The Consolidated White Wing Gun Control Debate


PDA






White Wing
September 28, 2003, 08:08 PM
I was challenged by one of your members to come here and have a debate
on the firearms issue. His challenge also went to "Can you hold a rational
and quiet one, without calling them names?"
-I did of course frown a little on his perception of me, so I did come. I'm
known as a good debater who never draws to name calling or insults in
any way; so you may know I am peaceful and I wish not to egnite this
forum.
I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self
defence.

Hope you are kind on me... :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "The Consolidated White Wing Gun Control Debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HSMITH
September 28, 2003, 08:10 PM
Your opinion is so ignorant it is un-debatable. This thread will be closed as soon as a moderator sees it anyway. Go find another place to bait for arguements.

Wildalaska
September 28, 2003, 08:13 PM
Whats an "instituionalized method of self defense", wht are you against it, and why are you against the right to carry arms?

WildtelluswhyfirstAlaska

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 08:14 PM
I am here for debate. My views that used to be radical left have been
swayed a bit by debates with those of your stand. I want to form an open
mind, and seriously, hear the views you guys have, and the reasons for it.

This might be the best place to do it ;)

OF
September 28, 2003, 08:15 PM
Uhhhh...that's not the kind of welcome we give new members around here, hsmith. The guy wants to talk about the 2nd Amendment, he hasn't insulted anyone. You, on the other hand, did. If you don't feel like a discussion, maybe so you should go cool off somewhere. I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self defence.I'm not sure what you mean by 'institutionalized means of self defence'?

Welcome to The (almost all the time) High Road, WW.

- Gabe

Wildalaska
September 28, 2003, 08:15 PM
Your opinion is so ignorant it is un-debatable. This thread will be closed as soon as a moderator sees it anyway. Go find another place to bait for arguements.

I didnt know this was the Democratic Undertground Board..

WildithoughtonlytheycensoredAlaska

New_comer
September 28, 2003, 08:16 PM
This I gotta see...:scrutiny:

jsalcedo
September 28, 2003, 08:17 PM
What about the "anti with questions" thread that lasted 3 weeks and had 6 pages of replies.

I say give white wing a chance and if the thread gets ugly the mods can close it.

White Wing:

Why are you against law abiding citizens carrying arms for defense against human predators?

Do you take the position that humans have no right to defend their lives
and must submit themselves to those who would commit violence against them?

OF
September 28, 2003, 08:18 PM
Don't we have some members from Norway around here? I'm not up on the weapons laws over there...maybe someone could clue us in.

- Gabe

Oleg Volk
September 28, 2003, 08:19 PM
Welcome to THR. If you could explain the specifics and the reasons for your position, we'd have more of a basis for a continued conversation. Usually, reasons for holding opinions are more enlightening than the opinions themselves.

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 08:20 PM
my view, alaska, is that with guns being so institutionalized within a community, the views of a gun's use is lightened so to speak. If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime.

Where I live, the thing that a gun is a hazard stabilizer ("if he carrys a gun, and I carry a gun, he will realize his chances might not be very high, and will therefore not do it"), is sortof the same, but without the gun.
The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher. If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong...

Oleg Volt... "Usually, reasons for holding opinions are more enlightening than the opinions themselves."
-Might be one of the best statements I have heard in my adult life...
(That's a compliment)

Hkmp5sd
September 28, 2003, 08:23 PM
Perhaps you should begin the debate by explaining why you are against the right to carry arms for sef-defense.

I've been carrying a concealed firearm for almost 20 years now and have never harmed anyone. Why should I not be allowed to carry a firearm? Why should you have any say into whether or not I carry a firearm?

I would also suggest you read The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr.

The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher. And perhaps you could explain why England, in which there is a 100% ban on civilian gun ownership, is experiencing rapidly rising and rampant gun crimes?

Edward429451
September 28, 2003, 08:25 PM
I do believe in the right to carry arms. If I were to not take sides and just look at it pragmatically pro and con, I consider;

1) There are already Billions of guns in the world. If I gave mine up, potential is still high that almost anyone I meet may have one that they did not give up and may use against me or a loved one. We cannot dis-invent guns at this point.

2) Even if somehow magically, we could take everyones guns away except for law enforcement and the military, who could guarentee that they would not hold ulterior motives and abuse the power of the guns that they would have against those who do not? Most LE and Military people are honorable sorts, but what about the rest? The knowledge that lots of people are armed keeps a percentage of criminals and tyrants in check. A most wonderful deterrant.

Makes it a no brainer for me.

Welcome. Don't be thin skinned, some strong opinions here.;)

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 08:26 PM
Hehe... Yeah, maybe should make a new thread...
This was sortof my hello thread. :P

Thx for the welcomes, peeps! I hope I can have a good time here :)

Werewolf
September 28, 2003, 08:27 PM
White Wing Stated:I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self
defence.

Hey...
That's a perfectly OK attitude to have. It sounds like based upon your other posts that there is a high likelihood that where you live Darwinization has a good chance of taking place and the gene pool will thereby be improved.

Oh - by the way - as trolls go - your's lacks in both subtlety and creativity - necessary features of any quality troll.

boing
September 28, 2003, 08:27 PM
Criminals are criminals, period. You don't make nice criminals by going unarmed and hoping they play fair. They don't play fair, that's why they're criminals. They deliberately seek out those who are weaker than they are, physically or by numbers.

www.a-human-right.com

Betty
September 28, 2003, 08:27 PM
HSMITH,
Check your PM please.

WhiteWing,
I do recommend you check out the older anti with questions (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=27373) thread. There was a great discussion there.

kalibear45
September 28, 2003, 08:28 PM
Where I live, the thing that a gun is a hazard stabilizer

Now, I got a cool pet name for my guns. Thanks dude! :D

Holly76201
September 28, 2003, 08:35 PM
WW,
Welcome to The High Road. I am new here myself, but it is my understanding that this is a forum to discuss all gun related issues. I can't speak for everyone, but I am sure I'm not the only person here willing to try and bring you over to our side.
Perhaps a bit of personal history will help. When I was a child, there was a tragic shooting accident in my family. And I was terrified of guns from the age of 9 until about age 24. That was when I became a Mother.:)
The responsibility of keeping my children safe from all manner of danger changed my views about gun use. If someone were trying to enter my home I would have no way of knowing if they were there to steal the stereo or to rape and murder. I wasn't willing to take the chance that their intentions were strictly property related, and Idecided that I would be able to shoot another person who was trying to harm me or mine. In other words, I simply refused to be a potential victim. My life and my children's lives were too precious to be placed at risk by being unarmed.
AND, the weapons were kept out of their reach until they were old enough to understand how dangerous they could be. At an appropriate age I had a friend who is much more knowledgable and skilled than myself teach them gun safety and how to shoot.
Luckily, neither they nor I have ever had to actually use our weapons to defend ourselves. However, I am grateful that the Constitution gives me the right to bear arms to defend myself against any manner of aggression.
Holly

Quartus
September 28, 2003, 08:36 PM
Welcome, White Wing. Please disregard the two rude posts - that's not representative of most of us here. While we disagree vehemently with your position, most of use are glad to debate it politely. Speakiing only for myself, I think those who CAN'T do so do more harm to our cause than folks like you who honestly hold a different opinion.


I think we all need some more clarification - are you against self defense ITSELF, or just against using guns for that purpose?

OF
September 28, 2003, 08:41 PM
Hmmmm... Let me see if I understand the concept: Due to the fact that guns aren't really a 'part of life', criminals will be less likely to use guns to facilitate their crimes due to the fact that a gun is unnecessary in their line of work. They will be able to overpower their victims with other tools, thereby avoiding the increased jeopardy associated with using a gun to aid in the commision of their crimes. Is that about it?

Sucks to be the one overpowered, doesn't it.

A couple major problems with your method of crime control:

1. Reduction in the use of guns is not crime reduction. Perhaps if the goal was the reduction of the use of firearms in the commision of crimes, you may have something...but that isn't really the goal, is it. Crime reduction is the goal, firearms really have nothing to do with it. I would no more like to be robbed at gunpoint than I would at knifepoint. Women are no less raped when attacked by bare-handed scum than they are by pistol-wielding scum.

2. It is immoral to sacrifice people on the altar of crime reduction. Your method of reducing the use of firearms by criminals leaves the victims to the mercy of the villains...only they will be villains without guns...most of the time. So, by sacrificing some members of your society (notably the weaker) to the 'wolves', so to speak, you are hoping to reduce the likelyhood, the chance, that you yourself will run into a criminal you can't overpower physically. I am not willing to sacrifice anyone to criminals, and there is absolutely no need to.

3. An unarmed population is at the mercy of those in power. By removing guns from the hands of the citizens you have opened a door that cannot be closed. A disarmed population lacks the means to resist oppression. A population that lacks the means will soon lack the will. And once they lack the will, it is over.

4. It is my right as a human being to defend my life. I will not be denied the tools to do so and it does not matter how other people may abuse those tools. I have no responsibility to bear the costs for the misdeeds of others.

- Gabe

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 08:47 PM
First I want to comment on a strong issue I haven't come across in a debate before... A comment by Edward...

1) There are already Billions of guns in the world. If I gave mine up, potential is still high that almost anyone I meet may have one that they did not give up and may use against me or a loved one. We cannot dis-invent guns at this point.

This has a strong ring of truth... How to dispose of guns is not an easy thing. In norway, there hasn't really been a gun issue. Last time there was an issue with weapons, the highest technology was still a sword...
I can't put my finger on *the* thing that will make the transition smooth. I can agrue why it should be done, but can't be done in an instant...
If the United States erased the 2nd amendment over night, criminals would still have them, and citizens would be greatly liable... But a thing that goes around europe is that somehow weapons aren't needed.

I won't give the cause. The cause is very much liable for debate, and I'm not gonna pretend to being able of giving the right answer.
-Philosphy isn't math...

I think that getting rid of guns is answered by a change of culture. That only if every man and woman says it's enugh, it can be over. Putting down a law doesn't stop opinion, and opinion steers a man. -Law maybe, but only of his dirction is to follow law.
Look at the southern states in the 50's and 60's... The white man there didn't stop hating the black man because a law said he couldn't...

But let's say Jesus went out to to save mankind, and he did it by saying "I am king, and the new law is to love"... He wouldn't get much response. It's like a man saying he's an emperor because some tart threw a scimitar at him... Or King Arthur because the lady of the lake blessed him with excalibur...
He had the tounge of wisdome. AND HE IS A FIRM PROOF OF THE POWER OF THE TOUNGE! They said the messiah would defeat the romans? Romans chrusified him, maybe... Rome is now the capital of the religion he started...
-Sortof strong, eh?

Only if the people is inspired, can the people lay away guns. Only if they truly change their views. People are different from sheep. The sheperd says that it cannot stray, and it doesn't... But a human needs a good reason...

(Maybe if there's reason enugh... Maybe criminals can stop using them?)
-Depends on how strong the leader is, and how much he impresses...

"Welcome. Don't be thin skinned, some strong opinions here"
-I won't... ;)

Holly76201
September 28, 2003, 08:48 PM
Hey Quartus,
If we can't use guns, does that mean we get to use Swords?;)

4v50 Gary
September 28, 2003, 08:51 PM
Welcome to THR White Wing.

Why guns for self defense? Very few of us are like Jet Li, ackie Chan, Bruce Lee or Your-Favorite-Martial-Artist. Some of us are old, some have varying degrees of disability, or are weaker than those that prey upon society because they're too lazy, stupid or unwilling to work honorably for a living. For those of us who can't do a round house kick and disarm a knife wielding assailant, for those of us who are female and can't fight, for those of us who are small or frail, we can have guns. Sometimes the mere presence of a firearm deters commission of a crime and isn't that what we seek?

As for the "institutionalized method of self defense" I'm still a bit lost on your meaning.

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 08:53 PM
I'm not new to the issue of getting a gun. I have lived in the states for a portion of my life, and where? South chicago, that's where! My father is a socialist and a priest. Very much against guns. But in the chicago getho, he was very much tempted... Had we stayed for another year, he would have got one, and I support that choice. We were four kids in a chicago getho. Shootings on our doorsteps; during two years we heard six gunfights in our neighburhood. It was scary like the two towers...

Betty
September 28, 2003, 08:56 PM
White Wing,

I'm a 25 year old female, 103 pounds and 5' 3-1/2 inches tall. Most everybody is bigger and taller than me, and A LOT stronger. My back isn't very good, so if you pinned me and bent me backwards, I'd snap in two and die. I'm not going to physically tangle with a man much stronger than me. What I lack in strength I compensate with a combination of my mind and hardware.

I've had a handgun permit since I legally could at 21. I've carried every day since and don't intend to stop. My description makes me an "easy target" for any rapist or thief, because as a small female, I'm supposed to be soft and vulnerable and scream and submit to their whim. My handgun gives me the fighting chance to come out alive.

I'm trained, I shoot my handguns well, and I have the proper mindset to carry and use one safely.

Several years ago a man I had recently split relations with called me from a payphone and threatened to "finish things." Since he was calling from a payphone, he could have been right down the street from me! I was safer staying put behind my locked door.

He had been harrassing me for months, and the police couldn't do much "because he hadn't really done anything to me" yet. Police aren't babysitters or personal bodyguards.

I dialed 911 and while I waited for the cops, I had my handgun out and extra magazines loaded. If my ex came through the door to "finish things," I would have been able to STOP him.

It took 20 minutes for the police to arrive.

Had I been unarmed and my ex stormed in within those 20 minutes, I would've been in deep trouble. My handgun is far more efficient than a baseball bat or kitchen knife, because there's no way I'm going to let a crazed man get close enough to me to use a bat or knife.

Chuck Dye
September 28, 2003, 08:57 PM
Runt of the Litter, thank you. I have nothing but track record to go on, but that makes me secure in my thanks.

White Wing, guns in the hands of non-criminals pose a VERY, VERY low threat to me, less, I am sure, than automobiles in the hands of bad drivers, drugs or surgical instruments in the hands of bad doctors, or word processors in the hands of bad legislative assistants. I, in turn, as a gun owner, am a threat only to legitimate targets on the range(frequently), game animals for which I have been licensed to hunt(occasionally), and criminals who present a threat to me or those I choose to protect (very rarely.) There are occasions for which a firearm is the only first aid for a life threatening situation. In those situations, my firearms and the training I have acquired are ever bit as necessary as my Red Cross first aid training or my Heart Association CPR training. What do you know of ME that would justify depriving me of any life saving tool?

hksw
September 28, 2003, 08:58 PM
Welcome aboard White Wing. I'm sorry the first response was less than friendly.

The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher.

Although this would be great, it isn't, IMO, how things work here in the US. The regular US criminal, whether armed or not, has a greater penalty (hazard) going up against an armed law abiding citizen than he does going through the criminal justice system.

Against an armed victim, the criminal risks injury and/or death at the time of the crime at a high relative probability.

If caught committing a violent crime with a weapon were victim(s) are harmed or killed (not premeditated) the likelihood of being sentenced the death penalty is extremely small, low relative probability. Multiple killings and murder (premeditated killing) usually must occur to get a death sentence. In any case, the criminal will have the opportunity to live a much longer life in a cell with three meals a day all pay by the tax payer. If he doesn't get the death penalty, a high probability of eventually being set free.

What kind of laws do they have in Norway concerning the use of weapons in the commission of a crime and what kind of penalties does your justice system serve?

4v50 Gary
September 28, 2003, 08:59 PM
If every man and woman said enough, it would work. But not every man or woman will say enough. Turn to Africa and look at the tribal wars that continue today. The armed tribes kill the unarmed rival tribes. Liberia is perhaps the latest example of the free effusion of blood. In Cambodia the same thing happened by the hands of the Communist Government of Pol Pot. You can't meet a Cambodian who didn't lose a relative. 1 in four Cambodians died under that tyranny.

Even ignoring oppression by the government, the ambition of some political leaders brings war. Saddam Hussein's decision to hit Iran when he thought they were weak. Political ambitions of Napoleon III resulted in war and bloodshed on two continents. 19th Century colonial expansion in Africa & Asia.

Hoping that everyone says enough is too wishful and it will take a Second Coming before mankind can live in harmony. But didn't the Aspotles bicker among themselves? (Help me Preacherman as I'm not well versed in the book. No comic book edition for me as a kid).

litman252
September 28, 2003, 09:01 PM
Gabe,
Those key points are going in the permanent file for why we NEED guns in this world. Thanks for your plain spoken words of wisdom.
Tony

semf
September 28, 2003, 09:09 PM
If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong...

So are you saying that the weaker members of society should have no recourse. Or that an individual against a gang with knives or chains should be grateful that he is only going to be beaten to death.

A few years ago 4'11" 95lb ex wife was assaulted by a 210lb man. If she had not had a gun she would in all probability have been raped and brutally murdered. I say this because he was the subject of a major manhunt about a month later for that same crime. My only regret is that she used the gun to drive him away instead of killing him.

As far as my carrying I'm 41 with bad knees and back. I have no dillusions that I can protect myself from a determined young man in a criminal attack. 40 is the age that you realize that you aren't as tough as you used to be and probably never were as tough as you thought you were.

Zundfolge
September 28, 2003, 09:09 PM
Welcome to THR White Wing :)

if he carrys a gun, and I carry a gun, he will realize his chances might not be very high, and will therefore not do it,
Sounds like an excellent reason for law abiding folk to carry guns to me.

The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher.
In many parts of the world, murder is punishable by death. That doesn't stop the criminal from murdering.

Why would any criminal ever think "I was going to rob, rape or kill someone but I wouldn't want to go to jail for carrying an illegal weapon, so I think I'll go to college and get a job and make an honest living!"?

If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong.
Wrong. If he uses his own strength, his chances are much less then if he uses a firearm because if he's unarmed then the odds are more even (unless he's picking on old ladies). A criminal will rarely attack someone they feel is equal to their strength, they pick on the weak (either by attacking old ladies, or by making themself "stronger" with a weapon).

litman252
September 28, 2003, 09:13 PM
Gary hit most of the points, It would be great if everyone said enough. If this was possible, all crime would stop as a result, correct??? If crime would stop because we all wanted it to, why do we need to turn in our guns as law abiding citizens??
Tony

Chris Rhines
September 28, 2003, 09:14 PM
If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime. I think you might be making a logical leap there, one that cannot be supported. Do you think that a person who carries a gun for self defense goes through the same mental justification as a person who carries a gun to rob or murder others? I know a few people from each category (more of the former than the latter, thankfully) and I can say quite certainly that they do not.

A question to you, just for clarification: Do you believe that an individual does have the right to defend himself if his life is threatened? Why, or why not?

- Chris

Zundfolge
September 28, 2003, 09:15 PM
How to dispose of guns is not an easy thing.

Disposing of guns is also pointless. All that would do is make the physicaly weak among us even easier targets for the strong.

Read this article http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

Dave Kopel explains why even if you could magicaly make all firearms dissapear (and even revoke the laws of physics that allow for combustion) the world would be no more peacful then it is now (in fact might be worse).

Long ago Colt Firearms' advertising used to say "God made man .... Sam Colt made them equal."

DorGunR
September 28, 2003, 09:19 PM
I for one don't want to turn in my guns.......ever.
I enjoy shooting them too much, be it paper targets, trap, skeet or whatever.........so why should I give up my guns just to make some socialist happy.:rolleyes:

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 09:19 PM
Holly - I am greatly moved by that story in my "hello" thread... Seriously; I lived in the u.s where our lives were in danger, and a dud gas grenade was thrown at me. (Talk about humor...) I know very well the temptation of getting a gun... I have been in disputes with a few people; last night I recieved a threatening call... Just a hidden number; no voice or words; just the sound of being crushed and hit... Prolly made by brushing the mic on his leg and banging it against something... The message was clouded in innudendo, but clear...
I have been worried about them for some time... I have been thinking what the he.. to I do about this?! A gun has frequently been on my mind...

(For the record: I can't give an answer to all of you guys... I used to, back on an old forum, to list all arguments against me and answer them in their good order... But I seriously don't want to keep a debate like that... It ruins the post, as it's supposed to be a continuing story... Not random comments to the random comments I shouted...) :P

(Help me Preacherman as I'm not well versed in the book. No comic book edition for me as a kid).
-I have only mentioned those proven to exist... I'm not preaching, or throwing the bible at you in order to save your mortal soul. Chill, man... There's no radical moves coming from me...

The thing I'm trying to talk about is that maybe there's answers to how one can get rid of guns... Maybe if you think it's impossible, say why... If no one gets to know the reasons on why it will at leat be *difficult*, I won't be able of speaking this issue at all...

Silver Bullet
September 28, 2003, 09:23 PM
if every man and woman says it's enugh, it can be over
Ummm, does this include all of the world's governments ? The main reason for our Second Amendment is to prevent government tyranny, not self-defense against criminals.

El Tejon
September 28, 2003, 09:26 PM
All throughout human history governments have attempted to wipe weapons from the hands of the people--The Bible, Asia, Africa, the Phillipines, Western and Eastern Europe, in the United States. The goal is not to eliminate crime or to make society "safer." The goal is to make the government safer from the people.

OF
September 28, 2003, 09:27 PM
The thing I'm trying to talk about is that maybe there's answers to how one can get rid of gunsYou're missing the point. Getting 'rid of guns' would not bring us into some enlightened violence-free utopia, it would be a horrible step backwards into the dark ages. The invention of the firearm was a major step forward in the progress of man towards the ultimate goal of freedom and liberty for all...at least that's how some have put it in the past.

The reality of the sitaution is that: guns keep people alive, guns keep people free, guns protect the weak from the strong and the minority from the majority. Firearms are a good thing. They are not something to be 'gotten rid of', they are to be celebrated. The man-portable firearm is quite possibly the most important invention in history. To 'do away with it' is not only impossible, it is horrible.

- Gabe

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 09:29 PM
Zuntfolge... Just gonna say two things...

What if you're overpowered?
then...
What if you can't reach your gun?

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...

A good measure to get rid of them is that after, and only if the people have been inspired to give up the gun, you take away their right to bear them, and give amnesty and free of prosecution if they turn them in during the next month...
-That method has been used in europe, to make the war veterans from the 40's give up the ole guns they have in their attics... It has proven to work very well... But that's only one of the options...

Silver Bullet
September 28, 2003, 09:31 PM
Firearms are a good thing. They are not something to be 'gotten rid of', they are to be celebrated.
Wish I'd said that ! That's thinking outside the box.

DorGunR
September 28, 2003, 09:33 PM
You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to refute this.....but why even try.
I'm outta here.:banghead:

Mark Tyson
September 28, 2003, 09:35 PM
All good points - but you won't stop criminals from getting guns anyway. There's been cases of whole mililtary arms rooms being emptied, of guns confiscated by police never reaching the evidence room . . . Criminals will steal them from the government, smuggle them into the country or make them underground. If the British navy and all the might of the U.K. government can't stop the terrorists in Northern Ireland from getting all the guns (not to mention RPG's, land mines and explosives) that they want, then how are you going to stop people from getting weapons here in the U.S.A. or any other large country, aside from draconian means?

The US is a violent country, always has been. There are cultural and systemic reasons for this. They have nothing to do with gun availability. If enough people in Norway wanted firearms, I think there'd be a thriving black market for them.

And you know what? I don't care if we really don't "need" guns anymore. Trusting your citizens with guns is what a free society should do. I think a man is entitled to own a firearm in the absence of any evidence that he's violently insane or criminally irresponsible. Being disarmed is a demeaning and degrading way to live. It means the government considers you nothing but a potential criminal.

Well I'll take my chances with the criminals. I've seen gunshot wounds - I know what guns can do to people. I'm willing to risk it. A good, free life is full of risk. Drano kills people. Fire kills people. Electricity kills people. I don't avoid any of these things, I take sensible precautions, that's all. If safety is the condition that we should aspire to at the expense of all else then we'd be living in padded cells playing with nerf toys. Safety is not everything. Freedom is part of man's will to live. If freedom is worth fighting for on the battlefield then it's surely worth the risk that comes with it.

OF
September 28, 2003, 09:35 PM
I'm with DorGunR. After White's last post, I get the feeling this is a waste of time.

Some gulf's are just too large to bridge. White: you talk as if people are nothing but sheep in some grand experiment you can do your will on. Trying to create some shapeless blob of a society where you've found the magic formula to appease criminals to the point where only some acceptable number of people are mutilated, violated and killed around the edges.

Not in this country, my friend. Not ever.

You said in your first post here that you were willing to open your mind. You're going to have to open it a whole lot wider than you are.

- Gabe

4v50 Gary
September 28, 2003, 09:36 PM
Overpowered? Yes that's possible and did you know quite a number of police officers are disarmed and killed with their own guns. If criminals have no respect for the lives of our police officers, then why should they respect an ordinary citizen? To them, the penalties is a bit less as there is generally sentence enhancing measures tacked as additional penalties.

Want us to get rid of our guns? Don't forget that there are folks who are clever even or skilled enough to make our own. Just like the resistence movements in Europe when the Nazis overran their country. The Russians were even churing out submachineguns with sheetmetal barrels. They didn't need accuracy for close quarter combat.

I would suggest an upgrade but that won't work for some of us who like collecting older guns. I have some revolvers and a pistol that are a century old. I wouldn't trade them for a NIB gun. Even financial compensation for full market value will be met with resistence. It's neither about money nor safety.

Zundfolge
September 28, 2003, 09:36 PM
What if you're overpowered?
then...
What if you can't reach your gun?

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...
There are many accounts of victims who lied down and said "I give up" to the criminals only to be murdered anyway. Most criminals don't care about their "permanent record" or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

I have been robbed before and was unarmed at the time. After that experience I decided that I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

A good measure to get rid of them is that after, and only if the people have been inspired to give up the gun, you take away their right to bear them, and give amnesty and free of prosecution if they turn them in during the next month...
-That method has been used in europe, to make the war veterans from the 40's give up the ole guns they have in their attics... It has proven to work very well... But that's only one of the options...
You make the assertion that "giving up all the guns" works, but the facts tell a different story.

Everywhere in the world where the law abiding have been stripped of their right to self defense (and stripped of the tools of self defense) criminals have been emboldened and crime (particularly violent crime) has gone up.

England is an excellent example, but France and Germany have also seen crime rates on the rise, whereas areas in the US that have relaxed gun laws have seen crime rates drop (and South Chicago ain't one of those places ... their gun laws look like Europe, and so does their crime rates).

In addition, go read the article I linked above ... an unarmed society is not a safer one.

AR-10
September 28, 2003, 09:42 PM
I agree with DorGunR.

I don't want to give up my guns, and more bluntly put, I will not give them up.

What makes you think you have the best sollution to this imagined problem? You don't want to own guns. Well, you do want to sometimes, but you don't want me to own guns.

Can I own big long sharp knives? Would you prefer I don't own any baseball bats or fireplace utinsels? Are nail files and scissors permitted?

If I have the advantage of suprise, I can likely overpower and bludgion you with no implements whatsoever. The root of your concerns is not firearms, it is violence. Violence will not go away by removing firearms from our culture.

Holly76201
September 28, 2003, 09:42 PM
Two other posters, and I can't remember their names, forgive me, raise valid points here.
1st - throughout history tyranical governments, including current dictatorships, have begun, early in their grab for power, to disarm their citizens. Once a citizen is unarmed, he becomes a slave.
2nd - It is just a heck of a lot of fun to go out and shoot with even a small degree of accuracy. And I know in my case, the better my skills have gotten the more I've enjoyued shooting. It's like any other recreational activity, the better you are, the more fun you have.
But unlike, say bowling or shooting pool, the shooting of firearms has the practical purpose of self defense as well.
And WW, as for your statements about everyone {good guys and bad guys } laying down their weapons... sorry, I just don't think it's gonna happen. I was a Parole Officer for 5 years and saw way too many people go through the revolving door of the criminal justice system to think that any more than about 30% of 1st offenders can be rehabilitated. And as long as there are bad guys or potential goverment tyrants out there I think I'll keep my guns. It just keeps the playing field a little more leveled out.
More later, I'm almost sure,
H.

Art Eatman
September 28, 2003, 09:45 PM
White Wing, in Runt's post is the reason why an old time Texas Ranger had his pistols engraved with, "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size." That's why a gun has long been called an "equalizer".

Insofar as an inanimate object somehow leading one to notions of evil intent, implicit in a couple of your comments, please explain why I haven't done evil in some sixty years of ownership of firearms? Nor any of my family? Nor any of numerous other folks I know?

(When people imply that the mere presence of a firearm might somehow induce a person toward an untoward action, my common response is, "Don't judge others by yourself." :D )

A gun is a tool for acquiring food. It is a tool with which one can compete with oneself or against others at a target range. And it is a weapon for self defense against those who would offer gratuitous violence--whether singly or in a group.

Guns have been used to overthrow governments; they have been used to protect against "governments gone evil".

And there is a good body of statistical research to indicate that uses for defense of one's person outweighs the misuse for criminal purposes by a margin of some 3:1.

Your turn...

:), Art

4v50 Gary
September 28, 2003, 09:45 PM
BTW, shooting sports doesn't preclude wheelchair bound people. Can't ask them to play touch-football or shoot a few hoops (our basketball) or play with the frisbee at the beach but darn if they can't drill out targets like the rest of us. Will you deny these people their sport?

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 09:45 PM
You're missing the point. Getting 'rid of guns' would not bring us into some enlightened violence-free utopia, it would be a horrible step backwards into the dark ages. The invention of the firearm was a major step forward in the progress of man towards the ultimate goal of freedom and liberty for all...at least that's how some have put it in the past.

The reality of the sitaution is that: guns keep people alive, guns keep people free, guns protect the weak from the strong and the minority from the majority. Firearms are a good thing. They are not something to be 'gotten rid of', they are to be celebrated. The man-portable firearm is quite possibly the most important invention in history. To 'do away with it' is not only impossible, it is horrible.

- Gabe

I read up the thread that the main reason for guns, is to give aids for the people to make a revolution. I am gratly enticed by that. It is prolly a grand thing for a government to do. Give the people the power to say enugh is enugh... Sadly, such things seem to maifest themselves in oklohoma and the two towers. (Not 9/11... the basement attempt)
It's done with bombs... And with bombs because people don't mass together on that subject... If it went serious enugh, with guns as the means, it would result in more or less a civil war.
Have a look at venezuela... The Hugo Chavez crisis didn't lead to full out war on the government military... Students did protests and workers striked... Noone wants the bloodshed of an open revolution. In venezuela, gun control is less than in the U.S... My friend Fernando allready has three... A shotgun, a rifle and a crossbow... He is 19 years old, and participated in civil disobediance protests...
People want to be safe and live. There's not enugh courage and selflessness for an armed revolt...
With strikes and civil disobedience there's less chance of being killed... It's more peaceful, more effective, less dangerous...

(Effectiveness does not only apply to the fire rate of a gun... It also has to include how many humans lives were lost, and what the country looks like immediatly afterwards... Clean the streets of blood and human bodyparts, or restart production of the countries factories and mines...)

Btw... What do you guys think you can do about the surperior U.S military... For god's sake... Kevlar and preciseon bombs... :confused:

Silver Bullet
September 28, 2003, 09:50 PM
There's not enugh courage and selflessness for an armed revolt
Speak for yourself. We did just that 225 years ago.

El Tejon
September 28, 2003, 09:51 PM
Less chance of being killed!?!?:what: Tell that to the Poles, the Russians, the Chinese, et al. Protests only works if the government decides to allow.

jsalcedo
September 28, 2003, 09:51 PM
What if you're overpowered?

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)


Maybe criminals in Europe have some honor and are less violent than in the US.

Our criminals prey on the weak there is no sense of fairness. I'm not willing to take a chance on the good will of a mugger.

There is always a possibility my gun being taken away and used against me. However there is also a chance of a car wreck everytime I drive somewhere but that thought doesn't keep me imprisoned at home.

Since I always have my young son with me 24/7 running away from a violent criminal is not an option anymore. I cannot take a chance that
a mugger or carjacker will not kill us if I submit and hope that he can control his violent impulses.

My gun is an insurance policy. I pray I never need to use it but it is still there in case I do.

There are also hate crimes all over the world where immigrants, gays,
racial minorities are targeted by skinhead gangs.

A potential outnumbered victim can even the odds by producing a sidearm
to dissuade the gang from taking a chance of being killed by their
victim.

Moparmike
September 28, 2003, 09:54 PM
What if you're overpowered?
then...
What if you can't reach your gun?

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...This quote makes my head hurt. It fills me with rage and complete confusion that not words nor even grunts and shouts can properly express. Therefore, I will not even attempt to argue against it, as it would be an effort blatantly flying in the face of futility.

I have to ask: "You dont like living very much, do you?":scrutiny:

[WTH, begin futility]

I really dont mean to offend, but I am restraining myself here. I just cant understand the...the...the naivety contained within that quote. If you're standing in the path of an oncoming freight train, do you put your hands up and say "I give up?" Of course not. A criminal is an oncoming freight train if you dont defend yourself. He/she will run you flat over and take what he/she wants if you dont step out of the way ("IE: run", but that isnt always an option) or derail him with a tool (guns are the best choice). Words against a criminal are as useful as they are against that train. Criminals care about their "rap sheet" as much as the penny you just put on the track in front of the oncoming train. Dont let anyone ever tell you different.

[/futility]

And just for the record: The RKBA is not something that ANYONE should be denied, with the exception of violent criminals and the mentally ill. Children should have supervision. "Aim small, miss small..."

4v50 Gary
September 28, 2003, 09:55 PM
It's certainly a far cry from 1775 when the farmers took up arms and chased the Royal Army back to Boston. An armed citizenry of today in America could not stand up in a conventional battle against our own armed forces. Heck, Saddam's couldn't and they had artillery, planes, tanks, rockets and mines. Today the armed citizenry can only constitute a guerilla force or a force in being. I'll grant you those concessions White Wing.

Does it make our possession any less legitimate though. Not at all. A house divided cannot stand and a government that wages war on its own citizenry is a government that has lost its legitimacy. I think we Americans will prefer to die than be enslaved.

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 09:55 PM
Holly; I dig shooting guns... It's a liberating experience as a matter of fact... :)

I like a rifle, and shooting practice... There's tons of guns in norway. Not many handguns though; rifles for the hunters; some handguns, for the minority of the handgun enthusiasts... Hearing the bang and getting the recoil is nasty-stupid-fun... Conscription in norway takes in all men over 18... 70% of us has fired military issue rifles and machine guns...

But, fireing a gun; I do it in painball, lazer games, air and gas guns... I'm not that overwhelmed myself by the recoil and bang...

OF
September 28, 2003, 09:58 PM
People want to be safe and live.Wrong. Sheep want to be safe and live. People want to be free.It is prolly a grand thing for a government to do. Give the people the power to say enugh is enughThis is the fundamental disconnect here. At the end of the day, this is about the relationship between a citizen and the government. You look at this relationship as being: the gov't grants the citizens what they 'need' or what it (gov't) deems appropriate for them. We, Americans, look at gov't as the servant of the people. The gov't is only allowed those powers that we, the people, grant it as necessary.

And there are some things that no government can have authority over, no matter how many people think it's a good idea. Our Constitution limits the authority of gov't. It does not grant the gov't the power to disarm the people. Our Constitution limits the power of gov't so that the the majority cannot use the authority of gov't to persecute the minority (or the individual).

This is very important: Gov't gets it's power from the consent of the governed. Gov't governs at the leave of the people. Guns are the tools we use to keep that relationship in it's proper orientation. We are the masters, gov't is the servant. Power flows in one direction: from us to it and only as much as we allow.

It's that simple.

- Gabe

OF
September 28, 2003, 10:00 PM
It's a liberating experience as a matter of fact... Now there's a feeling you would do well to get in better touch with. That feeling of 'liberation' is far more important than I think you realize.

- Gabe

Moparmike
September 28, 2003, 10:03 PM
It's a liberating experience as a matter of fact... Exactly. One of the primary purposes of firearms is "Liberation from oppression."


"Oppression: Serving dictatorial power-hungry despotic regimes since 10,000 B.C.E."

New_comer
September 28, 2003, 10:06 PM
If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong A couple of weeks ago, Sweden's foreign minister, Anna Lindh, died when she was stabbed while shopping downtown. The BBC reports: "She lay on the floor and it looked as if a tall man, wearing a peaked cap, was hitting her," eyewitness Hanna Sundberg said. "But when he ran away, he threw away a knife."

Nothing went wrong as far as his plans were concerned. He had strength, a common tool, and opportunity to murder. Add to that the lack of alertness of the victim, then you'll have the perfect recipe for "predatory" criminals to prevail, always.

I'd rather be polite to my neighbors, but cautious as to their intentions. That's a whole different way of thinking compared to what you may be subscribing to at the moment.

Accept the fact that a utopian society is not hard to achieve, it's impossible to achieve.

If everybody is familiar with ******, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime. Now, insert your favorite tool, gadget, or machinery. It would be as true no matter what you put in there, agree?

Johnny Guest
September 28, 2003, 10:06 PM
Another welcome to THR, and I hope you get even more from your sojourn here than you expected.

With all respect to the tongue-in-cheek references to you being a troll - - I feel a TROLL is someone who approaches a topic for the PURPOSE of causing argument and ill feeling. WW, you were right up front with your desire to discuss and debate this issue, and you certainly haven't directed any personal attacks at any other member. This makes you welcome in my book. I may not care for your particular opinions, but I'll certainly try to address the IDEAS and CONCEPTS, and not your character.

I think you touched upon the idea that the unarmed aggressive criminal still has a similar chance of success against an equally unarmed victim. Without regard to the legal aspects of degree of punishment for committing unarmed crime as opposed to armed depredation, why should the stronger criminal be allowed to prevail over the weaker members of society?

If there is no "leveling mechanism," we are into the arena of "might makes right" - - Not the "right" of correctness, but in the sense of having the right to brutalize any person of lesser stature or strength.

It is certainly "A Good Thing" for human beings to maintain a good level of physical fitness. It is also desirable to become skilled in the arts of unarmed combat. I know some individuals who are quite capable of overpowering and/or outmaneuvering any unarmed assailant in single combat. Perhaps one or two could be victorious over multiple attackers. What of those of us who do not choose to devote several hours per week to such training? What of those who are either elderly or suffer from old injuries or medical disabilities? Are we to be deprived of a means of self defense?

I go about my lawful occasions, harming none. Even at my prime, it never occurred to me to victimize the innocent. But I have passed my 60th birthday and have certain physical disabilities which prevent my being able to run more than a few strides. I was never skilled in the martial arts. I will not be victimized simply because some thug is stronger, more fit, and mere greedy than I. I carry a handgun whenever and wherever it is legal. I believe it is shameful for a free man to submit meekly to victimization. I have the right of free movement and legal activity. If I perish in the exercise of my right, so be it. I might set a good example for other free citizens, and, if God smiles, I may well take some felon to the other side with me.

In a lighter vein - - In your travels around THR, you may see references to "White wing season,' and "shooting white wings." No ill will toward you - - The white wing dove is a tasty and challenging game bird in the southwestern USA. :D

Very best regards - -
Johnny

StLGlocker
September 28, 2003, 10:08 PM
I would love to live in a world where weapons of defense need not exist.

We said goodbye to that world the first time one human saw fit to kill another.

Using the biblical story for a convenient point of reference, why did Cain brain Abel with a rock?

I honestly don't remember. It may have stemmed from jealousy, envy. I wonder, though, if the particular reason is at all important. What's important is that it happened, and it continues to happen, every day that people walk this earth. People do all sorts of horrible things to each other, for all kinds of reasons. You will never, ever see true peace, not while one person covets something another person has - possessions, money, love, and especially power.

We are no different from the animals in that we seek to establish hierarchies. When more than a few people come together, someone rises to the top, by force or popularity, and this leader establishes rule. When rules exist, people break them, and conflict is the inevitable result.

The weapons of conflict really are not relevant. "If every man and woman says enough, it will be over" - sorry, hasn't happened for thousands of years and isn't likely to. Humans have murdered, raped, and robbed each other for quite some time, certainly longer than gunpowder has been around. Guns aren't the problem, human nature is.

You write about the "temptation to get a gun" as if it were an evil thing. It's not. It's only an object designed to propel a projectile at high speed. In the hands of good people, it's a tool for defending life.

Silver Bullet
September 28, 2003, 10:09 PM
Today the armed citizenry can only constitute a guerilla force or a force in being.
That's a lot. If only 10 per cent of the 80 million gun owners in this country take a stand, that's a lotta snipers to deal with. And it is doubtful if the military will side with the government against the people.

Kaylee
September 28, 2003, 10:11 PM
um.... back up. You seem to be saying that everyone giving up their weapons is a good thing. Aside from the fact that the entire history of the twentieth century makes mincemeat of your argument (to say nothing of a whole lot of innocent people).... why?

What do you hope to gain by magically wishing all weapons away?

You're concentrating on a means, not an end.
Name your end, and you may well be able to reach common ground here.

Concentrate only on the means, and you'll achieve nothing.



Think
Deeper.



-K

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 10:14 PM
Don't give me the pointlessness treatment... Please...

This is not pointless... Three things so far have I seen a value in:
The people itself as a militia is a great edge in an incoming attack... This is actually very true... Norway has a militia; every man above 18... You're required to have a year of military training, in order to having the ability to fight for our country if we are attacked... The U.S might not have that much to spend on a militia... Too much money go into the science of warfare, and technology to carry it out... A civil militia is a strong defence mechanism, and there's value in that...

Another thing is that it does give power to the people in case of a tyrant government... I just do not agree to the method...

Just don't hang around the scenarios I wrote... There are many scenarios, and a specialized, detail scenario really can't be used as an argument... I only wanted to point out how little purpose the gun sometimes can have...

-Just my reply on what points have cornered me... The pointlessness treatment just isn't any fun...

toro
September 28, 2003, 10:18 PM
The United States of America is a Great Country. Why? Because as long as you believe in the Word of God, you are loyal to the kingdom of God. You represent a government withnin a government and you are a hindrance to the New World Order. Why in heavens name would we want to get rid of our guns and be like other countries? We live in the greatest country in the world. Our love of God has given us wonderful living conditions and a lovely country. If we turn our back on God we would be taken over by countries who don't believe as we do. We would turn into a third world country without God's wounderful gift of love. I believe the only thing that keeps us so properous is our belief in the one true God.

In his 1932 election bid, Adolf Hitler told the people of Germany, "If you will elect me as the Fuhrer of this nation, I will introduce a New World Order that will last a thousand years." Well, he gave them grief and death. He took their guns away and made the average man helpless. We don't want this kind of life.

Understand that 85 percent of the membership of the United Nations consists of third-world representatives who hate America. Around the world we are called "The Great Satan." The taxpayers in America pay 90 percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. The rest of the world pays 10 percent. Are we willing to see the United Nations vote to redistribute the wealth of America to third-world nations? We also don't want United Nations troops on our streets. Let us not be deceived into giving up our guns.

Mrs. Toro


_______________________________________________
Revelation 12 :7-9
And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not: neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpant, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

semf
September 28, 2003, 10:24 PM
Today the armed citizenry can only constitute a guerilla force or a force in being.

Wasn't it a guerilla force that changed the political course of Cuba, The Afghan guerillas did OK against the Russians. In countless coutries guerillas have fought effectivly against their goverments to achieve their desired lifestyle, some for good some for bad.

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 10:25 PM
Did you guys see Chris Rock's show from 1999? He talked about something else...
"We don't need guncontrol! What we need is bullet control! I think that every bullet should cost five thousand dollars... If they cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders!"
he pauses...
"Because if every bullet cost five thousand dollars, you wouldn't waste it on anyone! 'They put 50 000 dollars up his ***!! He has got to have done something!!"

He's joking on the subject of course, but there's something to gain from it...

"Don't mess with me, man!! I'm gonna get me some money! I'm gonna get me another job, and I'm gonna blow you away! You better hope I can't get them on leasing!!"

You have more or less convinced me that ridding the U.S of weapons is damned impossible... I am norwegian, and so I might be naive on the subject...

But what do you suppose can be done? What Rock points out is that the only means of getting the murder rates down, is by making it harder to kill... You say by keeping guns; I say by casting them aside...

What is the third choice then? Bulletcontrol, or spomething else?

Mark Tyson
September 28, 2003, 10:26 PM
If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime.

I'm sorry, but no. Guns do not whisper to their owners to commit crimes. It does not follow that because you keep a gun in your home you are tempted to go out and shoot or threaten someone with one.

Moparmike
September 28, 2003, 10:27 PM
Mrs.Toro, I respect your beliefs, but a belief in God does not a great country make. I am an Agnostic, and I am pretty prosperous for a college student at the moment. It might be best if we address the topic of "unecessary gun ownership" and left religion out of it. JMHO.

However, your opining about the UN is right on the mark. The UN is the "Great Satan", not us. Sad to say we are funding "GS", but that is life. (sigh)

**********************************************************************************

Another thing is that it does give power to the people in case of a tyrant government... I just do not agree to the method...Ok, what method would you approve of that can resist oppression by the Government-Mandated Jack Booted Thugs? Making a campfire, joining hands, chanting protest slogans, and singing "Kumbya" and "We are the world" certainly wont do anything against those JBT's.

What is the third choice then? Bulletcontrol, or spomething else?[In my best David Letterman]Choice Number Three: Ensuring that everyone who volunteers for knowledge of firearms will have it. Ensuring that firearms and ammunition is easily available.[/letterman]

An armed society is a polite society. (Armed thugs do not a polite society make.)

Kaylee
September 28, 2003, 10:29 PM
Don't give me the pointlessness treatment... Please...

No offense intended, but what, specifically, are you referring to as "the pointlessness treatment?"

That it is pointless to debate the topic?
Or that removing firearms from society is pointless?
Or something else?

I only wanted to point out how little purpose the gun sometimes can have...

Well that's true. There are a very few cases where having a weapon is a liability (say, being suicidal or something), there are a very few cases where having a weapon is an absolute necessity (Mr. BadGuy is hanging out over your bed at 2AM with a butcher knife from your kitchen), and there are many many many cases where the presence of a weapon is absolutely moot (taking out the trash, walking the dog, picking up the pieces from a car wreck, whatever).

The fact that a gun is not useful in all circumstances -- or even in all conflicts -- does not make a valid argument for its proscription.

But again... what are your trying to accomplish? Work from there.
Here's a start --

"I wish to help create a society free from violence, free from fear, and free from random brutality."

about right?

-K


edit to add -- "bullet control" is a silly semantic back door into the same proposition. You're making the same proposal, but in slightly different language. Disarming a people is disarming a people -- it makes no difference whether you're talking assault rifles, ammunition, or broadswords. To pretend otherwise is childish.

Again, you are looking at means, not ends.

4v50 Gary
September 28, 2003, 10:30 PM
Bullet control won't work. We can swage or cast our own. My brother has even recycled primers to see if he could do it and he has.

Oh, on guerilla forces & Castro. OK, Fidel did it. But could he have against carpet bombing, defoilation and chemical/biological warfare? Could he have if Batista did as the British did in the Boer War - round up all combatants and herd them into concentration camps; thereby denying them the support of sympathetic civilians? We overran Iraq but we've got the guerillas to contend with. They can't beat us, but they can try our patience.

Silver Bullet
September 28, 2003, 10:36 PM
Even if we couldn't do it, a lot of Americans would prefer to go down fighting than to meekly submit to an oppressor.

The Europeans can afford to submit: the U.S. is there to bail them out.

Who's going to bail us out ?

semf
September 28, 2003, 10:40 PM
Oh, on guerilla forces & Castro. OK, Fidel did it. But could he have against carpet bombing, defoilation and chemical/biological warfare? Could he have if Batista did as the British did in the Boer War - round up all combatants and herd them into concentration camps; thereby denying them the support of sympathetic civilians? We overran Iraq but we've got the guerillas to contend with. They can't beat us, but they can try our patience.

Do you really think that America or any other civilized country will resort to carpet bombing their own land, or that the American people would stand for chemicals or concentration camps. That would create more sympatetic civilians. The guerillas in Iraq are a rather small ragtag disorganized and largely uneducated group fighting an army that is also unwilling to resort to those extremes.

StLGlocker
September 28, 2003, 10:40 PM
What Rock points out is that the only means of getting the murder rates down, is by making it harder to kill

I think Chris Rock is a funny comedian, but I don't think that qualifies him to solve the problem of people killing each other.

What makes you think that the lowering of murder rates is dependent on making killing a person harder? You are approaching the problem according to the means, not the end.

We had a man in the U.S. some years ago named Ted Bundy, who beat quite a few women to death and strangled others. While it's true he exerted more physical effort to do it than if he had just shot them, his victims ended up just as dead. If one of the women he stalked had been armed with a handgun, she could very possibly have saved her own life and that of many others.

Again, guns are NOT the problem. Bad people are. Your argument essentially states that most murder would be prevented because the effort a killer had to expend would be higher, and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

AR-10
September 28, 2003, 10:43 PM
It has been pointed out that banning firearms did not eliminate violent crime in Britain. It has also been pointed out that man has been murdering other humans since there were two men to start an arguement. Quite a few years before gunpowder was invented.

Guns are not the root of all evil. Human nature may be, although I would not wish to be quoted on that.

Can you ban that? Can you even hope to change human nature?

What you really want to do is remold the Human race.

Mark Tyson
September 28, 2003, 10:44 PM
The answer to the crime problem is not gun control. Gun control amounts to holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of criminals. We're not going to settle the topic of what causes crime here on an internet forum.

So how do we cut down on crime? Here's a few suggestions.

1. The war on drugs is a failure, fueling systemic violence, empowering organized crime and siphoning off police resources. We need some form of legalization, perhaps like some European countries have. At the least, we need a "harm reduction" strategy.

2. Some people are quite simply unreformable psychopathic predators and should be locked up until they die.

3. Poverty is the mother of crime. We should do what we can for the underprivileged.

Bottom line: There are cultural reasons for the rate of violence in the U.S. that are probably beyond any short term solution.

MeekandMild
September 28, 2003, 10:56 PM
I am here for debate. Well, once the referees critique your style, form and expository quality maybe you will hang around for the post-debate discussion. Who knows, you might learn something or better yet teach us something? :D

I view this board more often in the light of collaborative effort toward the collective goal of self education than a debating forum. Some of my own interests are ethical and moral systems theory, the psychology of belief, memetics and attribution theory. So with that in mind I'd love to hear how you construct your beliefs. :)

BHPshooter
September 28, 2003, 11:01 PM
Well, white wing, welcome to the High Road.

I must admit, I don't feel that you're being very forthcoming with your reasons for your stances, but I hope you'll enlighten us soon.

Let me tell you about myself. I am 19, and I am a senior in college (or will be, when I return). I have a headache all the time -- I literally mean 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On top of that, I frequently get debilitating migraines. This makes it quite difficult and inordinately painful to exercise, since heartrate has a lot to do with how much your head throbs.

I'm in fair shape, but even having "practical experience" with some fighting, it is not something I want to do, ever. No matter what movies you watch, taking a punch is never fun, and never feels good. Using your bare hands for defense of bodily integrity takes enormous amounts of energy and some of the repercussions will be permanent, even if it's "just a scar," etc. So, this makes "unarmed" defense close to the end of my list of resorts. You can definitely discount fighting more than one person your size.

I don't know if you've ever been physically injured to a point that caused a lot of pain or a lot of recuperation time, but it is not what one would equate with "enjoyable quiet time." What if you were in a position that you were positive that you would recieve considerable physical damage, or maybe end up crippled, or maybe end up dead? What (regardless of your gender) if someone insisted upon raping, torturing, or mutilating you? Are you aware that all of these acts are quite commonly followed by death?

Did you do anything to deserve such an action? No, you didn't. He violated the "social contract" when he decided to attack you. So if he is going to disobey his end of the promise, why should you obey? YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT, DID NOTHING WRONG, AND SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE THE ONE TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES.

--------

So let's say that our hypothetical place, Utopia, bans all firearms. So, a criminal, who by definition does not obey laws, attacks you with/without a firearm; the difference doesn't matter. What do you do? Call 911? What do you do while the police assemble and travel? What if you're not alive when they arrive? What if you're permanently damaged?

What is the Utopian Government going to do for you? Can they restore your lifeforce? Can they remove your pain? Can they repair your wounded emotions?



Now, if there's one thing that I want you to think about, it's this: Good has a MORAL OBLIGATION to fight Evil. If you lay there and let evil attack you, evil has won. If you call the police, but die before they arrive -- regardless of whether the perp is caught and tried -- evil has still won. If you greet your violent attacker with 00 Buckshot to the face, good has won, and the world has become a better place.

That's what it's all about: Good vs. Evil.

Again, welcome to the High Road. ;)

Wes

White Wing
September 28, 2003, 11:10 PM
Kaylee.. I want to debate with you... Good, valid stuff...

The "pointlessness treatment" is a term used for when others get mad over not being able of convincing someone. "This is pointless", and they leave or egnite the debate... It's the bane of the debate forum... :(

At this point though, and I do not wish to leave like "I've had enugh of you!!!" looking arrogant... You've all made solid points, and I will be thinking about all of this...

It actually was fun... Until Mrs Toro arrived... Well, the only thing I can say is that I for one; possibly the most radical leftist you will meet for a long time, does not hate america in this way... I am genuinly sad about the U.S, and I am enangered often by the choices that the government makes. I feel futility sometimes, but there's nothing in me that can hate the random american... Every man is different, and the U.S is one of the most diverse cultures on the planet. There's no way to say "I hate america and americans"... I'll at least give all of you a pointer, in agreeing on radical anti-americans being fools of closed minds...
The united states is often a proud people. I have no real taste for pride, but it keeps up morale...

Allthough most people of my politican position loathes Bruce Willis for his patriotic act in Iraq... I hand honor and admire it. He is the first artist who actually came in favor of the soldiers... All they have had to deal with is the risk of being killed, and protest songs back home...
Willis gave inspiration and morale back to the soldiers. Pride is one of the deadly sins, as it's written... But morale is the core in a societie's wellbeing....

I do not as many here think, see black and white... I came here to study and learn, and I did... But I am leaving now...
Mrs Toro... The opinions where you mess God into the direction of a government and a global agenda is the most dangerous thing alive in the human mind... Guns is no match for religion... "God leads the way for our people" was said also by Osama Bin Laden... NEVER use your interpretation of the book as your agenda! Especially when it involves power. And it does not matter how right or wrong your agenda is...
-The only thing you accomplish is the Irani regime... Students there are crying for the ability to say to the world "We are not like them!!!"... Sadly, no one believes that... We think they are all one and the same...
There should be no wonder on why some people look at the united states with hate driven anti-americanims. Statements like this one makes it all fall into place... We frown at these statements, and it is enugh for me to turn my back on this and leave... I would do so also if I was debating in a mosqe, and a muslim made the same statement...

"God leads our people." Many people of many religions say this. "Our country is the true country and ours is the true God!" Well, you are sadly comletely mistaken... No person on earth has the right, or ability of stating that...

I'm sorry that this had to happen. Take care people! Good night...

StLGlocker
September 28, 2003, 11:26 PM
Well, don't feel like you have to turn and go because one person responded with "God Is On Our Side" for an argument. Mrs. Toro is entitled to her beliefs (one of the many great things about being an American), but you can disagree with her and still hang around. It takes all kinds and I think we've got most of them at The High Road. :D

Greg L
September 28, 2003, 11:41 PM
WW,

First welcome. I'm glad that you seem willing to respond to the various points being brought up in a polite manner (that is not always the case on both sides of the issue).

The biggest problem as I see it is that the genie is out of the bottle. You can't unmake knowledge. The fact is that a pistol/rifle/shotgun is a very simple tool that is relatively easy to make from everyday items. Most anyone with a general understanding of the workings of a firearm could go into any hardware store and buy what they needed to make one (I've even seen plans for a one shot shotgun made out of a nail, rubber band, a section of newspaper, and a shotgun shell). Granted what you could make with those items wouldn't be very good, but they would work well enough to attempt to aquire a real one from those in authority who would still have theirs (you do realize that the government will exempt themselves from this magical gun disappearance don't you). The Liberator (http://usgi1911.tripod.com/liberator/) is an example of this on a massive scale.

The most likely reason that most people don't make their own firearms is that the cost/benefit ratio (both in legal terms and in physical safety in that the improvised ones tend to blow up on a fairly regular basis) isn't close enough to justify it. If you somehow manage to change the equation enough to justify the risk, many of us will chose that option. To paraphrase PVT John Winger, America was settled by people that were kicked out of every respectable country in Europe. You don't want to piss us off or tell us that we can't do something. Chances are good that we will do just the opposite just to spite you and prove that it can be done.

Anyway, once again welcome to THR. I hope that you stick around for a while and join in some of the other discussions.

Greg

WheelMan
September 29, 2003, 12:28 AM
ours is the true God!

If I profess to believe in God yet also say "but I might be wrong" how strong is my belief? Unbelievers always say "do not demand that I believe as you do," So I say: Do not demand that I am anything but certain about my beliefs!

4v50 Gary
September 29, 2003, 12:33 AM
Semf - I really don't think any President will order nor any serviceman or woman will obey an order to carpet bomb our own. An order like that will probably result in a coup against the government. They are our boys & girls in our Armed Forces and we are their mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, nephews & nieces, sons & daughters, neighbors, friends & community. You're absolutely right about the tactics of the Boer War whip-lashing.

JohnKSa
September 29, 2003, 12:46 AM
Seems that open minds don't stretch well in certain directions...

Ryder
September 29, 2003, 12:54 AM
If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime.

You say this means that legal ownership of guns makes it more likely that a criminal will use a gun in thier crimes?

Legal self defense is not possible against a criminal unless they are a threat to others. Doesn't that sound to you like a better reason for a criminal not not to carry a gun?

ceetee
September 29, 2003, 12:57 AM
Hi, WW, and thank you for sticking around.

If you want to bring T.V. stars into it, have you ever seen Archie Bunker? His daughter, Gloria asks "Daddy, don't you know how many thousands of people are killed by guns each year?"

He replies "Would you rather, little girl, that they were all pushed out of windows?"

semf
September 29, 2003, 01:06 AM
Not to beat a dead horse and I'm not trying to start a fight with you. But the militia side of gun ownership in America is too easily given up due to the superior weaponry of the govt

But could he have against carpet bombing, defoilation and chemical/biological warfare? Could he have if Batista did as the British did in the Boer War - round up all combatants and herd them into concentration camps; thereby denying them the support of sympathetic civilians? We overran Iraq but we've got the

A few years ago a group of farmers, students, poets and other common folk went up against a far far superior military force. For about 20 years they stood up against carpet bombing, napalm, and imprisonment of anybody suspected of being sympathetic to the cause. Not to mention indoctrination by the govt in charge of the school children. All they had going for them was a willingness to win. Today they are in charge of the country and display our superior war machines in their town squares.

Abenaki
September 29, 2003, 01:07 AM
"... I only wanted to point out how little purpose the gun sometimes can have..."


Hmmmmmm....... kinda like panyhose and lipstick and house plants and music and...............


I own guns because I have the God given right to do so, and part of that right is the right to defend my family against two legged animals.

It is easy to live in a make believe world where everyone is happy and getts along with others. But that world is not is nothing but a dream world.

Abenaki

JohnKSa
September 29, 2003, 01:08 AM
If you could get everyone to agree to give up all their guns...

Then why can't you just get them to agree to never use them unsafely or for criminal purposes instead?

We see the flaw in the argument then. It is impossible to convince everyone to get rid of their guns just as it is to convince everyone to use them safely and legally--some people can not or will not be convinced.

But what if you FORCE everyone to get rid of their guns.

It follows that some of the people were unwilling to comply and still desire to have guns.

When the supply of a desired item becomes very small, the price becomes very high. When the price becomes very high, there will be people willing to make guns and sell them.

Guns are not hard to make. With a home machine shop (available for less than $1000) it would be quite easy to make a very effective submachine gun. Ammunition is also reasonably simple to make. Even if you could not make brass cased ammunition and were forced to make your gun a muzzle loader, a cap and ball revolver is still a very effective multi-shot weapon.

So we see that even if the world is rid of firearms they will not be eliminated because they can be made quite easily.

Which brings us back to the main problem. It's foolish to discuss the possibility of eliminating firearms because it's quite obvious that it's impossible.

People who want guns and have the money to buy them will always be able to buy them.

With one exception. If you make it illegal to own guns then those people who value the concept of obedience to the law (the will of society, in effect) will not buy guns even if they want them and have the money.

So, after all our efforts we now have a group of people with guns (those that care nothing for the law) and a group with no guns (those that value the law.)

Do you believe that this is a better solution than the one we have now where both groups can be armed?

labgrade
September 29, 2003, 01:08 AM
Having been out of the loop for several, I'll take a quick stab at this knowing absolutely nothing of its context/thread history. Take it for what it's worth.

Please don't judge Americans by the actions of their government. Many disagree with its stance/s. Some due to lack of knowledge - some because of "too much."

"We" don't have the "one true God." Some do, some don't & some don't seem to care one way or the other. It's a big mix.

& truely? I'd betcha America's time is coming for a very rude awakening.

semf
September 29, 2003, 01:17 AM
It actually was fun... Until Mrs Toro arrived

Why is her point of view less valid than yours. they both rely on faith, her's in an unseen god with an ancient book to back it up.

And yours in some notion that if criminals were not forced to be armed they would not want to harm you as long as you let them rape or rob you. Which you have nothing to back up.

You keep saying that you want to debate. And you stated that you were known as a good debater. When are you going to start debating. There have been numerous fscts and examples thrown at you and make no effort to refute those facts and real life recounts.You only spout feel good liberal socialist mantras with no substance and nothing to back them up. It's time to put up or shut up you're boring the hell outta me.

semf
September 29, 2003, 01:24 AM
I'm sorry that this had to happen. Take care people! Good night...
deleted by poster because after mod edit it made no sense
[edited by moderator -- pax]

Rogelio
September 29, 2003, 01:32 AM
WW

I live in Lima , Peru and my goverment's ideal is not far from your utopia...guns are extremely high priced and gun licenses are very hard to getunless you can bribe some of the people working in the goverment...

Down here violent crimes have gone up so high that our own defense minister has addressed the people to "take crime in their own hands" HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO IT??? By asking the ill minded to leave us alone?????:cuss: I can rely on any of my guns for such means, but over 70% of the peruvian population earns under 460 Soles (3.45 Soles= 1USD) and the cheapest gun around costs 321.89 USD.

I carry because I value the life of my loved ones highly enough to face trial for self defense (yes, here in Peru there is no legal justification for shooting someone and you can get 5 years IF you can actually proove that it was self defense). Ilegal??YES, but it is my moal obligation to fight for my loved one's safety no matter the penalty I will be getting.

I am actually planning to build a fully automatic gun because criminals here get AK's and FAL's as easy as they can get a piece of candy...the pay multi thousand dollars for those and I DESERVE the rights to fight them with equal power...

So please take in consideration that maybe in your safe little condo in the US you can be relatively safe, but back here in Peru there is not one single place where you can walk aroun not caryying

Rogelio

Kaylee
September 29, 2003, 01:40 AM
1. kindly leave of the name-calling everyone.

2. WW -- some of us at THR are theists of just about every stripe, some of us decidedly aren't. Some of us would agree with you that mixing religion with the powers of the state is a dangerously bad idea, while others would insist that only a government made up of the religious (Christian) could possibly maintain a free and ethical society. That is a side topic, and one unfortunately not suitable for discussion at THR.

3. (taking off the mod hat here) Flattered as I am you mention me by name, I must admit to some puzzlement at this post. Are you leaving the debate over one member whose religious beliefs differ from your own? And if so, is that not the very "pointless treatment" you were asking us to refrain from? :confused:

-K

BluesBear
September 29, 2003, 01:52 AM
Thx for the welcomes, peeps!
Wow I have never heard a Norwegian use the word "peeps".
:scrutiny:

Has that little confiscate-all-the-guns-and-make-the-people-do-what-we-want thingy that happened back in 1939-1945 has been forgiven and forgotten in Norway.
:rolleyes:

Maybe you should see this? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41773)

Quartus
September 29, 2003, 02:40 AM
Hey Quartus,
If we can't use guns, does that mean we get to use Swords?

__________________
Veni, Vidi, Vivisecti


:D



Holly, I think I like you!


BTW, a small correction if I may?



I am grateful that the Constitution gives me the right to bear arms

The Constitution does not give you that right. It simply RECOGNIZES a right you already had. The right of self defense existed prior to the Constituion, and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the gummit from interfering with that right.

BluesBear
September 29, 2003, 02:48 AM
White Wing why do you keep starting new threads? is this a new form of running away to be able to taunt again?

(Why don't the moderators merge these anyway?)

Did I miss something? I only recall seeing one post from Mrs Toro. Of course I have only found three threads started by you so far, are there more? What made you run away from her after only one post?
:scrutiny:

As to the time you spent in Chicago, where you stated that your father considered getting a gun...
Chicago has one of the longest standing anti-handgun stances of any US city yet crime there is out of control. Your fatrher woukd have had no problen in gettuing a handgun though, all he mneeded was a few friends on the CPD, there are many there who would be glad to sell him one of their "extras".
:rolleyes:

New York also has strict laws against handguns and we all know just how safe the streets of NYC are. That's why the thugs on 9/11 used airplanes, they knew they'd never last on the streets with the REAL bada$$es.

Oh and don't forget the estemed Capital of our nation, Washington DC., where handguns are out-and-out outlawed to the civilian population yet in 8 of the past 9 years D.C. has had the highest murder rate in the nation.

it will be impossible to remove all guns from society, they are just too easy to make. Guns & Ammo magazine has a story some 30 years ago showing the firearms confiscated from PRISONS.
:what:

One inmate even managed to make a functioning semi auto in the prison machine shop, including making cartridges on a lathe using ground up match heads for propellant. As I recall they test fired the thing and it fed and functioned just fine.

You can't change human nature.

And yes, there is a "liberating" feeling shooting a firearm. Some of us even have that same feeling just by owning and handling a fine firearm. But I can tell you from experience, an experience that I hope most of my fellow THRers never experience, is the truely liberating feeling you have when your personal firearm is directly responsible for your ability to experience the next sunrise.

So go ahead, play your little word games (because we all know that that's all this really is to you), for us it is a very personal issue, after all it is OUR freedoms we're discussing here. Are you trying to be a drama queen? For you this is all armchair quarterbacking but this is real life for us.

Have you considered changing your name from White Wing to Wheft Wing. (or would that be West Wing? :neener: )

Just my tuppence.



edited for a) spelling, b) grammar and c) to clarify intent.

Covey Rise
September 29, 2003, 02:59 AM
yup.

only1asterisk
September 29, 2003, 03:00 AM
Welcome to The High Road!

The right to defend one’s self and family from crime, tyranny, oppression, or genocide is not up for debate. Without suitable weapons a defense is likely to be very short and end badly. Free and unfettered access to arms is a basic human right. I’m not going to debate this with you either.

There are people here that may be willing to discuss the issue with you. Like myself, I’m sure that they are curious to hear your rationale. I will be glad to respond to any relevant questions you may have. I hope you decide to stick around for a while. You may find out that there is a good bit about both firearms and freedom of which you were not previously aware.



David

Edited for typos! Quartus is reading!

sm
September 29, 2003, 03:22 AM
White Wing, Welcome to THR !

I know you came to THR for a reason, hope you'll stick around for other reasons.

Too many really great posts already, thanks Gabe, runt, Art, et al. I'm gonna shut up.

Bostonterrier97
September 29, 2003, 03:26 AM
Hi White Wing!

Since you are against using guns for self defense...how will you defend yourself if you are in a wheel chair or are old and feeble?

How will you defend yourself if you are a woman and your attacker is armed and determined to kill you?

Let me relate to you my little Horror story..(though it was far more so for my Dad).

In November 1991, my Dad's fiance' was murdered in my Dad's house in Los Angeles.
Her attacker was armed with a knife and had her cornered. She was trapped in the utility room (where we had the washer and dryer) and couldn't escape. It is a very narrow room..really a hallway. It is connected to the kitchen and it has a doorway leading from the utility room out to the back yard.

Unfortunately for Cathy (my Dad's fiance'), this door was locked. It had a dead bolt lock that required a key to open it either from outside the door or inside the utility room. The door was locked and Cathy couldn't escape. It was up against this door that she died.

My Dad discovered her body. (He still sees a therapist over this). They caught the man who murdered Cathy, and during the trial the coronor's report on Cathy's autopsy was read. Along with pictures of the crime scene.

Cathy did not die quickly. Instead her killer decided to murder her as slow and as painfully as he could with a 10" kitchen knife, that he grabbed when he went through the kitchen ..chasing Cathy into the utility room.

The coroner reported that Cathy had both of her breasts sliced off while she was still living. She numerous gashes on her harms and hands ..trying to fend off her attacker. Cathy tried to sheild herself from the knife by holding up a small powder blue plastic waste paper basket.

She had over 40 stab wounds on her chest and abdomen. Additionally her stomach was ripped open with her instestines and parts of her womb were sliced open.

Her face was mutilated and her throat had be cut clear to the neck bone.

(We didn't know this until during the trial. When my Dad saw her body he immediately left the room and called the police (911) and was instructed to go outside of the house.

The police hauled away Cathy's body and whatever evidence was left behind.

But when they remove the body..there is still a mess from the blood.

I drove down to the Dad's house the next day to clean up Cathy's blood in the utility room.

Here is what I saw.

The blood had partially dried and was brownish and covered with flies.
There were large pools of dried/wet blood on the vinyl floor, spatters of blood on the walls, door, and ceiling.

When someone cuts your arteries with a knife..the blood will squirt pretty far..

I had to use a sponge and hot soapy water to clean up Cathy's blood. I emptied the bucket containing the soapy water about 5 times.

After I finished I then had to clean myself up. I had her blood on pants at the knees (I had to get onto my hands and knees to scrub the floor), I had blood on my shirt, and my face, not to mention my hands and arms.

Cathy was a very sweet woman. I never have met anyone who was as selfless as she was. She was always concerned about other people, and rarely thought of herself. I would have loved to have been able to call her "Mom".

Police rarely are able to "protect" anyone. They are simply not around when someone is actually being attacked. Why didn't Cathy just "call the police"? No time. This a_shole was in her house chasing her, determined to kill her.

Cathy was unarmed. even if she could grab a gun, she probably wouldn't have been able to defend herself..at least not very well, since she didn't know how to shoot a firearm. In fact, she knew almost nothing about firearms..only what she saw on TV or in a Movie.

Not long after Cathy was murdered... we experienced living through the LA / Rodney King Riots. For 3 days there were no police. The police avoided parts of LA. Buildings burned. Even fire fighters refused to go into those areas because the rioters would attack the fire trucks.

The police were too busy protecting their own families and wealthy enclaves. Buildings burned within 1 mile of my Dad's house.

(My dad still didn't own a firearm at the time, and neither did I).

In south central LA where most of the rioting was confined, the only shops that remained unburned and not looted were shops owned by Koreans. The Koreans would take their rifles and pistols and fire shots over the rioters heads, whenever a crowd of rioters would approach their shops.

--------------------------------

Yes...sometimes we have to learn one of life's lessons the hard way. The only person who will always be there to defend you is yourself. And if you are depriving yourself or others of the most efficient means of self defense (namely a gun) then you are declaring to any criminal that it is ok to murder or rob, or rape you or your defenseless victims.

Needless to say..both my Dad and I are now gun owners. And I have absolutely NO qualms about killing someone who is trying to kill me or anyone in my family. In such a case I will empty my magazine into the perp,

BluesBear
September 29, 2003, 03:39 AM
Bostonterrier97 My condolences and prayers go out you you and your family as well as that of Cathy's. A true sensless tragedy. Hopefully the sicko who did this will be prevented from ruining any other lives.
:(

The second tragedy from this is that there will be people who learn of this and still won't get it. But hopefully this will also help a few sheep become sheepdogs.

BluesBear
September 29, 2003, 03:53 AM
This is only the first of three threads on the exact same topic.
(This White Wing guy likes to hit and run, as most left wing people often do.)

This story is continued here>>>
part two (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42212)

BluesBear
September 29, 2003, 03:56 AM
Seems WW realizes a moving target is harder to hit.

this saga is continued here>>> part III (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42241)

4570Rick
September 29, 2003, 03:57 AM
I don't think I can explain why I am so pro carry, but maybe Thomas Paine, one of America's Founders could.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them...the weak will become a prey to the strong."
-- Thomas Paine


This goes beond the "It's my right" arguement and gets into the Psychology of why it was then, is now, and will always be necessary for a free people to remain free.

Kaylee
September 29, 2003, 04:20 AM
by request... threads merged, since this is all one running conversation pretty much anyways.

And oh yeah... Welcome White Wing! :)

-K

NIGHTWATCH
September 29, 2003, 04:43 AM
Welcome "WhiteWing". :D

The 2A is about killing tyrants and wannabe KING'S. ;) May I now provide a light to your path to the wisdom you seek. JPFO (http://www.jpfo.org/)

greyhound
September 29, 2003, 09:10 AM
I don't get it? One mention of God and the guy says "good night"?

Is Europe really so far secular that the word "God" is a mortal insult?

Good grief.

Baba Louie
September 29, 2003, 10:11 AM
I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self defense.

Several governments and their agents agree with you White Wing.

In the last century 150,000,000 (or more) died as a result of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you think this is a good thing? (Over-population and all)

After wading through five pages of reply with little actual hostility and several instances of debatable topic which were left unchallenged for the most part by White Wing, I am left with the belief that those who hold the above stated belief should not carry arms or try to engage others, who have been brought up knowing that this "Right" is a good and proper thing, in debate. (Was that too wordy?)

My children's great grandfather emigrated to America from Norway in 1910 at the age of 14 and settled in Chicago. After first getting a job, he told me the first thing he did was buy a handgun as "A Man needs to be able to protect himself". Age 14, new country, small English vocabulary, job first, self protection device (hazard stabilizer was it?) next. In 1917 he enlisted in the Army and went overseas to France with the AEF where he fought for HIS COUNTRY.
According to Grandpa Norlie, most of the real men left in Norway died in 41 fighting the German invaders. His brothers among them.

White Wing, should you come back to debate (ahem), I (not being the spirited debater that you obviously are) can only say, "Whatever works for you is fine by Moi...and you have every right to say it and possibly believe it... but should you and your ilk, ever run for office, I will do my utmost to see you defeated at the election polls as the 150,000,000 (or more) deaths were enough. Life is tough enough and I do not desire to see my family and countrymen suffer at the hands of the Worlds Bozo's"

Adios (wherever you are)

P12
September 29, 2003, 10:21 AM
I hope you come back and continue with your debate.

I came in to this one late. I have a question for you.

You saidShootings on our doorsteps; during two years we heard six gunfights in our neighburhood. It was scary like the two towers... and I know very well the temptation of getting a gun... I have been in disputes with a few people; last night I recieved a threatening call... Just a hidden number; no voice or words; just the sound of being crushed and hit... Prolly made by brushing the mic on his leg and banging it against something... The message was clouded in innudendo, but clear...
The "temptation of getting a gun" is your inner voice desiring a method for self-defence.

Living in fear for your life is empowering your enemies.

Why do you choose to empower your enemies?

HSMITH
September 29, 2003, 10:23 AM
OK, you know what makes me mad? That someone can be so full of themself that they would have another be hurt or killed because they think they know better than you do.

If you go up a couple dozen posts you will see Runt posted that she is a small woman with a bad back. Well, that really does not really matter. I am 5'9" and 195 pounds, I work out and in a past occupation was trained to take control of people that did not want me to control them. Runt could be 5'9" and a competitive athlete and I could still snap her like a twig if I decided to. If she is unarmed she is done for. If she is armed there is a VERY good chance I would lose the fight permanently.

HOW DARE YOU TRY TO TAKE HER RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF AWAY??? How DARE you speak against her right to self defense?Would you knowingly have her beaten and killed becuase of your insecurity? Your fear of a simple mechanical object? I certainly would not, I am just not that important. I feel very strongly that she should have the right to carry a weapon.

What about senior citizens? How about the guy behind the desk that has never even been in a fight? They are done for if attacked.

What makes you so smart that you can take away the only defense a lot of people have?

What I have seen from anti-gun people is that they have to go through a real "life changing" event, like being robbed or someone close to them robbed or killed, to gain the perspective that we ALL have the right to self defense by any means necessary.

Silver Bullet
September 29, 2003, 12:39 PM
White Feather, I hope you got the information you needed. I think it is commendable that you came here to get another viewpoint.

Zak Smith
September 29, 2003, 01:52 PM
Here's something I wrote in another thread:

Generally, I think there are several really important points to be made about gun ownership:


The right to self defense. A person has the right to defend themselves (or another person) against attack. If effective tools to enable this defense are prohibited, the right is near useless.

The difference between the verbs, "to kill" and "to murder." Not sure what the difference is? Look them both up in the dictionary. To kill is to deprive of life; to murder is to unlawfully or immorally kill someone.

In other words, there is a concept of morally killing someone, and immorally doing so. Going back to the Right to Self Defense, it is moral to kill someone who is attacking you with deadly force. It is immoral to kill someone who is not threatening you with deadly force - that's murder.

Utility. I don't like using this argument because it's not really based on a principle, but: Some people do things they need to use a firearm for: hunting for food, wild animal control or pest control, etc.

Going further, it is possible to make Utilitarian arguments for gun ownership (or concealed carry) . Two examples would be: (1) If many people in the USA own guns, the no army could invade or tyrant come to power, or (2) when more people carry legal concealed weapons, violent crime decreases.

Both of those are most likely true, but these types of arguments based on Utility can be invalidated when the goal changes, or the circumstances change.

The Principle of freedom, and power. I think this category contains the best arguments for the ownership of firearms, because it changes the question to, "Why shouldn't I own firearms, if I want to?".

People should be free to do what they want, as long as they do not hurt others or damage the property of others. Under this principle, all unlawful actions would be actions that directly hurt another person or deprive them of their property (or its value). This is often called the Non-Aggression Principle ("NAP").

This idea is common to libertarians and is quite far away from how even America's government runs.

Freedom is messy. People can do all sorts of things and some of those things will be things you don't like. This brings us to power.

Whenever you speak of government, law, "ought"'s, and "should"'s, you are really talking about power. Who should have it?

Balance of power is good. The most tyrannical regimes have none. The USA has some balance of power. The ultimate balance of power is for individuals to retain it, and this requires individual freedom, power, and responsibility

Another way to put this is: Who knows what's best for me? Who knows what I want? Who knows what turns my crank? A bloated bureaucracy (ie, the government), or me?

The idea that the government should decide which forms of "fun" - or what sports are "sporting" - is ludicrous.

So, under the principle of freedom: If I own guns and shoot them safely, putting no one else in danger, you have absolutely no right to say I cannot have them.

If you claim that you do, then you implicitly claim some power over me. If you claim it's "to make society safe", then you are reverting to some argument based on perceived Utility.

hillbilly
September 29, 2003, 02:17 PM
WhiteWing, you said in an earlier post, about your living experience in South Chicago, that

"My father is a socialist and a priest"

I am not meaning this as any sort of negative, but exactly what was your father a priest of?

In the United states, priests are typically Catholic priests, and Catholic priests take vows of celibacy, which makes having sons pretty darn difficult.

Perhaps the situation in Norway is different? In the US clergy of Protestant denominations typically are not called "priests."

So, exactly what was your father a priest of?

hillbilly

OF
September 29, 2003, 02:18 PM
Alot of wisdom and hard-won experience is available for the taking in this thread. One can only hope our visitor has the courage to try and understand it.

- Gabe

Quartus
September 29, 2003, 03:39 PM
Edited for typos! Quartus is reading!



:uhoh: Yeah, and you'd better watch it!


:D



Actually, typos are forgiveable. Using the wrong terms is not. We should know better than to use "clips" when we are talking about magazines, for example.


I must admit, I don't feel that you're being very forthcoming with your reasons for your stances,

I have to agree, but perhaps we can give WW the benefit of the doubt. English is probably not his second language.


However, the point has been made that WW has NOT answered any of the points that have been raised.

WW, we're waiting!

BHPshooter
September 29, 2003, 04:22 PM
Hmm. How predictable: no replies in about 2 pages.

The word for today kids, is "Troll." I didn't think so at first, but I do now. We might as well save our breath.

Wes

semf
September 29, 2003, 04:30 PM
The word for today kids, is "Troll."

I agree I posted that opinion last night but got a little venomous so I was edited. I had another opinion too but I'll wait till I can word it better.

ReadyontheRight
September 29, 2003, 04:58 PM
White Wing -- In Norway, you only need to go back to June 10, 1940 to figure out why us "regular" citizens should be armed.

clange
September 29, 2003, 11:53 PM
1) WW, you seem to believe that getting rid of guns would be a good thing. Others have alluded to self defense (two of my uncles have had to draw their 'illegally' carried weapons at one point), but i'd like to talk about some other good things about guns. To begin with, i was raised around guns my entire life. I never, ever, viewed them as 'evil' things. In fact, when i started getting into the politics of such, it truly amazed me that people had the feelings they did. At least 95% of the time..its someone who was not brought up around guns, hasnt seen the good things about them, and has only seen the bad (or heard about the bad from anti-gun sources). Some of the best times of my life have involved a firearm. Hunting and shooting has brought the men of my family closer together than any other activity. I think it would be a shame if such times were killed to provide even a small ammount of safety (best case scenario).

2) Getting rid of guns is impossible. Its not a matter of trying, or wishing, or finding the right solution, or anything. It simply will not happen. (most of my points are from an nra article about the same topic, if any of you have it post it). For one, you'd have to get governments world wide to agree on something and actually do it. Not in my lifetime. Second, will their be any arms made for police, military? If so how will you control the plants security etc, how will you control them world wide? Third, guns are easy to make. It doesnt take much beyond simple tools to make crude guns. More complicated ones can be made on simple machinery. Will you outlaw that? World wide? I forget the specifics, but some island controlled by resistance fighters in the south pacific was blockaded by some governemnt. In a short amount of time they had produced a working copy of an M-16. All a machinist needs is plans, which i'm sure are all over the internet. Will you make those illegal? Might as well kill the first amendment and start burning books, making it illegal to say the word gun, etc.

You cant get rid of them, and they arent all bad, not by a long shot. Why not focus on the criminals then? Why focus on people who follow the laws (to a certain limit at least)?

Frohickey
September 30, 2003, 12:25 AM
WhiteWing said:
Shootings on our doorsteps; during two years we heard six gunfights in our neighburhood. It was scary like the two towers...

You had Saruman organizing an army of hobgoblins for Lord Sauron's use? That is scary. :D

Also, you lost me on your King Arthur/Jesus references. If you were saying that people need to be inspired in order to change their ways, and that laws by itself can't do it, the inspiration should be Do not commit crimes.

Jrob24
September 30, 2003, 12:37 AM
I think WhiteWing came here expecting he could convince us "dumb hicks" that guns are bad, but got more than he bargained for.

Frohickey
September 30, 2003, 01:23 AM
WhiteWing said:
Btw... What do you guys think you can do about the surperior U.S military... For god's sake... Kevlar and preciseon bombs..

Hugo Chavez and Venezuela... imagine what he would have done if only the government had the guns? He couldn't have mowed down the protesters. If he did, he would have been the target of the family/friends of the protesters that died. They would have Hugo Chavez in their rifle sights. That is how guns in the hands of civilians stop government tyranny. Tied the hands of government enough that they could not use the force of arms against its own populace. Pretty nifty, eh? :D

As to small arms in the hands of US residents against the superior US Military. At the most, the US Military is composed of 1,436,455 active duty personel (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/rg0307.pdf). This from a country of 290,342,554 people (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People). How many of these 1.4million would desert or refuse to obey an order to fire/bomb on their fellow countrymen? Lets say 10%, or 29 million Americans refused to obey a tyrant that suspends elections and dissolves Congress, how many fellow Americans will these 1.4million US servicemen will have to slaughter to quell the popular uprising?

There are at last estimation, nearly 200 million (http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt) guns in the hands of private citizens in America. Lets say that only 10% of these are in good working order, and half of that, suitable for use against an occupying Army, thats still 10 million guns. 10 million guns is a lot, but not everyone that owns that will have the will and resolve to use it in a revolution, so, say its down to 1%, or 100K. But remember, us Americans like to think BIG. Most of these 100K guns will be aimed at the tyrant. Pretty sobering thought for a tyrant to have 100K gun aimed at you, at one point or another. Kinda makes the tyrant feel impotent, no?

Frohickey
September 30, 2003, 01:38 AM
WhiteWing said:
What is the third choice then? Bulletcontrol, or spomething else?

Bullet control...

Hmm... with a $1000 hobby milling machine, a talented hobbyist can make a set of molds to cast bullets. These milling machines are in use by industry and hobbyists.
Add to this a small cast iron pot, a spoon, and a stove, found in almost every single household or restaurant, and you can make bullets pretty cheaply.

Add to this blackpowder recipes that even your self-respecting 18th century chemist can make, or smokeless powder and primers that can be purchased at reputable gun stores.

Add to this muzzle loading rifles or pistols, or reloading dies, cartridge cases you can find in most outdoor gun ranges, just laying on the ground.

Hmm... maybe I should go into business. $5K a round. I'd be making a cool mint with the equipment I already have, and countless others have here already.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Pandora's box is already open. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.

Doug S
September 30, 2003, 01:50 AM
Looking over this thread, it does not appear that a debate every really took place. No offense to White Wing, but his few comments are just that, comments based on his distaste (or unfamiliarity) with private firearms ownership. Unless I missed it, these comments are not supported by a single valid reason (or even a reasonable supposition) explaining how the disarmament of law abiding citizens would make our world a safer, happier place to live. In contrast many THE posts provided thought provoking arguments relating to how the repeal of our 2nd Amendment rights could actually lead to an increase of violent crime. If there is one thing I'm sure of in this discussion, it is that weakness or the appearance of weakness (i.e., no means of defense) promotes savagery. We do not, never have & we never will live in a Utopian society. History speaks for itself on this matter, & we would do well to remember the old saying that "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." Our little experiment of the last 220 some odd years stands alone in demonstrating what a free man & woman can achieve, and unfortunately the word "free" really has no meaning if one does not have the ability/means to preserve & guard the right of the individual. As far as I'm concerned the only real "right" that we as Americans have is the "right" to bear arms. For without this single freedom, no other could really exist. If we as individuals & as countrymen are without the resolve and without the means of preserving our way of life then our society will ultimately go the way of every other great "Empire" that has ever existed, to ashes. Where happened to the Romans, Spartans, Athenians, the Sioux, Cherokee, Aztec, Maya, Inca. What became of the Hun, the Viking, Saxons to name but a few. Anyway, I can get a little long winded so I'll close my rant here.

Art Eatman
September 30, 2003, 09:55 AM
:D Pat me on the back, but I just read through the whole six pages.

It seems to me that White Wing makes the mistake of equating the voicing of an opinion with "debate". Nope.

Reading through all this, I'd have to say the vast majority of the responses from THR people give reasons for the opinions. This is generally absent in White Wing's posts.

On balance, Gertrude Stein's comment still holds: "There's no there, there."

It makes me somewhat curious, then, to see if White Wing ever does actually offer some line of rationale to support his opinions.

:), Art

Leatherneck
September 30, 2003, 01:52 PM
So who was it that invited WW to THR anyway?

He mentioned Preacherman in one post. But I think Preach has a better class of friends. :evil:

TC
TFL Survivor

Bostonterrier97
September 30, 2003, 02:42 PM
[quoate]
But what do you suppose can be done? What Rock points out is that the only means of getting the murder rates down, is by making it harder to kill... You say by keeping guns; I say by casting them aside...

What is the third choice then? Bulletcontrol, or spomething else?
[/quote]


How about summary execution of criminals when caught in the act?

Too barbaric? Consider this peice of history of Montana:

In 1862, prospectors found gold in Grasshopper Creek in southwestern Montana. Other gold strikes followed, and wild mining camps grew around the gold fields. These included Bannack, Diamond City, Virginia City, and others.


The mining camps had almost no effective law enforcement. Finally, the citizens took the law into their own hands. One famous incident involved the two biggest gold camps--Bannack and Virginia City. The settlers learned that their sheriff, Henry Plummer, was actually an outlaw leader. The men of Bannack and Virginia City formed a vigilance committee to rid themselves of the outlaws. These vigilantes hanged 21 men, including Plummer, in January 1864. The vigilantes adopted as their symbol the numbers 3-7-77. These numbers may have referred to dimensions of a grave--3 feet wide, 7 feet deep, and 77 inches long. Or the symbol may have associated with masonic ritual because many of the vigilantes were members of the Masons, a fraternal organization. Many outlaws were hanged or driven from Montana.

Consider the history of California's Vigilence Committees
http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistorySFVigilante.html

There are more good people than bad people in the world. By ensuring that good people have access to weapons and the ability to swiftly administer justice to criminals results in a safer world.

Most gun control laws were enacted within cities, once enacted crime flourished.

BHPshooter
October 1, 2003, 12:02 AM
Looking over this thread, it does not appear that a debate every really took place.

It didn't. You've got it right, WW told us his opinions and some very uninformed, very naive views of "how it should be." I actually wish he would debate, so that these 6 pages aren't just for naught.

Wes

Doug S
October 1, 2003, 12:13 AM
Wes, I have to agree. I was looking forward to a polite debate, but was waiting to see what direction it might take. Unfortunately it seemed to fizzle before it ever got started. Nevertheless THR members put forth some very good, common sense views. It just goes to show that being informed is really the best means of defense & of gaining support in the gun control debate.

Baba Louie
October 1, 2003, 12:41 AM
HSMITH,

Looks like you nailed WW right out of the chute old buddy. Maybe a little too much heat initially (there are ways to display proper scathing irony tactfully... look at some of Olegs posters again) but you appeared to be closest to the money at the getgo boyo.

Kudo's (even if it's on your permanent record with the mods) on that call sir.

White wing, One must exercise great caution when chumming for sharks in shark infested water as the sharks seem to know what they know and do what they do quite well. Please come back and play, er, debate.

Adios

Orthonym
October 1, 2003, 04:22 AM
What about Knife Control, or, why do Chinamen eat with chopsticks ? The story I read had it that when Genghiz Khan conquered China he had his JBTs go to every little village and confiscate all actual or potential weapons, down to kitchen knives. (Remind anyone of the TSA?) I think each village was allowed one central food-prep area, with ONE knife for the whole village. The peasants had to take their vittles to the official food-chopping facility to be cut into bite-sized pieces, whereupon they could take them home, cook them, and eat them with STICKS!:fire:

Oh, WhiteWing, this is not (exactly) ad hominem, but you're from NORWAY, for deity's sake. My ancestors used to huddle in churches praying for the Lord to deliver them from yours! Ever hear of the Danegeld? Scandinavians used to be the terror of the world with their killing, pillage and rape, specializing in going after goody-goody, mild-mannered Christians! I'm glad you and yours have gotten the Word recently, but may I suggest that you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

Silver Bullet
October 1, 2003, 01:06 PM
We might never know whether it was the holy cross or the light of reason that drove him back to the fantasy world from where he came.

HSMITH
October 3, 2003, 12:25 AM
Baba Louie, I call it like I see it and some people think I am rude because of that. Generally that is those who don't know me or are chronically thin skinned, and this format makes it hard to read "tone" in a reply further complicating matters. WW was fishing for an arguement and got it. The moderators support someone fishing for an arguement as long as they are civil about it and made that very clear. I did not mean to slam WW, but I do feel that his point of view is beyond ignorant. I gave the explanation for that sentiment later rather than when it would have been most appropriate, in my original post. My mistake. I am not positive but I do think I got a "strike" on my record. It is what it is, and at end of the day I just want people to know where they stand with me. I expect the same from them so we always know what to expect from one another.

One thing that I do know about human nature is that people don't change without a catalyst, and the chances of that catalyst being a 'debate' with someone from an opposing viewpoint are lower than your odds of winning the lottery. Personal discoveries and traumatic events are the sure ways to change a person.

I dearly love a good debate but I also fully recognize that the only gain from it is the "sport" of it.

Life goes on and hopefully we can take something from each day that will help us tomorrow......

pax
October 3, 2003, 12:52 AM
One thing that I do know about human nature is that people don't change without a catalyst, and the chances of that catalyst being a 'debate' with someone from an opposing viewpoint are lower than your odds of winning the lottery. Personal discoveries and traumatic events are the sure ways to change a person.
HSmith,

No, of course an internet debate is not going to change either one of the debaters' minds. People who are arguing simply never admit when they know they've been bested, even if they are able to see it which they usually can't.

People debate because it feels good to debate. However, debates such as these really aren't simply for the pleasure of the debaters.

They're good for the folks listening. Chances are, while this thread is active, at least one person will come surfing by, checking out firearms sites, because he or she had already had the catalytic experience and was looking for information, or for confirmation, or because they need support for their newly emerging shift in worldview.

Hopefully, when that person, primed and ready to shift paradigms, comes onto our RKBA site, the active threads will be interesting and appealing. If the threads instead are full of vitriolic attacks, the person will look elsewhere for support -- or the newly hatched shift in worldview will not last long.

That's why THR welcomes threads like these, and why it is so important that the discussion remains friendly and not insulting. We want to put our best foot forward, to welcome the newest of our possible allies to the RKBA.

Hope that makes sense.

pax

When you're finished changing, you're finished. -- Benjamin Franklin

HSMITH
October 3, 2003, 09:30 AM
pax, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for taking the time to type that out.

There are others that think a debate will spark change, that point will or will not be proven soon enough.

mormonsniper
October 3, 2003, 05:24 PM
I'd like it seen in other forums as well, like DU for instance. bostonterrier's tragic story puts a very personal perspective on self defense. How terrible.

Not on my watch if I can help it. :fire:

OF
October 3, 2003, 05:42 PM
Not on my watch if I can help it.Amen to that.

- Gabe

MicroBalrog
October 3, 2003, 07:12 PM
My views that used to be radical left have been challenged by those of your stand

You think one can't be a pro-gun liberal? Read my sig!

;)

Doug S
October 3, 2003, 10:46 PM
"Hopefully, when that person, primed and ready to shift paradigms, comes onto our RKBA site, the active threads will be interesting and appealing. If the threads instead are full of vitriolic attacks, the person will look elsewhere for support -- or the newly hatched shift in worldview will not last long."


Pax, Is it possible that you have a background in anthropology? Just wondered as you post mentions paradigms & worldviews. Good anthropological thinking nonetheless.;)

adobewalls
October 3, 2003, 11:06 PM
Just wanted to add that I think WW did come for the wrong reasons, but who knows - maybe as he matures and meditates on the sanctity of life (as one tends to do when one ages) the seed planted here will sprout and he will have his epiphany.

If not, well it was a good rhetorical exercise for THR members and his loss.

Take care

pax
October 4, 2003, 01:38 AM
Doug,

Nope, not at all. I just like big words. ;)

pax

With a knowledge of the name comes a distincter recognition and knowledge of the thing. -- Henry David Thoreau

Doug S
October 4, 2003, 02:38 AM
Hi Pax, just wondered . I teach anthropology, & some of the terms you used in your post caught my attention (terms I often refer to in class). Thanks for the response.

Doug

Abominable No-Man
October 4, 2003, 03:43 AM
Well, let's debate then, White Wing.

I think I am following what you refer to when you say institutionalized system of self defense. I believe what he is referring to, though, isn't an institution per se, but a cultural difference.
Look at it like this: how many of us grew up on the Lone Ranger, the A-Team, etc. How many of us grew up hunting? How many of us had guns in the house growing up? No, not ALL of us, but I'd be willing to lay modest money that 90+ percent did. Fact: guns are a part of our American heritage.

Now as far as self-defense......I'm going to need a bit of clarification on something here. Is this due to a belief in pacifism? The reference to Jesus is what brings that to mind. If that is the case, I would like to point out that while the "Turn the other cheek" quote from Christ is what a lot of anti's like to dribble out, Christ also stated "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" and "if any man has not got a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one" (sorry, don't have my Bible in front of me, and i can't promise the wording is exactly right or give you chapter and verses right now...).

All right then, let's examine something else. You have also stated that you
"dig shooting guns", that you "like a rifle and shooting practice", so I'm a bit at a loss as to why you condemn gun ownership out of hand and then state that you like to shoot. Be that as it may, you also pointed out that you see the value in a militia, but not (if I'm reading this right) as a means to oust a repressive government. Please clarify this for me (if you stop back in to read this that is: I know you blew out of here someplace on page 4.....), but are the government hired/elected by the people or the other way around?

TO THE REST OF THR:

My guess is that White Wing's command of english is somewhat faulty, and he wasn't quite able to express what he was for and against initially. Hopefully he left here wiser and with a better understanding of things.

ANM

toro
October 4, 2003, 10:20 AM
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could change the minds of all people who want to debate about the gun issue.

When the government fears it's citizens you have democracy. When the citizens fear the government, you have tyranny. After Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Travelgate, Americans fear the government, and justly so. Americans, should look to history as their warning. Nazi Germany led to unspeakable horrors across Europe. It happened once; it can happen again!

America's new atheistic, secular state is not unprecedented. It was performed with percision by the Soviet Communists and led to an amoral, unproductive, cynical, and atheistic population that destroyed its own economy and is only now having to learn how to think and live freely. Even so, against all logic, America's leaders try to force upon us a system of government that has repeatedly failed in Europe and Russia,Why? There is no logical answer.

Remember, this is not about logic. Logical people do not reject a political system that has given them freedom and prosperity. American is in a crisis. This is a battle for America's soul, and while you may not be around to experience it at its climactic worst, your children and grandchildren will be there. America's future hangs in the balance in these latter days.


Mrs. Toro


____________________________________________
11 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

NonServiam
October 6, 2003, 02:02 PM
Sigh. I'm sorry to see you've gotten a bad lot of Norwegians here lately. Just thought I'd remind you that Kobun, M67 and others (including me) are still here. I just haven't been posting in a _really_ long time. Thanks to you White Wing, I'm gonna go home and cuddle my guns right now. I'm gonna take particularily care in petting my Colt New Service .455. My uncle carried that during WWII, when he was in the Norwegian resistance ...

Sorry, guys. We usually try to keep the standard of resident Norwegians a tad bit higher.

sig220mw
February 13, 2008, 02:14 AM
Hey white wing you say we could or should change our attitude toward guns and not use them for self defense but instead learn to lay them down and then dispose of them. What about those of us that really love to take them out to the range or in to the field and use them. They are, after all not just for self defense. I will never change my mind about shooting, I love doing it.
As far as criminals not using them during a crime if they can't be legally owned. That's just a pipe dream, criminals are criminals because they ignore laws and will kill you with whatever is available. Finally the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution by the founding fathers to protect a right that they believed already existed.....they didn't grant it to us they only sought to protect it.
I guess the only other thing I might add is that some people just don't understand why we like our guns.....the answer is we just do and we don't understand why others don't but we don't go around trying to convince them to change their minds about it or try to use crooked, behind the back schemes to make them come over to our side. We don't demonize people that don't own guns, we leave them alone. We however are constantly demonized and belittled by a national press that literally hates us for no good reason. Crimes are comitted by a very small segment of the population. If all the gun owners were criminals we would be tripping over bodies every where and our homes would be boarded up and look like fortresses.

sig220mw
February 13, 2008, 02:16 AM
Hey white wing you say we could or should change our attitude toward guns and not use them for self defense but instead learn to lay them down and then dispose of them. What about those of us that really love to take them out to the range or in to the field and use them. They are, after all not just for self defense. I will never change my mind about shooting, I love doing it.
As far as criminals not using them during a crime if they can't be legally owned. That's just a pipe dream, criminals are criminals because they ignore laws and will kill you with whatever is available. Finally the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution by the founding fathers to protect a right that they believed already existed.....they didn't grant it to us they only sought to protect it.
I guess the only other thing I might add is that some people just don't understand why we like our guns.....the answer is we just do and we don't understand why others don't but we don't go around trying to convince them to change their minds about it or try to use crooked, behind the back schemes to make them come over to our side. We don't demonize people that don't own guns, we leave them alone. We however are constantly demonized and belittled by a national press that literally hates us for no good reason. Crimes are comitted by a very small segment of the population. If all the gun owners were criminals we would be tripping over bodies every where and our homes would be boarded up and look like fortresses.

dmazur
February 13, 2008, 02:51 AM
+1 to NonServiam.

I was going to say something about the Norwegian Resistance, and the need for small arms following confiscation by the Nazi occupying forces, but a comment by a Norwegian is just so much more effective. :)

Considering our history reaches so far back to oppression (1700's), I can almost understand why some US citizens don't understand that freedom may have to be bought with blood, that it's continued existence is not guaranteed. But Norway has a fairly recent history of oppression, so I'm surprised at WW's position.

Glad to hear that he may be a minority in Norway...

Warren
February 13, 2008, 03:13 AM
M.D. Woods,

Did you check the date of the last post?

Seriously, why did you call a FIVE year old thread back from the grave?



Oh...and welcome to The High Road.

dmazur
February 13, 2008, 03:46 AM
My bad, too. I got involved in reading the discussion and didn't note the dates.

Warren
February 13, 2008, 03:48 AM
Well, you were second in; so you are not the necromancer.

ConfuseUs
February 13, 2008, 04:44 AM
I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self
defence.

Hope you are kind on me... :rolleyes:

Uh, using the rolleyes icon at the beginning of a debate more or less indicates that you don't want debate; you just want to tell us we are wrong.


that with guns being so institutionalized within a community, the views of a gun's use is lightened so to speak. If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime.

I am familiar with guns, own many of them, and grew up in a home with guns. I do not carry or own guns for the purpose of committing crime and am frankly rather insulted that you think that way of me and my fellow board members. I think you owe us an apology for insulting our honor like that.

Furthermore, I imagine that far more cars than guns are involved in crime in Norway. Cars are undoubtedly institutionalized within Norwegian society, Norwegians are familiar with them, many Norwegians own them, and it is therefore natural for Norwegians to use cars to commit crime. Cars are not only excellent tools for evading law enforcement and transporting stolen goods but are also highly lethal weapons when steered by a determined killer or packed full of explosives. They are also highly valuable pieces of property in their own right as well and thus subject to theft. As such, I see no reason for a civilized society to own cars, which are undoubtedly multipurpose crime committing tools as well as motivating criminals to commit crime.

ETA: Now if only I'd been in on this party when it happened.

ArfinGreebly
February 13, 2008, 05:41 AM
It's a zombie thread.

A shambling zombie thread.

B-r-r-r-a-a-a-a-a-i-i-i-i-n-n-n-n-s-!

Sorry, what? Oh, fresh out, old chap. Shuffle off now.

I just have to wonder what piece of sorcery revived THIS piece of history.

But I'll never find out.

'Cause the thread's closed now.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Consolidated White Wing Gun Control Debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!