Crazy F*ckers and Mr. Glock

[tvashtarkatena]

1. In regard to medical records; I agree it is a slippery slope - however in December 2005 a Montgomery County General District Court found probable cause that Mr. Cho was “mentally ill” and an “imminent danger to self and others. I fail to see where accessing public records for a background check is an invasion of privacy.

 

Once you're mental status causes you to become involved the court system, it becomes part of the public record, and therefore fair game to be used in a gun purchase backround check. The system failed in this case.

 

I see no invasion of privacy here. Mr. Cho's public behavior put him in court and in the public record, not his private thoughts or actions.

[rmncwrtr]

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

--Benjamin Franklin

 

That is one of my favorite quotes, FW!

[tvashtarkatena]

I think the 'everyone should be armed' crowd have it right. I'd love to live in a place where every meth head, undiagnosed mentally ill person, and angry young aggro, and senile senior was packing. Such a policy would affectively recreate the Wild West, which boasted the highest gun death rates in our nation's history outside of the Civil War.

 

An antidote to the Boredom of Modernity, to be sure.

[ivan]

you can't make an omlette w/o breaking eggs, no? nor can you have a right to bear arms and a right to a privacy w/o shit like this happening. i'm willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the later, for what it's worth...

 

 

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

--Benjamin Franklin

very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol.

[ivan]

in other words, security can only be had by trading some liberty - the trick lies in the balance, and as we're all retards, therefore we'll constantly be swinging past the equilibrium point and bitching about it...

[ashw_justin]

My opinion is, you don't want to carry a gun, don't. But don't weigh my chances for me and then assume you are the best judge of what I should do. What gets me is folks here saying that these kids have a right to go to school without feeling scared, yet feel equally comfortable telling me that I am not afforded the same consideration. It makes me feel safer to carry a gun on me when I am alone in the woods.

 

I also feel better knowing I have my gun in my home in the city when I am alone. Maybe someday folks will feel this same rightous indignation about the fear that women live under in our society every fucking day and then get something done about that. Until then, I'll carry my gun fuck you very much.

 

I'm not challenging anyone's choice (or right) to carry a gun. I'm not necessarily even saying that it doesn't make you safer. What I am saying is that the wilderness is a dangerous place. It is not supposed to be safe. The safest wilderness is the one that doesn't exist anymore. Yes, I am comfortable saying that the wilderness is dangerous, and that there is nothing you or anyone can do to make it 'safe.'

 

On the other hand, obviously everyone is entitled to feeling safe in their homes, businesses, SCHOOLS, towns, cities.

 

Whether someone else has a gun at home (and whether it makes them safer) is really not my business, and I didn't even bring it up--I don't appreciate that you did. Nor do I appreciate the gender references--men are not immune to violent crimes.

 

Like I said before, the best way to feel safer in the wilderness is to take a partner. There are many risks associated with going out alone, of which animal attacks are only one possibility. That is, unless your partner is

[rmncwrtr]

You're taking the quote out of context, Ivan. Benjamin Franklin was not talking about total freedom. And the actual wording of the quote (from around 1755), depending on whose research you believe, is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Fairweather]

you can't make an omlette w/o breaking eggs, no? nor can you have a right to bear arms and a right to a privacy w/o shit like this happening. i'm willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the later, for what it's worth...

 

 

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

--Benjamin Franklin

very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol.

 

As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was.

 

Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable.

[SmallShoes]

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

--Benjamin Franklin

 

I wonder what that implies about the Patriot Act.

 

Back to buying prescription drugs and buying guns: Anti-depressants have helped many people recover and become functional again; clearly they have benefits. But they can also be dangerous as in some people they have been shown to make the symptoms worse - killing others or themselves. Even with all the money the Pharmaceutical industry has spent lobbying they still haven't been able to do away with the requirement that a person must be evaluated by a doctor in order to purchase anti-depressants.

Yet there is no such standard for purchasing a gun. That same mentally ill person who cannot buy anti-depressants can go ahead and purchase a gun without an evaluation from anyone. The NRA with a surprisingly larger budget has managed to do what the Pharmaceutical industry only wishes it could do - removing hindrances on purchasing weapons.

 

Discuss.

[tvashtarkatena]

in other words, security can only be had by trading some liberty - the trick lies in the balance, and as we're all retards, therefore we'll constantly be swinging past the equilibrium point and bitching about it...

 

True security can be had by gaining liberty, not giving it up. Safety in the wilderness, for example, is not ensured by taking a partner, who may be a bozo, or a gun, which is just as likely to get you into more trouble than less; it is enhanced by familiarity and experience with that environment. That is true liberty.

 

Personally, cougar or psycho attack is pretty far down my list of worries when wilderness bound. I've seen, let's see, 3 lions in 40 years of back country travel...all within a single minute. Furthermore, I've found that shooting a storm cloud, avalanche, or falling rock isn't very effective at stopping them from doing their thing. And adding several pounds of gun to my pack doesn't exactly help my fat ass from avoiding any of these hazards.

 

[ivan]

you can't make an omlette w/o breaking eggs, no? nor can you have a right to bear arms and a right to a privacy w/o shit like this happening. i'm willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the later, for what it's worth...

 

 

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

--Benjamin Franklin

very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol.

 

As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was.

 

Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable.

 

Big Ben had no part in crafting the right you so cherish (guns) - as you no doubt know, the bill of rights wasn't created in philly. and to say locke or montesquie or the others weren't present at the drafting of the american goverment is pretty goddamn daft - clearly they weren't there physically, but the ideas they articulated resound throughout the constitution and declaration (jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a near total plagariasm from locke, the seperation of powers from the frenchie, etc)

 

"essential" in "essential liberties" is a most ambigious adjective - what's essential to me is not going to be the same for you - you clearly care about guns, where i'd be happier seeing them a whole hell of a lot harder to come by - i think the right to get fawked up 4 ways to sunday is pretty damn essential, but you don't and that's not acceptable to me either. i guess you at least sorta have it in writing in the 2nd amendment, but you know as well as i that it can be read to mean merely that the people in the form of their state militias have the right to bear arms.

 

we have no absolutely unrestricted freedoms - we must accept limitations to them all - again, the question is the balance - to what degree will we part with specific rights? i think folks oughta be able to have guns, but nothing more than single shot, slow to reload ones - you can hunt and defend yourself just fine w/ those, but yes, they will be inadequate if you choose to iniate hostilities against a larger force (say a french class at 9 AM). its a compromise - you can still plug bambi or the uppity-negro crawling through the bedroom window for your daughter. now watch me compromise - legalize pot and you can keep the freak'n blow illegal. or legalize it but only sell it in packages w/ a big american flag on it and a picture of jesus crying

[ivan]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

how essential is gun ownership in 2007 compared to 1797?

 

at our countries founding we were in close contact with hostile indian tribes and nation-states far more powerful than us - most americans lived on the frontiers or in the sticks and needed their weapons for home defense and obtaining meat - the police were quite primitive, could not be called quickly, and could not be counted on at all for protection, certainly not rapidly- our armies were equally unreliable and a strong militia of self-equipped citizens was essential to repel attacks for which we would have virtually no warning

 

which of those conditions is still so pressing today?

 

and what were the negative consequences of the 2nd amendment in 1797? hardly any! the destructive cauldron of the industrial revolution was still years away - therefore there was little reason to restrict the gun right b/c it wasn't costing us a damn thing. and today? who gives a shit what the exact statistics are - the bottom line is a fuckload of people die because they have access to really powerful weapons.

 

 

[Fairweather]

you can't make an omlette w/o breaking eggs, no? nor can you have a right to bear arms and a right to a privacy w/o shit like this happening. i'm willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the later, for what it's worth...

 

 

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

--Benjamin Franklin

very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol.

 

As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was.

 

Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable.

 

Big Ben had no part in crafting the right you so cherish (guns) - as you no doubt know, the bill of rights wasn't created in philly. and to say locke or montesquie or the others weren't present at the drafting of the american goverment is pretty goddamn daft - clearly they weren't there physically, but the ideas they articulated resound throughout the constitution and declaration (jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a near total plagariasm from locke, the seperation of powers from the frenchie, etc)

 

"essential" in "essential liberties" is a most ambigious adjective - what's essential to me is not going to be the same for you - you clearly care about guns, where i'd be happier seeing them a whole hell of a lot harder to come by - i think the right to get fawked up 4 ways to sunday is pretty damn essential, but you don't and that's not acceptable to me either. i guess you at least sorta have it in writing in the 2nd amendment, but you know as well as i that it can be read to mean merely that the people in the form of their state militias have the right to bear arms.

 

we have no absolutely unrestricted freedoms - we must accept limitations to them all - again, the question is the balance - to what degree will we part with specific rights? i think folks oughta be able to have guns, but nothing more than single shot, slow to reload ones - you can hunt and defend yourself just fine w/ those, but yes, they will be inadequate if you choose to iniate hostilities against a larger force (say a french class at 9 AM). its a compromise - you can still plug bambi or the uppity-negro crawling through the bedroom window for your daughter. now watch me compromise - legalize pot and you can keep the freak'n blow illegal. or legalize it but only sell it in packages w/ a big american flag on it and a picture of jesus crying

 

If European enlightenment had been progressing faster than a snails pace, the American Revolution (revolt) would never have transpired. But this is a digression, as is whether Ben Franklin was a promoter or supporter of the final version second amendment. My posting of his quote was to illustrate the mood of the times - re personal freedoms - and the folly of your position. Feel free to quote any free-thinker you wish, but preferably one directly involved in the politics of the time - and a patriot.

 

As for your proposition - neither of us have the power to 'make deals' in this argument, but I probably would accept your terms if it were in my power to do so. No matter; I believe the gun control debate is "more settled" now than at any time in the last 100 years. I don't believe we'll see any dramatic changes to the status quo in the next 30 years.

[billcoe]

It underlying true importance of ownership of guns weapons has nothing to do with self protection from Indians or Meth freaks or hunting Bambi.

 

It is this single thing, of the highest importance in ALL of our lives, but like good health: not enjoyed until it is gone. So I will put it in bold for you all.

 

POLITICAL FREEDOM

 

Those who have the weapons get to make the rules. Period.

 

I want that to be the people. PERIOD.

[Fairweather]

You think I don't agree with that? Explain it to Ivan, not me.

 

I say, But if you think that small arms will protect you from the tentacles of a tyrannical government, you're not thinking clearly. The masses will have surrendered their weapons the first few steps down the path to serfdom. Nonetheless, it is comforting to believe that a future tyrant might have to pay at today's prices.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Fairweather

[ivan]

It underlying true importance of ownership of guns has nothing to do with self protection from Indians or Meth freaks or hunting Bambi.

 

It is this single thing, of the highest importance in ALL of our lives, but like good health: not enjoyed until it is gone. So I will put it in bold for you all.

 

POLITICAL FREEDOM

 

Those who have the weapons get to make the rules. Period.

 

I want that to be the people. PERIOD.

allright bill, whatever you say - sounds damned archaic to me, but then you are old as dirt doesn't make much sense though, since, as fairweather points out, it's not like even the guns that are currently legal give you negotiating power over the SWAT boys

 

under what conditions exactly are you going to feel compelled to use your guns to enact political change, bill? you exemplify the "let's talk it out" approach crucial to democratic government - i can't imagine what it would take to turn you into charles bronson.

 

when the shit hits the fan, folks will find a way to arm themselves if that's what it takes - remember what bastille day celebrates? poor pissed off people deciding to take the state's weapons.

[Fairweather]

when the shit hits the fan, folks will find a way to arm themselves if that's what it takes ...

 

...usually by accepting arms from an outside party with an agenda of its own, and adopting the most brutal tactics imaginable.

[ivan]

when the shit hits the fan, folks will find a way to arm themselves if that's what it takes ...

 

...usually by accepting arms from an outside party with an agenda of its own, and adopting the most brutal tactics imaginable.

outside parties will get involved regardless as revolutions create vacoums - initially well-armed or not, revolutionaries look for help

[billcoe]

I thank you for the “you exemplify the "let's talk it out" approach crucial to democratic government” comment. I think that our system is one of the best in the world. There are plenty of faults, but I do not see a political system designed which I would rather live under. I have had many discussions with communists in the US who believe they can violently overthrow this system and once in power, they can make the US a paradise. However, they are sorely short of both details and real world examples when you press them on it. Pointing out the places this has been tried like the Soviet Union ad Cuba only angers them.

 

I'd like you to reflect on this for a bit: lets imagine that historical moment of August 1974 wherein a president, caught breaking the law, deceided, under his own free will, to "resign the presidency effective tomorrow". Close your eyes and think of this. Imagine instead of that outcome, several possible other scenarios which might have existed with an unarmed population, but a still armed, political crony infested military, instead. Do you think that had he had the military support and the population had been unarmed (or regulated) some twisted Dick would have happily voluntarily stepped down for the public good, or instead perhaps he might have more likely pulled an ace out of the sleeve and declared an emergency, ala a North American junta with “Dick for Life” as a possible slogan.

 

There are plenty of real world instances outside to the US of this very kind of thing actually happening, and not just discussing every other 3rd world country in sub-sarharan Africa and South America either.

 

Think Weimar republic for instance, one of the most pure republics and fair political systems invented. Those with the guns get the power, as those in the Polish Ghetto later discovered.

 

when the shit hits the fan, folks will find a way to arm themselves if that's what it takes - remember what bastille day celebrates? poor pissed off people deciding to take the state's weapons.

 

See Polish Ghetto mention above and we can discuss how that worked out for them; I can start dragging up many, many, many very similar instances.

 

Here’s the bottom line for me Ivan: I trust you, I trust Fairweather, I trust everyone I personally know, much more than I trust politicians. I understand that many, many Senators and Congressmen are very altruistic and pure in their motives. They are hard working, smart and sacrifice so that the public good can be accomplished. They truly want what is best for the common good and for the country.

 

However, it only takes one rat turd to stink up the sugar bowl, and if you look closely, you will see that the many of the types of people who are attracted to that kind of power repeatedly demonstrate things, which clearly show that they should not be trusted with it. They play subtle power games, trying to eliminate opponents and insert cronies to broaden their political strength. They repeatedly play petty power trips, which are at best only self serving and at worst ruinous to the majority of our country. All for their own little twisted power-play-mentality reasons.

 

Think about the kind of politican I am describing and you can see them acting out for their own self interest in ways that still surprise and shocks normal people, were it not becoming so commonplace.

 

 

I do not trust that kind of person. I trust the kind of people who would not want to seek that kind of power in the first place because they are normal. As a group, the kind who you know, love and work with for instance. The kind on this board.

 

Think about the mindset which can draw a person into that kind of position.

You want them to be in control of your life? I don't.

 

I trust you, and the people I know. I do not trust them. It’s that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[high_on_rock]

Nice thread folks. The conversation has covered numerous angles of different viewpoints, and all has remained civil; wow, that is what our right to free speech is all about. I think the argument can be summarized by the vagueness of what exactly is an “essential liberty?” Every day we have 6.2 kazillion (with a “k”) students in school, and this year 32 were killed; not bad odds. Although I have no research to back it up, I would believe that far more students die outside of school than in school, thereby suggesting that our schools are pretty safe places to be.

 

I would also suggest that other concepts kill far more people each year than does the right to be armed; religion, transportation, fast food, the right to smoke, and our selective health care system.

 

I like Bills comments about the right to gun ownership being for political freedom; I assume that during a traffic stop I have less likelihood of being abused by some jerk cop if he knows that I am legally armed.

 

This thread started with the dispute over the privacy of mental health records. I am against the death penalty based on the mere fact that our imperfect legal system does not determine true guilt, and I hate taking the right to life away from someone whom we really do not know committed the crime. My problem with taking rights away from “mentally ill” people would be a similar argument. Any time the government is going to take away a right -- through laws, by declaring me a criminal or declaring me mentally ill -- I suggest extreme caution. These rights are to protect me from the government, I don’t like the government being able to take those protections away.

 

[ashw_justin]

I say, But if you think that small arms will protect you from the tentacles of a tyrannical government, you're not thinking clearly. The masses will have surrendered their weapons the first few steps down the path to serfdom. Nonetheless, it is comforting to believe that a future tyrant might have to pay at today's prices.

 

Really though, isn't the 'guns keep the establishment in line' argument obsolete? The powers that be no longer need violence to war on the people--ideological isolation, televised propaganda, and mass market economics were the 20th century's most powerful weapons. The powerful don't need to subdue the people by force anymore--it just tells them how and what to think, believe, buy, vote. Welcome to the information age! Elections are the new civil wars, and what make us foot soldiers are our votes, not our guns.

[Jimmy]

Well since 90% of the police agencies of the world use Glocks, I suspect that Gaston can feel pretty good about his design, and that it's doing more good than it is bad!

[JayB]

"The powerful don't need to subdue the people by force anymore--it just tells them how and what to think, believe, buy, vote."

 

Where do you personally fit into this grand conceit?

[ashw_justin]

I don't know, I stopped watching the tube years ago. WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO THINK NOW!!??

 

My honest answer though (and this may end up reading like a high school essay), is that the guilt of those of us without an unfair share of the power to influence others (that being most of us) derives from complicity--and we comply with the grand conceit as soon as we start to -believe- more than we -think-, and become too secure in ideas that we've never actually questioned.

 

It is very easy to submit to mental/ideological slavery; all members of a society are susceptible to it. It seems (and I haven't been alive for that long, but I do have eyes, ears, and a brain) that the recent advance of technologies both material and political has made it much easier to control public opinion, and in effect 'enslave' the intentions of large numbers of people by convincing them to believe in whatever is necessary (and yes, I plagiarizing Chomsky now).

 

But in the end, with what measure of free thought we are left with, we have the ability to debate any ideas that leave us unsatisfied. Which is why we are here arguing with each other--so that we have a chance to think for ourselves, and have an opportunity to debate new or competing ideas, that are actually delivered by another human being without pretense.

 

Well now maybe a little pretense... protect the freedom of the internet!!!

[archenemy]

I say, But if you think that small arms will protect you from the tentacles of a tyrannical government, you're not thinking clearly. The masses will have surrendered their weapons the first few steps down the path to serfdom. Nonetheless, it is comforting to believe that a future tyrant might have to pay at today's prices.

 

Really though, isn't the 'guns keep the establishment in line' argument obsolete? The powers that be no longer need violence to war on the people--ideological isolation, televised propaganda, and mass market economics were the 20th century's most powerful weapons. The powerful don't need to subdue the people by force anymore--it just tells them how and what to think, believe, buy, vote. Welcome to the information age! Elections are the new civil wars, and what make us foot soldiers are our votes, not our guns.

I think it is easy to believe this while everything goes smoothly. But I'll guess you've never done something pretty bad and try to get away with it. When a cop catches up with you, the threat of violence is clear. The domination, even when violence is not used, sends a message that is unmistakable. I am sure quite of few of us here have been arrested and jailed for something. Most likely, it raised your awareness of cops and the power they wield. Don't it?