Gibe Home Annoy.com Message Forum Search Log into your account Create an Identity Moments Terms of Use

Show topics from last dayShow topics from last 2 daysShow topics from last 3 daysShow topics from last 5 daysShow topics from last 10 daysShow topics from last monthShow topics from last 2 monthsShow topics from last 6 monthsShow topics from last year Show all topics Back ~ Post New Topic Topic: Gun Control: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/18/1997 10:30:00 AM - View this Thread NaturallyBlonde: The weakness of your reply clearly demonstrates how little sound evidence your arguments stand on. < Citing medical journals that purport to be expert in the probabilities of gun abuse (sure, they get some of their cases that way) > What's that supposed to imply? Are you suggesting that the JAMA is something less than a sound, rigorously peer-reviewed journal? How about some evidence? Yours is the typical critique of someone who can't dispute the facts: make a bunch of broad, hand-waving insinuations about the character and supposed motives of the researchers instead. Boy, am I convinced by that. Real scientific! < a magazine written for the scientifically uneducated > Huh? Scientific American? You must be thinking of Omni. Again, where's the evidence that SA publishes sloppy science? < and an article in which even the title is obviously biased > What "unbiased" title would you give to an article that concludes that gun violence costs the country $billions, and that cites evidence to back it up? < from a publication whose reputation is questionable > No matter which publication you mention, I can find someone who questions its reputation. So what? Totally meaningless observation. < The Miller and Cohen "findings" are particularly laughable. Exactly what criteria they use to equate quality of life to a dollar figure is immaterial; it can't be done. > What you mean is that it can't be done with a high degree of precision, therefore we should say that someone whose child is killed, or who is paralyzed from the neck down by a gunshot, has lost exactly $0 in quality of life. I beg to differ, and so would you if you were in that position. That's a lot more laughable than trying to make a reasonable, if imperfect, estimate. If you looked into it beyond the tip of your nose, you'd find that such estimates are considered ridiculous by people who are injured, because they don't begin to put a high enough dollar value on the actual experience of pain and suffering. < And "each bullet" did not do any such things as they claim. Far more bullets end up NOT hitting people than hitting them, so the claim that "each bullet" cost anything more than its purchase price is ludicrous. > Of course each bullet didn't cost the buyer any more than its sticker price, but do you seriously believe the bullets that DO hit people don't cost us taxpayers anything? Sounds like you think all those billions of dollars in police, hospital, lost work, destroyed families, etc., etc. are paid by the people who did the shooting. Dream the fuck on. < (and how did they estimate the number of reclaimed shells reloaded in homes, anyway?) > Who the hell cares? Are you saying just as many cartridges are reloads as are sold complete? I doubt that, but if so, all it does is change the average societal cost per bullet to $12 instead of $23. The total bill stays the same, and I for one resent having to pay my piece of it. If this were a rational country, we'd _begin_ by making a sound estimate of the average cost per bullet, and then tax cartridges (or gunpowder) accordingly. I'm not saying the "real" number is $113B or $134B or whatever, or that a perfect estimate can be obtained, but I don't doubt that taxpayers are shelling out tens of billions one way or another. A good guess is a lot better than an inane assumption like $0. If you're so smart, what's your estimate of the cost of gun violence to this country? And who do you think should pay for it? Topic: Gun Control: Keep your guns! StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/11/1997 9:28:00 PM - View this Thread Touche, Arthur! Only problem with it is that people owning guns also increases the likelihood of other people being killed by them, so it's not clear that the evolutionary pressures are as strong as they ought to be... Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/5/1997 2:12:00 PM - View this Thread Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Bill. I'll try to keep my response short. 1. Re taking the 2-A literally, the 14 words I refer to are: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, taking this literally means the government cannot impose _any_ restriction on _any_ item that fits the description "arm" (i.e. weapon). Can you think of any other plausible interpretation of "literally"? I truly cannot. I ask this question not to get into a lot of hairsplitting and speculation, but because gun fanatics CONSTANTLY cite the 2-A and their vision of the slide into Maoism we would experience if it were ever violated. I see this as a deliberate tactic to avoid discussing the real issue, which is that it would be insane to freely market weapons of mass destruction, and slightly less insane to put millions of automatic rifles and handguns into circulation. So we have and always will draw the line somewhere. Therefore the 2-A (even in a not-so-literal interpretation) was voided long ago. But it's still a handy item to wave in panic when you know the great majority of the country favors moving the line toward tighter controls. < 2. Do I think there should be an open arms market? If the "arms" are registered and the buyers are licensed (and licensing entails that some police agency has determined the citizen in question is honest and responsible) then yes..... i believe in an open arms market. > Interesting. Do you have this much faith in other operations of the government? Do you really imagine that any person or agency could devise a method of determining citizen honesty and responsibility, with perfect confidence that nobody thus determined will later do something crazy? Dream on! That's pure fantasy. When we're talking about arms that can kill hundreds or thousands at a pop, the system had better be damn airtight. But it won't be, and you should have enough sense to know that. Not to mention that licensing and registration will do little or nothing to prevent theft and illegal diversion. Patching together a leaky licensing system and arming everyone else in defense is a lame way to deal with heavily armed criminals. The sure way to keep weapons out of the wrong hands is to not manufacture them in the first place. Du-uuh! < I also think that this would be preferable to the current "arms black market" currently operating today. And if such an open market it existed, I doubt that nuclear warheads and stinger missles would be up for sale as they are currently; and I believe these weapons are presently being traded on the black market, most probably to mid-eastern terrorists. (And yes, I accept this thought to be conjecture and allegation for which I have only suspicion w/o proof.) > Sorry to say, you have it all backward. Illegal arms trading stems directly from legal production and trade. Where do you think those Stinger missiles came from? Out of thin air? No, they came from the U.S. policy of giving or selling weapons to anyone who claims to be against our latest boogeyman. In this case, the CIA gave thousands of missiles to the Afghan rebels. It was good to oppose the Soviet invasion, but no one gave much thought to the consequences. One of which is the most brutal, gruesome, medieval muslim regime on the planet; the other is a black market in Stinger missiles. As for nuclear warheads being "up for sale," it's not clear that any are (yet). Believe me on this; I make my living on nuclear weapons research/writing. If and when nukes do fall into the hands of terrorists, it won't be because we failed to put them on the open market (you can't really be serious about that), and it's very unlikely they will be U.S. nukes. They will almost certainly be from Russia, where government control has largely collapsed and organized crime is taking over. < 3. How would I feel if weapons of this ilk were in the wrong hands (Tim McVeigh, disgruntled postal workers, et. al)? Obvious question: obvious answer: NOT GOOD! And I hope that if ever I have the displeasure of encountering such a nefarious person w/ malicious intent, that I'll be able to shoot him before he nukes me. Enough said? > NO! Not enough said. You're off in hand-waving fantasyland again. Obviously, nobody stopped McVeigh in time, even though plenty of Oklahomans have guns. What do you imagine, that a terrorist walking down the street will see you, an honest, responsible citizen carrying an M-16, and say, "Hey, man. I have a nuclear bomb in this suitcase, and I'm going to set it off in front of the U.S. Capitol tomorrow. Just thought you might want to know..." Get a grip! It's not enough to have the tools to defend yourself, you also need the opportunity. You might wish that part was under your control, but it's not. The more destructive the weapon, the more difficult it is to "defend" against, and the more lives will be lost in the process. < 4. Where do I draw the line? I want to see weapons in the hands of responsible people and out of the hands of those inclined towards clandestine and illegal activities. ... ... I want to be able to defend myself, my family and and my property against felonious attacks from the "legally challenged", while all the time hoping that this possibility never becomes reality. > It's great you have these fine wishes and hopes, but have you heard the saying "wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which fills up first"? < 5. Furthermore, I think all the above "apply to the here and now".> But the only way to know is to sell artillery, nerve gas, grenades, and nuclear bombs to everyone who wants them. Everyone, that is, whom we "hope" is honest and responsible. Then we can hope that none of those people turn out to be nuts, and hope the hardware doesn't get in the hands of criminals and terrorists, and hope that even when (not if) it does, that fine upstanding citizens such as yourself will be on hand to prevent tragedies. That's not an experiment I want to participate in. We've already tried it with handguns and automatics, and it hasn't worked. How many people need to die for the sake of the 10% of the population that can't outgrow its adolescent fascination with destructive toys? Thanks for trying, but you haven't begun to make the case for open markets in all kinds of modern weapons, even if they were licensed and registered. By the way, how does gun registration fit with your support of the NRA? Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/4/1997 9:17:00 AM - View this Thread Ven, I share your bafflement about where these "pre-existing" rights came from. I also don't see the point of semantic hairsplitting over whether they are "inherent," "intrinsic," "inalienable," or "uninfringeable." Those are rhetorical terms that defy practical definition and mainly serve to keep lawyers employed. The gun nuts' insistence on citing mythology (i.e. rights that existed before anything had been written about rights), and on claiming to divine the "original intent" of a 220-year-old document, suggests that they've given up on debating things that apply to here and now. Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/3/1997 8:27:00 PM - View this Thread Can't resist making a few more observations on the Constitution and its framers. You'd think these would be common knowledge, but apparently not. First, the framers were smart guys, but they weren't gods or omniscient prophets. Therefore, their writing should be seen for what it is: history-making precedents mixed with compromise mixed with rhetoric mixed with a certain amount of realistic political pandering. It's not gospel, in other words. If they had been more godlike, they would have started right off outlawing slavery and giving everyone the right to vote. But they were human, with their share of the usual human selfishness and shortsightedness. And they were members of a privileged elite and wanted to stay there. Second, they had enough foresight and maturity to sense the depth of what they _didn't_ know: the future! That's why they built in the capability to adapt the Constitution to unforeseeable new conditions. Third, specific to the 2-A, the framers couldn't have begun to imagine the weapons that would be invented 200 years later. That's why they were so offhand and vague about "arms." In 1776, the word included only a handful of fairly primitive devices, and there wasn't much risk that some nut would slaughter dozens of villagers using a couple muskets and a bowie knife. Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/3/1997 7:54:00 PM - View this Thread To pennville bill, aka oreo2: I went back to your first reply, and found that you agreed with me on the first point: that any conceivable individual arsenal is unlikely to be of much use against a determined modern government. As for the second set of questions, which I'm more interested in hearing answers to, I found no response from you and no coherent response from anyone else. Once more, I asked: < Do you take the 2nd Amendment literally or not? Should there be an open market in all types of arms? How would you feel about the next Timothy McVeigh being able to walk into a shop and buy a nuclear warhead? Or a disgruntled airline worker having a couple of Stinger missiles? If that's not what you want, where _do_ you draw the line, and why? Please be specific. > (To clarify, yes, I realize that fertilizer, diesel oil and such are widely available. Unfortunately, so is the knowledge that they can be made into bombs. But fortunately, dynamite and similar high explosives necessary to detonate a fuel/fertilizer bomb, are not available to everyone. And the point is, much more devastating devices, which are "arms" by any dictionary you can name, are tightly controlled. The benefit of changing that situation escapes me.) Now, maybe you don't take the 2nd Amendment literally, Bill, or as literally as one can, given the ambiguities in phrases like "keep and bear arms." If so, fine--perhaps you'll abstain from waving the 2-A flag. And, by the way, your writings seem more sensible and thoughtful than many others'. However, the 2-A seems to form the entire philosophical basis for the arguments of most gun nuts. That's why I don't think it's a trivial matter when those folks ignore the fact that the amendment hasn't been in practical effect for at least a century. C'mon, all you gutsy, macho guys! Lay it on the line! Do you believe in the damned thing, in its pure form, with all its implications, or don't you? Defend it or drop it. Still waiting... Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/3/1997 6:00:00 PM - View this Thread You're going off on so many wacky tangents, Ipecac, I'm not going to try to follow them all. Pick one, and maybe we can discuss it. Nowhere did I suggest that there isn't a moral difference between attackers and defenders. However, being right is of little help to people who happen to be in the room when some nut decides to suddenly open up with an automatic rifle or handgun. If you're lucky, you might have the chance to defend yourself. But you'll need luck, not just an NRA gun safety course. Nor did I say or imply that the "only factor" in crime rate differences is gun control. But if it's not a factor, please tell us why every other industrial democracy has both a dramatically lower death rate from gunshot than ours, _and_ stricter gun control. I gather that you live in Alaska. Bully for you and your frontier mentality. But that doesn't apply to crowded conditions combined with modern weapons. Pretty basic stuff, even if it's difficult for some to grasp. We're all thrilled that you have "virtually no crime," but did it ever occur to you that that's because you have virtually no people, and half of them are hermits? This proves nothing. 20 odd replies in this thread, and still no answers from the gun nuts to my simple questions about the 2nd Amendment. Makes it hard to take that famous devotion to principle seriously... Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/3/1997 3:54:00 PM - View this Thread That's the way to go! Answer a set of specific questions about one of your supposed inherent rights by switching the argument to a different simplistic construct. An "inherent right to life" is a nice general guide to making policy and respecting others, but when you impose your own narrow interpretation on it, you get in trouble, just the way fundamentalists do incessantly with the bible. I believe in my right to defend myself, and I certainly wouldn't always do so using passive resistance. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to put more and more deadly weapons into more and more hands. It's a bonehead no-brainer that this will lead to more violence and the death and maiming of more innocent people. This isn't just theory. It's an undeniable fact that the fraction of the U.S. population dying each year from gunshots has been climbing for several decades. People who claim that this is caused by rampant gun control or too few homeowners with guns are so out of touch with reality that they're not worth arguing with. Your "logical" notion of having every individual defend himself with "weaponry of equal or superior quality" to those of the "bad guys" is nothing but a recipe for escalated violence. Nice idea, putting those "superior quality" weapons in the hands of the white hats, but can you guess what happens next? Surprise! The bad guys get 'em, too! And the cycle continues... Logically, if the bad guys get hold of grenade launchers, Stinger missiles, and nerve gas, the solution is for everyone to be able to buy those items at the corner store (after an instantaneous background check, naturally). Well, hell, a lot of us might be killed off pretty quick under those conditions, but thank god we'll still have our "inherent rights." These inherent rights are a little too mystical for me; I want to know how they translate into everyday law and policy. And let's face it: absolute interpretations of the Constitution are simply crutches for weak, lazy minds, just like various versions of the Word of God. > Some of you walking with your eyes wide open into a life of > serfdom. Please don't expect all of us to willingly follow your > lead, or be swayed by your specious arguments. Yeah, right. Ayn Rand, Lyndon LaRouche, and various other kooks have been warning us about that for at least 50 years, and somehow it still hasn't happened. If you think guns deserve the credit, take a look at Europe and Japan. A whole bunch of countries with much more effective gun control than ours, and still they haven't slid into communist dictatorship. They also have homicide and gun-death rates several orders of magnitude lower. Pure coincidence, no doubt. > If personal weaponry is useless against governments, why are > Afghanistan and Vietnam now free of Soviet and U.S. troops, > respectively? Because they were invaded by unpopular, illegitimate outsiders, that's why. They were morally in the right, they knew it, and they were willing to die in vast numbers rather than submit. Both cases had little or nothing to do with any "inherent right" to carry guns. People obtained, made, or were given arms by other outsiders (including lots of stuff beyond the realm of "personal weaponry") when the need arose. What you're missing with your simplistic view of freedom is something called the "Social Contract," that's been around for quite a while now. It means that, with varying degrees of willingness, we trade some of our "inherent rights" for the vast benefits of living in a society and not having to grow all our own food, deliver our own mail, and fashion our own computer chips from scratch, by hand. And we trade some freedoms for the often overlooked benefits of controls on the agressive impulses and capabilities of others. If you find this loss of liberty too burdensome or too contrary to your idealism, why not move someplace where government has collapsed and lots of private citizens have weapons? Somalia, for instance, or Bosnia. Be sure to send email about how much better life is there. Topic: Gun Control: Why the lions and lambs will never agree. StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/3/1997 2:19:00 PM - View this Thread That was one of your best posts? It looked like an adolescent cartoon to me, sorry to say. It was a narrative populated with cardboard characters, strawmen, and the movie versions of cowboys and samurai. I also got carried away by Ayn Rand, when I was younger and more naive. Then I learned a little more about the complexities of real life and real people, and discovered that her philosophy is no more logical or consistent than anyone else's (and a lot less so than some). Maybe you'll figure it out too someday. I'm not inclined to bother responding to most of that post, but on a couple of your black-and-white points... > It seems the pro-gun folks have history on their side; free, > admirable men throughout history have tended to carry > weapons. Like who, for example? How many great scientists, thinkers, writers, or leaders have made weapons into a central fetish of their lives, or even carried them at all? > Of course, it is certainly easier to be passive. It doesn't > require anything at all. So, more people can aspire to it. What bullshit! Owning weapons is not only a trivial accomplishment; it has nothing to do with being active or passive or constructive. Exactly how many times have you "actively" used your guns to counteract evil or resist oppression? Dealing with every problem by force is actually the easy, childish, stupid solution. It takes a lot more effort, thought, and courage to avoid or prevent violence than it does to cause it or react to it in kind. If and when you grow up a little, maybe you'll understand that. The cowboy and the saint. What a joke! Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/3/1997 12:33:00 PM - View this Thread > Again, if it came down to that, my brother in the Army is > unlikely to use artillery against me. Hate to break it to you, but there are lots of people in the Army aside from your brother. If they left him back in the barracks, they'd still be able to squash you, no matter how many M-16s you own. > If men are armed with the standard hand held weapon of their > age, they have the ability to fend > off a lone attacker with the same weapon. Men, huh? Not women? First, what does this have to do with anything, and why is it the basis for your arbitrary line in the sand? Or could it have something to do with the particular kinds of guns that you love and want to own? "Fending off a lone attacker" sounds like a theoretical construct more suitable for the age of swords and clubs. An attacker usually fires first, right? Often without any warning. So what good will it do you to be equally armed if 10 or 20 M-16 slugs are already shredding your body? And why does the attacker have to be "lone"? Ever heard of gangs? Second, the "standard hand held weapon of the age" has become more and more capable of slaughtering large numbers of people in a short time. Why can't you comprehend that having millions of these devices in circulation is _guaranteed_ to result in more people being killed by nutcases, paranoids, and disgruntled postal workers? Do you truly believe this would be a safer society if everyone who wanted them could buy M-16s and AK-47s and carry them openly? You'd really feel safer in a crowded city if 3/4 of the people around you had automatic rifles over their shoulders? I know, I know ... in NRA fantasyland, only "qualified" "trained" upstanding Americans would have free access to guns. But which agency would determine who is qualified? And what would prevent theft, illegal resale, apparently sane people going nuts later on, etc., etc.? I have to laugh at the gun nuts' response to events like the Empire State Building shooting: "If only all those nice people had been armed, it wouldn't have turned out that way." Yeah, and what makes you so sure it wouldn't have turned out _worse_? You think that when someone suddenly starts shooting in a crowded place, everyone else will react calmly and rationally, then take out the bad guy with a single clean shot? Why? It seems just as likely that someone else would panic, start shooting wildly, be mistaken for the original killer or his accomplice, and so on. Doesn't sound like a whole lot more fun to me. >> I'm curious about your "practical" line. > Handguns are practical. Flamethrowers are a little more difficult > to carry. And your point is...? What does practicality have to do with it? A quart bottle of nerve gas could be quite practical to carry. And yes, Virginia, people do exist in this world who are willing do die while they take a bunch of others with them. If weapons of mass destruction are widely available, those nuts are likely to use them. Gee, what a surprise! >>You didn't answer my questions, but apparently you don't take >>the 2nd Amendment literally, >>since every more efficient tool for slaughter, that we can't >>legally buy, is also an "arm," at least >>the last time I looked up the word. So let's drop this bullshit >>about the 2nd Amendment, >>cherished though it is by some. > I am trying to answer them. Tools for slaughter= arms? You > mean, poisons, gasoline, these things are arms? > Won't drop it. You say won't drop it, but you're still not answering the question, just turning my point upside-down. Yes indeed, poison and gasoline can be used as weapons. But I wouldn't classify fuel or household poisons as "efficient tools for slaughter." That's one reason those items are on the legal market while nerve gas, which has no purpose other than killing people, isn't. But the point, one more time, is that the vast majority of all the different kinds of "arms" (i.e. weapons) that humans have devised during the past century or so, are not legally available to private citizens, _even_ in the permissive USA. Which means (listen carefully) that the precious 2nd Amendment was trampled, violated, and plowed under many decades ago. And most of these infringements on the right to bear arms enjoy near-unanimous popular support. So, as I see it, you have three choices: 1. Admit that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to discussions of gun control; acknowledge that the issue is where, not whether we draw a gun control line; and come up with a better rationale for your personal arbitrary choice of where to draw it. 2. Continue ranting on about the 2nd Amendment, but at least admit to yourself that you've given up on intellectual honesty. 3. Declare your absolute, literal devotion to that 200-year-old sentence, and make it clear that you want unrestricted production and marketing of _every_ possible kind of weapon. Got it? Sheesh... Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 4/1/1997 11:58:00 PM - View this Thread > I believe the assumption is that the Air Force > is unlikely to nuke US citizens in the event of > popular revolution. Okay, I went a bit far if I implied that the government would nuke its citizens. But it doesn't take anything like that to stop or kill a relatively small number of individuals, no matter how many guns they have. The attack on Iraq ought to be example enough. Not that a heavy armed attack on citizens is any kind of immediate threat. My point is that people in this country have decided, by overwhelming consensus, to limit privately owned weapons, 2nd Amendment or not, to guns with which no one could hope to defend against the U.S. military. If it came down to that. And if you start shooting first with your little arsenal, it _will_ come down to that, you can bet on it. So forget the argument that your guns are for counteracting an oppressive government. Unless you have in mind a really massive revolution and civil war, which could easily end the lives of tens of millions. What exactly is so bad about this society that would warrant that? The wimpiest gun control laws on the planet? Give me a break! 2) Do you take the 2nd Amendment literally or not? Should there be an open market in all types of arms? How would you feel about the next Timothy McVeigh being able to walk into a shop and buy a nuclear warhead? Or a disgruntled airline worker having a couple of Stinger missiles? If that's not what you want, where _do_ you draw the line, and why? Please be specific. > The practical line is weapons which > can be effectively countered by a single individual. > More simply put: the standard military rifle, no more, no less. > In Europe, police often carry these, especially in > airports. It is the practical, standard weapon of the age. What? Effectively countered? What does that have to do with anything? I'm curious about your "practical" line. What is "the standard military rifle," anyway? And can I take it that you would ban handguns? Semi-automatics? You didn't answer my questions, but apparently you don't take the 2nd Amendment literally, since every more efficient tool for slaughter, that we can't legally buy, is also an "arm," at least the last time I looked up the word. So let's drop this bullshit about the 2nd Amendment, cherished though it is by some. Topic: Gun Control: Guns in Schools StraightNotNarrow Posted: 3/31/1997 2:18:00 PM - View this Thread Whoops! Is my face red! In a previous post, I erroneously refered to .25 automatics in Ed's Shots for Tots program, when he actually proposed .22 caliber pistols in shoulder holsters. That's even worse! What are those kids gonna be able to defend against with little popguns like that? And imagine how unsafe the halls and classrooms will be if kids have to fumble around under their jackets every time the shooting starts. There's nothing worse than thinking you're adequately armed when in fact you're not. Nope ... Uzis on shoulder slings, loaded, cocked, and ready. That's the only way to effectively deal with all that gang nonsense. Topic: Gun Control: Guns in Schools StraightNotNarrow Posted: 3/31/1997 2:07:00 PM - View this Thread Right you are, Ven. I'm new to this discussion, and had to read almost to the end before I was fairly sure that EdAnger's post wasn't a parody. What I don't understand is why his Shots for Tots program is so wimpy. Only .25 automatics? Ammo checked in and out each day? What's that about? Sounds way too restrictive. What are those poor tots gonna do against all the "bad kids" carrying Uzis, for Chrissake? And you want to send them out on the street unarmed? Come on, Ed! No, an effective program would require every citizen old enough to lift one to be armed at all times with the latest, highest-velocity fully automatic prick substitute on the world market. At all times. No exceptions. Plus a minimum of 500 rounds, and with the safety off for the quickest possible response to any attack. If you really care about making the halls and streets safe, why not go all the way? Slacker kids caught with empty clips or safeties on would be sent directly to the principal's office. Jeez, why take a chance on _ever_ being unable to defend yourself? Yep, the more penis substitutes we have out there, the better. That's why this country keeps getting safer with every million additional guns sold. And of course it's why those awful restrictive countries like Japan and all of Europe have gun death rates 1,000 times higher than ours. If you believe otherwise, you're just a pawn of the liberal media. What? Me, paranoid? Take it back, asshole, or I'll blow your fucking head off! Topic: Gun Control: 2nd Amendment is a Red Herring StraightNotNarrow Posted: 3/31/1997 1:32:00 PM - View this Thread To take CyberKnight's post a bit further... The heavy (exclusive?) reliance of the NRA and assorted gun nuts on the 2nd Amendment only indicates their desperation and lack of solid ground to stand on. The issue is not total adherence to a dozen or so words written 220 years ago, nor is it a matter of whether we go down a slippery slope toward confiscating everyone's steak knives. The question is: Where do we, as a supposedly rational society, draw the line? With the gun death rate approaching that of car accidents, a solid 3/4 of the public (me included) believes that the line should be a lot closer to where it is drawn in every other modern democracy, where, by the way, governments don't seem to be exploiting their citizens' lack of armaments. I've rarely seen mention of the fact that the 2nd Amendment is already moot! The document refers to "arms," not "muskets" or "automatic rifles" or "pistols." Many decades ago, the government took away citizens' rights to own heavy artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, nuclear warheads, etc.. In fact, the list of arms that private citizens have never been allowed to own is many times longer than the list of weapons they can legally buy. For most of these restrictions, there is nearly unanimous public support. And we haven't gone down that slippery slope, nor has our weaponry deprivation led to the wholesale loss of other freedoms. So, all you GUN NUTS, get off this 2nd Amendment bullshit if you expect anyone to take you seriously. And while you're at it, please answer a couple of questions: 1) Do you _seriously_ imagine that your little arsenals of popguns would be of _any_ use at all in defending against a military machine that we fund at the rate of $300 billion per year. Even if all your closets and attic and basement are stuffed with bazookas and AK-47s, do you really think you could hold off a government armed with 10,000 nuclear weapons and several trillion bucks worth of other hardware? 2) Do you take the 2nd Amendment literally or not? Should there be an open market in all types of arms? How would you feel about the next Timothy McVeigh being able to walk into a shop and buy a nuclear warhead? Or a disgruntled airline worker having a couple of Stinger missiles? If that's not what you want, where _do_ you draw the line, and why? Please be specific. End of diatribe. Back ~ Post New Topic ~ Post a Reply Black and White Version Full color Version Copyright © 2006 Innoventions, Inc. All rights reserved. Gibe and Gibe.com are trademarks of Innoventions, Inc.