Gun controll?

[Architect]

But Architect, the situations you describe are not comparable. Yes, you need permission to build houses or alter houses or stick bits on houses, and while we might find this annoying, the reasons are fairly obvious as you said. However, so long as the house complies with planning regulations, nobody can dictate who can or can't live in it, so far as I know.

<snip>

There seem to be quite a lot of areas where citizens in the US are less free than citizens in other countries. But that's all right, doesn't matter, guns are the only thing that matter and so long as they have their guns they don't seem to notice how oppressed they really are!

That was the comparison I meant. Apologies if it didn't come across that way. Except I wouldn't call them oppressed, of course.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In that case "one" would be an appropriate rendering of the original phrase and I understood correctly.

One one, one could use as one, but the other one, one would have to use as different one. The two sentences are too different in grammatic person for one to present in less than two ways.

The two 'one' usages use one one to mean the y'all one and one one to mean the us'n's one to bring up two side of one argument; One to you and one to us. To wonder about the combined use of one trying to cover two different ones is beyond the capability of one to use only one one.

Yes, those were the circumstances I was referring to. Do that in the UK and the local authority will spend some considerable time in either court or a public local inquiry, or possibly both. The courts do not look at all fondly upon ultra viries use of powers.

Sorry. I haven't thought about law since high school (class of '69) and remembered ultra vires as being, "beyond the legal power of the corporation," and since the corporation makes sure it's not involved, I didn't think it would apply.

And in stable Western democracies, presumably.

Seriously Arch: Can any western civilization that lets me run about freely truly be called, "stable?"

Free, yes. Stable, no.

Another reason not to let your state descend into anarchy, more like.

Yup. We agree. We just have different means toward that end.

You let the professionals do it, and we go, "posse comitatus," all over the place.

I'm sure that the Canadians are familiar with the concept.

Sho'NUFF! Big country up there. Lots and lots of nothing in particular.

The police can also make unannounced inspections of premises licenced for the sale of alcohol in order to ensure that the relevant laws are being enforced. The police can also set up speed traps unannounced in order to catch those breaking the law. So what?

So, you're good with the police going into private homes with neither probable cause nor warrant, and not just PUBLIC houses (do they still call them, "Pubs?") and PUBLIC roadways?

That might come in really handy for you in a few years.

We can't even do that to convicted criminals, over here. Even parolees, who are technically still serving prison terms, have to get a phone call, first, I think. (This from the sister of a former employer, employed herself as a parole officer) (Correction, anyone, please?)

 

[Rufo]

Hi

Well... prior to the Declaration of Independence, I'd have been to young to have a gun, so my point of view is somewhat slanted, but in a nation founded in revolution, and a whole bunch of government that was concerned about future governmental jackassulation, I think it is valid to keep guns for the purpose of supporting AND limiting that same government.

...and the USA is all about what's allowed, and not what's necessary.

That's why it kind of honks me off when people say, "well you don't NEED a 7.62 NATO rifle capable of hitting a 10" pie plate at 500 yards," as a rationalization of forbidding me its ownership.

I WANT to waste my time, energy and expendable income trying to get the holes in the paper just a SMIDGEN closer together, there's no law against it and I cause no damage to anyone else.

Why should any other human being care that I don't NEED it.

This really goes a bit outside what I wanted to discuss, since my only point is that the guns will not be needed, and that the revolutionary justification for having them is invalid - not that you should need such a justification.

But since you mention it, I actually do feel that you need to justify owning a gun. Someone owning a gun means an extra gun around, and yes, it actually does damage other people in the long run. Accidents happen, regardless of the frequency of them, but what's worse, there's a risk that the gun will be stolen or otherwise get into the wrong hands. You might think it's safe, and that you handle it responsibly, and for all I know you may well be perfectly right. But the risk is still there, and what if something happens to you? Then there will be a gun around which you were responsible for bringing into society, but are no longer capable of caring for.

It's a weapon. It's designed for violence. Violence may be used for good, but that's an exception - it defaults to bad. You have increased the capabilities of humanity as a whole to kill and maim. Yes, you need to justify it.

If the Nazi couldn't kill 'em all, they'd ignore 'em as long as they were being nonviolent.

The Brits STOPPED when the Indians lay down in front of the vehicles and tanks, right?

Civil disobedience is not all about lying down in front of tanks. If enough of the German people had opposed their government peacefully, by refusing to work for them (I refer to the people in general here, not the concentration camp prisoners), refusing to go to war for them, refusing to listen to them, and many, many other things which can be done peacefully, the government could try ignoring them and then lose WWII before it had earned its name.

Tell the last armed Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto.

As long as you tell the last unarmed Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto that he should have gotten a gun in time. They were victims of the circumstances and of the failure of other people to stand up to evil. Lack of guns was not the problem.

Violence is never a GOOD idea, but sometimes it's the ONLY idea.

Never. Although I admit it may sometimes be the best idea.

Please don't get me wrong! Peaceful and nonviolent change is the nicest thing I've ever been subjected to, and I've voted every year that I could but once when I was in the hospital, but I still think it's a great day if I'm not on fire and no one is SHOOTING at me.

I don't want to use the guns to shoot people. The guns are the absolute last resort.

...but the guns are there.

If I had the impression that you would use your guns to kill people as anything but a last resort, I don't think we would even be having this debate. You've come across as a peaceful enough person. It's not that.

I've heard that... ummm... Australia is it?... has mandatory attendance at the polling place. I personally think it's a great idea, but another touchstone of freedom is the freedom to shirk your duty.

Freedom is a difficult and uncomfortable thing.

Just like when someone burns a flag, and I think of all the men that died to protect that flag, and it hurts so bad I feel like I'm having a heart attack. I remember, however, that they died, not for the flag, but for what it represents, and ONE of the things it represents is the freedom to burn the flag, so I keep my mouth shut and just salute.

If you're interested in freedom and liberty, you support ALL the freedoms and liberties.

I didn't mean that you should force people to vote, it's a choice and a freedom I support as well. Only that anyone worried about the democracy collapsing enough to keep weapons in case it would, should be concerned about things like these and try to do something about them. If anyone counts on the gun owners to be able to restore a proper government by firepower in case of collapse, surely the same amount of people should be able to keep it from collapsing?

Then the US'd still have slavery and a mess of other nasty bits.

Another of the wonderful and nonviolent rights we enjoy is that an individual citizen can challenge the legality of specific laws under the law, to seek redress from the entire government under the law, or challenge the constitutionality an any law.

As we live in a Representative Democracy instead of a straight, stand-up, foot stomping Democracy, the passing desires, momentary whims, and ephemeral fashion of the majority is tempered by the fact that it's not the majority, but the person the majority elects, that forms the laws, and slowed by the requirements of amending those laws.

I'll not get into what I think about the way the US is governed - it has strengths and weaknesses, like any other system of government.

No - it only forms the Law of the United States.

If the Constitution says I have the right to due process and the right of free speech, then the right of free speech can't be take from me without due process. If it says that I'm allowed to keep and bear arms (big if, right now) then that right can't be taken from me without due process. If it says that I have other rights not enumerated, and it does, then the government has to think seriously before it starts throwing its weight around.

It provides limitations to the government and provides forbearance to the citizens.

I kind of like it.

A historical document that forms the basis of law for the country.

Don't like it? Change it... but you GOTTA WANNA!

You also have to sell the idea to a majority of the people of the nation (I forget if it's a simple majority or 2/3rds or what) in state-by-state ratification.

We have similar laws where I live which can not be changed by simple majority and regular political process, for the same reasons. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm not talking about changing laws, I'm talking about what's right.

I'm beginning to think not, but if someone takes something from you, and you never even notice that it's gone, is it a theft?

In principal, yes, it is, but if nobody does anything about it, or there's no basis on which to do anything about it, does it being a crime make any difference?

Even the Romans has a saying: "Ubi non Accusator, ibi non Judex." Roughly translated, that means, "if they ain't no cops, they ain't no speed limit."

So, how free am I? If it's enough to make me happy, I guess that's what I deserve.

I understand what you mean, and I'm also concerned about people who choose to limit their freedom beyond what I consider reasonable. It's a troublesome matter, I agree. But in terms of limitations from the government, total and complete freedom exists only in anarchy. All else is a matter of opinion. A man who can have a gun is more free than one who can not. A man who can shoot an innocent person with his gun is more free than one who can not. It's all about finding a balance, which is a subjective matter, really.

"Should be used," is different than, "could be used," right?

Yes, but I'm not disputing that they could be used, only if they should be - or rather, if that's a good use to justify owning them with.

Guns are just a kind of tool. Like any tool, it can be used to build, preserve and repair, or destroy.

I disagree. Guns are weapons. They can destroy and destroy only. If that destruction is for a greater good is another matter. They are tools of destruction and - unless you use them for sticks to support flowers - nothing more.

It all depends on the specific need and the particular strengths of the tool.

Mentioning the strength made me remember something I've been meaning to ask: Where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed any kind of weapons? Surely a revolution could use something more than just handguns and rifles.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, you may wind up needing a particular type of tool for which all attempted substitutions have failed.

At that point, it's really nice to be able to go over and borrow the neighbor's, so people should definitely be allowed to have them.

A conflict is nicer with weapons? How?

If you mean to support the government: They always have been before. Why would they stop now?

There are a few of the, "cold dead hands," guys out there, but most of us, if the government and the people repeal the second amendment and pass anti-gun laws, will line up on collection day like soldiers.

We'll be crying for liberty and freedom lost, but we'll line up, and, brother, I'll be first in line.

I didn't really mean to question that, but it's nice to know that you would accept change if it came about.

If you mean for a revolution: Things would have to be pretty bad, and someone out there would have to have a pretty darned attractive idea.

During the last revolution, there were Americans on both sides of the line, and I suspect that, if we had another, it'd be the same.

Since you say many gun owners feel a duty to the government, which side do you think they'll be at in a revolution?

See, we're not sitting around plotting insurrection, but we remember how this government was started.

We, like those silly old Founding Father guys, just want the government to remember, too.

Governments should fear their people all right. I'll be the last to question that. I believe we can be feared without guns.

ETA: After rereading this overly long post, I noticed some unconscious V for Vendetta references slipped in. Damn am I hopeless when it comes to that.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

This really goes a bit outside what I wanted to discuss, since my only point is that the guns will not be needed, and that the revolutionary justification for having them is invalid - not that you should need such a justification.

But since you mention it, I actually do feel that you need to justify owning a gun. Someone owning a gun means an extra gun around, and yes, it actually does damage other people in the long run. Accidents happen, regardless of the frequency of them, but what's worse, there's a risk that the gun will be stolen or otherwise get into the wrong hands. You might think it's safe, and that you handle it responsibly, and for all I know you may well be perfectly right. But the risk is still there, and what if something happens to you? Then there will be a gun around which you were responsible for bringing into society, but are no longer capable of caring for.

So - if someone comes into your house with a knife and starts cutting people up and trashing the place, do you call the police?

It's a weapon. It's designed for violence. Violence may be used for good, but that's an exception - it defaults to bad. You have increased the capabilities of humanity as a whole to kill and maim. Yes, you need to justify it.

...and target shooting, and cowboy action shooting, and bowling pin shooting, and hunting, and controlling populations of deer trapped inside fenced in state parks and military reservations that will all starve to death without the control, and controlling farm pests and predators, and killing large predator animals that have become man-killers, and defending the citizenry against the predations of the lawless... oh, and a lot more.

If all you look at are the crime reports, you get a bad picture of gun use. In a country with about 75 million law-abiding, conscientious gun owners, the evil is a small number.

A single individual in the entire population is more likely to die of unintentional poisoning (about 7.97 in 100,000) than he is to an unintentional firearm discharge (somewhere between 0.25 and 1.05 in 100,000).

(Have I mentioned the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's chart of Comparison of Risk, Accidental Deaths - United States - 1999-2003 recently?)

As for criminal activity, I'd have to ask you that, if you think that everyone with a gun is a criminal, why something like 75 million of them persist in stubbornly obeying the law and behaving sensibly and diligently?

In every freedom, there is risk. To eliminate risk, you have to eliminate the associated freedom to take the risk. Once you decide that safety is worth more than a freedom, where do you decide to stop? If you decide to curtail a freedom by law to prevent risk, why do you believe that the lawless (1% of the US population is in PRISON! Another maybe 5, maybe 7% are waiting for them to get OUT!) will obey that curtailment?

Civil disobedience is not all about lying down in front of tanks. If enough of the German people had opposed their government peacefully, by refusing to work for them (I refer to the people in general here, not the concentration camp prisoners), refusing to go to war for them, refusing to listen to them, and many, many other things which can be done peacefully, the government could try ignoring them and then lose WWII before it had earned its name.

The German people were into it, for the most part. The Geheime Staatspolizei had regular reports from the Blockleitern (block leaders) about the rest.

The Nazi Program was making them respected as a nation, prosperous as a people, and the foundation of the new world. It would have been very hard to convince even a moderate number of them to passively resist, especially because as soon as someone rolled over on you, you'd be in a camp with the Gypsies, the Jews and the Quakers who 1) went with the Jews to protest the injustice, and 2) preached pacifism, and the Jehovah's Wittinesses who were nonpolitical and pacifist.

As long as you tell the last unarmed Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto that he should have gotten a gun in time. They were victims of the circumstances and of the failure of other people to stand up to evil. Lack of guns was not the problem.

Lol - lack of guns when facing an implacable and relentless foe is always a problem.

The REAL trick to not having enough guns is to get hold of the enemy while they're still... mmm... placable... and... relentey. (are those even a word?) If you get them while they're still tender and juicy and draw the line, they may get used to staying on their side.

It is true that they were too late in arming and didn't have enough backing, but if you're choices are to go down swinging or to go down anyhow....

Never. Although I admit it may sometimes be the best idea.

I feel that violence, and especially gun violence, is never a good, better, nor best idea. Any time it's guns-out, it's time for some poor mother to lose her baby.

I have go with the old Shaolin on this: Speak before fleeing, flee before striking, strike before harming, harm before damaging, and damage before killing. To me, it's all about balanced response.

...and you'll notice that it says, "when it becomes necessary to dissolve some bands," not when it's convenient or when it's comparatively advantageous.

See: I'm a pacifist... of sorts. Yeah: I know how to kill people, and I can get the job done, but it's my firm intention never to do it.

However, if it's go down swinging to protect whoever I can or go down anyhow....

If I had the impression that you would use your guns to kill people as anything but a last resort, I don't think we would even be having this debate. You've come across as a peaceful enough person. It's not that.

I didn't mean that you should force people to vote, it's a choice and a freedom I support as well. Only that anyone worried about the democracy collapsing enough to keep weapons in case it would, should be concerned about things like these and try to do something about them. If anyone counts on the gun owners to be able to restore a proper government by firepower in case of collapse, surely the same amount of people should be able to keep it from collapsing?

Of all the people I know, the two groups that vote most regularly are the Democrats and the gun owners. They are both deeply concerned about maintaining the government, guiding the nation, and exercising and preserving The Franchise.

...and the gun owners are concerned about the Democrats.

...and, well - it's not about a collapse, per se. The things that threaten the existence of a free state are attack from without, attack from within, lawlessness, and governmental abuse. (NOT an exhaustive list.)

Against all of these named, the People as a whole, the Posse Comitatus is, bottom line, the best defense.

We don't keep guns in preparation. We keep guns in case.

(...and because we believe it is our right as Americans, and the best way to maintain a right in good health is to take it out often and exercise it vigorously.)

I'll not get into what I think about the way the US is governed - it has strengths and weaknesses, like any other system of government.

What was it Churchill said? "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried."

We have similar laws where I live which can not be changed by simple majority and regular political process, for the same reasons. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm not talking about changing laws, I'm talking about what's right.

Being in the right is one of the most wonderful things in the world.

Being alive and in the right is better.

Again, with the guy and the knife and the cutting and the trashing and the Oh! BLOOD!! and the gleben... police?

I understand what you mean, and I'm also concerned about people who choose to limit their freedom beyond what I consider reasonable. It's a troublesome matter, I agree. But in terms of limitations from the government, total and complete freedom exists only in anarchy. All else is a matter of opinion. A man who can have a gun is more free than one who can not. A man who can shoot an innocent person with his gun is more free than one who can not. It's all about finding a balance, which is a subjective matter, really.

The problem arises when trying to convince persons, especially legislative persons, who are absolutely and unshakably positive that they are capital-R 'Right' that the limitations of freedom they seek to impose are unreasonable.

At that point, you kind of need a legal and binding codification of minimum rights; Keep the populace informed and communicating, allow the populace to make up their own minds, a way to remain secure in your person and effects, a means for the populace to seek redress...

...and some means to defend all those other rights.

(...and anarchy isn't freedom. It's rule by superior firepower and whim.)

The thing to always keep in mind is that freedom doesn't mean license: All freedom bears commensurate responsibility. If you either can't, won't, or fail to address that responsibility, you have the freedom taken away.

On the other hand, if you bear the responsibility in a dutiful and legal manner, then there's no reason to preemptively curtail the freedom.

...and there's only one way to find that out. Look at the person's past performance, and if the proper level of conscientiousness has been demonstrated, let 'em give it a try.

Some will fail. Some will excel. Most will schlub along, stumbling, but safely enough to be allowed to keep going.

Yes, but I'm not disputing that they could be used, only if they should be - or rather, if that's a good use to justify owning them with.

The fact that it's a right (if, in fact it IS a right - I already have three pounds of butter and a five-gallon bucket of maple syrup in the 'fridge in expectation of having SCOTUS deliver one huge, crispy, steaming WAFFLE) is justification enough.

The best way to keep a right healthy is to take out frequently and exercise it, right?

If it's not a right, I'll have to review my position on firearms ownership... and a lot of other things.

I disagree. Guns are weapons. They can destroy and destroy only. If that destruction is for a greater good is another matter. They are tools of destruction and - unless you use them for sticks to support flowers - nothing more.

See: Comes, right away, the Vishnu paradigm.

Vishnu is thee different guys. Brahman, the creator, Krishna, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer.

Krishna preserves what is, you see, until it's time for a change and re-creation, which is Brahman's job. Only problem is, Brahman can't re-create because what already is... is... well... still hanging about... you know... BEING and stuff.

So Shiva has to open his eyes and sweep away the old before the new can come into existence.

The thing here, Advaita Vedanta quite aside, is that guns built this country, right or wrong, first by sweeping aside the old government (it wasn't that easy, but that's the case), then empowering the nascent country to form a government and lay down a foundation of rule by law, and then to act to preserve that same foundation and the edifice that same government has built atop it.

Guns are a tool. Their primary purpose is to do what you need that type of tool to do, when you need it to do it.

...and the thing is: The Revolution is NOT OVER!

Just the first, weird, shootey bit is. The edifice-building is still going on.

Mentioning the strength made me remember something I've been meaning to ask: Where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed any kind of weapons? Surely a revolution could use something more than just handguns and rifles.

My line is when a single, stupid, block-headed mistake runs a good chance of damaging your neighbor's house. I say this as someone who has made three major and several minor gun-oriented stupid, block-headed mistakes in my time.

When you own a gun, there are a number of overlapping rules you drill and drill and drill into yourself:

• ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready for use.
• ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded, anyhow
• NEVER point it at ANYTHING you aren't willing to destroy.
• ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
• ALWAYS confirm your target and know what is beyond it.

The thing is, if you screw up ONE, maybe TWO, the rest still cover you and prevent damage.

If you have THE major stupid, block-headedness firearm event, an unintentional or accidental discharge, its being pointed in a safe direction saves you from damage. If you point it at your shooting buddy or your leg, not having your finger on the trigger saves you from damage. (If it's your buddy, it probably won't keep you from getting thrown out of the shooting range, though. If it's your own leg, the entire shooting range full of people will holler, "MUZZLE CONTROL!") If you bobble it and wind up pulling the trigger, keeping it unloaded keeps you from damage.

With high explosive devices, a single, stupid, bone-headed mistake is all you get because you have no overlapping rules that will prevent damage in any meaningful way.

I figure, if I want to keep something that can let me shoot myself in the leg or blow off a finger, it's my job to make sure it doesn't. If I want to have something that is able, from from my house, to blow out the windows in your house, the government and I should talk.

A conflict is nicer with weapons? How?

It's not the conflict that's nicer. It's the availability that's nicer, so's not to be the only unarmed person at the a gun fight.

Again, if you have either to go down fighting to defend yourself and your friends, or go down anyhow....

I didn't really mean to question that, but it's nice to know that you would accept change if it came about.

I'm still sworn to defend the Constitution, you know.

Have I mentioned that?

Since you say many gun owners feel a duty to the government, which side do you think they'll be at in a revolution?

The one they think is right. There's lots of different kinds or revolutions out there.

During the Revolutionary War, the Brits had the Cowboys, the Revolutionaries had the Minutemen, and the Skinners ran around doing whatever they damn well wanted. Three groups of American gun-owners, and no real consensus.

Danged if that freedom stuff ain't sticky and inconvenient.

Governments should fear their people all right. I'll be the last to question that. I believe we can be feared without guns.

ETA: After rereading this overly long post, I noticed some unconscious V for Vendetta references slipped in. Damn am I hopeless when it comes to that.

I don't want anyone to fear anyone, but respect is born of knowing the other person's stand and the esteem we hold for him and that stand.

My stand, among others, is that I am ready and prepared to hold my Constitution, my Country, my neighbors, and my friends; Posse Comitatus by any legal means at my disposal, against anyone who would violently or unlawfully act against any of them. As such, I try to keep handy my forensics, my citizenship, my vote, and my firearms.

It's said there are no rules in a gunfight.

Nonsense.

Rule #1: HAVE A GUN.

....

<<pant, pant>> LONG post....

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

And indeed in the UK even a quasi-private group would be subject to judicial review in the event that it had acted in such a manner.

For our US friends, judicial review is a very simple and relatively affordable system whereby you can ask the local court to intervene where it can be shown that an organisation has acted ultra viries. But if you cry "wolf", then costs can and will be awarded against you.

But Gaggle, you've ignored this and the planning analogy. Why are these not unacceptable restrictions on personal freedom, but gun control is? Surely they're both the same thing?

Sorry - I made a longish post pointing out that, in all probability, the single-family dwelling law enacted by the city council was in violation of Missouri state law, so I thought the argument moot.

As for WalMart acting ultra viries AND oderint dum metuant, all I could do was make a contribution to the defense fund for the homeowners under the gun and another, small donation to an organization, using the identical tactics, trying to get another WalMart out on the other side of the city on the property of the judge in question and his golf course.

 

[Mobyseven]

Hi

Yes. Thank you. I'm in the process of reading them. I should have posted that. Sorry.

I found the report on gun ownership vs. gun homicide and suicide very interesting. They posited a third variable that might account for the high levels of ownership AND the high homicide rate, but, "couldn't imagine what it would look like." I'd like to mention that, in the US, we have a very high crime rate, and us rurals still have us a lot of Cowboy in our makeup. THIRD VARIABLE!

Following a link in one of the studies, I found data that shows the asked for bump in the Aussie data.

100 suicides and 20 murders... 120 lives per year reliably unlost.

Based on an average annual tax per person (derived from the Aussi tax information site data of individual return filings and income from individual returns) of $A41,000 my preliminary BF&A* cost/benefit analysis shows a 13 year pay-back period for the program. It was late, and I was tired and hungry, so it's probably less.

Now, THAT is something to think about. You may make a gun control adherent out of me yet.

* Brute Force and Awkwardness

No problem, glad I could be of use.

To clarify my position, in case anyone has got the wrong idea, I fully accept that the USA is in a significantly different situation than Australia or the UK. I feel that the USA would benefit from tighter gun control laws - even tighter restrictions (with enforcement) on storage of weapons could have an impact. However, any sort of gun control in the USA would necessarily be a lengthy process, indeed a generation spanning process - the way Americans view guns would have to change before any significant restrictions could be put in place.

 

[Rolfe]

That was the comparison I meant. Apologies if it didn't come across that way. Except I wouldn't call them oppressed, of course.

Well, there are degrees of oppression of course. However, I don't think they're any less oppressed than we are, and some of the preceding posts have seemed to suggest that in the eyes of Americans we are indeed oppressed. The "zoning" still sounds like oppression to me, as do the employment terms (I can hardly call them contracts), as does the healthcare system. And that's just for starters.

I've been thinking. There's stuff going on here I don't like of course, stuff probably the majority doesn't like. I went out on the Criminal Justice Bill march in London 10 years ago. Didn't do any good of course. So far the provisions of that Act haven't affected me, but I still don't like it. I don't like the proposals for identity cards. I don't like the whole surveillance society. I don't like these demands for long periods of detention without trial. I don't like Trident.

I think I'm probably with the majority on these things. However, what are we going to do about it? Probably not a lot. Our best hope is at the ballot box, which requires candidates who take the line I want to follow. Fortunately in Scotland we have such. And election of them is making a difference - far more of a difference than having a gun on my bedside table ever could. And would we do more or be able to do more if we all had guns? Not a chance.

Gagglenash seems to be waiting for the moment the Secret Police come to his door to get the gun out of the thatch. News flash. By then it's way too late. The time to change things is much much earlier, when the laws are being passed that give the government the powers to become really oppressive. And at that stage, guns are not only unnecessary, they'd be a positive hindrance.

The more I think about it, by the time society has broken down to the point where it's the ordinary citizen against the state, you're so completely in the doo-doo that the presence of guns isn't going to do a lot anyway. Except make subsistence hunting easier, and we've got the guns for that anyway.

This whole "what-if" scenario seems to me either to be the product of a paranoid mindset completely divorced from the realities of 21st century politics, or a pure rationalisation to justify the possession of a private arsenal just because that is what is desired.

Rolfe.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

Gagglenash seems to be waiting for the moment the Secret Police come to his door to get the gun out of the thatch. News flash. By then it's way too late. The time to change things is much much earlier, when the laws are being passed that give the government the powers to become really oppressive. And at that stage, guns are not only unnecessary, they'd be a positive hindrance.

My expectation at the moment is that, if SCOTUS doesn't deliver breakfast goodies, one of two things is going to happen.

An Individual right: The government may think about that whole, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," part, the, "posse comitatus," bit, then think, "well what the hell... they're going to carry guns anyhow... and that whole automatic weapons thing is a crock, so they'll be having those in the closet momentarily, too..."

and it'll be back in mufti for me in some elderly, half-crippled, undoubtedly volunteer manner. (About that eyepatch and wooden leg - I kind of used that metaphor because i have one terribly odd eye and I can barely walk.)

I mean, if we wild cowboy types are going to pack heat anyhow, why not train us to the limit of our elderly, half-crippled abilities and pin a deputy's badge on us? I've already volunteered to do that very thing in the state of Indiana and have recently found out that the state has no mechanism for it, so I was going to ask the local sheriff and city police about it.

This is the USA! If you want homeland security, look to the homeland and the people.

A Militia right: I'm actually thinking of becoming a gun control advocate.

Australia had a program that saved lives and had a buy-back period of 13 years. How often does that happen in any governmental program? 13 years later, the project reaches (approximate) stability, and is generating significant amounts of income, yearly, just in tax dollars.

If, in fact, I have no right to keep firearms to defend myself, and am reliant on the government to provide the armed militia part of this good breakfast, the only thing I might like to do with my handguns is target shoot, and a federally subsidized gun-club gun safe is as good a place to store them as any, and might even get me and other firearm enthusiasts shooting MORE, because of the current difficulty in finding proper, safe, clean shooting ranges.

As a city-bound country boy, my long guns are laying fallow, anyhow. There might be a long-range shooting range at the gun club, so into the club safe with my 500 yard rifle, and onto the gun auctions with my other rifles and shotguns.

I still object to the police walk-in inspection requirement, but proving that you have an actual gun safe (many of which cost less than a really nice shotgun) or off-site storage (city gun range, again, for a small fee, maybe) could be a requirement for hunting arms. In that kind of thing, I kind of like the gun-club safe idea, because it would act to assure that the hunters aren't taking Jim Beam and their Old Granddad with them to the hunt.

Rural pest control arms storage would be substantially unchanged, but a quick address check would show if, indeed, the storage address IS rural.

This could have the effect of moving the more enthusiastic firearms owners out of the cities and back to the countryside, as well, which might actually stimulate shooting sports. Anyone with a house out of town and a couple of acres could shoot on their own property to their heart's content, and their friends could check out their shooters and go out and pick off groundhogs and coyote all day long.

...or something like that. [/quote]

The more I think about it, by the time society has broken down to the point where it's the ordinary citizen against the state, you're so completely in the doo-doo that the presence of guns isn't going to do a lot anyway. Except make subsistence hunting easier, and we've got the guns for that anyway.

As I mentioned above, there are breakdowns where the government and the law abiding shooters are on the same side which, at the moment, I find more likely.

It's not a one-sided, one-optioned scenario, but the tools essential to redress all the sides and most of the options are the same.

This whole "what-if" scenario seems to me either to be the product of a paranoid mindset completely divorced from the realities of 21st century politics, or a pure rationalisation to justify the possession of a private arsenal just because that is what is desired.

Rolfe.

Yes, I imagine that, to a citizen of a nice, mature, and stable government, it must seem so, but we're still close to 1776 over here.

As has been mentioned, y'all have pubs over there older than our nation.

When you grow up being reminded 30 or 40 times every year that your current government was torn, wounded and bleeding, from the hands of the previous, jackassulating government, and had to preserve itself several times against reacquisition by that same jackassulating government AND jackassulating Americans bent on reforming the government around an elitist model, simply by the strength of armed woodsmen, farmers and shopkeepers volunteering to go out there and take a bullet for the nation, the possibility doesn't seem nearly so remote.

...and at the moment, all those personal arsenals are seen as a right, so we need no more rationalization to have them than you need rationalization to have those horrible, murdering automobiles and life-terminating poisonous household cleaning chemicals.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Oh! AND!!

To give you some idea of the can of worms the Militia right interpretation might open:

The Indiana constitution guarantees that, "The people shall have a right to bear arms,
for the defense of themselves and the State."

A right to BEAR arms, right... but not OWN them.

Also, in Indiana, all persons over the age of 18 are in the militia.

SO!

A militia interpretation of the parent document could mean that the state of Indiana is required to ISSUE me arms, consistent with current standing militia - the National Guard - weapons, for the defense of myself and the state.

Now, won't that be nice: A mess of Hoosiers walking around with M16A2 rifles and Beretetta 9mm pistols, open-carried because it's duty equipment, all over the state.

...and Indiana isn't the only state with similar provisions!

Yes - it's pretty different over here.

 

[volatile]

So because guns "worked" in 1776 (which is to vastly over-simplify the Revolutionary War anyway), they'll work in 2008?

Seriously? That's your argument for gun ownership? A heady cocktail of historical revisionism, nostalgia, paranoia and political naivety taken with a good-sized dose of nationalistic machismo?

 

[volatile]

A further question: In all seriousness, would the average American gun owner, who strikes me as generally more pro-Government and more patriotic than his compatriots, really be willing to take up arms against the democratically elected government of the United States of America?

Can you honestly imagine a groundswell of support building from the gun-owning masses behind what would essentially be a violent and bloody terrorist coup d'etat against your fellow countrymen? Really?

This is just a hunch, but I'd hazard that your average flag-waving NRA member would be lining up behind the government, even in egregious circumstances. The whole demographic of American gun ownership seems to make a mockery of the militia argument...

 

[Stout]

I still object to the police walk-in inspection requirement, but proving that you have an actual gun safe (many of which cost less than a really nice shotgun) or off-site storage (city gun range, again, for a small fee, maybe) could be a requirement for hunting arms. In that kind of thing, I kind of like the gun-club safe idea, because it would act to assure that the hunters aren't taking Jim Beam and their Old Granddad with them to the hunt.

We used to have that sort of thing up here on good ole' gun control Canada with handguns only. Back in the day, You could only purchase a handgun if you could prove you were a member of an approved shooting club and had rented a locker to store the guns in.

Things are different now, I went into the gun store last fall, specifically to ask about restrictions on handgun ownership ( and scary looking guns ) but i can't remember exactly when this change took place. I blame last Christmas season's festivities killing that part of my brain for this, and the google hasn't shed any insight either.

But given the choice between storing my guns offsite and having the police just stop by for a quick check...I'll take the offsite option anyday. But then, I'm not a home defense kind of guy and there's really no such thing as a CCWP up here. Open carry will get you arrested by those guys dressed in black with the scary looking guns, even a pellet pistol or replica will get you that sort of attention.

So now if I owned a handgun, I'm free to transport it to and from the range in the trunk of my car as long as I'm driving directly to and from the range. I never asked about transporting it to where I'd really want to use it, which is out in the bush..or maybe I did, but the memory also succumbed to the eggnog.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

So because guns "worked" in 1776 (which is to vastly over-simplify the Revolutionary War anyway), they'll work in 2008?

Seriously? That's your argument for gun ownership? A heady cocktail of historical revisionism, nostalgia, paranoia and political naivety taken with a good-sized dose of nationalistic machismo?

[eta] Rude, but enormously funny comment redacted. [/eta]

My argument is, until someone does something about it, it's my right. The reasons it's my right are many and varied, but most of them have something to do with that, "security of a free state," bit. (Current local betting is about 7 to 1 that the Supreme Court will say it is, too.)

It's also very possible that the early government looked out over the throng of well trained, well armed, and well blooded militia that had so recently won them the right to govern and said, "You... you want to tell THEM... to do WHAT with their guns?!?!?"

I do think that's a fairly remote possibility, though.

If your government needs people, some of them armed, to... say... go out into a forest full of bears, mountain lions, and boar, or perhaps out into an alligator and poisonous snake infested swamp to rescue people from a downed airliner, what do you do when seconds matter?

Ours says, "hey you locals - grab up some guys from the hospital and run on out there with what you have and get started immediately. We'll follow. Take some of y'all's guns with you so you don't wind up south of something toothey and to keep the survivors uneaten!"

What do you do when some jackass is running around town dressed in body armor, shooting the place up? (Yeah - the English criminals are being so scrupulous about not using firearms, right...)

Ours says, "y'all run on over to the gunshop and get some M16s, magazines and ammo. We'll settle up later." Just that simple, logistically speaking.

What do you guys do when some murderous sumbich is on top of an easily defensible tower, shooting passers by with a hunting rifle? (You guys still have hunting rifles, right? You guys still get brain tumors, right?)

Ours has the local police say, "raise your hands. Do you swear to obey the state and federal laws and my instructions? Say, 'I do.' Ok - y'all're deputies, now: Go get your rifles and lets stop this." (Several non-police riflemen helped stop the rampage; the first ever school mass shooting. A couple were killed, taking a bullet meant for the college students below. They did it because it needed to be done, and it was their duty.)

I'm sure it's very nice for you, sitting there with your tea and crumpets, not believing in stuff like one's (see Arch! I do know how to do that!!) duty to defend one's neighbors, laws, and country and letting The Professionals do it.

Over here, though, it's Posse Comitatus, baby, in all its sundry permutations.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

A further question: In all seriousness, would the average American gun owner, who strikes me as generally more pro-Government and more patriotic than his compatriots, really be willing to take up arms against the democratically elected government of the United States of America?

Can you honestly imagine a groundswell of support building from the gun-owning masses behind what would essentially be a violent and bloody terrorist coup d'etat against your fellow countrymen? Really?

This is just a hunch, but I'd hazard that your average flag-waving NRA member would be lining up behind the government, even in egregious circumstances. The whole demographic of American gun ownership seems to make a mockery of the militia argument...

Gun owners line up behind the government because it's our duty to it and the people it represents, and it's the right thing to do. If the government went bad for some reason (don't ask ME! It's YOUR scenario!!) and stopped representing the people, things would be different.

It would have to be an AWFULLY bad government, though.

But if our government got as bad as that of George III, Rex, like (but not limited to):

• Not allowing public participation in the appointment of public administrators, passage of laws, or assessment of taxes
• Sticking soldiers in private homes and demanding that the home owners house and feed said soldiers (in essence imposing an arbitrary and hefty tax)
• Imposing arbitrary taxes on paper as well as any printed or published document
• Arbitrarily increasing the tax on building materials and foodstuffs
• Arbitrarily disbanding elected state governments
• Closing public harbors to regain monies lost by private firms
• Shooting down civilians for throwing snowballs at soldiers, and
• Hiring foreign mercenaries to bolster the governmental forces

Willing to take up arms against the democratically elected, but intolerably jackassulating government of the United States of America?

....

You DAMN bet'ch'a.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

...clip ...

But given the choice between storing my guns offsite and having the police just stop by for a quick check...I'll take the offsite option anyday. But then, I'm not a home defense kind of guy and there's really no such thing as a CCWP up here. Open carry will get you arrested by those guys dressed in black with the scary looking guns, even a pellet pistol or replica will get you that sort of attention.

Here in Indiana, you need the carry license to carry a gun, concealed or open. Without the license, all you can do is move the weapon in the trunk of your car directly from home to the gunsmith's for maintenance and back.

There used to be a, "limited carry," license required to get the guns to the range, but one side effect of the, "shall issue," concealed carry permit approach was that, now, if you want any kind of license, you get the concealed carry license because the checks are more thorough.

Interesting state, Indiana: They feel that it's safer to license someone to carry a gun under their armpit than in their car trunk because, in order to get the more risky license, you have to be shown to be more conscientious.

Oh - and - the official ruling on open carry with the license: "If someone sees the gun and reports it, it will be treated as any other firearms report. You'll be detained (that usually means handcuffed) and questioned about your identity, the state of the object firearm (like empty, loaded none in the chamber, loaded in the chamber, hammer up, hammer down, and condition of any external safeties), and your carry license. Buy yourself a damn vest."

So now if I owned a handgun, I'm free to transport it to and from the range in the trunk of my car as long as I'm driving directly to and from the range. I never asked about transporting it to where I'd really want to use it, which is out in the bush..or maybe I did, but the memory also succumbed to the eggnog.

YAY! EGGNOG!!

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I imagine that, to a citizen of a nice, mature, and stable government, it must seem so, but we're still close to 1776 over here.

As has been mentioned, y'all have pubs over there older than our nation.

When you grow up being reminded 30 or 40 times every year that your current government was torn, wounded and bleeding, from the hands of the previous, jackassulating government, and had to preserve itself several times against reacquisition by that same jackassulating government AND jackassulating Americans bent on reforming the government around an elitist model, simply by the strength of armed woodsmen, farmers and shopkeepers volunteering to go out there and take a bullet for the nation, the possibility doesn't seem nearly so remote.

Pretty much states what I was suspecting.

The country that likes to tout itself as the most advanced society on the globe, the envy of the world, the pinnacle of civilisation - is basically Neanderthal in comparison to the rest of the developed first world. Including Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Not only that, it systematically brainwashes and indoctrinates its youth in these Neanderthal attitudes, reinforcing outdated stereotypes and xenophobic prejudices, so making it even harder for the country to grow up and join the civilised world (instead of trying to bully it into submission).

Now before you start, remember this. Both Architect and I are citizens of a country that fought an enormously bloody war 700 years ago against the fore-runner of your hated colonial power, and won. Try looking up "Declaration of Arbroath" (oops, check today's date, too....)

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. [....]

May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. [....]

Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid.

Then, 300 years ago, we were trapped by guile and circumstance into becoming subject to that power, to the point where we were incorporated into it. A fair proportion of us have been doing our damndest to reverse this situation and take our place in the international stage once again.

However, we're not trying to re-run Bannockburn. This is 2008, and democracy and the ballot box and international representations are the way to go. Guns are just so far out of the picture that it doesn't even cross anyone's mind.

I say this, really, to remind you that it's not the simple "secure mature stable government" against insecure recently-escaped colony discussion you might perceive it to be. In some ways, politically, we sort of know where you're coming from.

The point is, coming from. Leaving behind. Growing up. You can't do that while you keep indoctrinating your children with attitudes more than 200 years out of date. Whatever you want to do now, has to be done in the 21st century and by 21st century methods. Which have a lot more to do with not being the boiled frog than whipping the claymores out of the thatch. We've done that. No more.

Think about it.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

I am minded that the various velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe did not involve firearms to any meaningful degree.




(I'd be more eloquent but am just back from 4 hours trying to save a burning listed building in Glasgow)

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I am minded that the various velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe did not involve firearms to any meaningful degree.

(I'd be more eloquent but am just back from 4 hours trying to save a burning listed building in Glasgow)

Our more recent revolutions over here haven't used guns over here, either. I prefer it that way, myself. Next revolution's scheduled to start November, but there may be some unexpected Neanderthallish howling at the moon late in the summer (the end of the SCOTUS world tour)....

(What's a, "listed building," and I hope you had good fortune, trying to save it.)

 

[Architect]

A listed building is a structure identified as being of special historical or architectural interest under the terms of the Planning (listed Buildings and conservation Areas) Act (Scotland) and provided with additional statutory protection as part of the development control system.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

A listed building is a structure identified as being of special historical or architectural interest under the terms of the Planning (listed Buildings and conservation Areas) Act (Scotland) and provided with additional statutory protection as part of the development control system.

Thanks. Wow - it's SCOTLAND! How can something NOT be of SPECIAL historical interest?

Well - fewer kings lived there, so that's off the list... ah - only ONE famous poet lived there, so it's off, too... mmmm... lesse... two famous battles and a historical treaty signing: twenty percent below the norm, so THREE buildings off the list, here... all right, then... next town....