Switch Theme:

Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





 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.
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





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.

Dreadclaw69 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.

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.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

The point is that no right is truly inalienable.

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.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Western Kentucky

"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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 17:23:23


'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





I think you're pretty much got the right of it.
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

 azazel the cat wrote:
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 17:26:43


I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Valion wrote:
 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.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 azazel the cat wrote:

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.




 azazel the cat wrote:

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.


 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 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.

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.

 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 17:36:17


 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





@Dreadclaw69:
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.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

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.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





If nothing else, it will be a good way to get DC's carry ban overturned in the manner of Illinois'.
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





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.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 17:51:55


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

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.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 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;
 azazel the cat wrote:
kronk wrote:I'm pro gun.

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 17:59:09


 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





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!)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 18:00:45


 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 18:03:12


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

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.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Valion wrote:

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/10 18:13:12


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

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...

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 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

http://news.yahoo.com/northern-ireland-reserves-jail-space-122808079.html

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.

 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





 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.

The link is right there in the article.

"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.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Grey Templar wrote:
The point is that no right is truly inalienable.

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/10 18:37:55


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Valion wrote:
 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.

The link is right there in the article.

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?
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





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.

Your conclusion is wrong on its face.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





 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?
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Valion wrote:

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/05/10 19:42:07


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Rented Tritium wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 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.


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Thats true. These things never work out positively for us.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Western Kentucky

 dæl wrote:
 Valion wrote:
 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.

'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: