicians are trying to do just that, in fact. Feinstein's been at it for a while, and various state legislatures have made de facto attempts that have been, fortunately and correctly, struck down.
Yeah. If you think they were genuinely talking about non-whites, you ought to look up the 3/5 Compromise. And, as has been discussed, the Declaration holds exactly zero force of law in the US.
And once non-whites achieved the legal status of persons, they became included in all documentation. Just as women did.
Not immoral, just less moral. It's not a cause that carries as much weight. Firstly the right of equality is more important, as discussed. Secondly the civil rights movement were fighting to achieve equality, while this march is protesting a restriction which just adds to other restrictions. The government aren't taking people's guns away and taking away the right to bear arms.
It very much carries the same weight.
Well explain why then.
And some politicians are trying to do just that, in fact. Feinstein's been at it for a while, and various state legislatures have made de facto attempts that have been, fortunately and correctly, struck down.
Can you provide information on these attempts please.
Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?
Can you provide information on these attempts please.
Sure.
It's much like anti-abortion opponents, in my opinion. They know that, for legal and political reasons, they'll never be able to get an outright ban of what they hate, so they do their best to incrementally introduce policies that lead to bans in all but name.
Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?
So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights. You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.
Can you provide information on these attempts please.
Sure.
Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.
Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?
I like how other rights are brought up that are VERY important for maintaining respect of a person and not to be penalized for who they are. This is more specific to human rights than a "constitutional" right which is specific to the USA.
It is a shame such zeal to defend the right to bear arms is not applied to other rights that I would say is far more important than to have the improved capability to defend oneself from others or state.
What gets people so upset is that some firearm owners treat walking around with a gun like it is part of their clothing. It is an object worthy of respect (I think we can all agree on that) and should not be treated frivolously.
I think people should have guns if they want them.
I think they should be controlled like a toxic substance: useful but dangerous if improperly used (alcohol, solvents).
I think some basic training should be required like with cars or WHIMIS.
The uses of guns should be restricted in storage and use to control unsafe conditions people would be tempted to bring firearms into.
This "privilege" should be revoked if a citizen is proven to be irresponsible in the firearm use (just like with a car).
Failing all that a comedian said that "bullets kill people" and if we charged $3000 per bullet we would think a little harder before it's use.
Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?
So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.
Can you provide information on these attempts please.
Sure.
Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.
Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?
Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.
Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?
So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.
Can you provide information on these attempts please.
Sure.
Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.
Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?
We'll start by making it so people of color can't ride in a certain part of the bus. They can still ride the bus, so there is nothing wrong right? Then we'll make it so they can't ride the bus, but we'll make sure they can still take a taxi. They can still get around, so it's still ok right?
A slow erosion of rights it's still a loss of rights.
Frazzled wrote:Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.
It was breached, but I'm not sure that Nazi Germany is a good example considering the majority of human rights law came post WW2, and was primarily motivated by never allowing such atrocities to happen again.
djones520 wrote:We'll start by making it so people of color can't ride in a certain part of the bus. They can still ride the bus, so there is nothing wrong right? Then we'll make it so they can't ride the bus, but we'll make sure they can still take a taxi. They can still get around, so it's still ok right?
A slow erosion of rights it's still a loss of rights.
It's not an erosion of rights, your right to bear arms is unaffected, you still have that right. So what right has been taken away from you? You are getting into the realms of a slippery slope argument here.
Is this continued, minor reform on firearms actually as immoral to you as the way black people were treated before the Civil Rights Movement then?
dæl wrote: So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.
You have the right regardless. What you lack is the ability to retain it should one of the various actors involved in the social contract choose to simply stop following the rules, as happens frequently.
And many of the proposed restrictions - and in New York's case, recently-enacted ones - are anything but minor.
Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.
Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?
I'm sorry, I thought I already explained incrementalism.
I take it you're fine with the various abortion restrictions - such as partial birth, mandatory anti-abortion lectures prior to performing the procedure, the ridiculous, unnecessary, and invasive transvaginal ultrasound proposed in Virginia, etc. - since they do not actually outlaw abortions wholesale? They simply greatly limit them and make them much more difficult to obtain, but since you do not believe the right is threatened until it is actually gone, I imagine you would have no issue.
Frazzled wrote:Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.
It was breached, but I'm not sure that Nazi Germany is a good example considering the majority of human rights law came post WW2, and was primarily motivated by never allowing such atrocities to happen again.
djones520 wrote:We'll start by making it so people of color can't ride in a certain part of the bus. They can still ride the bus, so there is nothing wrong right? Then we'll make it so they can't ride the bus, but we'll make sure they can still take a taxi. They can still get around, so it's still ok right?
A slow erosion of rights it's still a loss of rights.
It's not an erosion of rights, your right to bear arms is unaffected, you still have that right. So what right has been taken away from you? You are getting into the realms of a slippery slope argument here.
Is this continued, minor reform on firearms actually as immoral to you as the way black people were treated before the Civil Rights Movement then?
It's not an argument of morality. It's an argument of protections provided by the law of the land. It's easy to come up with justifications to erode those protections. Doesn't mean they are right.
Valion wrote: You have the right regardless. What you lack is the ability to retain it should one of the various actors involved in the social contract choose to simply stop following the rules, as happens frequently.
I am protected by the State in the form of police and by the judiciary by providing deterrent against committing crime against me. It's no coincidence that should someone choose to not follow the rules here I am far more likely to survive, that is partly due to legislation regarding weaponry. The crux of the matter is that I feel safe from being murdered, and by the sounds of it, some of you guys really don't.
And many of the proposed restrictions - and in New York's case, recently-enacted ones - are anything but minor.
So what part of the New York SAFE Act involves the taking away of guns (except from the mentally ill)? It doesn't, it makes it require more effort to own a gun, but there is nothing about the ease of bearing arms in the Constitution to my knowledge.
I take it you're fine with the various abortion restrictions - such as partial birth, mandatory anti-abortion lectures prior to performing the procedure, the ridiculous, unnecessary, and invasive transvaginal ultrasound proposed in Virginia, etc. - since they do not actually outlaw abortions wholesale? They simply greatly limit them and make them much more difficult to obtain, but since you do not believe the right is threatened until it is actually gone, I imagine you would have no issue.
That is a very different issue. The restriction of availability of firearms is reasonable, sensible and implemented to reduce harm to society. If you wish to own a gun it should involve some effort, and some assessment that you are not a danger to society. That doesn't effect your right to bear arms unless you shouldn't be doing so for the sake of everyone else.
dæl wrote: I am protected by the State in the form of police and by the judiciary by providing deterrent against committing crime against me. It's no coincidence that should someone choose to not follow the rules here I am far more likely to survive, that is partly due to legislation regarding weaponry. The crux of the matter is that I feel safe from being murdered, and by the sounds of it, some of you guys really don't.
Interesting. Do you think Syrians felt the same way ten years ago?
So what part of the New York SAFE Act involves the taking away of guns (except from the mentally ill)? It doesn't, it makes it require more effort to own a gun, but there is nothing about the ease of bearing arms in the Constitution to my knowledge.
So once again we're back to, "Unless you confiscate every last gun, you are not violating the right." Fortunately, the Supreme Court has disagreed with this frankly ludicrous interpretation on numerous occasions.
That is a very different issue. The restriction of availability of firearms is reasonable, sensible and implemented to reduce harm to society.
Ironically, that's precisely what anti-abortion folks would say about the various measures I just mentioned. As they use that argument, once again, I'm not sure how you could oppose their views. As long as they claim to be reasonable and sensible, regardless of actual outcome...well, that appears to be the only hurdle you have.
And, as always, we're not simply dealing with "restriction of availability." We're dealing with asinine categorical limitations (such as D.C.'s attempt to keep handguns banned), attempts to circumvent actual ban language while achieving the same outcome (mag limitations), and so on. You appear to be rather unaware of the various provisions that have actually been put into place by some of the more liberal legislatures, believing the indignant shouting about how it's only about background checks.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Ah but is it? In my personal opinion the right to self defense, and the tools to effectively defend yourself ARE a fundamental human right. If we have a right to life, we have a right to protect that life and the lives of those precious of us with the best means we have. So yes, I'd argue that self defense, and the right to take up weapons is absolutely an inalienable human right that no one should be denied.
If it were an inalienable human right then you would not be able to restrict felons from it.
Easy E wrote:I believe mr. Jefferson the only Inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitituion are not inalienable rights, but legal rights provided by the Constitution, but not inalienable human rights "Endowed by their Creator". That is why the feds and the States can have different interpretations. That being said, all the Amendments int eh Constitution bear equal weight under the law. However, they were written in such a way to allow for interpreation by the government.
Granted, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but more guiding principles, while the Constitution is an explicitly a legal document.
Dang, I'm not sure if what I wrote made any sense.
That makes perfect sense, and I honestly did not expect you to take that side of the debate.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: I suspect that definition of "coordination" is being used so broadly that it is synonymous with "telling the police we're gonna do this". That's not really coordination; as coordination implies a tacit level of endorsement, which I'm fairly certain will not be the case; particularly given the response of the chief of police as stated in the OP's article.
You are entitled to your opinion. However given your use of inflammatory and incorrect action, as well as inferring the worst motives upon the marchers it has to be asked whether you are being objective.
I'm as objective as you are. Keep that in mind. But the "inflammatory" language I've used (barring the single incorrect use of "gunmen") has been the correct terminology; I just did not elect to soften it for the sake of spin-doctoring.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: A rifle slung over one's shoulder, or in a side carry amounts to the same thing. You might have a case if the rifle was tucked away inside a rifle bag and slung over the shoulder, but anytime the firearm is visible it serves the same effect as a knife being brandished. And "brandished" is definitely the correct term, because this is very much an ostentatious display (that's kinda the entire point to this protest). I'm really not trying to use emotional and loaded language, but the problem is that the mere observational facts happen to be highly charged by their nature, and I refuse to perform the spin-doctoring necessary in order to prevent such. That is, if a group of people are marching whilst armed, it is an armed march. But I will retract the use of "gunmen"; it was meant to imply men wielding guns and was used improperly, as the term itself colloquially denotes criminal acts, so that one was my error.
To say that walking along the street, during a lawful public protest march with an unloaded rifle (and a public declaration of such) on a sling and not operating the firearm in a threatening manner is the same as approaching someone on a street with a drawn blade is not the same. To claim otherwise is a gross distortion of any reasonable factual basis to shore up a shaky premise.
Again, the definition of brandished is to wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. An unloaded rifle on a sling, or an unloaded pistol in a holster cannot fall within that definition. To insist that it can is not reasonable, especially when demonstrated that no legal basis of threat exists.
While you claim that you may be trying to avoid emotional language, and I appreciate it, your posts above are littered with examples of it (as already outlined) which polarise the debate by painting an inaccurate picture of the protest and are more likely to help inflame the situation.
bran·dish (brndsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
os·ten·ta·tion (stn-tshn, -tn-)
n.
1. Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness.
2. Archaic The act or an instance of showing; an exhibition
I don't like having to go back to a very clear statement and hold your hand through it. Please read these definitions, and then re-read my statement. The fact that you clearly looked up what "brandish" means in a dictionary implies you are very obviously attempting to misrepresent my statement; in direct contrast to the steps I took to explain, in advance, that such a misrepresentation was false. That is the very definition of a straw man argument.
Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Frazzled on this. Until violence is used any protest is peaceful. That should not be controversial
That only applies if your definition of "violence" is actually "physical violence". There are many kinds of violent actions which do not require physical action. Please see my response to Frazzled below.
Frazzled wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Frazzled wrote::
Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.
No its the correct definition. Until violence has occurred its nonviolent. [irrelevant stupidity removed for the save of brevity]
"Nice daughter you've got. It'd be a shame if something happened to her." Said to you, directly outside your home, though on public property, may not be considered a violent act in the legal system, but it most definitely would be considered a violent act if the intention behind the statement was made for the purposes of intimidation.
The right to keep and bear arms is just as important to many people over here as the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... There is nothing wrong with that and people should respect that.
"Hey, gun rights is getting threatened, we need to show the American people that gun owners are sane and reasonable people. How can we do that?"
"Let's do an armed march on Washington D.C.! And we'll let anybody with a rifle join in!"
"You're a genius! What could possibly go wrong?"
Ugh... this is the last thing we need right now. All it takes is one idiot, one conspiracy nut, one screwball from 4chan, and the media will have a field day. Even if 99% of the people that show up for this are good responsible gun owners, dressed like normal citizens and are polite, I guarantee you all of the media focus will be on the kids in the fedoras and the fat conspiracy theorists with their "Obama is a terrorist" shirts. They'll zoom in on the guys with the scariest looking assault rifle, the kid who looks like the next Newtown walking, any guy that is wearing hunter's camo, etc. It's just going to reinforce the negative stereotypes that people see on TV every day. It'll be like every time you see a gay pride parade on TV and the news cameras only focus on the guys that practically sneeze glitter, instead of the many homosexual people who aren't really different from us who make up the majority of the community.
The idea of the march itself isn't necessarily bad, but unless the group conducting it REALLY policed the crowd (no pun intended) to remove people who might cause trouble, this is just asking for something bad to happen. Heck, I'd even consider joining in, but this group just does not fill me with confidence that they would do this "right". I also wonder if marching in an area like California wouldn't be more effective, as it's more obvious that you're protesting unfair laws, instead of what appears to be a march to take the capitol (which to be honest, most uninformed people will see it that way.)
You get people to come around by taking them to the gun range, having a good clean appearance, open carrying but being polite, etc. Showing others that we're normal people, just like them, the only difference being that we enjoy firearms for hunting/target shooting or prefer to carry them for self defense. Making a march right when fear of gun owners at its highest is just going to confirm their fears, that we're a bunch of wackos looking to start the second revolution the first chance we get. I really hope I get proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
EDIT: Also, the protest is sending a lot of mixed vibes. Sometimes I hear they're fully willing to comply with the law, other times I hear they're intentionally breaking it and will not be "bullied". Some people say they're going in with loaded weapons, other's that they'll go with unloaded weapons. Those two things will be huge in impacting how this protest goes. A group of people doing whatever the police ask them with unloaded rifles is going to send a very different message than a group with loaded rifles intentionally breaking the law.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Ah but is it? In my personal opinion the right to self defense, and the tools to effectively defend yourself ARE a fundamental human right. If we have a right to life, we have a right to protect that life and the lives of those precious of us with the best means we have. So yes, I'd argue that self defense, and the right to take up weapons is absolutely an inalienable human right that no one should be denied.
If it were an inalienable human right then you would not be able to restrict felons from it.
We restrict felon's liberty, along with many other basic rights, in extreme cases we kill them. So you're wrong. Violating the laws of society results in the loss of rights, human or otherwise.
dæl wrote: I am protected by the State in the form of police and by the judiciary by providing deterrent against committing crime against me. It's no coincidence that should someone choose to not follow the rules here I am far more likely to survive, that is partly due to legislation regarding weaponry. The crux of the matter is that I feel safe from being murdered, and by the sounds of it, some of you guys really don't.
Interesting. Do you think Syrians felt the same way ten years ago?
So you think the US will become like Syria?
So once again we're back to, "Unless you confiscate every last gun, you are not violating the right." Fortunately, the Supreme Court has disagreed with this frankly ludicrous interpretation on numerous occasions.
We are back to you having the same rights you always did under the second amendment. No change at all. You have exactly the same rights as in 1791.
Ironically, that's precisely what anti-abortion folks would say about the various measures I just mentioned. As they use that argument, once again, I'm not sure how you could oppose their views. As long as they claim to be reasonable and sensible, regardless of actual outcome...well, that appears to be the only hurdle you have.
When abortion becomes a massive social ill that kills 30,000 people a year, then the discussion may be worth having. The fact is your country needs reform when it comes to firearms, you can either be accommodating of some small changes now or you can watch it get worse and have to make big changes.
And, as always, we're not simply dealing with "restriction of availability." We're dealing with asinine categorical limitations (such as D.C.'s attempt to keep handguns banned), attempts to circumvent actual ban language while achieving the same outcome (mag limitations), and so on. You appear to be rather unaware of the various provisions that have actually been put into place by some of the more liberal legislatures, believing the indignant shouting about how it's only about background checks.
How is a mag limitation a ban?
I'm unaware of most of this debate, I walked into it today as the Civil Rights comparison annoyed me.
To outline my position, I am happy for people to have guns, but there need to be structures in place that do not allow people who are known to be a danger to others to not be allowed firearms. There needs to be training before a weapon can be owned, and storage should be secure. It should not be easy to buy a gun, it should involve a waiting period, and some types of weapon are absolutely unnecessary for civilians to own. Meet those requirements and you can do what you like.
I'm as objective as you are. Keep that in mind. But the "inflammatory" language I've used (barring the single incorrect use of "gunmen") has been the correct terminology; I just did not elect to soften it for the sake of spin-doctoring.
As shown prior it has not been the correct terminology, as seen from page 2 with definitions and explanations;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response - people organising a march intending to fully comply with the law and exercise their lawful rights would appear to fall outside the definition of threat
Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened - organising a peaceful march, on a specified day, complying with the law and carrying unloaded and slung/holstered weapons should not cause fear of injury or harm in a "person of ordinary sensibilities". Especially with such media coverage shows the organiser's less than hostile intentions
Subjugation is to bring under control and governance as a subject - once again the march falls outside this definition. It is organised as a peaceful demonstration which will involve people with firearm(s) slung or holstered and unloaded. Clearly this march, which will have police there monitoring it with their own loaded weapons, cannot bring about control of the area of the protest much less any larger area.
Sadly this point you have made is grounded in hyperbole rather than fact.
As well as the use of "brandishing" which factually does not correlate with the manner in which the firearms will be carried during the march.
bran·dish (brndsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
os·ten·ta·tion (stn-tshn, -tn-)
n.
1. Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness.
2. Archaic The act or an instance of showing; an exhibition
I don't like having to go back to a very clear statement and hold your hand through it. Please read these definitions, and then re-read my statement. The fact that you clearly looked up what "brandish" means in a dictionary implies you are very obviously attempting to misrepresent my statement; in direct contrast to the steps I took to explain, in advance, that such a misrepresentation was false. That is the very definition of a straw man argument.
The definition that I gave was from Mirriam Webster. In fact it is the very first result that comes back when you search for "Brandishing" on Google. Your claims that I am attempting to strawman you (A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) by claiming that your definition is wrong, with clear evidence from a dictionary definition, is patently dishonest, and is a show of significant bad faith on your part. There has been no misrepresentation of your argument, no matter how much you may seek to claim.
Lets look at your definitions though;
bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly. - as already shown this is patently false. The weapons will be unloaded, and carried slung or holstered. Therefore they cannot be waved nor flourished, and most certainly not menacingly by any objective observation
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
os·ten·ta·tion (stn-tshn, -tn-)
n.
1. Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness.
2. Archaic The act or an instance of showing; an exhibition The definition of pretentious is "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.". How you think that carrying unloaded firearms on a sling or holstered matches this description I'd be interested to hear as it looks like you would need to distort plain words from their ordinary reading and attach new meanings to them.
Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Frazzled on this. Until violence is used any protest is peaceful. That should not be controversial
That only applies if your definition of "violence" is actually "physical violence". There are many kinds of violent actions which do not require physical action. Please see my response to Frazzled below.
Frazzled wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Frazzled wrote::
Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.
Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.
No its the correct definition. Until violence has occurred its nonviolent. [irrelevant stupidity removed for the save of brevity]
"Nice daughter you've got. It'd be a shame if something happened to her." Said to you, directly outside your home, though on public property, may not be considered a violent act in the legal system, but it most definitely would be considered a violent act if the intention behind the statement was made for the purposes of intimidation.
And your example does not match the factual situation in this instance, as has been a common trend through many of the analogues that you have advanced in this thread.
Someone making an unsolicited statement about someone's daughter "would be considered a violent act if the intention behind the statement was made for the purposes of intimidation" that is true. However that is very different to a group of people bearing unloaded weapons at a peaceful protest march were no intimidation is present. From above - "Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened".
In closing I would like to address certain areas in the delivery of your responses, and it is something that you and I have spoken about before. When you start using phrases such as;
"I don't like having to go back to a very clear statement and hold your hand through it." and
"[irrelevant stupidity removed for the save of brevity]" It comes across as arrogant and condescending, especially when I have been polite to you during the course of our discussion, and seems to be inflammatory rather than an attempt at constructive debate.
dæl wrote: So you think the US will become like Syria?
I think anything's possible, which is one of the many reasons the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
When abortion becomes a massive social ill that kills 30,000 people a year, then the discussion may be worth having. The fact is your country needs reform when it comes to firearms, you can either be accommodating of some small changes now or you can watch it get worse and have to make big changes.
You realize there is absolutely no data to back this up, right? Firearm crime is drastically down even as gun laws have loosened. The gun murder rate has been cut in half since the 90s, and non-fatal gun crime is down even further.
How is a mag limitation a ban?
When did I say it was? Again, your interpretation that only an outright ban on all firearms infringes on the Second Amendment is wildly incorrect with all known case law in the United States. I'm getting pretty tired of having to type that out time and time again, so please do pay attention this time.
I'm unaware of most of this debate, I walked into it today as the Civil Rights comparison annoyed me.
Indeed.
To outline my position, I am happy for people to have guns, but there need to be structures in place that do not allow people who are known to be a danger to others to not be allowed firearms.
We've got that.
There needs to be training before a weapon can be owned, and storage should be secure.
No, there doesn't.
It should not be easy to buy a gun, it should involve a waiting period, and some types of weapon are absolutely unnecessary for civilians to own. Meet those requirements and you can do what you like.
I believe we can do whatever we like regardless, frankly.
a peaceful protest march were no intimidation is present
I think ultimately we are now going to be simply repeating ourselves, as this quote represents a the fundamental difference in our paradigms. I do not view an armed march in direct violation of the laws (such as DC's carry ban) to be peaceful, and I consider this march to be done for the foolish purpose of trying to intimidate, despite the disingenuous statement of intent put forward by the protesters.
Not only did I use the correct language (brandish) but I then explained why that was the correct term. And a third time, I posted the definitions of such and highlighted it for you. I cannot do more than that once you have decided to be intentionally obtuse, and I think it would be for the best if we break off our debate here, as it has now fallen to the point where we are talking past each other.
Oh, and what you see as condescending, I see as being magnanimous.
While it may be a correct definition of brandish, I don't think you were using the legal definition. Which would be to wave around in a threatening manner.
Grey Templar wrote:While it may be a correct definition of brandish, I don't think you were using the legal definition. Which would be to wave around in a threatening manner.
We weren't holding the discussion within the framework of legality, either.
How about the common use of a word, which is also how the legal definition is derived.
The first definition is what is more commonly used(1: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly) and not the second(2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner )
So using the second less common definition is slightly dishonest as that is not what the majority of people would think when you say "He's brandishing a weapon"
azazel the cat wrote: I think ultimately we are now going to be simply repeating ourselves, as this quote represents a the fundamental difference in our paradigms. I do not view an armed march in direct violation of the laws (such as DC's carry ban) to be peaceful, and I consider this march to be done for the foolish purpose of trying to intimidate, despite the disingenuous statement of intent put forward by the protesters.
Not only did I use the correct language (brandish) but I then explained why that was the correct term. And a third time, I posted the definitions of such and highlighted it for you. I cannot do more than that once you have decided to be intentionally obtuse, and I think it would be for the best if we break off our debate here, as it has now fallen to the point where we are talking past each other.
Oh, and what you see as condescending, I see as being magnanimous.
As shown many times over the course of this discussion the factual situation that we have to date does not fall within any objective definition of "intimidation", nor many of the other words who's meanings you have attempted to pervert to substantiate your position in the face of the facts.
I will continue to contend, as I myself have shown with definitions, that you have misused many words (not least of all brandish) throughout this discussion to make emotive and incorrect points that very often do not match the facts at issue. I have been far from obtuse and I have treated you with nothing but politeness during our discussion.
As to your offer to break off this discussion I feel it appropriate to re-post something from Page 4 where I proposed the same;
I'm anti a bunch of bubbas marching down main street with their guns hanging out.
That's basically my position on this one.
Seems we're three of a kind then. My own personal opinion is that this is more provocative than useful. However I do objectively understand their reasons (not to say that I agree with them). In fact, as I said at the start of the thread;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Pretty much. It's just needless provocation, and riding the law as close to the line as you can without breaking it in the hope someone opposed to you overreacts.
So instead of getting too far off course discussing this as a intellectual exercise maybe its best that we agree to disagree over the manner in which they exercise their right, and agree that practically its probably not a good idea
Grey Templar wrote:How about the common use of a word, which is also how the legal definition is derived.
The first definition is what is more commonly used(1: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly) and not the second(2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner )
So using the second less common definition is slightly dishonest as that is not what the majority of people would think when you say "He's brandishing a weapon"
So while you are correct, you are not right.
I even posted the definitions and underlined them. I think I went above and beyond on this one (hence, the magnanimous joke)
EDIT: @Dreadclaw69: now, if you want to shift gears and discuss the outcome of this, that's just fine; though I suspect we are both in agreement that it will have the exact opposite effect of what the protesters are aiming for (punny!)
azazel the cat wrote: I even posted the definitions and underlined them. I think I went above and beyond on this one (hence, the magnanimous joke)
At the risk of re-lighting the embers all I will say on the matter is that I also gave very clear definitions. I would be grateful if you did not omit that fact as the inference may be drawn that you were the only one clarifying matters when that was not the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: EDIT: @Dreadclaw69: now, if you want to shift gears and discuss the outcome of this, that's just fine; though I suspect we are both in agreement that it will have the exact opposite effect of what the protesters are aiming for (punny!)
My take as to the actual outcome;
Small number turn up, no one really cares, anything slightly news worthy gets blown out of all proportion. The rest of the world carries on.
Yeah, I know you showed both definitions. But only the second uncommon definition fits your viewpoint. Thus its invalid to say they are brandishing their weapon because they are only doing so under the less common definition.
I think anything's possible, which is one of the many reasons the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
I wouldn't want to live in fear as some of you guys do, seems exhausting.
You realize there is absolutely no data to back this up, right? Firearm crime is drastically down even as gun laws have loosened. The gun murder rate has been cut in half since the 90s, and non-fatal gun crime is down even further.
Got a total number? I don't trust news reports that refuse to give out figures, it's either poorly researched or willfully misleading.
How is a mag limitation a ban?
When did I say it was?
"attempts to circumvent actual ban language while achieving the same outcome (mag limitations),"
Again, your interpretation that only an outright ban on all firearms infringes on the Second Amendment is wildly incorrect with all known case law in the United States. I'm getting pretty tired of having to type that out time and time again, so please do pay attention this time.
So your interpretation is what exactly? That any attempt to regulate firearms in any manner is unconstitutional?
I'm unaware of most of this debate, I walked into it today as the Civil Rights comparison annoyed me.
Indeed.
You know, instead of getting smarmy you could try providing someone with information more in depth than a 30 second youtube clip. And while I may not know about the ins and outs of your great battle against the oppressors, I do know a little about the subject I've been posting about, that of human rights.
There needs to be training before a weapon can be owned, and storage should be secure.
No, there doesn't.
So a car needs training as it is dangerous without but a gun doesn't? Have you any reasonable reason why training shouldn't be mandatory?
It should not be easy to buy a gun, it should involve a waiting period, and some types of weapon are absolutely unnecessary for civilians to own. Meet those requirements and you can do what you like.
I believe we can do whatever we like regardless, frankly.
Yes and you can keep on having to deal with the tragedies of high school shootings, I can assure you the next time this debate comes up they will come for your guns if you fail to give any concessions this time.
I think I will back away from this discussion now.
I will watch this gathering of safe gun carrying citizens in their demonstration of peace.
I really hope I am wrong about the possible outcome of the event. I really do not see good press coming out of this or the intended result but at least some people are motivated so that is very positive.
Talizvar wrote: I think I will back away from this discussion now.
I will watch this gathering of safe gun carrying citizens in their demonstration of peace.
I really hope I am wrong about the possible outcome of the event. I really do not see good press coming out of this or the intended result but at least some people are motivated so that is very positive.
May the debate resume...
At least the police aren't planning this far ahead
DUBLIN (AP) -- Northern Ireland security chiefs say arrested troublemakers at the G-8 summit next month may be housed in a prison wing and in an abandoned British Army base.
Justice Minister David Ford says one wing of Maghaberry Prison, which houses convicted members of outlawed paramilitary groups, will be reserved to house up to 200 arrested G-8 protesters. He says the empty military barracks in the town of Omagh could be used to hold approximately 300 more.
"It would be very foolish if we did not plan for the potential of significant trouble," Ford said Friday as he discussed plans to protect world leaders meeting June 17-18 near the Northern Ireland town of Enniskillen.
Northern Ireland police expect to deploy 3,600 police reinforcements from Britain and three surveillance drones to monitor protests.
dæl wrote: I wouldn't want to live in fear as some of you guys do, seems exhausting.
By that logic, we all live in fear. We have sprinkler systems in our buildings in case of fire, we have seatbelts in our cars in case of collision. Having a useful mechanism around to prevent potential harm isn't living in fear of that harm, it's dealing with the possibility that it may occur.
Got a total number? I don't trust news reports that refuse to give out figures, it's either poorly researched or willfully misleading.
"attempts to circumvent actual ban language while achieving the same outcome (mag limitations),"
Ah, yes. Capping magazines at an arbitrarily-determined number of rounds makes a great many firearms illegal, as they have standard magazines that exceed that arbitrary limitation. In New York's case, I believe it's 7.
You know, instead of getting smarmy you could try providing someone with information more in depth than a 30 second youtube clip.
I did that. You decided you didn't trust news articles. I'm not sure what else I can do, if all sources of actual information that don't conform to your preconceived notions are going to be tossed out (without any reason beyond, "Oh, I don't trust them," I might add).
So a car needs training as it is dangerous without but a gun doesn't? Have you any reasonable reason why training shouldn't be mandatory?
You do not need training to purchase a car in the United States.
Yes and you can keep on having to deal with the tragedies of high school shootings, I can assure you the next time this debate comes up they will come for your guns if you fail to give any concessions this time.
"They" have been attempting to do so for quite a long time. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans believe in the Second Amendment, and the movement, despite some initial victories in the 90s, has done nothing but lose ground. So I truly doubt it, especially when no one can propose any laws that actually would have prevented any of these tragedies.
The right to keep and bear arms is just as important to many people over here as the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... There is nothing wrong with that and people should respect that.
exactly. PLus the wonderful thing is, a person can have more than one right!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: "Hey, gun rights is getting threatened, we need to show the American people that gun owners are sane and reasonable people. How can we do that?"
"Let's do an armed march on Washington D.C.! And we'll let anybody with a rifle join in!"
"You're a genius! What could possibly go wrong?"
Ugh... this is the last thing we need right now. All it takes is one idiot, one conspiracy nut, one screwball from 4chan, and the media will have a field day. Even if 99% of the people that show up for this are good responsible gun owners, dressed like normal citizens and are polite, I guarantee you all of the media focus will be on the kids in the fedoras and the fat conspiracy theorists with their "Obama is a terrorist" shirts. They'll zoom in on the guys with the scariest looking assault rifle, the kid who looks like the next Newtown walking, any guy that is wearing hunter's camo, etc. It's just going to reinforce the negative stereotypes that people see on TV every day. It'll be like every time you see a gay pride parade on TV and the news cameras only focus on the guys that practically sneeze glitter, instead of the many homosexual people who aren't really different from us who make up the majority of the community.
The idea of the march itself isn't necessarily bad, but unless the group conducting it REALLY policed the crowd (no pun intended) to remove people who might cause trouble, this is just asking for something bad to happen. Heck, I'd even consider joining in, but this group just does not fill me with confidence that they would do this "right". I also wonder if marching in an area like California wouldn't be more effective, as it's more obvious that you're protesting unfair laws, instead of what appears to be a march to take the capitol (which to be honest, most uninformed people will see it that way.)
You get people to come around by taking them to the gun range, having a good clean appearance, open carrying but being polite, etc. Showing others that we're normal people, just like them, the only difference being that we enjoy firearms for hunting/target shooting or prefer to carry them for self defense. Making a march right when fear of gun owners at its highest is just going to confirm their fears, that we're a bunch of wackos looking to start the second revolution the first chance we get. I really hope I get proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
EDIT: Also, the protest is sending a lot of mixed vibes. Sometimes I hear they're fully willing to comply with the law, other times I hear they're intentionally breaking it and will not be "bullied". Some people say they're going in with loaded weapons, other's that they'll go with unloaded weapons. Those two things will be huge in impacting how this protest goes. A group of people doing whatever the police ask them with unloaded rifles is going to send a very different message than a group with loaded rifles intentionally breaking the law.
Agreed on all points. Its almost like they were plants by the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nice daughter you've got. It'd be a shame if something happened to her." Said to you, directly outside your home, though on public property, may not be considered a violent act in the legal system, but it most definitely would be considered a violent act if the intention behind the statement was made for the purposes of intimidation.
no again, you're mixing things up. it would not be a violent act. it would however be intimidation.
dæl wrote: I wouldn't want to live in fear as some of you guys do, seems exhausting.
By that logic, we all live in fear. We have sprinkler systems in our buildings in case of fire, we have seatbelts in our cars in case of collision. Having a useful mechanism around to prevent potential harm isn't living in fear of that harm, it's dealing with the possibility that it may occur.
Constantly referring to violent situations which have little chance of actually happening seems paranoid is all. If the best reasoning you have for something is that it might prove useful in an astronomically unlikely situation, then perhaps it's not that good a reason.
Got a total number? I don't trust news reports that refuse to give out figures, it's either poorly researched or willfully misleading.
Which gives the same figure I posted earlier. In 2010, there were 31,672 deaths in the U.S. from firearm injuries.
"attempts to circumvent actual ban language while achieving the same outcome (mag limitations),"
Ah, yes. Capping magazines at an arbitrarily-determined number of rounds makes a great many firearms illegal, as they have standard magazines that exceed that arbitrary limitation. In New York's case, I believe it's 7.
So no firearm should be illegal? You aren't able to buy certain firearms, but you hardly had carte blanche to purchase whatever you choose to.
You know, instead of getting smarmy you could try providing someone with information more in depth than a 30 second youtube clip.
I did that. You decided you didn't trust news articles. I'm not sure what else I can do, if all sources of actual information that don't conform to your preconceived notions are going to be tossed out (without any reason beyond, "Oh, I don't trust them," I might add).
Yes, I am naturally skeptical of a news source I am unfamiliar with, from a country whose news is notoriously biased, which doesn't include the figures used. Also, you seem to forget, I have no preconceived notions regarding this issue.
So a car needs training as it is dangerous without but a gun doesn't? Have you any reasonable reason why training shouldn't be mandatory?
You do not need training to purchase a car in the United States.
To use one you do, as is standard across the planet. When you have the capacity to cause harm, there should be some form of training.
Yes and you can keep on having to deal with the tragedies of high school shootings, I can assure you the next time this debate comes up they will come for your guns if you fail to give any concessions this time.
"They" have been attempting to do so for quite a long time. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans believe in the Second Amendment, and the movement, despite some initial victories in the 90s, has done nothing but lose ground. So I truly doubt it, especially when no one can propose any laws that actually would have prevented any of these tragedies.
So the guns used for high school shootings belong to the children themselves? Or would mandatory locked storage have possibly stopped an incident from happening?
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, I know you showed both definitions. But only the second uncommon definition fits your viewpoint. Thus its invalid to say they are brandishing their weapon because they are only doing so under the less common definition.
dæl wrote: Constantly referring to violent situations which have little chance of actually happening seems paranoid is all. If the best reasoning you have for something is that it might prove useful in an astronomically unlikely situation, then perhaps it's not that good a reason.
There's very little chance your house will burn down or your plane will crash. Should we get rid of fire extinguishers and flotation seats due to fear of appearing paranoid?
Which gives the same figure I posted earlier. In 2010, there were 31,672 deaths in the U.S. from firearm injuries.
Indeed. You still seem to be missing the crux of the issue, though, is that firearm deaths have dropped massively. The notion that we must do something now is fueled by nothing more than hysterics.
So no firearm should be illegal? You aren't able to buy certain firearms, but you hardly had carte blanche to purchase whatever you choose to.
I personally feel that way, yes, that none should.
Yes, I am naturally skeptical of a news source I am unfamiliar with, from a country whose news is notoriously biased, which doesn't include the figures used. Also, you seem to forget, I have no preconceived notions regarding this issue.
Good thing that the link to the actual study was in the article, I suppose.
And you certainly do. You clearly believe (you stated it, in fact) that 'something' must be done. The actual data contradicts that notion mightily.
To use one you do, as is standard across the planet. When you have the capacity to cause harm, there should be some form of training.
Do I need training to chop my vegetables or fuel my car?
So the guns used for high school shootings belong to the children themselves? Or would mandatory locked storage have possibly stopped an incident from happening?
Not in the case of the overwhelming majority of mass shootings, no. A lot of those guys passed background checks that everyone insists will magically solve the problem.
As I don't have kids, why should I be subject to mandatory storage laws?
There's very little chance your house will burn down or your plane will crash. Should we get rid of fire extinguishers and flotation seats due to fear of appearing paranoid?
Fire extinguishers didn't kill 30,000 people in a year.
Which gives the same figure I posted earlier. In 2010, there were 31,672 deaths in the U.S. from firearm injuries.
Indeed. You still seem to be missing the crux of the issue, though, is that firearm deaths have dropped massively. The notion that we must do something now is fueled by nothing more than hysterics.
No the crux of the issue is there are 30,000 grieving families in a single year. It doesn't matter what went before, that's not to say a downward trend isn't a good thing, it is, but it's hardly a number to take comfort in.
And you certainly do. You clearly believe (you stated it, in fact) that 'something' must be done. The actual data contradicts that notion mightily.
No, the data indicates that tens of thousands of people are dying, some will be easily preventable with just small reforms which would have little impact on peoples lives. Your ideology is all well and good, but when unnecessary deaths are concerned it comes the time for pragmatism. Are you ok with the frequency of shootings? Where did I say something must be done? I spent however many pages trying to convince people that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you lot signed up to actually means something, only to be told the Constitution is the only thing ever, which is nonsense. Although yes, something does need to be done, you keep having these awful incidents, that something should be far more holistic than just gun reform. There needs to be action taken against other contributing factors as well.
To use one you do, as is standard across the planet. When you have the capacity to cause harm, there should be some form of training.
Do I need training to chop my vegetables or fuel my car?
You misunderstand, in those cases you place yourself at risk, with a gun you do not.
So the guns used for high school shootings belong to the children themselves? Or would mandatory locked storage have possibly stopped an incident from happening?
Not in the case of the overwhelming majority of mass shootings, no. A lot of those guys passed background checks that everyone insists will magically solve the problem.
As I don't have kids, why should I be subject to mandatory storage laws?
What have background checks got to do with storage? Please answer the question asked. You should be subject to them because, as you said, you need to be prepared for very unlikely events.
azazel the cat wrote: "Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.
Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?
How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.
Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.
That is the point.
That is theentire reason this is happening.
Then it will fail. Lots of onlookers will be disturbed by seeing loads of people wandering around or marching with guns. It will frighten them and they will be moved towards the side of restricting gun ownership. Can you imagine what it will look like to foreign tourists, for example? (They don't get a vote, of course, except with their travel dollars.)
I want you to imagine we are talking about the million man march and you just said that.
I'm really sorry but "it will fail because people will be scared" is just not good enough.
What I mean is it will fail in its objective, put forwards by you, as I understand your earlier comments, of not scaring people.
dæl wrote: I wouldn't want to live in fear as some of you guys do, seems exhausting.
By that logic, we all live in fear. We have sprinkler systems in our buildings in case of fire, we have seatbelts in our cars in case of collision. Having a useful mechanism around to prevent potential harm isn't living in fear of that harm, it's dealing with the possibility that it may occur.
Constantly referring to violent situations which have little chance of actually happening seems paranoid is all. If the best reasoning you have for something is that it might prove useful in an astronomically unlikely situation, then perhaps it's not that good a reason.
Not going to get into the rest of this but I'm just going to point out why I (and I'm guessing the people you're debating with) disagree with this sentiment of "the odds are so small it'll almost never happen".
If there's a lightning storm outside, you wouldn't walk into the middle of a field holding a metal pole. The odds are astronomically small that you'll get hit, but yet people still get hit by lightning every year (even without holding metal objects in the air).
If there's sharks in the water, you wouldn't go swim. Yet the odds of being attacked by a shark are even less than being hit by lightning (roughly 30 to 80 people in the US get attacked every year)
If there's only a 1 in a million chance you'll be raped, that's still a 1 in a million chance. It can happen, and it does. (made up statistic, the actual odds are much higher, I just can't find an unbiased site to reference at the moment)
Repeat ad infinitum. It's like carrying a first aid kit, a survival blanket, some road flares, and a small survival kit in your car. Will you ever need them? Probably not, but I would much rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. Call me paranoid all you want, but I'm an Eagle Scout, our motto is "be prepared" for a reason. Just because I have a 1 in 5 million chance of crashing out in the woods and being stuck overnight, doesn't mean I'll just say "oh, that'll never happen to me." Because guess what, that guy who was unlucky enough to be the 1 in 5 million said the same thing before he slid off the road. These things still happen, however unlikely they may be. How's that saying go, "When it'll only happen to somebody else, remember that you're everybody else's 'somebody else' ". I can't remember the exact wording, but hopefully you get the jist.
So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
And while I hate to sound like a crazy person, I don't expect cops to protect me, but not for the reason you might think. Many cops are good people, and do their best to protect us, but they're not psychic, and they haven't developed teleporters as far as I know. If you were in an instance where you truly needed a cop to protect you, how could they do anything? You really think that guy with the knife is going to let you call 911 and wait patiently for 10 minutes so the cops can show up? Who's going to call the cops for you if the guy catches you in a back alley by yourself? These are highly unlikely to happen, yet they happen every day across America and other countries. Unless you get really lucky and a cop just happened to drive by, you would be at the mercy of your attacker. Having the best police force in the world doesn't do a me a bit of good if they only show up after I got stabbed in the gut by some crackhead. Cops aren't our personal bodyguards, following us around every second of every day to keep us safe. They have tremendous workloads, and can never be everywhere at once.
So instead of saying "oh, it'll happen to someone else", or "oh, I hope the cops will be there in time to help me" I do what makes sense to me. I make sure I'm prepared. I have a way to protect myself so I can stay alive until the cops can show up, and then I let them take over from there because that's their job. I view the gun as a tool, no different than the spare tire and jack I keep in my car in case I got a flat, or the fire extinguisher I keep in the closet, because no matter how small, there's a chance I may need that someday. I keep it around at all times, and I hope I never have to use it. I don't go out every day and think "oh boy, maybe I'll get carjacked today and finally get to off someone." just like I don't think "gee, I sure hope I slide off the road in the middle of nowhere and have to survive on my own for a week."
So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods.
dæl wrote: I wouldn't want to live in fear as some of you guys do, seems exhausting.
By that logic, we all live in fear. We have sprinkler systems in our buildings in case of fire, we have seatbelts in our cars in case of collision. Having a useful mechanism around to prevent potential harm isn't living in fear of that harm, it's dealing with the possibility that it may occur.
Constantly referring to violent situations which have little chance of actually happening seems paranoid is all. If the best reasoning you have for something is that it might prove useful in an astronomically unlikely situation, then perhaps it's not that good a reason.
Not going to get into the rest of this but I'm just going to point out why I (and I'm guessing the people you're debating with) disagree with this sentiment of "the odds are so small it'll almost never happen".
If there's a lightning storm outside, you wouldn't walk into the middle of a field holding a metal pole. The odds are astronomically small that you'll get hit, but yet people still get hit by lightning every year (even without holding metal objects in the air).
If there's sharks in the water, you wouldn't go swim. Yet the odds of being attacked by a shark are even less than being hit by lightning (roughly 30 to 80 people in the US get attacked every year)
If there's only a 1 in a million chance you'll be raped, that's still a 1 in a million chance. It can happen, and it does. (made up statistic, the actual odds are much higher, I just can't find an unbiased site to reference at the moment)
Repeat ad infinitum. It's like carrying a first aid kit, a survival blanket, some road flares, and a small survival kit in your car. Will you ever need them? Probably not, but I would much rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. Call me paranoid all you want, but I'm an Eagle Scout, our motto is "be prepared" for a reason. Just because I have a 1 in 5 million chance of crashing out in the woods and being stuck overnight, doesn't mean I'll just say "oh, that'll never happen to me." Because guess what, that guy who was unlucky enough to be the 1 in 5 million said the same thing before he slid off the road. These things still happen, however unlikely they may be. How's that saying go, "When it'll only happen to somebody else, remember that you're everybody else's 'somebody else' ". I can't remember the exact wording, but hopefully you get the jist.
So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
And while I hate to sound like a crazy person, I don't expect cops to protect me, but not for the reason you might think. Many cops are good people, and do their best to protect us, but they're not psychic, and they haven't developed teleporters as far as I know. If you were in an instance where you truly needed a cop to protect you, how could they do anything? You really think that guy with the knife is going to let you call 911 and wait patiently for 10 minutes so the cops can show up? Who's going to call the cops for you if the guy catches you in a back alley by yourself? These are highly unlikely to happen, yet they happen every day across America and other countries. Unless you get really lucky and a cop just happened to drive by, you would be at the mercy of your attacker. Having the best police force in the world doesn't do a me a bit of good if they only show up after I got stabbed in the gut by some crackhead. Cops aren't our personal bodyguards, following us around every second of every day to keep us safe. They have tremendous workloads, and can never be everywhere at once.
So instead of saying "oh, it'll happen to someone else", or "oh, I hope the cops will be there in time to help me" I do what makes sense to me. I make sure I'm prepared. I have a way to protect myself so I can stay alive until the cops can show up, and then I let them take over from there because that's their job. I view the gun as a tool, no different than the spare tire and jack I keep in my car in case I got a flat, or the fire extinguisher I keep in the closet, because no matter how small, there's a chance I may need that someday. I keep it around at all times, and I hope I never have to use it. I don't go out every day and think "oh boy, maybe I'll get carjacked today and finally get to off someone." just like I don't think "gee, I sure hope I slide off the road in the middle of nowhere and have to survive on my own for a week."
So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods
MrMoustaffa wrote: So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
Situations such as these are not that rare, I've been in a few myself, but have never felt the need for a weapon. That would be an unnecessary escalation and could make the situation worse. When I said I feel safe, it's not from living in a nice area, it's from knowing that random attacks rarely happen, and that even when they do the worst you have to worry about over here is that someone might get a bit of a kicking.
So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods[/spoiler].
It is a really well reasoned post you made here and makes a certain amount of sense, my main issue is that the prevalence of firearms in your society has not made it safer for people, but quite the opposite. Rather than reducing those risks they have made violent situations not only more likely, but also more violent
I do have one question for people regarding self defence, if a new invention came about, which worked exactly as a gun did but was non lethal (when shot a target is incapacitated for say 30 mins), would you be ok with such an invention taking the place of firearms for self defence?
You've compared homicides by weapon to overall deaths by car. For a true comparison you should compare like for like, when you do its pretty close in total.
2010 gun deaths = 31,672
2010 car deaths = 32,885
And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies. They blame the alcohol, cell phone, exhaustion, or driver inexperience when someone dies in a preventable car crash.
But when someone dies by gun, people blame the tool and not the Drugs, alcohol, history of violence, violation of gun safety, or whatever other reason caused the weapon to be used.
Grey Templar wrote: And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies.
Because unlike guns, a car isn't designed specifically to kill people in the most efficient manner possible.
Which is exactly why I want to own guns (self defense) in the first place, but come on, be honest about what a gun is. It's a tool for killing things. Nothing more. That's why guns are so heavily regulated. And yet in many ways, cars are more regulated than guns are.
Grey Templar wrote: And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies. They blame the alcohol, cell phone, exhaustion, or driver inexperience when someone dies in a preventable car crash.
But when someone dies by gun, people blame the tool and not the Drugs, alcohol, history of violence, violation of gun safety, or whatever other reason caused the weapon to be used.
You are correct that noone blames the car, but cars have been making advances in safety toward reducing harm caused. There is a conscious effort toward reducing the number of deaths.
You are also correct about people blaming the gun for the act, I couldn't agree more that when looking at the issue of gun violence you need to take a comprehensive look at all factors, as only then can you find the optimal solution to reducing harm.
Personly Im fine with the rate of deaths gun are(dont take this wrong way wish their was none what so ever)comapring people who legaly own guns to deaths reported via guns is less then 0.01% comapered to cars or other items.Also if you want to ban weapons ban pistals which are used more for murders then asult rifles which is only a small hand full of deaths every year.
Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
At least in Texas (it may vary a bit by state), you have to have a photo ID and insurance related to your car, including taking classes and having occasional license renewals. There are far fewer restrictions about tracing cars than guns at the moment, including tracing usage and purchases, and it's far easier to take away your license to use your car than it is to take away gun ownership rights. The safety and environmental impact of the car has to be tested yearly by a third party, and if it doesn't pass, you can't legally use it. Many newer cars are tracked by GPS for security reasons, and have systems where someone else can take over your car in case of it being stolen, and prevent a car thief from getting away with it during a police chase. Even when you are allowed to use it legally (which applies to most law-abiding citizens), there are truckloads of regulations on how to use your car, what hte proper response is in specific situations, etc, which you are expected to know. You are also expected to keep up with changes to the law and obey any and all road signs, and you can be arrested, fined, and occasionally even get your license revoked or jail time for disobeying the various regulations and road signs.
Now, a few edits, and let's apply all those to guns as a mental exercise (before you invariably spaz out, no, I'm not seriously suggesting all of this):
You need a gun license which has a photo Id and personally identifiable information. You need to take out insurance on each and every one of your guns. This license is entered in to a database, including what guns you own and records of who it was bought from. In order to get a license, you must take mandatory safety and usage classes, and you must PASS these classes, and renew your license by taking similar tests every few years. Restrictions on tracing gun usage and purchases will be flat out removed, allowing federal organizations to share information without restriction. Your gun ownership license can be revoked for any number of reasons, from committing a crime, to brandishing your gun while drunk, because you didn't pass a renewal test, and so on, and if it is revoked, you cannot legally carry or use the gun in public without being arrested and your gun taken away. In order for you to be able to use your guns outside of your own personal private property, your gun must have paperwork showing that it has been legally inspected and shown to have functioning safety equipment, be properly maintained, and have proper safety features maintained and working (such as a gun safe)-- if you don't, you cannot take your gun out beyond your own personal private property without being arrested and your gun taken away. Gun manufacturers are encouraged through subsidies and regulations to have integrated GPS tracking devices in the gun, and more advanced models will give the police the ability to disable the gun via remote control, with it being illegal to tamper with these systems (on pain of being arrested and your gun being taken away). In order to legally use your gun, you must know a large amount of regulations on when you can and cannot use your gun, how you can use it, and you must obey any and all signs indicating different usage areas (such as no-gun zones around schools and the like). It is your responsibility to keep up with changes to these regulations, and if you fail to obey them and the various signs in public buildings, you can have your license removed and your gun taken away.
Well, that was a fun mental exercise. Somehow, though, I doubt you'd honestly be okay with having guns regulated like cars are.
MrMoustaffa wrote: So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
Situations such as these are not that rare, I've been in a few myself, but have never felt the need for a weapon. That would be an unnecessary escalation and could make the situation worse. When I said I feel safe, it's not from living in a nice area, it's from knowing that random attacks rarely happen, and that even when they do the worst you have to worry about over here is that someone might get a bit of a kicking.
You're in England correct? I've heard you guys tend to have a lot of stabbings instead of shootings, but that may be rumor. As for the whole escalation thing, you don't pull the gun unless your life is at risk. In many self defense courses that deal with conceal carry, pulling your gun is the last resort. You're encouraged to talk to the guy, attempt to calm him down, and I've heard some even recommend trying to engage in nonlethal ways first (say pepper spray, tazer, or even your fists) It's not like the guy draws the knife and you shoot him right away. I can understand how people would get that impression though.
Like I said, I don't choose to carry a gun because I'd want to shoot them, just that if it came to it, I want the option. If it's a guy drugged out of his mind, things like a tazer or pepper spray can have little effect, and sadly there's not much you can do to reason with him. But if it's just some guy down on his luck with a knife and he asks for my wallet, I might just toss it to him and go on my way, since I don't see a reason to shoot someone over a couple hundred dollars, and I don't feel like getting stabbed over it either. But if there's a crazy man running at me with a knife screaming "I'm going to kill you!", I might draw immediately and open fire. It's very much a case by case type deal. As cheesy as it sounds, your brain is your best tool in that kind of situation. You should be thinking of every way possible to calm the situation down without violence. After all, you're carrying a gun.
MrMoustaffa wrote:So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods[/spoiler].
It is a really well reasoned post you made here and makes a certain amount of sense, my main issue is that the prevalence of firearms in your society has not made it safer for people, but quite the opposite. Rather than reducing those risks they have made violent situations not only more likely, but also more violent
I do have one question for people regarding self defence, if a new invention came about, which worked exactly as a gun did but was non lethal (when shot a target is incapacitated for say 30 mins), would you be ok with such an invention taking the place of firearms for self defence?
It would have to be 100% reliable, be able to work at a range of more than 15 feet, guaranteed to drop the person on the first "shot" no matter how drugged up he is, be able to "penetrate" thick clothing, and be able to knock out multiple assailants if need be (its really rare, but it happens). Of course, it would also need to be portable and small enough that you could conceal it on you without too much difficulty, otherwise there's no point to it. And of course the obvious things, easy to use, light enough to carry, cheap enough for the common man to own, made out of quality materials, etc. but that all goes without saying.
If they could pull all that off, and prove to me that it worked 100% of the time, I'd consider it. Until then, I'll carry the next best thing.
I'm really dragging this thread off topic though, if you'd like to continue to discuss this via PM feel free to hit me up.
Back on topic, I see little to no way that this planned march can do anything positive. Best case, and I mean BEST, a few people show up, the media ignores it, and everybody forgets in a week. They get stopped at the bridge since they have nowhere near enough to do anything meaningful, and are turned around.
Bad case scenario, march actually forms, goes peacefully, and every news agency across the world finds the scariest looking people in the crowd to zoom in on. The event is blown massively out of proportion, gun owners are demonized everywhere, and the anti gun lobby get's all the evidence it would ever need to ram through various bans, restrictions, and confiscation (and 3 senators were just caught recently stating that they want to confiscate guns outright, so the intent is there whether they'll admit it to our faces or not) instead of "showing the government who's boss", gun owners end up metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot, giving politicians and the average citizen all the reason they need to crack down on firearms.
Worst case? Some idiot in the crowd (or even worse, a cop or a soldier sent to keep an eye on things) accidentally or intentionally fires off a shot. Dozens are killed, the nation is outraged, politicians capitalize, and innocent people are the ones that are caught in the crossfire. I highly doubt it would be "revolution 2.0", but it would definitely add fuel to the fire, and give conspiracy nuts ammunition to say "hey, see that! They really are coming to get us!" Massive civil unrest, cats and dogs living together, Justin Beiber releases a decent album, Firefly getting renewed for a second season, 4 horsemen of the apocalypse ride in on my little ponies etc. etc.
Grey Templar wrote:Yup, and there are less cars per person than there are guns per person.
Grey Templar wrote:And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies. They blame the alcohol, cell phone, exhaustion, or driver inexperience when someone dies in a preventable car crash.
But when someone dies by gun, people blame the tool and not the Drugs, alcohol, history of violence, violation of gun safety, or whatever other reason caused the weapon to be used.
I know, its a shame that noone has seen the number of deaths caused by cars and thought to apply some sort of licensing requirement in order to use one, based on a test of proficiency.
597,689 Americans die of Heart disease and 100% of people who breath air die, what's your point? That still doesn't mean that gun related violence in America isn't an issue.
Melissia, I had suggested that in another thread a while back and got a rather well thought out response, I think it was KalashnikovMarine, in which it was pointed out that that only then creates an artificial seperation between 'haves' and 'have nots' based purely on their ability to pay insurance premiums. It didn't address the question of 'controlling' guns but simply created another aggravation into the equation.
597,689 Americans die of Heart disease and 100% of people who breath air die, what's your point? That still doesn't mean that gun related violence in America isn't an issue.
Yeah but it's off-topic and doesn't add anything to the conversion other than a false idea that cars-related deaths are comparable to gun-related deaths despite the fact that they are quite different from each other (in terms of purpose, amount of time spent with them, where they are used,
how they're regulated, the likely hood of encountering them, etc), therefore making the comparison irrelevant that's why I made the apples and oranges comment earlier.
Shouldn't that be 100% of people who don't breath air die?
Cheers
Andrew
Either is correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease. Cars are not a constitutional right and can be restricted to any degree.
dæl wrote: Fire extinguishers didn't kill 30,000 people in a year.
What exactly does that have to do with whether or not it's paranoid to have them around in the event of a very rare occurrence? Your claim was that being prepared for a remote possibility is paranoid.
No the crux of the issue is there are 30,000 grieving families in a single year. It doesn't matter what went before, that's not to say a downward trend isn't a good thing, it is, but it's hardly a number to take comfort in.
I agree, but you once again missed the point. We had more gun control regulations during the peak of gun violence. We have been steadily relaxing gun laws, and we have seen a steady decline in gun violence.
No, the data indicates that tens of thousands of people are dying, some will be easily preventable with just small reforms which would have little impact on peoples lives.
As the only one who's brought any sort of statistics into this conversation, I'm afraid I'm going to need you to provide something aside from unverifiable assertions to back
Where did I say something must be done? I spent however many pages trying to convince people that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you lot signed up to actually means something, only to be told the Constitution is the only thing ever, which is nonsense.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has exactly zero force of law in this country. I'm not sure why you believe that to be nonsense, but it's the case.
To use one you do, as is standard across the planet. When you have the capacity to cause harm, there should be some form of training.
Do I need training to chop my vegetables or fuel my car?
You misunderstand, in those cases you place yourself at risk, with a gun you do not.
What have background checks got to do with storage? Please answer the question asked.
That was part of the answer to the question asked. Do you think that someone who legally purchased their gun would not be able to open their own storage device or something? I'm not sure what you're arguing.
Melissia wrote: Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease. Cars are not a constitutional right and can be restricted to any degree.
And yet, in your very statement you say that "guns are a right" while talking about suspension.
What quantifies a mental disease where someone cannot own a gun? What if they take their medication and do not lapse in taking their medication?
Simple fact of the matter is that if you're going to start reaching for the "mental disease" angle in regards to restricting guns, then you damned well better step back and recognize that mental illnesses require a recognizable diagnosis--which isn't always even done properly, since mental illnesses have different ways of manifesting with different symptoms.
Melissia wrote: Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease. Cars are not a constitutional right and can be restricted to any degree.
GT, you are falling victim to Hume's Guillotine here.
Any right can be suspended. What can suspend a right is up for debate.
I'm not qualified to say what level of mental illness would/should disqualify someone, but there should be something. Let doctors decide that.
But you are sane until proven otherwise. You are also innocent until proven guilty. So until one of those things happen you should have complete freedom to own whatever guns you please, and the freedom to not tell the government what you own either.
Grey Templar wrote: Any right can be suspended. What can suspend a right is up for debate.
I'm not qualified to say what level of mental illness would/should disqualify someone, but there should be something. Let doctors decide that.
But there's the rub, now isn't it?
There are plenty of individuals with mental illnesses who function just fine. There are plenty of individuals without mental illnesses who should not ever be given anything beyond safety scissors.
But you are sane until proven otherwise. You are also innocent until proven guilty. So until one of those things happen you should have complete freedom to own whatever guns you please, and the freedom to not tell the government what you own either.
These two things are not related.
The "freedom to own whatever guns you please" is not necessarily related to "the freedom to not tell the government what you own either". This asinine idea of "If you register your guns; they'll come take them!" is overblown nonsense propagated by individuals who use their relationship with gun owners as a captive voter base.
The sooner people get past the idea that "registration" equates to "confiscation", the sooner we can move on to actually having semi-sensible discussions.
Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.
I don't want even the possibility of it happening. And if they do decide at some point to take our guns I certainly don't want them to have any help finding them.
Is it unlikely, yeah. But its still a possibility. One that should be protected against.
The Second Amendment's purpose is to provide a deterrent against Tyranny. If the potential Tyrannical government knows the location and type of every weapon owned by the citizens it entirely defeats the purpose and you may as well not have the second amendment.
I certainly did. I'm starting to wonder if the same can be said about you, though.
You just tried to post a smarmy comment that you saw someone else post, and got called on it.
Got called on it? I'm not sure what you mean. You made an asinine statement that seems to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of how rights work in this country.
Grey Templar wrote: Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up, or they decide to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it.
I don't want even the possibility of it happening. And if they do decide at some point to take our guns I certainly don't want them to have any help finding them.
Is it unlikely, yeah. But its still a possibility.
So basically, you're concerned for an eventuality that won't happen without huge flashing warning signs and a breakdown in the way the United States as a whole is organized?
That's not paranoia taken to an unhealthy extreme at all...
I certainly did. I'm starting to wonder if the same can be said about you, though.
You just tried to post a smarmy comment that you saw someone else post, and got called on it.
Got called on it? I'm not sure what you mean. You made an asinine statement that seems to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of how rights work in this country.
If you want to discuss "how rights work in this country", I'd suggest not mentioning a "suspension of rights".
When someone is considered a felon, they do not have "their rights suspended". They have their rights restricted.
There is a big difference between the two terms. "Suspension" implies a chance to regain what was lost while "restriction" does not necessarily imply that chance to regain what was lost.
Kanluwen wrote: If you want to discuss "how rights work in this country", I'd suggest not mentioning a "suspension of rights".
When someone is considered a felon, they do not have "their rights suspended". They have their rights restricted.
There is a big difference between the two terms. "Suspension" implies a chance to regain what was lost while "restriction" does not necessarily imply that chance to regain what was lost.
Ah! A bs semantic argument. I wasn't sure what you were going for when you started this hare, but very well. You seem to be confusing 'restriction' with 'elimination' or other similar words. Restriction, after all, if we're using the English definition, implies keeping within limits, not complete removal.
Kanluwen wrote: If you want to discuss "how rights work in this country", I'd suggest not mentioning a "suspension of rights".
When someone is considered a felon, they do not have "their rights suspended". They have their rights restricted.
There is a big difference between the two terms. "Suspension" implies a chance to regain what was lost while "restriction" does not necessarily imply that chance to regain what was lost.
Ah! A bs semantic argument.
Well, when dealing with legal matters, in which the consequences of a law can hinge on its wording, semantics is far from "bs." In fact, people who use the term semantics pejoratively are usually ignorant of the irony of such use, as matters of semantics, in the correct sense of the word, are actually pretty important when it comes to putting together a decent argument.
But then again, you could say that I'm simply arguing semantics.
Grey Templar wrote:Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.
I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.
Grey Templar wrote:I don't want even the possibility of it happening.
Then wouldn't it follow that you'd feel safer without any government at all?
Grey Templar wrote:Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.
I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.
I don't know where you're getting fallacy from.
It's been proven that gun registration can lead to confiscation down the road. It doesn't take Nazi Germany either, Canada has done it, as well as England.
I get arguing other stuff like the 2nd Amendment's purpose being to protect against a tyrannical government, but this specific situation (registration leading to confiscation) has been documented multiple times. Heck, it even happens in America with certain NFA items if the original owner gets sick or dies. It's not a fallacy. This isn't like saying "the government is going to enslave us by tricking protesters into shooting at police at the march on D.C." This is something that has been shown to happen time after time.
Normally you make good arguments Azazel, but I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Unless I'm completely missing part of this conversation. You are arguing that the idea of gun registration leading to confiscation down the road is a fallacy, correct?
How about I look at this as a purely selfish response.
It bothers me that those who demonstrate what "I" think is risky and thoughtless behavior have guns and are engaging in what I perceive as intimidation.
I feel "I" should have a gun as well to "neutralize" their intimidation.
Being a person who likes to be thorough I would ensure I spend a good amount of time on the range to ensure I am quite skilled with the firearm. It has a side benefit of keeping me from being tempted to discharge the gun in less safe venues.
It just feels to me as a "have / have-not" escalation. I actually feel angry with these demonstrating groups that I feel I need a gun in order to feel safe from them: an equalization of power.
If they feel they need to "demonstrate their rights" to a powerful government, they seem perfectly capable of trying to steamroller over mine.
That will not do.
They have already demonstrated an insensitivity to my wishes so increasing my personal power is important because "good fences make good neighbors".
To buy into using threat or the status symbol of an object rather than communication skills and respectful behavior feels like you lost a little of your soul in the bargain.
I do not like bullies.
Especially that to assert and protect MY rights I have to mimic some of their less than great behavior to get them to back the hell off.
Bit of a circular logic but that is where emotional responses take you.
Grey Templar wrote:Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.
I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.
I don't know where you're getting fallacy from.
It's been proven that gun registration can lead to confiscation down the road. It doesn't take Nazi Germany either, Canada has done it, as well as England.
I get arguing other stuff like the 2nd Amendment's purpose being to protect against a tyrannical government, but this specific situation (registration leading to confiscation) has been documented multiple times. Heck, it even happens in America with certain NFA items if the original owner gets sick or dies. It's not a fallacy. This isn't like saying "the government is going to enslave us by tricking protesters into shooting at police at the march on D.C." This is something that has been shown to happen time after time.
Normally you make good arguments Azazel, but I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Unless I'm completely missing part of this conversation. You are arguing that the idea of gun registration leading to confiscation down the road is a fallacy, correct?
First, thank you.
Second, it's a fallacy because the potential for an event is being portrayed as the certain outcome. Hence, my statement.
Third, while evidently (I forget who now, argh!) demonstrated that Canada has in one instance confiscated a single model of firearm, the registry was not responsible for this confiscation. The laws permitting that firearm changed (the reasoning for such is stupid, but not relevant here) and it became illegal to possess. The registration merely prevented the owner from being able to easily hide the firearm illegally. However, in order for the government to take away all of the guns, it would first require a near-complete and total breakdown of your entire legislative process (being rooted in an amalgamation of direct and representative democracy) involving many, many very stark steps before that calamity; on par with saying that eating an apple -seeds and all- is the first step towards dying of arsenic poisoning.
dæl wrote: Fire extinguishers didn't kill 30,000 people in a year.
What exactly does that have to do with whether or not it's paranoid to have them around in the event of a very rare occurrence? Your claim was that being prepared for a remote possibility is paranoid.
What the inherent risks involved in fire extinguishers have to do with is the inherent risks involved in guns. I say that guns are dangerous and kill people. You say that you need a gun in case of a fascist coup or something. To which I reply that such a thing has a very tiny chance of ever happening. So you say that fires are unlikely and we have fire extinguishers. But you see fires happen every day, and fascist coups do not, plus guns are causing deaths while fire extinguishers are not. You have an insurance policy against the highly unlikely which costs far more than the insurance policy for the very likely. So yes, having a social policy which is damaging to society that only exists because of fear of an event which will probably never happen is paranoid. Do you think Britain is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state?
No the crux of the issue is there are 30,000 grieving families in a single year. It doesn't matter what went before, that's not to say a downward trend isn't a good thing, it is, but it's hardly a number to take comfort in.
I agree, but you once again missed the point. We had more gun control regulations during the peak of gun violence. We have been steadily relaxing gun laws, and we have seen a steady decline in gun violence.
All crime is in decline, how much further has gun crime fallen than say assault or theft?
No, the data indicates that tens of thousands of people are dying, some will be easily preventable with just small reforms which would have little impact on peoples lives.
As the only one who's brought any sort of statistics into this conversation, I'm afraid I'm going to need you to provide something aside from unverifiable assertions to back
You want proof that SOME gun related deaths out of the 30,000 are easily preventable?
What have background checks got to do with storage? Please answer the question asked.
That was part of the answer to the question asked. Do you think that someone who legally purchased their gun would not be able to open their own storage device or something? I'm not sure what you're arguing.
What. I'll ask the question again then. If most high school shooters are using somebody else's gun, would mandatory storage of weapons when not in use have an effect of the number of school shootings?
dæl wrote: What the inherent risks involved in fire extinguishers have to do with is the inherent risks involved in guns. I say that guns are dangerous and kill people. You say that you need a gun in case of a fascist coup or something.
On the contrary. I don't believe I've ever said I need a gun in case of a fascist coup. I have several for the purposes of self defense.
To which I reply that such a thing has a very tiny chance of ever happening. So you say that fires are unlikely and we have fire extinguishers. But you see fires happen every day, and fascist coups do not, plus guns are causing deaths while fire extinguishers are not.
That would be a valid point if the only argument for owning guns was protection against fascist coups. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
Do you think Britain is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state?
I think any state runs that risk. And hey, given your increasing limitations on speech, you never know.
All crime is in decline, how much further has gun crime fallen than say assault or theft?
Gun crime has fallen between 12% and 25% more than assault, and 17% to 30% more than theft, according to statistics presented here.
You want proof that SOME gun related deaths out of the 30,000 are easily preventable?
Absolutely. I'd like proof that your suggestions would have a significant impact on lowering firearm death rates in this country. Given that the majority of firearm murders are committed in relation to inner city/gang violence, I'm curious how you can be so certain that further restrictions on already law-abiding firearm owners would affect that.
What. I'll ask the question again then. If most high school shooters are using somebody else's gun, would mandatory storage of weapons when not in use have an effect of the number of school shootings?
dæl wrote: What the inherent risks involved in fire extinguishers have to do with is the inherent risks involved in guns. I say that guns are dangerous and kill people. You say that you need a gun in case of a fascist coup or something.
On the contrary. I don't believe I've ever said I need a gun in case of a fascist coup. I have several for the purposes of self defense.
Sorry, but what?
Interesting. Do you think Syrians felt the same way ten years ago?
So you think the US will become like Syria?
I think anything's possible, which is one of the many reasons the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
So what point were you arguing here then?
Do you think Britain is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state?
I think any state runs that risk. And hey, given your increasing limitations on speech, you never know.
What limitations on speech? Our rights are far safer than yours as long as we are members of Europe, as that means we must abide by the ECHR and we as citizens have access to a court of appeal which sits above our government.
All crime is in decline, how much further has gun crime fallen than say assault or theft?
Gun crime has fallen between 12% and 25% more than assault, and 17% to 30% more than theft, according to statistics presented here.
See now that is interesting, what reasons have been offered for this trend?
You want proof that SOME gun related deaths out of the 30,000 are easily preventable?
Absolutely. I'd like proof that your suggestions would have a significant impact on lowering firearm death rates in this country. Given that the majority of firearm murders are committed in relation to inner city/gang violence, I'm curious how you can be so certain that further restrictions on already law-abiding firearm owners would affect that.
When did I say significant impact? When did I say I was dealing with majority cases? I said that some of the deaths would be easily avoidable, which means that with a slight adjustment of behaviour some families will not have to go through the grief of losing loved ones. Even if it is only a single family then it should still be done, as human life is far more important than having to wait a few days for a background check, or locking up guns when not in use, or not being able to buy military grade weaponry. Yes the controls effect more people, but that's a prevention paradox and public health is always a prevention paradox. To refuse change which will save lives is to have blood on your hands, certainly when the only reason given for refusing change is a slippery slope argument.
What. I'll ask the question again then. If most high school shooters are using somebody else's gun, would mandatory storage of weapons when not in use have an effect of the number of school shootings?
I very much doubt it.
So where are they getting the weaponry from if it is under lock and key?
What don't you understand about what I said? I find the chances of a fascist coup pretty remote, and my guns were not purchased with that in mind.
So what point were you arguing here then?
That claiming to live in a political environment in which you will never need the means to defend yourself or your preferred way of life is a losing bet in the long term. Powers rise, powers fall. The notion that liberal democracy will endure forever, especially without the safeguard of a populace committed to uprising if it's ever threatened, is insidiously naive.
What limitations on speech? Our rights are far safer than yours as long as we are members of Europe, as that means we must abide by the ECHR and we as citizens have access to a court of appeal which sits above our government.
That's true, Europe's never run into problems with totalitarianism.
See now that is interesting, what reasons have been offered for this trend?
Everything from less lead in paint to most of the criminals already being locked up. Nobody knows. We simply have a correlation between relaxed gun laws and lower gun crime rates.
When did I say significant impact? When did I say I was dealing with majority cases? I said that some of the deaths would be easily avoidable, which means that with a slight adjustment of behaviour some families will not have to go through the grief of losing loved ones. Even if it is only a single family then it should still be done, as human life is far more important than having to wait a few days for a background check, or locking up guns when not in use, or not being able to buy military grade weaponry. Yes the controls effect more people, but that's a prevention paradox and public health is always a prevention paradox. To refuse change which will save lives is to have blood on your hands, certainly when the only reason given for refusing change is a slippery slope argument.
It's not a "slippery slope" argument, though, is it? The right, as said, exists for more than the theoretical need to overthrow a dictatorial government or defend against foreign aggression. It exists for the ability to defend oneself, to hunt, to shoot for fun...a whole host of things.
So where are they getting the weaponry from if it is under lock and key?
We'd have to go case-by-case through high school shootings. The Columbine kids, if memory serves, got theirs through a straw buying friend. In the case of the Red Lake massacre, the shooter had had the gun, through unknown means, for over a year before committing the crime; his friends recall it, but don't know how he got it. It wasn't owned by a family member.
Rented Tritium wrote: The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.
Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.
I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.
The right to not be discriminated against is not the same as the right to bear arms, one is an inalienable human right which cannot be taken away, the other is already restricted (no nukes, alas) and for some is restricted even more (felons). They aren't equal as one is covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and is part of international law.
Nope. Both are amendments in the bill of rights. Both have the exact same time place and manner baggage as any other amendment.
I love the fact that the rise of the Nazi's is used as an example of why Americans need their guns. Apparently this would stop a dictatorship... Have you ever taken the time to look at pictures from Germany in the 1930's? You will see that there are plenty of weapons being wielded by all sides. Hitler came to power due to the support of the people, there were plenty of people who had guns and could of stopped him. It's only with hindsight that people he was a monster, and that's only because he lost.
What about the Spanish Revolution, plenty of weapons there. What a mess that was.
Given how insidious the growth of a dictatorship is, what would it take for you to say enough is enough and fight back? Lets use guns as a sliding scale. Lets say everything else in the country is going smoothly and the economy is strong, the Federal Government manages to pass a bill restricting the amount of ammo you can have. Would that cause you to go out and fight "the man"? What about a ban on any gun that could be converted to an assault rifle, would that be enough? I know, what about a restriction on how many you could own, lets be generous here. One handgun per adult and one shotgun per household, would that bring you out onto the streets?
I honestly believe that what you think is tyranny is nothing like what the rest of the world knows what tyranny really is. The concept of a national health service being imposed causes you to yell tyranny, having your taxes raised causes you to scream tyranny, being told that you can't smoke in certain places... tyranny. The rest of the world just looks at you and thinks, WTF !?!
Do you really think that the Soviet Union or in fact any other Superpower would actually hesitate in invading you because a load of "bubbas" have an arsenal of guns? Do you not think that any invading country would have the same ideas on warfare as you...carpet bomb the place before moving in !?!
Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?
Grey Templar wrote: No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease.
Other rights can be suspended in situations where the safety of the public is at risk, why not gun rights?
Your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall is suspended because of a risk to the public. Your right to carry guns is likewise regulated because guns are DANGEROUS TOOLS OF DEATH, designed to kill things as quickly and efficiently as possible-- ergo, they are an inherent danger to the public.
A group of armed idiots-- IE the march in the opening post, whom are all armed and also all idiots-- marching down the streets with fully loaded assault rifles is an inherent danger to the public, and the police, in acting to either turn them back or force them to disarm before continuing their march, are well within the law.
Do you really think that the Soviet Union or in fact any other Superpower would actually hesitate in invading you because a load of "bubbas" have an arsenal of guns? Do you not think that any invading country would have the same ideas on warfare as you...carpet bomb the place before moving in !?!
Actually Japan's generals in WWII were saying to take over the rest of the world first then go for america dew to the fact of most Americans had at that time had lots ow guns and some military grade rifles and such.
Melissia wrote: Other rights can be suspended in situations where the safety of the public is at risk, why not gun rights?
Your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall is suspended because of a risk to the public. Your right to carry guns is likewise regulated because guns are DANGEROUS TOOLS OF DEATH, designed to kill things as quickly and efficiently as possible-- ergo, they are an inherent danger to the public.
You are quite correct that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded mall because there is a risk to the public. But that risk is immediate and obvious because the right to free speech has been exercised in a careless or malicious way. That is not the same as the simple fact of gun ownership, unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur.
Someone owning a rifle for hunting purposes and storing it responsibly in a gun safe cannot reasonably be accused of being "an inherent danger to the public"
Wolfstan wrote: Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?
That's true. The rest of your post made so much sense, after all.
We have, it must be admitted, absolutely no recent examples of superpowers having an incredibly tough time militarily thanks to the presence of anachronistically-armed irregulars, forcing withdrawal from two separate conflicts when involvement became unsustainable.
And on the 'fighting domestic tyranny front,' it must be admitted that the Syrian rebels have been asking for nothing but love and strict, sensible gun control policy in order to defeat the Assad regime.
Beyond that, of course, you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head. The Second Amendment was written and ratified for only one reason, and does not exist to provide safeguards against a plethora of threats, some solely to the individual in the form of criminal injury, some to the democracy in the form of domestic tyranny, and some to the state in the form of external threats.
Melissia wrote: marching down the streets with fully loaded assault rifles is an inherent danger to the public, and the police, in acting to either turn them back or force them to disarm before continuing their march, are well within the law.
1. As mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this thread the firearms will not be loaded. I cannot stress this enough because this is a recurring factual error, not just from yourself but also numerous other. This removes your claim of "inherent danger".
2. Please define "assault rifle".
3. Please show me the evidence that those marching will be carrying said "assault rifles".
I'm pretty sure they'll all be semiautomatic rifles. I'm not sure where assault rifles came into the picture, but I lack the imagination of progressive journalism.
I would respectfully ask that you go back and re-read my post in full. I don't think that you can reasonably come to the conclusion you have from what I posted;
"You are quite correct that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded mall because there is a risk to the public. But that risk is immediate and obvious because the right to free speech has been exercised in a careless or malicious way. That is not the same as the simple fact of gun ownership, unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur.
Someone owning a rifle for hunting purposes and storing it responsibly in a gun safe cannot reasonably be accused of being "an inherent danger to the public""
I cannot see anything in that passage that equates to the point that you are attempting to attribute to me. If there is something that you believe is unclear in this passage that is causing confusion I would be glad to clarify it.
Melissia is saying that people who do not recognise loaded weapons as an immediate and obvious risk do not deserve to own them. I imagine this is in part due to the respect for firearms ethos.
You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.
Wolfstan wrote: Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?
That's true. The rest of your post made so much sense, after all.
We have, it must be admitted, absolutely no recent examples of superpowers having an incredibly tough time militarily thanks to the presence of anachronistically-armed irregulars, forcing withdrawal from two separate conflicts when involvement became unsustainable.
And on the 'fighting domestic tyranny front,' it must be admitted that the Syrian rebels have been asking for nothing but love and strict, sensible gun control policy in order to defeat the Assad regime.
Beyond that, of course, you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head. The Second Amendment was written and ratified for only one reason, and does not exist to provide safeguards against a plethora of threats, some solely to the individual in the form of criminal injury, some to the democracy in the form of domestic tyranny, and some to the state in the form of external threats.
Any example from before the 50's is pointless as nobody had the fire power to cause mass destruction, plus you still miss most of the points. Russia, China, North Korea or any other bogeyman you want to think of, would of been held at bay due to weapons of mass destruction. No the thought of citizens with guns. Especially as you could argue that not all of them would join force and fight back. You always have people who would be looking after themselves or making something out of it for themselves.
The middle east has always been a volatile area, so it's not a good example of why citizens should have guns.
As I've said before many times, your fore fathers could not of foreseen the way weapon technology would advance. The bill was written based on their understanding of guns at the time. Not of a time when there would be assault rifles, automatic pistols and machine guns.
If you want to reword yourself, go ahead. You said "But that risk is immediate and obvious", indicating that you believed that somehow shouting fire in a crowded theater was an immediate and obvious danger... unlike a gun.
purplefood wrote: You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.
That's how I see it anyway.
Is a loaded firearm still an immediate and obvious danger to the public if used on a closed range at paper tagets? Is it still an immediate and obvious danger to the public when being used to hunt deer?
My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me.
purplefood wrote: You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.
That's how I see it anyway.
Is a loaded firearm still an immediate and obvious danger to the public if used on a closed range at paper tagets? Is it still an immediate and obvious danger to the public when being used to hunt deer?
My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me.
Melissia wrote:If you want to reword yourself, go ahead. You said "But that risk is immediate and obvious", indicating that you believed that somehow shouting fire in a crowded theater was an immediate and obvious danger... unlike a gun.
This is pretty much my answer.
It's merely a misunderstanding really...
Wolfstan wrote: Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?
Again, that's not the purpose of the second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to be a deterrent to the tyranny of our own government.
Wolfstan wrote: Any example from before the 50's is pointless as nobody had the fire power to cause mass destruction, plus you still miss most of the points.
Who was talking about the '50s? I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.
As I've said before many times, your fore fathers could not of foreseen the way weapon technology would advance. The bill was written based on their understanding of guns at the time. Not of a time when there would be assault rifles, automatic pistols and machine guns.
You're aware all of those have been banned since 1986, right?
Still, I do love the impression so many people seem to have that the founders of this country would be radical liberals if they were alive today. Just a little food for thought...
Thomas Jefferson, Paris, November 13, 1787 wrote:The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Definitely sounds like a guy worried about gun violence, doesn't he?
Melissia wrote: If you want to reword yourself, go ahead. You said "But that risk is immediate and obvious", indicating that you believed that somehow shouting fire in a crowded theater was an immediate and obvious danger... unlike a gun.
I'm sorry if you mis-interpreted my words, I was attempting to clear up any confusion that you may have.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is obviously am immediate danger as there is the very real risk of someone getting hurt in the panic of people in a crowded area attempting to get out. Someone possessing a firearm and using it responsibly does not create that same immediate risk, unless the firearm is being used in an irresponsible, dangerous or threatening manner.
Once again I would ask;
Is a firearm an immediate risk to the public if stored responsibly?
Is a firearm an immediate risk to the public if being used responsibly at a range firing at paper targets?
Is a firearm an immediate risk to the public if being used responsibly whilst hunting?
My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me
Melissia wrote: Yes, a loaded firearm is always a public safety risk, no matter what the situation.
If it wasn't, there'd be no point of having one.
If that is your point of view then that makes this discussion rather difficult to conduct, given your entrenched position and mis-understanding of why someone may seek to own a firearm. You appear to be arguing from an ideological perspective, and not a factual one. I myself doubt that many hunters or target shooters posses their firearms for the sole point of having them as a public safety risk. I know that would not be my reason for owning a gun if permitted to in the future.
purplefood wrote: You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.
That's how I see it anyway.
Is a loaded firearm still an immediate and obvious danger to the public if used on a closed range at paper tagets? Is it still an immediate and obvious danger to the public when being used to hunt deer?
My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me.
They can be a danger to the public in every one of your scenarios. When hunting the bullet can miss the target and hit somebody, you don't always know what's behind your target. Dick Cheyney was hunting when he shot somebody in the face.
Accidents happen at gun ranges, so saying there is no risk is a lie.
I don't advocate not doing any of those things, I just advocate that if you own and use a weapon you acknowledge that it is a dangerous thing on your person and act accordingly.
Guns are dangerous and require a lot of caution to handle. Pretending that they pose no risk unless somebody has bad intentions is stupid and if people think that they are safe if you only have good intentions they should not own them.
d-usa wrote: They can be a danger to the public in every one of your scenarios. When hunting the bullet can miss the target and hit somebody, you don't always know what's behind your target. Dick Cheyney was hunting when he shot somebody in the face.
Accidents happen at gun ranges, so saying there is no risk is a lie.
I don't advocate not doing any of those things, I just advocate that if you own and use a weapon you acknowledge that it is a dangerous thing on your person and act accordingly.
Guns are dangerous and require a lot of caution to handle. Pretending that they pose no risk unless somebody has bad intentions is stupid and if people think that they are safe if you only have good intentions they should not own them.
Someone possessing a firearm and using it responsibly does not create that same immediate risk, unless the firearm is being used in an irresponsible, dangerous or threatening manner. Can unintended consequences occur? Yes that is a possibility. But to equate that with a deliberate and reckless/malicious action (the aforementioned "fire" in a theatre) is not an accurate comparison.
Actually, it's pretty much definitively proven that they were specifically talking about a militia system.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29, regarding the second amendment:
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"
Whatever they believed, they were proven disastrously wrong about the militia system little more than a couple decades later. Pushing your own biases and beliefs upon the founding fathers without doing any research on the topic doesn't do your argument any justice. And since that's all you're doing, I'm gonna go over there and talk about minecraft instead.
Do you really think that the Soviet Union or in fact any other Superpower would actually hesitate in invading you because a load of "bubbas" have an arsenal of guns? Do you not think that any invading country would have the same ideas on warfare as you...carpet bomb the place before moving in !?!
Actually Japan's generals in WWII were saying to take over the rest of the world first then go for america dew to the fact of most Americans had at that time had lots ow guns and some military grade rifles and such.
attacking the U.S. mainland wouldn’t have advanced the primary, or even secondary, strategic aims of the Japanese military in WWII, and wouldn’t have been seriously considered until after more important goals were met. Japan’s primary goal in WWII, remember, was defeating Chinese resistance to Japanese control so as to establish a stable, secure colonial foothold on the Asian continent. In order to maintain military production, Japan needed reliable sources of metals, minerals, oil, and rubber, materials that the United States had stopped selling Japan as part of the attempt to get Japan to back away from China. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian island chain was a bit of a feint, to damage US military capacity in the Pacific and to blunt any response to Japanese seizure of the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and other territories in the South Pacific. Those territories were valuable to Japan for their mineral wealth, oil and rubber: exploiting those resources would allow Japan to continue fighting the war in China
Melissia wrote: Whatever they believed, they were proven disastrously wrong about the militia system little more than a couple decades later. Pushing your own biases and beliefs upon the founding fathers without doing any research on the topic doesn't do your argument any justice. And since that's all you're doing, I'm gonna go over there and talk about minecraft instead.
Is that because you're aware of the absolute torrent of quotes that can be summoned from other founders referring to the militia as nothing more than the people themselves?
Speaking of doing your research, you may not want to just grab the juiciest quote you can find from a whackadoo website. You'll find it more fruitful to know what you're talking about if you want to get into a constitutional intent wrangle.
attacking the U.S. mainland wouldn’t have advanced the primary, or even secondary, strategic aims of the Japanese military in WWII, and wouldn’t have been seriously considered until after more important goals were met. Japan’s primary goal in WWII, remember, was defeating Chinese resistance to Japanese control so as to establish a stable, secure colonial foothold on the Asian continent. In order to maintain military production, Japan needed reliable sources of metals, minerals, oil, and rubber, materials that the United States had stopped selling Japan as part of the attempt to get Japan to back away from China. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian island chain was a bit of a feint, to damage US military capacity in the Pacific and to blunt any response to Japanese seizure of the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and other territories in the South Pacific. Those territories were valuable to Japan for their mineral wealth, oil and rubber: exploiting those resources would allow Japan to continue fighting the war in China
I think that quote was mis-attributed to begin with, along with the "sleeping giant" quote;
Misattributed
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said,[citation needed] I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]
I sincerely hope that's not a snide attempt to invalidate an historical fact as presented by a well-established collective of academic historians.
However, just to drive the nails into the coffin on this one:
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
I've deleted a couple of posts which were excessively personal or devoid of content. If you can't keep it friendly, please step away from the computer, have a refreshing beverage, and come back when you're in a more positive mood. Sarcasm and snarkiness don't help anyone.
Melissia wrote: Yes, a loaded firearm is always a public safety risk, no matter what the situation.
If it wasn't, there'd be no point of having one.
A car is also always a public safety risk if you are going to split hairs like that.
And again, these guys are not going to march with loaded weapons.
Could you please stop comparing guns and cars they have little in common (it's a dishonest comparison), for why this is the case I'll refer to an earlier comment I made.
Yeah but it's off-topic and doesn't add anything to the conversion other than a false idea that cars-related deaths are comparable to gun-related deaths despite the fact that they are quite different from each other (in terms of purpose, amount of time spent with them, where they are used,
how they're regulated, the likely hood of encountering them, etc), therefore making the comparison irrelevant that's why I made the apples and oranges comment earlier.
That comparison was only because Melissa made a silly statement that a gun simply by being loaded is a public safety threat. What if its loaded and in a locked safe? Or in the hands of someone very familiar with the weapon at a gun range shooting at targets.
None of those are situations where the general public is in danger.
It was to show the silly conclusion of saying something is a threat because in a certain situation it could prove to be one.
Grey Templar wrote: That comparison was only because Melissa made a silly statement that a gun simply by being loaded is a public safety threat. What if its loaded and in a locked safe? Or in the hands of someone very familiar with the weapon at a gun range shooting at targets.
None of those are situations where the general public is in danger.
It was to show the silly conclusion of saying something is a threat because in a certain situation it could prove to be one.
I forgot to add that you're technically right that under certain circumstances a car can be a threat.
That's why we have legally required inspections to make sure cars are roadworthy. That's why cops can pull you over for malfunctioning cars. That's why we have licensing and testing requirements that have to be renewed periodically.
You know, to try to minimize the risk of operating a dangerous product.
Fafnir wrote: Although it is a funny comparison, since cars are licensed and regulated, far more than guns are in the US.
I wonder if there's any stats that show tighter regulation in cars decreases the likelihood of fatalities happening per population, I don't think such a stat exist but there seems to be a downward trend in car related deaths in the US I don't know what is causing it though.
That's why we have legally required inspections to make sure cars are roadworthy. That's why cops can pull you over for malfunctioning cars. That's why we have licensing and testing requirements that have to be renewed periodically.
You know, to try to minimize the risk of operating a dangerous product.
Sure, and that's ok because Car's are not a Constitutional right.
Fafnir wrote: Although it is a funny comparison, since cars are licensed and regulated, far more than guns are in the US.
I wonder if there's any stats that show tighter regulation in cars decreases the likelihood of fatalities happening per population, I don't think such a stat exist but there seems to be a downward trend in car related deaths in the US I don't know what is causing it though.
It's also interesting that gun violence is also going down, without a corresponding increase in regulation.
Which I would interpret as "Regulation effects different things differently" It works for cars but not for guns.
Free and unrestricted travel is actually a constitutional right as determined by the Supreme Court. So you can argue that by restricting car usage and ownership you are infringing on my right to travel.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also:
If cars and guns are not the same and have different laws, then maybe you should quit comparing the two in your arguments.
