Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Again, I make the point that it seems that your only argument is that its as part of your rights.

Yes indeedy. We're quite fond of them and fought a few wars about it.

The rights of a country's people are subject to change,

No. They can't

so quit refering to them as though they're written in stone.

Written on dead animal skin actually.

Posters here seem to think that they're 100% correct, and yet if that's the case then why're people argueing against them?

Its the internet, plus you're still arguing too, about US rights, without being a US citizen...

Yes, North Americans really do give off the impression that you follow your mantra unoquivically, not as a whole of course but merely those that're argueing for those rights layed out in it. You may not agree with this, but its how you come across. =/

Whats amazing is how little we care. We fought two wars with you to insure we don't have to care. Fought another war to make sure an entire subject people would have those same rights.

PhantomViper wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on.

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

You guys are weird...

Except the statistics and studies have all shown (from sources like the CDC, not just Bubba and Jimbo) that it WOULDN'T make the country safer.

Have you actually bothered to read the thread? Or are you just here to make snarky remarks?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I have a South African friend who was faced with armed criminals every day of his life. He said he'd have his hous broken into by kids with pistols. Did he use a gun to defend himself, nope. Most of all he hates the Ak47 (he works in an art gallery that was featuring them and chewed out any kids who said "ooh cool" at it). The guys breaking into your home are either so out of their heads on drugs that you fighting back's only going to incite them, or if you fight back then they'll see you as a threat and kill you instead of just robbing you. Oh you'll say, "they could just shoot him anyway because he was unarmed", they could have, but him not fighting back gave him a higher chance of living when it came to the sane criminals.

He's not a pacifist, he's just lost too many friends to shoot outs with twelve year olds over a few rand. If you come across a road block stationed with cracked out kids you do what they say or drive the hell out of there, shooting back's not going to make a difference when you've got your kids in the back seat. He's living in Scotland as a museum attendant now. Why? Well for one he merrits his chances more against a guy with a knife, but no, its that the country's civilised enough that the threat of being mugged at gun point isn't something that crosses anyone mind. =P

That's the choice your South African friend made and he will live with that. That's okay. There are plenty of people who do not own guns here in the US and they rely on police, baseball bats, burglar alarms, or whatever if they are ever threatened. Some people decide that they would like the choice to defend themselves with a gun and it is a decision that every citizen of the United States has to make at some point in their lives. Do I want a gun? If I do, what do I want it for?

You seem to be very colonial in your attitudes towards other countries. We must not be civilized enough.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.

So you're for a ban on alcohol, then? After all, that would surely lead to the least amount of kids drunk on streets at night, and you do not care about the methods.

This is awesome. Now we can run Jim Beam in through Ireland like the Brits ran whisky through Canada. Prohibition laws+ inelastic demand = PROFIT!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.

Neither, for the same reason that I don't open carry.

If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first. Having armed and trained staff is much more effective when nobody knows about them. If a bad guy comes in to rob the place and does the classical "hand in pocket/I have a gun" or is pointing the gun around without shooting anybody, then the armed staff can surprise the burglar. If he knows they will go for their guns and shoot him, he will simply neutralize them first.

Same as with open carry for me. Lots of people like open carry because they argue that "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows better than to start something and leaves". I think that open carry just paints a target on me and my argument is "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows that he should take me out first". The element of surprise is important to me and if you practice you can draw just as fast from a concealed holster than an outside holster.

I'm not against open carry laws and I am glad we passed ours, it's just not something I would do.

 d-usa wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.

Neither, for the same reason that I don't open carry.

If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first. Having armed and trained staff is much more effective when nobody knows about them. If a bad guy comes in to rob the place and does the classical "hand in pocket/I have a gun" or is pointing the gun around without shooting anybody, then the armed staff can surprise the burglar. If he knows they will go for their guns and shoot him, he will simply neutralize them first.

Same as with open carry for me. Lots of people like open carry because they argue that "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows better than to start something and leaves". I think that open carry just paints a target on me and my argument is "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows that he should take me out first". The element of surprise is important to me and if you practice you can draw just as fast from a concealed holster than an outside holster.

I'm not against open carry laws and I am glad we passed ours, it's just not something I would do.

Agree on all points

I still don't think it's a good idea... but, hypothetically speaking... I would only train/arm only a handful of staff (not all Admin/teachers).

But, if someone is willing to kill... I see you're point about the open carry painting a large target.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I have a South African friend who was faced with armed criminals every day of his life. He said he'd have his hous broken into by kids with pistols. Did he use a gun to defend himself, nope. Most of all he hates the Ak47 (he works in an art gallery that was featuring them and chewed out any kids who said "ooh cool" at it). The guys breaking into your home are either so out of their heads on drugs that you fighting back's only going to incite them, or if you fight back then they'll see you as a threat and kill you instead of just robbing you. Oh you'll say, "they could just shoot him anyway because he was unarmed", they could have, but him not fighting back gave him a higher chance of living when it came to the sane criminals.

He's not a pacifist, he's just lost too many friends to shoot outs with twelve year olds over a few rand. If you come across a road block stationed with cracked out kids you do what they say or drive the hell out of there, shooting back's not going to make a difference when you've got your kids in the back seat. He's living in Scotland as a museum attendant now. Why? Well for one he merrits his chances more against a guy with a knife, but no, its that the country's civilised enough that the threat of being mugged at gun point isn't something that crosses anyone mind. =P

Sorry, we're not all willing to be victims like your friend. I saw enough of that myself in places liek Honduras, and am not interested in being that guy. My home was built in the 1820's to withstand artillery fire at close range. (and it has)

Your friends plan was to be so non-threatening to be not worth the bullet. Mine is to be so threatening, even the most coked up guy thinks twice (they know when they enter my part of the terrain. There are skulls in every tree along the boundary to this property). The difference? I keep my stuff, and I don't have to move, they do. I refuse to be victemized,

PhantomViper wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on.

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

You guys are weird...

Yup... at least the Patriot Act is voted on to continue. We'll revert back to normal (ish) when it isn't continued.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.

Neither, for the same reason that I don't open carry.

If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first. Having armed and trained staff is much more effective when nobody knows about them. If a bad guy comes in to rob the place and does the classical "hand in pocket/I have a gun" or is pointing the gun around without shooting anybody, then the armed staff can surprise the burglar. If he knows they will go for their guns and shoot him, he will simply neutralize them first.

Same as with open carry for me. Lots of people like open carry because they argue that "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows better than to start something and leaves". I think that open carry just paints a target on me and my argument is "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows that he should take me out first". The element of surprise is important to me and if you practice you can draw just as fast from a concealed holster than an outside holster.

I'm not against open carry laws and I am glad we passed ours, it's just not something I would do.

Agree on all points

I still don't think it's a good idea... but, hypothetically speaking... I would only train/arm only a handful of staff (not all Admin/teachers).

But, if someone is willing to kill... I see you're point about the open carry painting a large target.

We have had a few places reach a sort of middle ground. Some of our more "family" places have posted signs that open carry is not permitted. Mostly because other patrons have complained about it, they are places with lots of children, and other reasons that made people uncomfortable with guns around. But they still allow concealed carry, since people were just getting uncomfortable when they were seeing a gun.

PhantomViper wrote:

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

Please point to me what rights were stripped away?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

Please point to me what rights were stripped away?

Uh... if the good guys believe you're a terrorist, they can hold you indefinately w/o trial or access to lawyers... technically. The name of that Act escapes me for a moment.
EDIT 1: It's the NDAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

whembly wrote:Whoa...

The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

whembly wrote:Whoa...

The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

It sounds like a great idea on the surface. It's not. Cops have a much better chance of using a gun and look how well trained they are. Now add firearms and training to the education budget that already isn't enough. It's just a big no. Take down the gun free zone sign, subsidize local PD to train the teachers with thier own guns and ammo once a quarter. It's still not a great solution but until education in the UsA is well funded and US students are no1 I'm against anything that takes money out of teaching.

 Frazzled wrote:

The rights of a country's people are subject to change,

No. They can't

Insofar as he's talking about the Bill of Rights, I suppose they could be amended away. They are positive rights posited by the sovereign people. The important point is that just because a right is posited by a people in their government rather than established by God or otherwise inherent to nature does not render it meaningless. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The rights of a country's people are subject to change,

No. They can't

Insofar as he's talking about the Bill of Rights, I suppose they could be amended away. They are positive rights posited by the sovereign people. The important point is that just because a right is posited by a people in their government rather than established by God or otherwise inherent to nature does not render it meaningless. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I think Frazz is right he just didn't say enough. Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.

Alfndrate wrote:So Kan,

If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?

Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?

whembly wrote:Whoa...

The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

So who is going to stop the teachers/administrators if they decide to start shooting?

You're presenting a great point as to why this is such a problem. The majority of the individuals doing these shootings are not criminals. They are obtaining these guns legally.
This most recent shooting would not have been prevented if there were some kind of "no mental illness" law for guns, because the guns did not belong to the shooter. They belonged to the mother.

And for that matter, many schools have school resource officers--who are active duty law enforcement, armed on campus. If an armed and trained individual is not going to make a difference, do you really think throwing MORE armed people into the mix is going to do it?

Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
In order for reform to begin, you need a problem to start with.

I think that is more revealing than you intended: starting with a solution (gun control) and looking for a problem (too many people have guns) to justify it.

Not really.
The problem is the wide availability of legally obtainable firearms and the relatively lax control on said firearms making their way into the hands of individuals who continually use legally obtained firearms in mass killings.
A subproblem is the attention granted to spree killers by the media.
Another subproblem is, barring hindsight, how to prevent such instances from occurring again.

There is no framework within the Second Amendment to work from. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights is not the end all, be all for this argument.
Gun violence is a problem that is going to continue getting worse before it gets better. And that's not even looking at instances of illegally obtained firearms used in crimes related to narcotic and gang violence.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Only if you don't actually read my posts maybe.

Don't even try that one on me, Kan. I read them alright and I appraise them as poor at best not to mention more than a touch loony.

The fact that you refer to it as "loony" tells me all I need to know, Manchu.

Why in the hell is it "loony" to say that there needs to be a step towards more government involvement in the ownership of firearms? The fact that people cry that ANY kind of government restrictions on firearms is infringing on their rights is absurd.

 AustonT wrote:
Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.

That's what we hope. But in any case, threats to the Bill of Rights have never presented themselves as threats directly to the text of the Constitution. Proponents of gun control aren't even talking about reading the second amendment in a novel way much less amending the document. They'd prefer not to read it at all. (Just look at Kan's arguments, jumping from disregarding one amendment to another.) The threat does come from a misunderstanding of positivism in law. The same weird result is happening with regard to marriage as we speak.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.

That's what we hope. But in any case, threats to the Bill of Rights have never presented themselves as threats directly to the text of the Constitution. Proponents of gun control aren't even talking about reading the second amendment in a novel way much less amending the document. They'd prefer not to read it at all. (Just look at Kan's arguments, jumping from disregarding one amendment to another.) The threat does come from a misunderstanding of positivism in law. The same weird result is happening with regard to marriage as we speak.

And the threat also comes from a refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time and the Second Amendment no longer can be interpreted in a meaningful way.

This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:So Kan,

If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?

Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?

I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?

I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.

Have you seen Chicago recently?

 d-usa wrote:

If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first.

The bad intentions we are discussing, specifically, are someone going into a school with the intent of shooting it up, though.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

Please point to me what rights were stripped away?

The right to not get groped at the airport? This seems to be the right to not get groped anywhere. Other than that, not sure what.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem is the wide availability of legally obtainable firearms and the relatively lax control on said firearms making their way into the hands of individuals who continually use legally obtained firearms in mass killings.

No, the problem is that there are individuals committing mass killings. Your argument is a sleight of hand. Mind, I'm not necessarily accusing you of being disingenuous. I think a lot of people say things like this without understanding why they're wrong.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why in the hell is it "loony" to say that there needs to be a step towards more government involvement in the ownership of firearms? The fact that people cry that ANY kind of government restrictions on firearms is infringing on their rights is absurd.

What is absurd is your mischaracterization of the real world to fit your blatantly false preconceived notions. There are many standing restrictions on firearm ownership and many proponents of private firearm ownership see nothing to complain about regarding these restrictions. You present a cost/benefit analysis about random inspections by completely disregard the costs (despite them being well established in our jurisprudence) and assuming the benefit (for which there is no evidence). This is a loony argument.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.

That's what we hope. But in any case, threats to the Bill of Rights have never presented themselves as threats directly to the text of the Constitution. Proponents of gun control aren't even talking about reading the second amendment in a novel way much less amending the document. They'd prefer not to read it at all. (Just look at Kan's arguments, jumping from disregarding one amendment to another.) The threat does come from a misunderstanding of positivism in law. The same weird result is happening with regard to marriage as we speak.

And the threat also comes from a refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time and the Second Amendment no longer can be interpreted in a meaningful way.

This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.

Mmm, and Amerikka rises.
No thanks.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first.

The bad intentions we are discussing, specifically, are someone going into a school with the intent of shooting it up, though.

So simply shoot the teacher first, then proceed with the murder of children, switching to shooting anybody over 4 feet tall as needed.

It's not as effective of a solution as people make it out to be.

I think a lot of folks keep getting stuck on their "perfect solution".

We need to realize that there ARE no perfect solutions.

Bad people will do bad things..

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the threat also comes from a refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time

Please clarify. What exactly does the threat of "refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time" threaten? I think we are talking about different things. The fact that the Constitution was written over two centuries ago has nothing to do with its legal validity. Just because you are not familiar with jurisprudence does not mean that judges and legislators are similarly ignorant.

 Kanluwen wrote:
and the Second Amendment no longer can be interpreted in a meaningful way.

That's just a declarative statement but it seems like you think it's an argument.

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.

That's sort of funny considering I spent the morning in a rifle pit. In a Blue State, no less!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Hard to keep track of what has been posted yet and what hasn't.

And for the argument that simply training more people and letting them carry guns would stop kids getting killed:

http://newsok.com/boy-shot-and-killed-in-logan-county-was-nephew-of-oklahoma-trooper/article/3738312

GUTHRIE — A 3-year-old boy who accidentally shot and killed himself with a gun has been identified as the nephew of a state trooper — and the weapon belonged to the lawman — authorities said.
Ryder Rozier, 3, died of an accidental gunshot wound to the head, said Amy Elliott, spokeswoman for the state medical examiner's office.

The boy was at the home of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper on Saturday when the accidental shooting took place, Logan County Sheriff's Capt. Richard Stephens said.
Rozier is a nephew of the trooper, Stephens said. Stephens did not release the name of the trooper. The boy shot himself with one of the trooper's personal guns, Stephens said. It was not a state-issued gun.

Ryder was at the trooper's home in the 1500 block of Derby Lane, about four miles southeast of Guthrie. He found a loaded handgun in a bedroom.
Stephens said the sheriff's office took a call about the shooting just after noon Saturday.

You cannot legislate responsible gun ownership.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:So Kan,

If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?

Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?

I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?

I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)

Plain view is complex but I'll try to simplify it.
There are three basic requirements.
1. The item must be within the officer's sight;
2. The officer must legally be in the place from which the item is seen; and
3. It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure.

There used to be a fourth requirement, "Inadvertence"(the accidental finding by an officer of the item rather than prior knowledge that the item is in a particular place) which was removed by Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128 [1990]).

 whembly wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

Please point to me what rights were stripped away?

Uh... if the good guys believe you're a terrorist, they can hold you indefinately w/o trial or access to lawyers... technically. The name of that Act escapes me for a moment.
EDIT 1: It's the NDAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Blocked by the Supreme Court for Constitutional violations.

I also like how Kan keeps saying gun violence is getting worse, despite ALL violence dropping like a rock.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.

I will certainly agree with you here. We MUST stop pretending it is or is soon going to be zombie apocalypse time. A lot of people in this country are living in a fantasy land where the moon landing is fake, President Bush ordered the Twin Towers destroyed, and the Mayans correctly foresaw that health care reform would destroy the world (i.e., the Yoo-knighted States Uvahmurka). But let's please don't answer the delusions of the right with delusions from the left, about gun control or whatever else.