Crazy F*ckers and Mr. Glock

[billcoe]

This is a completely ridiculous analogy. But a good invitation for other analogies.

 

Yes, do I provide those now and can you pre-approve them so that they are not exposed to ridicule in advance?

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

The pen is mightier than the sword, so perhaps knowledge is more dangerous than guns?

 

That's what the late Timothy McVey thought and proved too. The founding fathers thought both were important.

 

(whos got the pagetop now Dru?)

[tvashtarkatena]

I disagree that it will never change... polls show that gun ownership continues to decline - and polls also show that more and more Americans want stricter gun control.

 

That what will never change? Who you talkin too?

 

Thant said -- everytime someone mentions gun control the right gets all bent out of shape and scream 'my cold dead hands." There is a huge difference between gun "control" and banning guns. No one is saying that guns should be banned - however many many people are wondering why a guy who would fail a background check in California, Minnesota and New York could walk into a Virginia store and in 20 minutes have a glock and bullets. As one interviewed woman stated "It takes me longer to do my laundry."

 

You bet, and that arguement has been used quite sucessfully as well to show that the media can and should be restrained especially in their active depiction of violence, which is ruinous to society and has been proven to cause more violence. Nobody is saying that the media should be banned or regulated, rather that it should have the most eggresious abuses which they repeatedly display checked a little.

 

To obsensiously tighten up and improve our society just a bit: only the most eggrious books should be banned. Maybe responsible people like yourself can register to check them out with a special permit after a background check. Not all books or all media. Remember that the biggest amount of people murdered via a domestic terroism act were not killed by guns anyway. By ideas picked up from the internet. That's what we learned from Tim McVey. He learned how to make a bomb.

 

After all, don't you agree that only a criminal would object to having to register with the police or ask to keep them out of his house, and only unpatriotic Jews would refuse to register and wear the pretty yellow stars.....

 

Right, what's the big deal? We can and should fix society so that we are all safe.

 

Bill's equating of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights here seems a bit far fetched to me. He suggests that to regulate gun ownership would open up the possibility of also regulating free speech and a free press. This line of argument is fundamentally flawed on several counts.

 

1) Speech and the press ARE regulated. False alarms (yelling 'fire' in a theatre), threats, obscenity, false statement, violating national security; these and more are heavily regulated in the name of public safety and well being. I could stop here, because Bill's slippery slope argument is already DOA, but...

 

2) Equating the direct and proven threat that homocidal gun owners present to society to the indirect and unproven threat of 'media induced violence' (which has never been proven by any study) is a bit of a stretch.

 

Our society already regulates and sometimes bans access to potentially lethal machines to a segment of the adult population: it's called a revoked driver's license.

 

I can think of no compelling reason why a similar standard should not be applied to gun ownership in the interests of public safety.

 

 

[ivan]

so bill, how do you rate the rights, that is, which is more important? speech or guns? or are they tied? if speech is more important, it would stand to reason it should be less restricted than gun rights. both rights are already subject to restrictions of course.

[Dechristo]

you can't yell "GLOCK" in a crowded theater

[archenemy]

I disagree that it will never change... polls show that gun ownership continues to decline - and polls also show that more and more Americans want stricter gun control.

 

That what will never change? Who you talkin too?

 

Thant said -- everytime someone mentions gun control the right gets all bent out of shape and scream 'my cold dead hands." There is a huge difference between gun "control" and banning guns. No one is saying that guns should be banned - however many many people are wondering why a guy who would fail a background check in California, Minnesota and New York could walk into a Virginia store and in 20 minutes have a glock and bullets. As one interviewed woman stated "It takes me longer to do my laundry."

 

You bet, and that arguement has been used quite sucessfully as well to show that the media can and should be restrained especially in their active depiction of violence, which is ruinous to society and has been proven to cause more violence. Nobody is saying that the media should be banned or regulated, rather that it should have the most eggresious abuses which they repeatedly display checked a little.

 

To obsensiously tighten up and improve our society just a bit: only the most eggrious books should be banned. Maybe responsible people like yourself can register to check them out with a special permit after a background check. Not all books or all media. Remember that the biggest amount of people murdered via a domestic terroism act were not killed by guns anyway. By ideas picked up from the internet. That's what we learned from Tim McVey. He learned how to make a bomb.

 

After all, don't you agree that only a criminal would object to having to register with the police or ask to keep them out of his house, and only unpatriotic Jews would refuse to register and wear the pretty yellow stars.....

 

Right, what's the big deal? We can and should fix society so that we are all safe.

 

Bill's equating of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights here seems a bit far fetched to me. He suggests that to regulate gun ownership would open up the possibility of also regulating free speech and a free press. This line of argument is fundamentally flawed on several counts.

 

1) Speech and the press ARE regulated. False alarms (yelling 'fire' in a theatre), threats, obscenity, false statement, violating national security; these and more are heavily regulated in the name of public safety and well being. I could stop here, because Bill's slippery slope argument is already DOA, but...

 

2) Equating the direct and proven threat that homocidal gun owners present to society to the indirect and unproven threat of 'media induced violence' (which has never been proven by any study) is a bit of a stretch.

 

Our society already regulates and sometimes bans access to potentially lethal machines to a segment of the adult population: it's called a revoked driver's license.

 

I can think of no compelling reason why a similar standard should not be applied to gun ownership in the interests of public safety.

 

From this post, it sounds like there are no rules attached to gun ownership whatsoever. This is simply untrue.

[tvashtarkatena]

I disagree that it will never change... polls show that gun ownership continues to decline - and polls also show that more and more Americans want stricter gun control.

 

That what will never change? Who you talkin too?

 

Thant said -- everytime someone mentions gun control the right gets all bent out of shape and scream 'my cold dead hands." There is a huge difference between gun "control" and banning guns. No one is saying that guns should be banned - however many many people are wondering why a guy who would fail a background check in California, Minnesota and New York could walk into a Virginia store and in 20 minutes have a glock and bullets. As one interviewed woman stated "It takes me longer to do my laundry."

 

You bet, and that arguement has been used quite sucessfully as well to show that the media can and should be restrained especially in their active depiction of violence, which is ruinous to society and has been proven to cause more violence. Nobody is saying that the media should be banned or regulated, rather that it should have the most eggresious abuses which they repeatedly display checked a little.

 

To obsensiously tighten up and improve our society just a bit: only the most eggrious books should be banned. Maybe responsible people like yourself can register to check them out with a special permit after a background check. Not all books or all media. Remember that the biggest amount of people murdered via a domestic terroism act were not killed by guns anyway. By ideas picked up from the internet. That's what we learned from Tim McVey. He learned how to make a bomb.

 

After all, don't you agree that only a criminal would object to having to register with the police or ask to keep them out of his house, and only unpatriotic Jews would refuse to register and wear the pretty yellow stars.....

 

Right, what's the big deal? We can and should fix society so that we are all safe.

 

Bill's equating of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights here seems a bit far fetched to me. He suggests that to regulate gun ownership would open up the possibility of also regulating free speech and a free press. This line of argument is fundamentally flawed on several counts.

 

1) Speech and the press ARE regulated. False alarms (yelling 'fire' in a theatre), threats, obscenity, false statement, violating national security; these and more are heavily regulated in the name of public safety and well being. I could stop here, because Bill's slippery slope argument is already DOA, but...

 

2) Equating the direct and proven threat that homocidal gun owners present to society to the indirect and unproven threat of 'media induced violence' (which has never been proven by any study) is a bit of a stretch.

 

Our society already regulates and sometimes bans access to potentially lethal machines to a segment of the adult population: it's called a revoked driver's license.

 

I can think of no compelling reason why a similar standard should not be applied to gun ownership in the interests of public safety.

 

From this post, it sounds like there are no rules attached to gun ownership whatsoever. This is simply untrue.

 

It probably only sounds that way to a 'dumb cunt'.

Edited April 25, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[archenemy]

That is funny.

[archenemy]

So back on track,

 

1) Speech and the press ARE regulated. False alarms (yelling 'fire' in a theatre), threats, obscenity, false statement, violating national security; these and more are heavily regulated in the name of public safety and well being. I could stop here, because Bill's slippery slope argument is already DOA, but...

 

2) guns and gun ownership ARE regulated. Anyone under thirty has to pass hunter safety to get their permit; these classes are for public safety and well being. Certain types of weapons are banned for many people. People with felony convictions are not allowed to own a gun. I could go on here, but I'd just sound like a dumb cunt, wouldn't I?

[Jim]

Sounds like more gun control isn't the issue so much as more information control. Why aren't these databases built correctly and linked? There seem to be so many stories about how information doesn't flow between different government institutions and the institutions that need the information from them: yet I don't hear much outcry about it.

 

In Virgina this was blocked by the gun ownership rights folks aligned with the keep-mental-health-records-secret folks. I don't see the intrusion to either.

[tvashtarkatena]

That's my point DC; guns are regulated and, nearly all of the time, those regulations do work to protect public safety. When the system fails, however, it's always good to take a good hard look at why and discuss possible solutions. There won't always be a fix to every gun death, just as there isn't for every auto related death, but to respond to an incident such as what just happened at Virginia Tech with "there's nothing we can do about it, shit just happens", or "more guns, less crime!" as some have done here, seems simplistic and irresponsible to me, particularly when there were regulations in place that could have prevented this shooter from obtaining firearms.

 

I'd say preventing those people who cannot responsibly own and handle a firearm from obtaining one is the number one way to reduce gun related violence and accidents. Upon looking around, that would seem to include most of our population.

[archenemy]

Nice detailed way to reiterate what I said above.

[wfinley]

In Virgina this was blocked by the gun ownership rights folks aligned with the keep-mental-health-records-secret folks. I don't see the intrusion to either.

No it wasn't. Here's a direct quote from the NYT:

 

"Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said."

 

Virginia doesn't have any law blocking this; they just don't comply with their own regulations. Whether this is due to neglect on behalf of the Va government - or refusal to comply with regulations on behalf of gun rights advocates remains to be seen.

 

In regards to hunting class; that's for a hunting license. Not to buy a gun.

[archenemy]

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. When I said "permit", I did not mean to imply this meant a permit for owning a gun, rather, a permit for hunting. Sorry for any confusion...

[deathdealer]

How I look at:

 

You can only blame a gun for killing somebody, if you can blame a pencil for spelling a word wrong.

 

This issue will never be resolved. You could argue why we don't need guns, and I will not change my stand. I could argue with you why we need guns, and you will not change your stand. It will always be a stalemate. I think the gun issue is alot like the abortion issue.

[billcoe]

so bill, how do you rate the rights, that is, which is more important? speech or guns? or are they tied? if speech is more important, it would stand to reason it should be less restricted than gun rights. both rights are already subject to restrictions of course.

 

Any resemblance between moi and Jefferson or Hamilton is purely coincidental. However: it seems to me, in observing other countries as Juntas develop, if you control the weapons, then later controlling the media and speech is an easy thing - and not the reverse.

 

Joni Mitchell: " You don't know what you got till it's gone".

[ivan]

so bill, how do you rate the rights, that is, which is more important? speech or guns? or are they tied? if speech is more important, it would stand to reason it should be less restricted than gun rights. both rights are already subject to restrictions of course.

 

Any resemblance between moi and Jefferson or Hamilton is purely coincidental. However: it seems to me, in observing other countries as Juntas develop, if you control the weapons, then later controlling the media and speech is an easy thing - and not the reverse.

 

Joni Mitchell: " You don't know what you got till it's gone".

i argue for amusement now

 

seems to me that countries w/ juntas are broiling w/ ak's - and the journalists in those countries are scared to death to write anything unflattering about either the government or the rebels as both will use their guns to kill them - there is no freedom of speech b/c there is too much freedom of guns

[billcoe]

 

seems to me that countries w/ juntas are broiling w/ ak's - and the journalists in those countries are scared to death to write anything unflattering about either the government or the rebels as both will use their guns to kill them - there is no freedom of speech b/c there is too much freedom of guns

 

Not true. Maybe you can name a country with univeral weapons ownership that has had issues? Perhaps you are thinking of places having a civil war, maybe Nicarcua when the US was supplying one side, or El Salvador.

 

The government of Guatamala was able to terroise the population and murder thousands of innocent civilians because only the govenment had weapons.

 

They are still digging up people in Chili, Ecuador and Brazil due to similar circumstances. Some of those countries have some, but not even close to all, opposition armed, Uruguay and Peru: for instance, which causes a whole differnet set of problems with normal - not able to get armed -people getting slaughtered by both sides. The shining path in Peru has weapons, but they are running around a country devoid of them outside of the military.

 

The sides doing the slaughtering know that the side with the most effeicient and biggest weapons will rule the country. And control the media too.

 

Which is why they don't want assholes like us having weapons.

[billcoe]

link

 

You see stuff like this come and go.

 

" As many as six South American regimes took part in the joint campaign to hunt down and kill their left-wing opponents."

 

Later as civilian unrest widens, so does the killing as a way in which the authorities are able to maintain power throught terror. In countries where a junta is shunted aside and a democracy installed, another junta will often show up later. Easily created where a power vacumn has formed due to the lack of a widespread armed popluation.

[billcoe]

Perhaps you can find an example of a widely armed population having a civilian goverment being overthrown by a junta or military for me?

[ivan]

Perhaps you can find an example of a widely armed population having a civilian goverment being overthrown by a junta or military for me?

rome - repeatedly from 100 BC to 400 AD

france - 1790's

usa - 1770s (the south had plenty of guns and largely fought for the brits)

somalia - 1990s

shit - all of africa in the 20th century?

[billcoe]

Perhaps you can find an example of a widely armed population having a civilian goverment being overthrown by a junta or military for me?

rome - repeatedly from 100 BC to 400 AD

france - 1790's

usa - 1770s (the south had plenty of guns and largely fought for the brits)

somalia - 1990s

shit - all of africa in the 20th century?

 

 

In re-reading my statement, what I meant to say was perhaps you can find an example of a widely armed population having a civilian democratic goverment being overthrown by a junta or military for me? If a country has a "king for life", I think that's a whole nother ball of wax. Your French and American example bolsters my arguement.

 

I'll give you Rome.

[mattp]

Not true. Maybe you can name a country with univeral weapons ownership that has had issues?

 

Ah... Billcoe - in my opinion WE have "issues." I don't think the widespread availability and ownership of guns has really protected us from our government, or that there is any real prospect for a populist rebellion organized out behind your woodshed.

[billcoe]

 

Ah... Billcoe - in my opinion WE have "issues." I don't think the widespread availability and ownership of guns has really protected us from our government, or that there is any real prospect for a populist rebellion organized out behind your woodshed.

 

Proving only that you are still welcome to your opinion Matt, even when you are so drastically wrong.

[ivan]

i'm heading home now but i'll marinate on your question bill - meanwhile, what about all the democratic governments currently in existence in europe that have very limited gun ownership? they seem to have been quite stable for more than a half-century now? no juntas in spain, france, italy, germany, england, etc. meanwhile, the widespread availabilty of guns in northern ireland fueled a bloody civil conflict to oust a democratic goverment.

 

home time!

[mattp]

Proving only that you are still welcome to your opinion Matt, even when you are so drastically wrong.

 

Good luck with your rebellion.