Penn and Teller address gun control videos

[billcoe]

The 2nd group is a series of 3 of them. My point and belief is conveyed accurately by the reinactors which starts at 8:36 or so in #1 and continues throughout. To those who want safety and feel that outlawing guns is the answer: remember that drugs have been very illegal for many many years, and it has not slowed down drug availability at all. It has only made more criminals and filled up our jails with otherwise formerly honest people. Outlawing guns in anyway will do the same, AND reduce your political freedom.

 

Short version:

[video:youtube]oPnvwdwuU9M

 

Long version 1 of 3

[video:youtube]MfObDFVnfp0

 

2/3

[video:youtube]lnAEvqI6V9E

3/3

[video:youtube]xS0hKNuS8zU

It's pretty through, and entertaining as well: pick your poison.

 

 

 

[Bug]

Marijajuana is considered a sacred plant by Rastafarians.

Amanita Muscaria was once believed to be the reincarnation of Christ.

Hopi and Ute's us Peyote in ceremonial settings.

 

But since they are all on the fringe, we will not include them in the first ammendment.

More Wikpedia "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all legislative authority to the Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state."

 

 

[ken4ord]

To those who want safety and feel that outlawing guns is the answer: remember that drugs have been very illegal for many many years, and it has not slowed down drug availability at all. It has only made more criminals and filled up our jails with otherwise formerly honest people. Outlawing guns in anyway will do the same, AND reduce your political freedom.

 

 

 

I am not sure if you can count guns and drugs in boat that is like compare oranges and potatos.

 

First off I think guns for hunting definitely serve a purpose. Now guns designed for hunting humans in my opinion don't serve any purpose other than to kill an other person, yeah they can be fun shoot off and shit, but point blank there purpose is to kill another, that just just does not sit right with me. I don't believe that illegalization of those type of guns will make me feel much safer, realistically. I think it will keep society a little safer. And you keep going off about guns are for political freedom, I haven't bought it yet, as far as I can remember in any type of politcal action I have taken I have never used a gun, I used my voice, a pen, a phone, money, protest, sit-in, boycott, but never a gun.

 

Now drugs on the other hand are not designed to kill. They are designed to enlighten and have fun. Yeah they do end up killing some, but hell a butter knife could kill ya if used improperly. Also not all drugs are illegal, some are perfectly legal and ones deemed more dangerous are not. And some that are legal there are restrictions on them to try and protect society as whole. I think there are a lot of drugs I would rather see legalized and controlled than there are now.

 

The only think I can see that is similar between the two is that the restrictions on both are needed and those restrictions should be reassessed from time to time.

[Mtguide]

The 2nd amendment is very brief, yet not exactly clear: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The interpretation of this is endlessly debated-- whether the authors of this amendment were referring specifically to the "militia",as the "well regulated" body authorized "to keep and bear arms", or "the people"(meaning the population at large), or both. And does "the State" refer to the individual states, or to the nation as a whole? Whereas a militia is usually thought of a a local or regional, therefore small 'state' level organization, the relatively small size of the entire nation in colonial times might mean that the founding fathers were referring to the entire country. So is this a local, "state" militia' like the colonial Minutemen, or a national military, like the present-day National Guard? We don't really know.

 

One thing is for certain, and that is that an armed populace is a very strong deterrent to any government that might try to subjugate its citizens. In spite of the vast and overwhelming firepower of the U.S. Armed Forces, just imagine the bloodbath that would ensue if the federal government for some reason tried to put down an insurrection in, say, Montana, Idaho, Texas, Tennessee or Oklahoma, etc., where a very high percentage of the populace are conservative gun owners. Whereas a local "militia" would be hopelessly outmatched by tanks, warplanes, and disciplined troops, just the negative press such a conflict would engender, would make any administration think twice before entering into an action against it's own citizens which could potentially become inflamed into a large-scale revolt, even another civil war.

 

You may remember the "Militia" group in central Montana a few years back, and the tragic ATF action against the David Koresh religious cult compound in Waco, Texas. These are people who have no trust in the government of any administration or party. Regardless of whether one thinks the federal government acted properly in those incidents (and many do not), the overall effect was to heighten the fear among gun owners that the government wants to take away your guns. And currently, Obama's election has triggered a huge spike in gun sales nationwide, as many fear that a more liberal administration will enact much stricter laws on gun purchasing, ownership and registration, particularly of semi-automatic and assault-type weapons, automatic pistols such as police-style Glocks,etc. (Personally, I think that with the economic crisis, global warming, the resurgence of Russia in Eastern Europe,etc., gun control is going to be a far lesser priority for the Obama administration. There are a thousand items to adress at the moment with far more immediate impact and seriousness.)

 

Anyway, everyone knows that these are not guns for game hunting. So there is, I think, a very evident and demonstrable belief among the general public that there is indeed a personal, individual "right" to "keep and bear arms", that this "right is actually guaranteed in the Constitution, and that this "right" is a major part of what stands between individual freedom and potential dictatorship. I lived in Wyoming for over ten years, and while most people owned guns for hunting, you could talk to any number of people who were life-long NRA members, and who felt that firearms served a multi-faceted purpose: as hunting weapons, as personal security against home invasion and property theft, and if need be, as defense against their own regional, state, or national government. Many of the people I knew did support some sort of reasonable regulations--they didn't want to see nuts being able to get guns--, and the school shootings that began during the 80's made many hard-line gun owners rethink their ideas about regulation.

 

My own position is that non-violence must be the starting point in all situations, whether local, regional, national, or international, and I have read and studied the teachings of Ghandi since the early 60's. As a kid, I saw on TV the appalling brutality of the clubbings, lynchings and shootings of black protesters and white civil rights workers in the South in the late 50's and early 60's. I was a junior in high school during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and we went to bed that night wondering if we would be incinerated before the next morning. I shook John F. Kennedy's hand in Fort Worth, Texas, the day he was assassinated in 1963 ( an anniversary which is coming up soon this month), and the later killings of his brother Robert, and of Martin Luther King, and the loss of my boyhood friends in the Vietnam War, all of these things convinced me that violence and killing are never the answer.

 

However, we all do have an inalienable right to defend ourselves from violence. And Ghandi himself is quoted by Thomas Merton as saying, in his book,"Ghandi On Non-Violence", that while you should use non-violent means to achieve your aims or to stand up for your rights and freedoms, as far as they will go, but if they are still not sufficient, and you are facing injury and death, that then, the man who hesitates to defend his home and family by the use of violence, is a coward. So even Ghandi, the originator of the principles of non-violence, recognized that there are times when you do have to fight. There is no reason to let anyone walk over you.

 

I always liked Teddy Roosevelt's phrase, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." And in a famous cartoon strip from the 60's, "Rick O'Shay" (modeled after the old "Gunsmoke" TV series), the character of the gunslinger, "Hipshot Percussion", has a discussion, during his target practice, on firearms with the preacher, Jubal Lation, who tells Hipshot that he places too much trust in his weapons. The preacher says that in II Corinthians, we're told to "face hardship and affliction with patience, purity, and love, as well as by the word of Truth and the power of God." And Hipshot says "That's a fact, Jubal... but it ALSO says, "by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left. ", as he emphasizes his point by twirling his revolvers Roy Rogers style and then sending them home in their holsters with a crisp "whack! whack!".

 

In another strip, Hipshot's version of "A soft answer turneth away wrath.", becomes "A soft wrath turneth away answers.", when an aspiring, but young and foolish challenger calls Hipshot out for a gunfight by threatening to gun him into "dollrags". Hipshot, not wanting to needlessly gun down a hotheaded kid, says, "OK,

now did you have anything else you want to say, Bub, or are you content for those to be your last words?".The youngster wisely backs down in the face of certain death. The creator of this cartoon strip was, by the way, a former cowboy from Red Lodge, Montana, named Stan Lynde, and about as peaceful, generous, and mild-mannered a fellow as you could hope to find. But Stan Lynde was also a WW II veteran who had a real steel in his character.

 

So be peaceful, gentle, non-violent, and kind... and also be vigilant, strong, and prepared. Like the writer Ken Kesey used to say, "Kiss no ass...".

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

One thing is for certain, and that is that an armed populace is a very strong deterrent to any government that might try to subjugate its citizens. In spite of the vast and overwhelming firepower of the U.S. Armed Forces, just imagine the bloodbath that would ensue if the federal government for some reason tried to put down an insurrection in, say, Montana, Idaho, Texas, Tennessee or Oklahoma, etc., where a very high percentage of the populace are conservative gun owners. Whereas a local "militia" would be hopelessly outmatched by tanks, warplanes, and disciplined troops, just the negative press such a conflict would engender, would make any administration think twice before entering into an action against it's own citizens which could potentially become inflamed into a large-scale revolt, even another civil war.

 

You may remember the "Militia" group in central Montana a few years back, and the tragic ATF action against the David Koresh religious cult compound in Waco, Texas. These are people who have no trust in the government of any administration or party. Regardless of whether one thinks the federal government acted properly in those incidents (and many do not), the overall effect was to heighten the fear among gun owners that the government wants to take away your guns. And currently, Obama's election has triggered a huge spike in gun sales nationwide, as many fear that a more liberal administration will enact much stricter laws on gun purchasing, ownership and registration, particularly of semi-automatic and assault-type weapons, automatic pistols such as police-style Glocks,etc. (Personally, I think that with the economic crisis, global warming, the resurgence of Russia in Eastern Europe,etc., gun control is going to be a far lesser priority for the Obama administration. There are a thousand items to adress at the moment with far more immediate impact and seriousness.)

 

 

 

 

Far from certain, this view is probably more of a young male beat off fantasy.

 

For one thing, WACO et all produced a strong negative reaction among only a very small, extremist part of the population. While much of the country thought it a bit of overkill, they also though David Koresh was a dangerous lunatic and that the government had a right to curtail his activities. The only guy that did anything in response to WACO was a kook named McVeigh. No one else lifted a finger in protest. It was, for the most part, a non-issue.

 

And there in lies the rub. a) Militia groups are very small, very extreme, and viewed very negatively by the vast majority of Americans. b) Any larger attempt to organize against the government would be quashed immediately, given the government's new surveillance powers and the new crime of Domestic Terrorism, which carries extremely harsh penalties. Organizing such a widespread movement is simply no longer possible in the United States. c) Politically, the very gun toting folks you speak of are the most loyal to the American flag; they would be the least likely group to rebel, not the most. d) violent insurgent movements in the US have used bombs, not guns. Bombs are a far more effective way to wreak havoc against a more heavily armed foe (Gee, ya think?). The "Bloodbath route" is an excellent choice for morons with a death wish, but any group seriously considering causing trouble will stock up on fertilizer, not ammo. In other words, how armed the population is doesn't matter at all.

 

The government is not at all afraid of widespread armed resistance, which it realizes is a complete fantasy, and it is incredibly prepared and equipped to nip it at the bud with overwhelming force. If you've ever witnessed or participated in an anti-war demonstration, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Hundreds of cops in riot gear with full automatic weapons and armored vehicles. Um, no. The revolution ain't gonna happen that way.

 

Government is afraid of two things; First and foremost, being voted out of office. Our democracy still works. Why beat off about guns and ammo? Just get involved politically. That's where the power is. Government is also afraid of chaos (riots, etc). This is a very different animal from the organized, armed resistance you apparently spend a good deal of effort fantasizing about. This is an unraveling of society our of desperation; something that is possible in troubled times.

Edited November 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[jordop]

billcoe said:

To those who want safety and feel that outlawing guns is the answer: remember that drugs have been very illegal for many many years, and it has not slowed down drug availability at all.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by jordop

[pink]

what about "alpine guns"? for above the treeline. can we at least hang onto those?

[billcoe]

To those who want safety and feel that outlawing guns is the answer: remember that drugs have been very illegal for many many years, and it has not slowed down drug availability at all.

 

Wicked logic. I was out walking in the woods yesterday and came upon a field of assault rifles just growing out of the ground. And then I heard about this guy on my street who was making handguns in his bathtub.

 

 

I don't know what you mean? Are you saying that all the drugs that use to come through the current airtight 100% terrorist proof net at all of our borders say....from Afghanistan (Heroin and opium), and Columbia/Peru (Cocaine), and SE Asia (Thai stick and Hash) is no longer getting through? I hadn't heard that Heroin, Cocaine and Hash were no longer available and do not think you are correct if that is what you are positing. We, the taxpayers, have spent a fortune both locking down the borders and locking up every individual who damn near nearly mentions the word "Drugs", and yet, to me and perhaps everyone but you: it appears nothing has changed in the last 30 years except the amount to resources which the authorities devote in time and money to the subject, and the huge amount of people locked up. 1 in 100 Americans are currently behind bars, most for drug related charges.

 

So I don't know what you are saying? What wicked logic are you talking about, what does that mean?

 

As a further backdrop please keep in mind Jordop, that both of the largest terrorist attacks (in terms of innocent deaths) in the country were conducted by non-gun devices. (box cutters and fertilizer). So effectively, banning any weapons or larger capacity magazines will do is reduce the average honest citizens capacity to be armed. Furthermore, it sets a political agenda whereby through creeping incrementalism, further encroachments of the government on our rights can occur. In they end, the politicians will have the guns via the police and military (like in 3rd world juntas), and the criminals will still have the guns, and the people who SHOULD have the guns, to maintain and balance the political power - IE THE PEOPLE, you, me and others we know: will get the shaft.

[hafilax]

The apple and oranges argument is that drugs are far more addictive than guns. I doubt even the most die hard NRA'er would go through the DT's if you took his guns away. People that are hooked on the worst of them will do anything to get drugs whereas taking away guns will create outrage but I doubt many people would prostitute themselves for an AK47.

 

I do agree that the liberals should the drop gun control thing although not because of the bullshit 2nd Amendment argument. It's not the right solution to the real problem which IMO is poverty and class separation. Legalizing pot would free up a lot of police and financial resources for dealing with that as well.

 

In some ways an armed public is safer in a mutually assured destruction kind of way but I think that a voluntarily unarmed public will be a happier or at least less paranoid one. Did anyone really enjoy the cold war (other than arms manufacturers)?

 

A community militia would be no match for the army and if the soldiers turn against the government as well then why does the public need to be armed?

[akhalteke]

Only thing that matters:

You will never take my guns away. Simple fact. Not going to happen.

 

There was a time that people thought that the militia couldn't take down the army; it was in the 1770's. When there is a will, there is a way.

[hafilax]

OK I actually watched the videos and it seems to me the Penn is an anarchist and an idealist. It would have been interesting if they had actually looked into the logistics of an armed public taking on the Government. I don't think it could happen. The government is much more afraid of not getting reelected than of an armed take over. I still maintain that the 2nd Amendment argument is spurious.

[pink]

or maybe he's more into freedom than equality

 

 

[jordop]

billcoe said:

jordop said:

billcoe said:

To those who want safety and feel that outlawing guns is the answer: remember that drugs have been very illegal for many many years, and it has not slowed down drug availability at all.

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean?

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by jordop

[billcoe]

My post was not meant to be about apples, oranges or drugs. It appears that no one is paying attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....reduce your political freedom.

[pink]

this should clear everything up:

 

 

scared euros are to blame for all of this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[video:youtube]NPBHtjZmSpw

Edited November 12, 2008 by pink

[ken4ord]

The 2nd amendment is very brief, yet not exactly clear: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The interpretation of this is endlessly debated-- whether the authors of this amendment were referring specifically to the "militia",as the "well regulated" body authorized "to keep and bear arms", or "the people"(meaning the population at large), or both. And does "the State" refer to the individual states, or to the nation as a whole? Whereas a militia is usually thought of a a local or regional, therefore small 'state' level organization, the relatively small size of the entire nation in colonial times might mean that the founding fathers were referring to the entire country. So is this a local, "state" militia' like the colonial Minutemen, or a national military, like the present-day National Guard? We don't really know.

 

One thing is for certain, and that is that an armed populace is a very strong deterrent to any government that might try to subjugate its citizens. In spite of the vast and overwhelming firepower of the U.S. Armed Forces, just imagine the bloodbath that would ensue if the federal government for some reason tried to put down an insurrection in, say, Montana, Idaho, Texas, Tennessee or Oklahoma, etc., where a very high percentage of the populace are conservative gun owners. Whereas a local "militia" would be hopelessly outmatched by tanks, warplanes, and disciplined troops, just the negative press such a conflict would engender, would make any administration think twice before entering into an action against it's own citizens which could potentially become inflamed into a large-scale revolt, even another civil war.

 

You may remember the "Militia" group in central Montana a few years back, and the tragic ATF action against the David Koresh religious cult compound in Waco, Texas. These are people who have no trust in the government of any administration or party. Regardless of whether one thinks the federal government acted properly in those incidents (and many do not), the overall effect was to heighten the fear among gun owners that the government wants to take away your guns. And currently, Obama's election has triggered a huge spike in gun sales nationwide, as many fear that a more liberal administration will enact much stricter laws on gun purchasing, ownership and registration, particularly of semi-automatic and assault-type weapons, automatic pistols such as police-style Glocks,etc. (Personally, I think that with the economic crisis, global warming, the resurgence of Russia in Eastern Europe,etc., gun control is going to be a far lesser priority for the Obama administration. There are a thousand items to adress at the moment with far more immediate impact and seriousness.)

 

Anyway, everyone knows that these are not guns for game hunting. So there is, I think, a very evident and demonstrable belief among the general public that there is indeed a personal, individual "right" to "keep and bear arms", that this "right is actually guaranteed in the Constitution, and that this "right" is a major part of what stands between individual freedom and potential dictatorship. I lived in Wyoming for over ten years, and while most people owned guns for hunting, you could talk to any number of people who were life-long NRA members, and who felt that firearms served a multi-faceted purpose: as hunting weapons, as personal security against home invasion and property theft, and if need be, as defense against their own regional, state, or national government. Many of the people I knew did support some sort of reasonable regulations--they didn't want to see nuts being able to get guns--, and the school shootings that began during the 80's made many hard-line gun owners rethink their ideas about regulation.

 

My own position is that non-violence must be the starting point in all situations, whether local, regional, national, or international, and I have read and studied the teachings of Ghandi since the early 60's. As a kid, I saw on TV the appalling brutality of the clubbings, lynchings and shootings of black protesters and white civil rights workers in the South in the late 50's and early 60's. I was a junior in high school during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and we went to bed that night wondering if we would be incinerated before the next morning. I shook John F. Kennedy's hand in Fort Worth, Texas, the day he was assassinated in 1963 ( an anniversary which is coming up soon this month), and the later killings of his brother Robert, and of Martin Luther King, and the loss of my boyhood friends in the Vietnam War, all of these things convinced me that violence and killing are never the answer.

 

However, we all do have an inalienable right to defend ourselves from violence. And Ghandi himself is quoted by Thomas Merton as saying, in his book,"Ghandi On Non-Violence", that while you should use non-violent means to achieve your aims or to stand up for your rights and freedoms, as far as they will go, but if they are still not sufficient, and you are facing injury and death, that then, the man who hesitates to defend his home and family by the use of violence, is a coward. So even Ghandi, the originator of the principles of non-violence, recognized that there are times when you do have to fight. There is no reason to let anyone walk over you.

 

I always liked Teddy Roosevelt's phrase, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." And in a famous cartoon strip from the 60's, "Rick O'Shay" (modeled after the old "Gunsmoke" TV series), the character of the gunslinger, "Hipshot Percussion", has a discussion, during his target practice, on firearms with the preacher, Jubal Lation, who tells Hipshot that he places too much trust in his weapons. The preacher says that in II Corinthians, we're told to "face hardship and affliction with patience, purity, and love, as well as by the word of Truth and the power of God." And Hipshot says "That's a fact, Jubal... but it ALSO says, "by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left. ", as he emphasizes his point by twirling his revolvers Roy Rogers style and then sending them home in their holsters with a crisp "whack! whack!".

 

In another strip, Hipshot's version of "A soft answer turneth away wrath.", becomes "A soft wrath turneth away answers.", when an aspiring, but young and foolish challenger calls Hipshot out for a gunfight by threatening to gun him into "dollrags". Hipshot, not wanting to needlessly gun down a hotheaded kid, says, "OK,

now did you have anything else you want to say, Bub, or are you content for those to be your last words?".The youngster wisely backs down in the face of certain death. The creator of this cartoon strip was, by the way, a former cowboy from Red Lodge, Montana, named Stan Lynde, and about as peaceful, generous, and mild-mannered a fellow as you could hope to find. But Stan Lynde was also a WW II veteran who had a real steel in his character.

 

So be peaceful, gentle, non-violent, and kind... and also be vigilant, strong, and prepared. Like the writer Ken Kesey used to say, "Kiss no ass...".

 

 

Yeah I do have more to say, first I think we need to look at the 2nd amendment in the context of the time that it was written. Of course now-a-days our english that we use has changed so much that it make it quite easy to interpet the 2nd amendment a million different ways, given the time period and english that was used at the time, they were concerned more about outside forces trying to control the "State", the United States that is. They mention a "well regulated militia" which = military, not every Tom Dick and Harry. And the right for people to bear arms just like anything else there should be certain critrea met inorder to do this. Would you want a teenager without any drivers licenses or training driving a semi down the road, hell too dangerous. There should be limits what is reasonable, I jsut don't see how assualt guns reasonable for most people.

 

Though the ATF may have made some poor decision in the cases you presented, I am glad they went in. In my book they are extremist no different than the Bin Ladens of the world, is there a place for extremist like them in the States, I hope not.

 

I found you Ghandi parphrase very interesting I am going to have to look this one up.

 

The point I really agree with you is that Obama's priorities are most likely going to be or should be at least on more important issues at hand. And your last paragraph, though I don't find strength or preparedness on a pistol grip.

[ken4ord]

My post was not meant to be about apples, oranges or drugs. It appears that no one is paying attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....reduce your political freedom.

 

 

It is amazing politcally locked down I feel by not owning a gun.

 

 

complete sarcasm.....

[tvashtarkatena]

Only thing that matters:

You will never take my guns away. Simple fact. Not going to happen.

 

There was a time that people thought that the militia couldn't take down the army; it was in the 1770's. When there is a will, there is a way.

 

"Put silver wings, on my son's chest...."

 

 

This is kind of like saying

 

"If vastly superior aliens ever invaded, I'd find a way to defend ourselves against them."

 

Uh, OK. Whatever you say, myan.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

My post was not meant to be about apples, oranges or drugs. It appears that no one is paying attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....reduce your political freedom.

 

 

It is amazing politcally locked down I feel by not owning a gun.

 

 

complete sarcasm.....

 

I think Bill should increase his political freedom by waving his loaded arsenal around at the local mall.

 

There may be a temporary hiatus in his physical freedom, however...

 

Be sure and pick up a soap on a rope while you're there, Bill!

Edited November 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[hafilax]

The problem with the anarchist ideal is that it assumes that everyone wants to actively protect themselves. How many gun activists say that they are glad that they have one but are afraid to use it? There are many people that are more concerned about hurting someone else accidentally than of protecting themselves. These people's freedoms need to be protected as well. Do they have to hire body guards?

 

The police really get victimized by the gun advocates. Since there are such public cases of police brutality they are really the ones that the 2nd amendment armed militia supporters are really arming themselves against since there is no hope of taking on the army. The same people brush aside the accidental death statistics as meaningless and then say they need to protect themselves from the oppressive police force but I'm willing to bet that those statistics are equally as meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I guess it is nice to see southern white middle class Americans feel concern for inner city Blacks and Hispanics. Besides, pulling a gun on a cop is a sure fire way to get killed. Would you rather get beaten and given a giant cheque in compensation or shot and killed?

 

I have a lot of sympathy for the role that police play in society. It is hard to balance supporting the police with allowing free access to guns. Imagine every domestic dispute call having guns present. How many women are going to pull a gun on their abusive spouse to protect themselves? If they were that empowered they wouldn't be there to begin with. How do you keep the crazy guy from having a gun?

 

In the videos a woman seemed to imply that gun free zones encourage the crazies citing Columbine and Post Office attacks. Those places are gun free zones because historically they have been targets. The nutbars that go on these killing sprees are suicidal. They're not afraid of an armed teacher. They'd have to be more careful in their planning and I'm sure they'd embrace the challenge by going bigger. The real solution is to find these people before they attack. That starts in the home and in the community.

 

I guess I've rambled enough and nobody's going to read this anyway. My point is that Americans are well armed as it is and it's easy for criminals to get guns so the gun control proposals won't help much. If you really want to keep the sane public armed and the crazies without then work on systems for finding the crazies. Propose alternatives that will deal with all the problems that gun control activists are worried about. Drop the 2nd Amendment argument because it is idiotic. I think the keys are in community development, education, easing poverty and eliminating alienation and racism. A healthy society doesn't need guns so healing society will ease the need for guns. The hobbyists get to keep their guns, those who don't want them don't need them and everyone's happy.

[billcoe]

Drop the 2nd Amendment argument because it is idiotic. I think the keys are in community development, education, easing poverty and eliminating alienation and racism. A healthy society doesn't need guns so healing society will ease the need for guns. The hobbyists get to keep their guns, those who don't want them don't need them and everyone's happy.

 

I call bullshit. You might examine the irrational attraction to power many politicians have. Try and explain to us how you plan to change human nature.

 

I will try and spell it out again: it's about political freedom and control. END OF IMPORTANT POINT, please re -read that maybe 3 or 4 times since some of you seem to have trouble digesting and/or understanding it.

[hafilax]

You keep saying that and I've asked for an argument presenting the logistics of a government overthrow in America by an armed but unorganized and untrained public?

[tvashtarkatena]

"It's about political freedom and control" is neither a point nor an argument. It's not even a sentence.

 

Guns are one of four things: a toy, a defense weapon, a fetish, or collector's art. They have no other roles. Gun ownership carries absolutely zero political power of any kind in this country. If we were in a tiny banana republic with a poorly equipped army, it might be a different story, but here there is no chance, zero, of an armed citizen's uprising getting past the first volley fired. You'd be wiped out immediately. You'd definitely make a statement, though.

 

Political power here is achieved through electoral power, money, influence, friendship, and the threat of an unraveling of the social contract in times of desperation. The latter has happened; Watts, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and all the other chaotic upheavels in our history, but these were very different from what Bill's talking about. For one thing, they didn't involve very many guns. (I've already noted that bombs are the weapon of choice for an grossly outmatched antagonist). For another, they weren't planned, and they had lost their political agenda. They were simply desperate, pissed off people who'd lost it or were wreaking some recreational havoc.

 

The civil war provided on exception, but such a region wide revolt would not be possible in today's more homogenized, geographically mixed country. When you started shooting, your neighbor, rather than the National Guard, might well be the first one to put you down.

 

There is no connect the dots line between private gun ownership and how government behaves, other than the NRA's standard package of voting issues. Pure electoral political power, whatever 'threat's individual may fantasize they pose to the government simply isn't noticed by said government. It therefore exists only in the minds of those who have some otherwise unsatisfied emotional need to believe in it. It would probably be more productive for those folks if, rather than preparing for the Mother of all Battles, they examine what they are missing and find a more realistic way to fulfull it.

Edited November 13, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

blah blah blah like to hear myself talk blah blah

 

Most normal people read the other peoples posts before they post. You appear continually are an exception to this rule perhaps just so you can hear yourself talk?

Edited November 13, 2008 by billcoe

[olyclimber]

there is a 5ishth role. offensive weapon.