How sad - VT College loss of life

[kjl]

SEE Even really left thinkers want the right to protect themselves

Not all gays are "really left", in my opinion. They tend not to vote Republican these days with the wedge issue of homosexuality being "morally wrong" and all of that, but their views on the whole "personal-responsibility -> governmental-control" sliding scale are probably just as diverse as any other group of people.

[Dr D]

Not all gays are "really left", in my opinion. They tend not to vote Republican these days with the wedge issue of homosexuality being "morally wrong" and all of that, but their views on the whole "personal-responsibility -> governmental-control" sliding scale are probably just as diverse as any other group of people.

makes sense to me. I have yet to meet a group of people of any kind that didn't splinter into some pattern of diversity on any number of issues.

[Dan]

SEE Even really left thinkers want the right to protect themselves:lol:

If you add the "from the government" to the end of that statement, I agree wholeheartedly.

That's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment - not protecting oneself from street violence, but an armed citizenry capable of giving second thoughts to a heavy-handed government (like the one that ours is becoming).

The pro/anti-gun control argument on this forum is being fought primarily with anecdotes, which doesn't move me much either way. Show me some hard statistics with significant sample sizes, and we can talk. The extremely low incidence of firearm deaths in Japan - where guns are heavily regulated - is persuasive. One guy who headed off a single massacre, while I applaud the heroism, doesn't prove much. (The BX champs at Torino rode soft boots - does this mean that soft boots are the best equipment option for BX?)

But that quibble aside, I think that this discussion is really missing the mark, which is this: there's a great history of oppressive governments disarming their citizens. Examples stretch all the way back to the <a href="http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/001/001/index.html">disarming of Okinawa in the 13th century</a>, up to the British representatives of the Crown trying to disarm colonists in the period preceding the American Revolution.

So, while I'm aware this sounds more than a little paranoid, if our modern-day government ever decides to disarm the American people, that will be the single day in my life that I'm most whole-heartedly in favor of private gun ownership. On that day, Dr. D, I'm heading to your place to help you hold onto your guns as long as humanly possible.

Praise Ullr and pass the ammo...

[Neuffy]

yeah, I know. that absolutely sucks, and I know that DUI laws are an attempt at prevention. The punishment for someone simply caught driving "drunk" is way, way too harsh.

Really? Hm...what kind of punishments do you have?

Here, standard is a three-month license suspension, assuming that there hasn't been any injuries or deaths. I believe that if judgment is sufficiently bad to drink and then drive, that one shouldn't be driving at all (no, I don't think people get to make judgments on how their driving ability is after drinking).

By "drunk" you mean after 1-2 drinks? I'm not entirely clear on this, but my policy is that I will never drink at all if I'm going to be driving. I think it's just too much of a slippery slope.

On a somewhat related note, I'm totally opposed to ignition-linked breathalyzers. I often use mouthwash right before leaving the house (for sparkly clean teeth and sweet, wonderful breath!) and this would pretty much break that.

If you want "minority report" style enforcement, try (I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure it's occured on multiple locations) having police officers arrest people who are drinking _inside_ bars if they drove to the bar, regardless of plans to have someone else drive the vehicle home or engage a taxi/driver service (where they send two people, one of whom drives your vehicle to your house - awesome service).

Edit: Dan, doesn't the change in modern militaries (to the point that an armed populace is screwed if they go against a modern military) sort of defeat the whole armed populace argument? Back when those arguments were formulated, generally the army and the general population was using the same guns, and probably had reasonably similar ability. Oh, and Iraq references to an armed populace vs. a modern military do not count, because in a true conflict of governmental overthrow, the modern military is not going to worry about inflicting collateral damage. If you can't flip the military, you can't overthrow the government.

[Dan]

Edit: Dan, doesn't the change in modern militaries (to the point that an armed populace is screwed if they go against a modern military) sort of defeat the whole armed populace argument? Back when those arguments were formulated, generally the army and the general population was using the same guns, and probably had reasonably similar ability. Oh, and Iraq references to an armed populace vs. a modern military do not count, because in a true conflict of governmental overthrow, the modern military is not going to worry about inflicting collateral damage. If you can't flip the military, you can't overthrow the government.

In a true conflict of governmental overthrow, what makes you think that all the military will blindly follow the government? <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-powell/">Powell didn't</a>. Besides, I think there'd be some hesitation to lay waste to whole population centers (assuming large-scale rebellion, which I admit seems unlikely) - you want there to be something left behind afterwards to cough up tax dollars.

[Derf]

Interesting view, a little paranoid though.

Don't forget one thing, the Government is still composed of people. So people vs the government will still be people vs people.

[Jack M]

Wow Neuffy.... you really seem to believe government is the answer to all our problems. It could be, in a perfect, Star Trek Next Generation, fantasy world. However can you think of many things the government actually does really well and really efficiently? Or even competently? I can't.

[roscoe]

yeah, I know. that absolutely sucks, and I know that DUI laws are an attempt at prevention. The punishment for someone simply caught driving "drunk" is way, way too harsh.

I completely disagree

Its only a matter of time until driving drunk eventually leads to someone getting hurt. Yes, a person might only drive drunk one time, not hurt anyone, and never do it again. But this line of thinking applies to any criminal (or preventative) offense.

If the question is between our "rights" to do what we want (drive a little drunk?), and our "right" to be safe from some idiot that gets behind the wheel after "a" number of drinks, I definitely chose the latter.

** of course - what are you defining as drunk? 1 drink? I'm not sure anyone would get pulled over after 1-2, so I dont think this would really apply **

[Dr D]

In a true conflict of governmental overthrow, what makes you think that all the military will blindly follow the government? Powell didn't. Besides, I think there'd be some hesitation to lay waste to whole population centers (assuming large-scale rebellion, which I admit seems unlikely) - you want there to be something left behind afterwards to cough up tax dollars.

AS a veteran both active and reserve over 12 years service I feel competent to comment on rank and file servicemembers. We swore an oath to the constitution not to the "government. I can't think of any one I know in the service who would side against the people. I can think of more than a few cops though who would in a minute. Since Roman times getting an army to fight its own people has been almost a non starter. Rebellion need only survive the law enforcement stage to have a fighting chance.

The true point is that with heavy civilian ownership of guns there is a deterrent factor to any would be tyrant. Loss of the 2nd amendment rights makes TYRANNY possible on a grand scale. Pick your genocide anytime in history including present times and find one that wasn't predeeded by disarming the populace.

[Dr D]

If you add the "from the government" to the end of that statement, I agree wholeheartedly.

.

Praise Ullr and pass the ammo...

INDEED

let the crazies commence to calling us crazy

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you right:eplus2:

That is the meat of the subject though however improbable it may seem. History bears out the theory, tyrants will rise whenever a nation loses its direction and its founding purpose.

[Dr D]

The pro/anti-gun control argument on this forum is being fought primarily with anecdotes, which doesn't move me much either way. Show me some hard statistics with significant sample sizes, and we can talk. .

read more guns less crime by John Lott

ITs probably the most complete grouping of statistics I have seen on the subject. ITs a real eye opener.

[C5 Golfer]

. Pick your genocide anytime in history including present times and find one that wasn't predeeded by disarming the populace.

Case in point-- Mountain Meadows Massacre started with disarming the wagon train then they were all shot or clubbed by the Mormons..

http://1857massacre.com/default01.htm

[Erik J]

Case in point-- Mountain Meadows Massacre started with disarming the wagon train then they were all shot or clubed by the Mormons..

http://1857massacre.com/default01.htm

Interesting - Reading through this thread about disarming people before destroying them made me think of exactly this event. I'm 3/4 through the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakeuer(sp?). I just finished the part describing the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Crazy stuff.

My heart goes out to those affected by the Virginia Tech shootings.

[skategoat]

Isn't it amazing what this man accomplished without ever lifting a gun?

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

[C5 Golfer]

Interesting - Reading through this thread about disarming people before destroying them made me think of exactly this event. I'm 3/4 through the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakeuer(sp?). I just finished the part describing the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Is it not odd that this religious massacre ALSO occurred on Sept 11?

The movie soon to be out will be a good one I am sure.. and what a story to stir buried and hidden facts.

[Neuffy]

Wow Neuffy.... you really seem to believe government is the answer to all our problems. It could be, in a perfect, Star Trek Next Generation, fantasy world. However can you think of many things the government actually does really well and really efficiently? Or even competently? I can't.

Oops. I really didn't mean to give that impression. I think a lot about the government's damn messed up. I also think that in some circumstances the government can provide benefits.

If what I've said implies that government is the solution to all our problems, I'm a little confused as to what you feel is the solution, as most of what I've said (to me) appears necessarily to do with government, the only obvious alternative being an anarchist society. While government may be inefficient, the stability it can provide is the tradeoff.

Here are things that I feel are done properly by my Canadian government (I do not mean the current one, I mean the overall bureaucracy):

1. Income taxes - I just filed, as did my family, my girlfriend and her family. As I am a postsecondary student, I purchased textbooks. I didn't need my receipts, because the textbook etc. deduction is based upon months in school, not receipts. The ease in which tuition amounts are transferred between family members is amazing, and filing (with QuickTax->Netfile, not manually) was a breeze. I will say, however, that those who are not self-employed have good reason to find income tax a little...aggravating (the amounts, not the process).

2. Previously mentioned seatbelt laws.

3. Helmet laws for motorcycles and under-18s on bikes.

4. The Medicenter network (at least in my city) provides prompt, good service for a variety of minor and medium medical concerns (from infections to x-rays, prescriptions etc).

5. City roads and traffic signs - sure, some road repairs have been delayed, but that's 99% due to the insane economy and the failure of contractors. I really don't see how this could not be a government function, unless you're advocating private roads only.

Things I think are totally incompetent:

1. The level of oil taxes here in Alberta is brutally low. So low, we could triple it. What the hell....

2. We messed up the gun registry but good. Damn, that was a disaster.

3. If anyone recalls the Whyte Avenue Hockey riots in Edmonton (we're idiots - unlike Europeans, who riot when their teams loses or if the ref makes really bad calls, we riot only if we win!), they initially had a cop with a near-perfect plan for dealing with them (cameras to prosecute vandals later, cops and medical care off to the side in case immediate intervention is necessary, etc)...who we replaced because he "wasn't doing enough." His replacement basically set up a police line, shoved partiers around, arrested huge numbers of people and provided a focal point for the rioting. When you go from a working system to a broken, exacerbating one, that's incompetent.

4. Privatization of energy, etc. companies. The government screws up by privatizing these, and then the companies screw us way worse than the government ever did up to the point of privatization.

Realistically, of course if we want real change, people need to change. The government usually cannot force change, if for no reason other than that people react very badly to being forced to change (let alone screwups). However, many services are necessary, and are far better off government-controlled than in private hands. Just because the government screws some things up, does not mean that nothing should be done by the government.

[D-Sub]

Really? Hm...what kind of punishments do you have?

In california it is I believe a 1 or maybe 2 YEAR suspension, and fines totalling between $10k and $15k when all is said and done.

absolutely ridiculous.

[roscoe]

are those first offense punishments? if so, wow

[D-Sub]

http://www.aaa-calif.com/corpinfo/guides/duiguide.aspx#sec2

says up to $1000 in fines, but that doesnt include all the other...court costs, attorneys fees, etc...

its dumb for me to argue about this because the fact is it is EASY to simply not drive after having more than 1 or 2 with dinner. My whole point is that the assumption has been made that every single person who does so is a lethal threat, and that is simply incorrect.

sorry...tangential anyway, but related to "more or less government"

[C5 Golfer]

In california it is I believe a 1 or maybe 2 YEAR suspension, and fines totalling between $10k and $15k when all is said and done.

absolutely ridiculous.

Thats actually not bad IMO. What's the penalty for Armed Robbery or Murder in California? Probably not much different than above.

[Dr D]

Isn't it amazing what this man accomplished without ever lifting a gun?

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Great guy

I don't suppose it has occurred to many on the antigun side that owning and carrying a gun for selfdefense is not an act of violence?

I would rather carry one every day of my life and never need it than not have it the one time I might. What happened to our dear friend gahndi in the course of his life? I don't wish that for my kids.

[Justin A.]

I don't suppose it has occurred to many on the antigun side that owning and carrying a gun for selfdefense is not an act of violence?

I more or less had that argument today at school...I have my concealed carry license, therefore I want to shoot people ...They couldn't seem to wrap their head around carrying a weapon legally to defend yourself vs. carrying a weapon illegaly to shoot people...

[Dan]

I more or less had that argument today at school...I have my concealed carry license, therefore I want to shoot people ...They couldn't seem to wrap their head around carrying a weapon legally to defend yourself vs. carrying a weapon illegaly to shoot people...

Correct, the carrying is not violent, shooting a mugger is.

I guess my question would be: if being mugged by someone who seemed willing to walk away and leave you unharmed once they had your wallet, would you hand over your wallet, or throw down?

[Dr D]

Correct, the carrying is not violent, shooting a mugger is.

I guess my question would be: if being mugged by someone who seemed willing to walk away and leave you unharmed once they had your wallet, would you hand over your wallet, or throw down?

WHAT!!!????!!

lets see my choices are maybe he'll walk away and maybe he'll kill me??

Well hell why not take a chance maybe he's a good church goin fella after all??:rolleyes:

I would Draw on a mugger any day. Would I shoot him? only if I couldn't convince him to back down. The gun gives you choices. If he is sane and lucid and is willing to run or lie down and wait for the cops that's ideal. If he's hopped up on magic dust and "bullet proof" he gets Stopped end of story.

I hope it never happens but if it does me and mine will walk away from it.

[Justin A.]

That's actually a very good question. Personally, I would probally throw down if I knew that I could win said fight. There's no real way of telling if the mugger (who is taking your wallet/valuables without remorse remember) will leave you alone if you give them what they want, besides the fact that for now they are mugging people-who knows what will be on their mind tomorrow-If I have my way with it, the only thing that will be on their mind tomorrow will be wondering how long the state will keep them locked up for. It also depends on what they're threatening me with- I'll respond to anything more than fists with my piece. If they're threatening me with their fists, then my knife will probally come out...but like Dr. D said, if they're feeling bulletproof, I'll remind them that they aren't.