Guns and Pie

[justashooter 430]

Keep your peckers hard and your powder dry!

well, that's better than hard powder and a dry pecker.

NICS is limited by the enacting legislation so that access is restricted to specific federal agents (including FFL liscensees). this is in respect to privacy concerns. use of it by unauthorised individuals is a felony.

[mox 298]

I believe you on that but you seem inclined to review all the evidence from all the sources (like the YouTube video) and sometimes some of the sources are only propagating ideals to their own end.

Point of order: I was only citing the Youtube in reference to a question about your holster. I really have no opinion one way or the other about that holster or Youtube video, I was asking a question, as one might ask a question about how you like a new pair of shoes. The Youtube video was a side-discussion, not me trying to make any point one way or the other.

I don't agree with all that the NRA does and I don't dispute all that Pelosi proposes. However, I try to consider each fact based on my personal experiences and not what I've seen on TV. I also try to keep in mind why they're doing what they're doing and the long-term ramifications of their actions.

100% with you up to here.

9 times out of 10, NRA is doing something on the side I agree with. Pelosi? Well, there's that 1 out of, I don't wanna say 10, maybe more like 100.

I guess what I see is an NRA agenda that aligns more and more with the far FAR right wing.

And #######...just learned my club is going to start requiring NRA membership, under the guise of insurance reasons. And I'm having a hard time finding another club in my area that doesn't require the same thing. I'm not a tinfoil-wearer or anything, but that sure does make me go hmmm.

The thing about gun control is when you advocate for "common sense" legislation, you're advocating for taking all our guns away.

I think this is where you and I diverge pretty strongly. I certainly wouldn't advocate legislation that would get my gun taken away from me, and I would never endorse such a thing.

Again: no right is handed down from high, untouchable and pristine. Your right to free speech has "sensible legislation" behind it. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't slander, and you can't libel. You can't lie under oath in a court of law, you can't assault somebody, and you can't walk into an airport or a bank and joke about carrying a bomb. Those are a lot of infringements on our 1st amendment right, and yet most of us understand that these are sensible infringements. Nobody is threatening to take away your 1st amendment rights when they say you can't yell fire in a theater, and nobody is threatening to take your gun away when they advocate, for example, that to carry a gun in public places you must have been trained in the proper use of a firearm. (I don't know of any legislation of this kind being proposed, but I'd sign a petition like that.)

Banning private sales at gun shows or making NICS checks mandatory for all transfers does, in fact, surrender our Rights to the government.

Again: I never advocated banning private sales at gun shows. I advocated making all sellers operate under the same rules.

Giving up ANY of our Rights puts us on the path to eventual disarmament. This is where the NRA loses most folks like yourself. Ever heard that quote about the man who surrenders liberty for security will lose both and deserves neither?

Yep, heard it, don't think it applies in this case.

And with regards to taking on the government if we ever had to, I mostly don't buy it. If you realistically want to be able to take on the government, then you're going to need helicopters, jets, battleships, missiles, and nuclear weapons. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe that my exercising of my 2nd amendment rights helps protect me against the government about as much as I believe in Santa Clause. I believe my 1st amendment right is much more important when it comes to keeping my government in check.

You made a good argument about either requiring checks for everyone or nobody at all. Which side of that do you stand on? Also, please clarify, how does that not infringe upon your Right?

I stand firmly in the camp of requiring checks. It could be done easily with a minimum of time and effort. Hell, already it only takes about a half hour at a gun show. Set up as an electronic service it could take even less time. And no, I don't believe it infringes on my 2nd amendment right, any more than registering to vote infringes on my right to vote.

[visaveteran 1]

We would not need choppers or tanks to take on the government...we would not be fighting the military necessarily, perhaps only the police. But even if we did, we saw what the Viet Cong did in Vietnam against choppers and tanks and air power using primitive weapons. It would be that sort of event.

But for me, I have a greater fear that the food chain will break down and basic services will suddenly end...that mobs will run amok from a lack of needed life sustaining things...food, water. That a terror attack will create panic and chaos. That riots will break out s they have in the past. Then we will regret not having more powerful weapons to defend ourselves and our families.

Each of us, ultimately, is responsible for our own safety and defense.

[baron555 934]

We would not need choppers or tanks to take on the government...we would not be fighting the military necessarily, perhaps only the police. But even if we did, we saw what the Viet Cong did in Vietnam against choppers and tanks and air power using primitive weapons. It would be that sort of event.

But for me, I have a greater fear that the food chain will break down and basic services will suddenly end...that mobs will run amok from a lack of needed life sustaining things...food, water. That a terror attack will create panic and chaos. That riots will break out s they have in the past. Then we will regret not having more powerful weapons to defend ourselves and our families.

Each of us, ultimately, is responsible for our own safety and defense.

I totally agree with VV; the military would not necessarily be involved. (And don't for a minute think that if the government totally breaks down that the military would blindly follow their orders??!!! I give them more credit than that.)

Remember, this goes for present day also, "When Seconds count, The Police are Minutes away."

[slim 1,530]

And #######...just learned my club is going to start requiring NRA membership, under the guise of insurance reasons. And I'm having a hard time finding another club in my area that doesn't require the same thing. I'm not a tinfoil-wearer or anything, but that sure does make me go hmmm.

NRA does have "blanket coverage" for shooting incidents so I can see why most clubs are leaning toward requiring memberships. It's almost like free insurance for them. Plus, like all good political organizations, mandatory membership = more money for the club through NRA grants, etc.

I think this is where you and I diverge pretty strongly. I certainly wouldn't advocate legislation that would get my gun taken away from me, and I would never endorse such a thing.

So as long as it only takes guns away from other people, it's OK?

That is sensible. As long as "they" are the bad guys, there's no problem. But, what happens when "we" are the bad guys? Is it too hard to imagine that someday maybe anyone who owns a firearm of a certain type could be construed as a terrorist sympathizer, a possible partisan, inclined to be an insurgent? Mere possession alone could one day turn normal folk from "us" into "them." It's all about perception and if we continually allow gun-owning Americans to be perceived as "whack jobs" or "crazies" then it won't be too hard to one day pull the rug completely out from under us.

Again: no right is handed down from high, untouchable and pristine.

Your Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are. They're handed down from God. When the forefathers wrote the Constitution they did so to guarantee the religious-based Rights they'd had for centuries could not be taken away by any man or group of men.

Your right to free speech has "sensible legislation" behind it. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't slander, and you can't libel. You can't lie under oath in a court of law, you can't assault somebody, and you can't walk into an airport or a bank and joke about carrying a bomb. Those are a lot of infringements on our 1st amendment right, and yet most of us understand that these are sensible infringements. Nobody is threatening to take away your 1st amendment rights when they say you can't yell fire in a theater,

Every single one of those you listed is circumstantial. You can't yell fire in a theater but you can yell it on a firing line! You can't slander or libel but you can tell someone what you think about them in a debate. You can also state your opinion on a matter whenever you feel like it. You can't say bomb in an airport or bank however you can use it somewhere else. In all of these instances, the actual speech isn't what's being prohibited, it's the circumstances in which that speech is being used. The words aren't illegal for one to possess.

Also, in the circumstances listed above, those are rulings by courts or prohibitions by various agencies or lower forms of government - not Congressional law.

and nobody is threatening to take your gun away when they advocate, for example, that to carry a gun in public places you must have been trained in the proper use of a firearm. (I don't know of any legislation of this kind being proposed, but I'd sign a petition like that.)

Any form of regulation what-so-ever is infringing upon the Right. It's very plain English "Shall not be infringed." If they would've said, "so long as they've acquired the proper training credentials" then I'd be with you on it, but it doesn't say that.

Also, you have to ask yourself, how much would that training cost? Who would meet the requirements to train and/or be trained? What if you didn't have a sufficient need to be trained? All of these are obviously "what if" questions, but is it too hard to imagine a regime (er, um, administration) that would only allow "certain people" to be trained?

And with regards to taking on the government if we ever had to, I mostly don't buy it. If you realistically want to be able to take on the government, then you're going to need helicopters, jets, battleships, missiles, and nuclear weapons. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe that my exercising of my 2nd amendment rights helps protect me against the government about as much as I believe in Santa Clause. I believe my 1st amendment right is much more important when it comes to keeping my government in check.

I know our military is the most advanced on the planet. But, I know a complete community standing shoulder to shoulder, ARMED, is more than enough to defeat the military. I'm not talking tactical engagement, I'm talking strategic. It's one thing to fight in NYC. It's quite another to fight in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and on and on and on. If AMERICA was united together against our government, the military would be a non-issue.

I'm not one of those guys who ever advocates fighting the military and I pray it never has to happen. But I know Nancy Pelosi is smart enough to know a populace armed with nothing at all is very easy for her to control. An armed populace, however, armed almost equally to our military is a force to be reckoned with. And that's all we're really looking for. If you are forced to reckon with your enemy, it's a lot easier to respect his position at the table. If you're not forced to even appreciate his position, plain and simpe.... you don't have to.

Our arms are just a deterrent. Nothing more.

I stand firmly in the camp of requiring checks. It could be done easily with a minimum of time and effort. Hell, already it only takes about a half hour at a gun show. Set up as an electronic service it could take even less time. And no, I don't believe it infringes on my 2nd amendment right, any more than registering to vote infringes on my right to vote.

First of all, what does that accomplish? You're going to require law-abiding people to abide by another law and taxpayers to pay millions of dollars to establish and maintain a system to conduct checks on legal transfers done by law-abiding people?

That's going to stop gun crime? Even minimize it? (Keep in mind you haven't advocated for registration yet.... that's where I'd go next if I was you. Hard to track those sales without registration. How do you know where the gun came from if it's sale was never tracked?)

But for me, I have a greater fear that the food chain will break down and basic services will suddenly end...that mobs will run amok from a lack of needed life sustaining things...food, water. That a terror attack will create panic and chaos. That riots will break out s they have in the past. Then we will regret not having more powerful weapons to defend ourselves and our families.

Anyone ever heard of Hurricane Katrina?

That was a "small" issue. Expand that to, say, 1/2 the U.S. and put it on a timeline of, oh, six months. Now what?

[mox 298]

NRA does have "blanket coverage" for shooting incidents so I can see why most clubs are leaning toward requiring memberships. It's almost like free insurance for them. Plus, like all good political organizations, mandatory membership = more money for the club through NRA grants, etc.

I'm surprised you don't see the irony. You're worried about a gigantic institution controlling access to our firearms, but you're not worried about a gigantic institution controlling access to our firearms. How long before you have to be a NRA member to shoot your weapon in a national park?

So as long as it only takes guns away from other people, it's OK?

Heh. Y'know, I'm pretty careful about trying not to take you out of context. If we wanna role play politicians, I guess we can do that, but I'd rather not.

That is sensible. As long as "they" are the bad guys, there's no problem. But, what happens when "we" are the bad guys? Is it too hard to imagine that someday maybe anyone who owns a firearm of a certain type could be construed as a terrorist sympathizer, a possible partisan, inclined to be an insurgent? Mere possession alone could one day turn normal folk from "us" into "them." It's all about perception and if we continually allow gun-owning Americans to be perceived as "whack jobs" or "crazies" then it won't be too hard to one day pull the rug completely out from under us.

THIS! This is exactly why wingnuts showing up to the ** speech packing guns and assault rifles should be condemned by everyone who cares about our 2nd amendment rights. Because you're absolutely right, it *IS* about perception. So yeah, wingnut with the assault rifle shows up to the ** speech because it's his Constitutional right, good for him. Now, how much did that set back our movement? How many people saw that footage blasted all over the cable networks and thought "we really need to do something about those out of control gun-toting whack jobs in this country"? They'd have made a bigger statement packing leaflets instead of guns.

It reminds me of that scene in The Big Lebowski where Walter starts making a scene in the diner. By fugging gawd he's gonna finish his cup of coffee because he's a veteran goddam it, and men died in the mud so he could drink that cup of coffee. It's a hysterically funny scene, and part of the reason it's so funny is because we all know somebody like Walter, somebody who is entitled, and to hell with anybody else. (the part where he draws the piece in the bowling alley is even funnier, but TBL is pretty much the best movie ever made, so I really need to resist my instinct to do a complete comparative analysis...you're welcome. )

Anyway, if you keep shoving your rights down peoples' throats without heeding the perception of what you're doing, and you're just (pun intended) shooting yourself in the foot.

Every single one of those you listed is circumstantial. You can't yell fire in a theater but you can yell it on a firing line! You can't slander or libel but you can tell someone what you think about them in a debate. You can also state your opinion on a matter whenever you feel like it. You can't say bomb in an airport or bank however you can use it somewhere else. In all of these instances, the actual speech isn't what's being prohibited, it's the circumstances in which that speech is being used. The words aren't illegal for one to possess.

Okay...so what you're telling me is that it's ok to abridge a right within a set of specific circumstances. Your words, "circumstances." Let's move on...

Also, in the circumstances listed above, those are rulings by courts or prohibitions by various agencies or lower forms of government - not Congressional law.

Pretty sure the "fire in a theater" was tried in the Supreme Court. I could be wrong. Slander and libel laws are...well, laws.

Any form of regulation what-so-ever is infringing upon the Right. It's very plain English "Shall not be infringed." If they would've said, "so long as they've acquired the proper training credentials" then I'd be with you on it, but it doesn't say that.

Now here we come to it. You said earlier that a right can be abridged in the right circumstance, such as yelling "fire" in a theater bad, but yelling "fire" in non-crowd situations good. And the circumstance I gave was carrying a gun in public. But now you're saying that no, this is an abridgment, therefore unconstitutional.

See, you're rationalizing restrictions on one right (free speech) while saying that somehow another right (right to bear arms) is completely and in all cases completely untouchable. You're trying to tell me that the second amendment is somehow more holy and untouchable than the first amendment. What about the eighth amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment--i.e., the death penalty (which is inarguably the most cruel if not unusual punishment you can hand down)? Oh but it's okay in circumstances of rape, murder, etc. Name a right in the bill of rights, and I'll name a restriction. Because they are not holy, they are not handed down by god, they are not perfect. Like our Constitution, they are a work in perpetual progress.

The truth is, not a single one of our "rights" is untouchable, nor should they be. We're not robots and we don't live inside a computer where everything fits into neat little ones and zeros. We are imperfect, and we live in an imperfect world. Slim, I would trust you with a weapon implicity. I'd have no problem whatsoever giving you a special permit allowing you to carry a loaded fully automatic weapon into a courtroom, airport, government building, school, or anywhere else. But not everybody is like you, and that's why we need sensible legislation. One fine day some idiot thought it'd be pretty damn funny to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, and people probably died because of it. If everyone was like you, we could have pristine and untouched rights. But we don't live in that kind of world, sorry. Stupid and bad people are why we can't have nice things.

Also, you have to ask yourself, how much would that training cost? Who would meet the requirements to train and/or be trained? What if you didn't have a sufficient need to be trained? All of these are obviously "what if" questions, but is it too hard to imagine a regime (er, um, administration) that would only allow "certain people" to be trained?

How much does a gun cost? Are you saying that our right to bear arms is infringed by anyone who would dare set up a capitalist barrier between a citizen and a firearm? After all, the amendment reads "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say infringed by whom. Maybe the guy at the gun store is infringing on my right to bear arms because he insists on trading it for green paper.

It's a silly example of the slippery slope argument, which is the same one you're making. Every argument can be taken down the slippery slope, but very few actually ever make it that far. In the example where training would be required to carry in public, the most likely situation to develop would be that a whole industry springs up (well, the existing industry grows), driving training costs down. Hell, it could actually create more armed citizens, which is what you want, right?

Our arms are just a deterrent. Nothing more.

Don't get me wrong. I think the fact that controlling an armed populace wouldn't be easy could in fact create a deterrent effect to any extremist (like, say, ####### Cheney, since we're throwing political leaders' names around) who might try. But I also think our 1st amendment rights are much MUCH stronger than anything our 2nd amendment can give us. The pen really is mightier than the sword. Just look at what's happening in Iran. They're standing on the brink of revolution right now, and none of them is armed. Which is not to say that the situation couldn't be "nudged" a little, were the Iranians an armed populace, but it sure would be a lot messier too. The will of the people can be delayed, but it can never be completely suppressed, guns or no guns.

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, I think you're really making big deal about one guy legally open carrying at a political event. One guy! Not five or ten or twenty...one guy. Frankly, I'd be more concerned that two Black Panthers showed up with night sticks at a voting station in Philly and harassed and threatened voters. Eric Holder chose to not prosecute them. Nice.

Which is the greater threat to democracy? Legally carrying a weapon or brandishing night sticks at an election station?

Are black political groups worried about their image from this isolated event? ? Of course not.

If Democrat Senator Jim Webb wants to sneak two handguns into the halls of congress, why can't a regular citizen carry at a political event?

[Ban Hammer 13,517]

i'm just wondering how many americans know they can carry like that one guy at the political event and that he broke no laws in doing so.

nowadays, my kid couldn't do what my father used to do, which was hitchhike down the road to go hunting with a .22 and not have any problems over it. today there would be swat, tv crews, and god knows what else in attendance.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

i'm just wondering how many americans know they can carry like that one guy at the political event and that he broke no laws in doing so.

nowadays, my kid couldn't do what my father used to do, which was hitchhike down the road to go hunting with a .22 and not have any problems over it. today there would be swat, tv crews, and god knows what else in attendance.

Depends where you live Charles. Many states, but not all, allow open carry of firearms. And I promise you, in Vermont a kid could hitchhike with a .22 rifle and not have a problem. People walking along the road carrying guns is not at all unusual and other people often offer them rides. It is usually a hunter who came out of the woods a little farther from his car than he thought. No big deal.

[slim 1,530]

I'm surprised you don't see the irony. You're worried about a gigantic institution controlling access to our firearms, but you're not worried about a gigantic institution controlling access to our firearms. How long before you have to be a NRA member to shoot your weapon in a national park?

Last time I checked the NRA doesn't levy taxes on non-members and those opposed to it's cause. It also doesn't ensure compliance by force if folks choose to not participate. You don't have to be a member of an affiliated club in order to still exercise your Right. If you don't like the NRA, don't join an affiilated club. If you don't like the fact your club is making it mandatory to join, get it voted down in your next club meeting.

And by the way, right now you're not allowed to carry a weapon in a National Park. Thanks to the NRA, you will be soon. (Feb., right?)

Heh. Y'know, I'm pretty careful about trying not to take you out of context. If we wanna role play politicians, I guess we can do that, but I'd rather not.

The point I was trying to make with that is this - right now, dirty brown Muslims are the bad guys. What if, someday, regular old white guys are? Who's to say that could never change? If you're supporting legislation that would enable the government to crack down on "them" then why couldn't they someday do it to "us?"

Okay...so what you're telling me is that it's ok to abridge a right within a set of specific circumstances. Your words, "circumstances." Let's move on...

Not at all. I don't see how anyone can stop you from saying anything at any time. They can prosecute you for it after the fact, but they can't actually prohibit you from using any speech you so desire. They can't "ban" words.

Since you're using this one, I'll run with it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it disturbs the peace and incites panic, and that's a crime. However, I have no knowledge of a law anywhere that says the word "fire" is illegal. You can still own the word fire.

If you pull out a gun in a crowded theater, you're probably also going to disturb the peace and incite panic and you'll probably also be charged with a crime after the fact. However, there's a very strong push in this country to ban guns, not ban pulling them out in a crowded theater. See the difference?

With the gun ban lobby, it's not about banning an (already illegal) action, it's about banning an item. As for circumstances where Rights can be abridged, there should be none. If you point a gun at someone, that's no different than slandering them with your words. You're committing a crime. However, nobody tries to ban the bad words...

What about the eighth amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment--i.e., the death penalty (which is inarguably the most cruel if not unusual punishment you can hand down)? Oh but it's okay in circumstances of rape, murder, etc. Name a right in the bill of rights, and I'll name a restriction. Because they are not holy, they are not handed down by god, they are not perfect. Like our Constitution, they are a work in perpetual progress.

So an eye for an eye isn't handed down from God? Wonder where they got that one.....

The truth is, not a single one of our "rights" is untouchable, nor should they be. We're not robots and we don't live inside a computer where everything fits into neat little ones and zeros. We are imperfect, and we live in an imperfect world. Slim, I would trust you with a weapon implicity. I'd have no problem whatsoever giving you a special permit allowing you to carry a loaded fully automatic weapon into a courtroom, airport, government building, school, or anywhere else. But not everybody is like you, and that's why we need sensible legislation. One fine day some idiot thought it'd be pretty damn funny to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, and people probably died because of it. If everyone was like you, we could have pristine and untouched rights.

March 6th, 1775 the old South Meeting House in Boston was crowded with Bostonians and British officers alike. The Bostonians, led through a touching tribute to the fallen of the Boston Massacre five years before, by Dr. Joseph Warren, were applauding when an officer stood and yelld, "Oh! Fie!" In his fine English accent, Fie sounded to the Bostonians like "Fire" and they immediately began to spill into the streets where the 43rd Infantry was marching by with colors waving, fifes and drums playing, and for an instant - Boston almost fell into war.

Both Whig leaders and British officers alike did their best to separate the men and Boston remained quiet for several more days.

How much does a gun cost? Are you saying that our right to bear arms is infringed by anyone who would dare set up a capitalist barrier

No, I'm saying that setting up something to the equivalent of a "poll tax" for the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be unthinkable someday.

Don't get me wrong. I think the fact that controlling an armed populace wouldn't be easy could in fact create a deterrent effect to any extremist (like, say, ####### Cheney, since we're throwing political leaders' names around) who might try. But I also think our 1st amendment rights are much MUCH stronger than anything our 2nd amendment can give us. The pen really is mightier than the sword.

The pen may be mightier than the sword, but you have to have a secure environment to read and write. You can't read your newspaper if a man with a rifle shoots the publisher.

Just look at what's happening in Iran. They're standing on the brink of revolution right now, and none of them is armed. Which is not to say that the situation couldn't be "nudged" a little, were the Iranians an armed populace, but it sure would be a lot messier too. The will of the people can be delayed, but it can never be completely suppressed, guns or no guns.

Yeah, just ask the Chinese.

[mox 298]

Mox, I think you're really making big deal about one guy legally open carrying at a political event. One guy! Not five or ten or twenty...one guy. Frankly, I'd be more concerned that two Black Panthers showed up with night sticks at a voting station in Philly and harassed and threatened voters. Eric Holder chose to not prosecute them. Nice.

Which is the greater threat to democracy? Legally carrying a weapon or brandishing night sticks at an election station?

Are black political groups worried about their image from this isolated event? ? Of course not.

If Democrat Senator Jim Webb wants to sneak two handguns into the halls of congress, why can't a regular citizen carry at a political event?

It wasn't just one guy. Turns out there were about 3-5, including one guy carrying an assault rifle. (that's why I confused the guy with the assault rifle with the guy carrying the "blood of tyrants" sign.) It may not bother you, but 3-5 guys showing up armed to the President's rally scares the ####### out of a lot of people. And again: nobody showed up armed to McCain, Palin, Bush, or any other speeches. Only the black Democrat. And if you think that was a coincidence, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

I'm not arguing the right to carry. As Slim said, it's about perception. Now maybe someday people will be educated enough that this kind of thing will be normal. But if you want to educate people right now, that's exactly the opposite way to do it.

And Jim Webb (another one of us whiny gun-packing libtards who want to take your guns away) didn't sneak guns into Congress, his aide tried to but didn't make it past security.

[mox 298]

Last time I checked the NRA doesn't levy taxes on non-members and those opposed to it's cause. It also doesn't ensure compliance by force if folks choose to not participate. You don't have to be a member of an affiliated club in order to still exercise your Right. If you don't like the NRA, don't join an affiilated club. If you don't like the fact your club is making it mandatory to join, get it voted down in your next club meeting.

My point is that you're trading one large organization for another. When the NRA controls every gun club in your area (as they have apparently my area, guess my club was the last holdout), that's a monopoly. You can't just vote out a monopoly, because the only other option is to close the club because nobody will insure you.

Anyway, it's a side argument. I think it's bullshit, but whaddyagonnado?

And by the way, right now you're not allowed to carry a weapon in a National Park. Thanks to the NRA, you will be soon. (Feb., right?)

Oh, I thought that already went into effect. Heh, good thing I didn't act on it.

The point I was trying to make with that is this - right now, dirty brown Muslims are the bad guys. What if, someday, regular old white guys are? Who's to say that could never change? If you're supporting legislation that would enable the government to crack down on "them" then why couldn't they someday do it to "us?"

Still not following you. I'd vehemently oppose any law, gun law or otherwise, that restricts a group of people based on race, gender, or religion.

Not at all. I don't see how anyone can stop you from saying anything at any time. They can prosecute you for it after the fact, but they can't actually prohibit you from using any speech you so desire. They can't "ban" words.

Since you're using this one, I'll run with it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it disturbs the peace and incites panic, and that's a crime. However, I have no knowledge of a law anywhere that says the word "fire" is illegal. You can still own the word fire.

If you pull out a gun in a crowded theater, you're probably also going to disturb the peace and incite panic and you'll probably also be charged with a crime after the fact. However, there's a very strong push in this country to ban guns, not ban pulling them out in a crowded theater. See the difference?

I do see the difference, but that's not what you were saying. You made the point that a Bill of Rights right is absolute, pristine, and untouchable. I gave you examples of how that's not true. If it were true, you could say anything at any time to anybody about anything. If the 2nd Amendment were absolutely pristine and untouchable, then Stinger missiles would be legal, and you'd be driving around in a surplus and fully armed Sherman tank.

With the gun ban lobby, it's not about banning an (already illegal) action, it's about banning an item. As for circumstances where Rights can be abridged, there should be none. If you point a gun at someone, that's no different than slandering them with your words. You're committing a crime. However, nobody tries to ban the bad words...

I don't associate myself with the gun ban lobby, so I agree, yes, the gun ban lobby (by definition) is trying to ban guns.

So an eye for an eye isn't handed down from God? Wonder where they got that one.....

And what about turn the other cheek? Many biblical scholars believe the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament wherever there is overlap. So maybe the 8th Amendment means we should just let all the criminals out?

And sorry, but this one is way too easy: Show me in the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God guarantees your right to gun ownership, and not only will I concede, but I'll show up to the next Presidential speech exercising my God-given rights as an American citizen.

March 6th, 1775 the old South Meeting House in Boston was crowded with Bostonians and British officers alike. The Bostonians, led through a touching tribute to the fallen of the Boston Massacre five years before, by Dr. Joseph Warren, were applauding when an officer stood and yelld, "Oh! Fie!" In his fine English accent, Fie sounded to the Bostonians like "Fire" and they immediately began to spill into the streets where the 43rd Infantry was marching by with colors waving, fifes and drums playing, and for an instant - Boston almost fell into war.

Both Whig leaders and British officers alike did their best to separate the men and Boston remained quiet for several more days.

This is where you turn to everybody and say "yes, I've read a book, try not to be surprised."

Yeah, just ask the Chinese.

As I said, it takes time, sometimes decades. But even Chinese dissidents are forcing change, slowly but surely. And they're making the kind of progress they could never do even if they were armed. The "Great Firewall of China" has more holes than a sieve thanks to dissident hackers, underground newspapers have never been more popular, and world opinion continues to pressure China into becoming a more democratized nation. (and yeah, we could do a lot more, but we luvs us our Walmart #######) In the end, China *will* be a Democracy, and it'll probably be the largest peaceful revolution in the history of the planet.

Edited December 23, 2009 by mox

[baron555 934]

including one guy carrying an assault rifle.

And here you go again Mox, getting trapped up in the media's spin again. (See how pervasive they are at their brainwashing?!!)

By the way you annotate "assault rifle", like it's some magic arm that is more deadly than any other. Like it is a more effective killing machine; like a T-4 to the T-2 Terminator.

Again, by definition, it has a shorter barrel, originally intended it for close-in duty inside of trenches, and then later within the close jungle growth. They actually are less accurate (stock model only) than the longer rifles but are better suited for close-in use. Actually in Iraq, the early troops, all issued "assault style" were clamoring for reach out and touch them long rifles because who wants to get close in when staying far away and doing the same job will suffice?

There is nothing more deadly about an assault rifle than a long rifle or a pistol. The definition has been spun the way the media wants you to be brainwashed for.

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, you're getting your events mixed up. Only one man showed up at Portsmouth, NH carrying a piece at the Obama event that made the news. In a separate event armed men showed up in Arizona and did so intentionally, lawfully and as police said, they were within the law, behaved well, and committed no crimes. Arizona is a very gun friendly state as is Nevada. It's never surprising to see people open carrying in those states.

Obama is a professed anti-gun advocate. I think it makes sense that gun rights people would demonstrate to the president that they are not giving up their guns easily. What better way then to fearlessly show up carrying guns.

And how do you know no one carried guns at a McCain speech? The media wouldn't care about that, so we'd never know. They would prefer to cherry pick incidents and small scale, small potatoes happenings surrounding their chosen one.

Yes, Webb's assistant tried to sneak the guns in...and I wonder who asked him to do so? Bad enough to try to sneak them in...worse that Webb made his lowly assistant take the risk and suffer the consequences. I still remember Webb's mumble-mouthing his way through that incident. I lost a lot of respect for him after that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox

You make a lot of untrue generalizations. For one thing, the NRA doe snot monopoloize gun clubs. The gun clubs, private organizations, appply their own "100% NRA" policy in order to gain benefits for the club (cheap insurance rates and litigation protection) which benefit the members in lower costs and/or the possibility to stay in business. The NRA has no authority to monopolize, control, or force anything on anyone...they are not congress. All over the country, even at my skeet club here in Vermont, clubs are faced with all sorts of frivilous lawsuits brought by anti-gun people to close them down, if not by losing a lawsuit, then by bankrupting them with legal fees.

Should the club abandon benefits worth thousands of dollars because Mox doesn't want to joint the NRA? Perhaps if you lived in one of the states with range protection legislation that protects shooting ranges from frivilous lawsuits you would see a difference. Other wise, it is simply an economic decision made more and more important every time one of these lawsuits is brought.

As for the people carrying firearms at political rallies, obviously this is much a-do about nothing. A few people (that we know of) carry guns at at political rallies and the media hypes the ####### out of it and you buy off on it. It is nothing. Nothing happened. If someone inteded to harm the presidient I doubt they would be openly carrying firearms where anyone can take notice of them. Were I president the guy carrying openly is the last one I am worried about. The guy hiding behind the 6th floor window of the building across the street is the one to worry about. No, as a gun owner and NRA member, I am just not going to buy off on this hoopla over nothing.