threeplusfire | in which I ramble about guns

Looks like Jared got sick of Subway.

Seriously, though, I tend to agree with the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment. But a civilian has no need for a military rifle.

The purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to defend their rights and freedoms against the power of their government. This was built into the constitution as this is EXACTLY what the 13 colonies did to protect their freedom from an opressive English regime. If you think that sort of thing cant happen in the modern world have a look at the laws of the Stalinist Soviet Union, Communist China and Nazi Germany. Youll notice one of the things THEY made a point of legislating is the banning of private ownership of firearms. Those laws have nothing to do with crime prevention and everything to do with controlling the freedom of the populace.

Military style firearms are designed for conflict. However, even the most untrained marksman can kill just as easily with a 30 year old single shot shotgun as with a fully automatic assault rifle. All of the killing done by the Washington "snipers" could have been done with a single shot hunting rifle. If someone were truly determined to kill someone, they would use any means available, and things like magazine capacity or a pistol grip have nothing to do with the decision to kill. The responsibility lies with the individual, not the tool used. Criminals by definition ignore laws, and banning any kind of weapon will have no affect on their ability to procure any tools which they are determined to use to commit crime. The decision to break a law when you think it is an affront to your basic freedoms (which you may be prepared to defend at the expense of your own life) is also one which will be unaffected by such legislation. When one needs to protect themselves and their freedom, they want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with protecting freedom is that they're good practice.

We take it for granted that what our forefathers did to create this country. We as a country dont spend much time thinking that what they did was to use force against the law of the land that they felt to be unjust and take up arms against what was then the most powerful military might on the planet. To the English they were CRIMINALS. The citizen's right to keep and bear arms guarantees that a free citizen has a choice ultimately to defend his freedom against what he believes to be an unjust affront to his freedom. Whether he or she succeeds is another matter. The founding fathers didnt know they would succeed when they started out either. To deny citizens of their new country the right to do the same if they felt their freedoms once again constrained is yet another check on the power of goverment and is just as important as the other checks and balances in our system.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote... If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
--Benjamin Franklin

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
- Thomas Jefferson

I agree that the right to bear arms is a needed part of this nation's continued existance. That the ability to say to an opressive regime "Enough!" is needful. I do not personally own a gun, but then I am broke. I use knives and a sword. At any rate, the right to keep and bear arms is the right to protect outselves from the animals and monsters of the night. Again, this is needful. The wonderful qoutes on the lower murder rates in some European nations is not due to the difficulity in getting personal weapons. Rather, it is the sure knowledge that every house has an assault rifle in the closet. Compulsory service does that.

So, I advocate an armed populace. As they say in Texas, and armed society is a polite society. My sole objection is to military weapons. I don't give a rat's ass what a gun looks like, so long as it is safe and effictive. But there is a reason that the sale and posession of a military weapon is controled and often illegal. These are not civilian weapons. If someone wants an AR-15, hey, nifty. But why? It looks like an M-16A2. Is this more effective than a shotgun for home defense? Actually, no. A load of 00 will hit something in the fire arc, a civilian AR15 may not. And the sound of a racking shotgun is known the nation over, and in itself may deter an intruder. Having locked and loaded an M16, it is not so memorable a noise.

So, my position stripped of the rambling? Guns are good and needful to guard against tyrants and opression. Military weapons are not needed in civilian hands. Simple.

"Not needed" and therefore its allright to ban them? What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?

How many auto manufacturers produce high performance vehicles who can easily exceed the maximum speed limit of every state in this union? How many people are killed every year due to excessive speed and unsafe driving of high performance autos? Quite a bit more than are killed by military style firearms, I can assure you (less that one percent of all violent crimes as a matter of fact). Why dont we ban high performance automobiles? Or for that matter, why dont we ban EVERYTHING that is in any way remotely dangerous that isnt immediately practical in all situations? Wow, there goes our culture.

Of course a military style firearm is EXACTLY the most practical thing to use to defend oneself against those who would curtail your liberty through political means. If the gestapo comes to your town, they arent going to sneak into your windows or be armed with saturday night specials. For the past 50 years or so, a quality, reasonably accurate high powered autoloading rifle is exactly what has been issued to all miltary personnel in just about every country whose job it is to exert the will of the government. And the very same sort of tool is what is required to match force as much as possible in the event of an incongruent conflict like an armed civilian uprising. Theres a good reason why we as civilians arent allowed to have tactical nuclear weapons, but theres no reason at all to prevent us from having any sort of small arms technology available to the modern military (other than perhaps to drive the demand and prices up to fatten the wallets of gun manufacturers and dealers at the expense of americans who dont happen to be rich).

For those who are curious, exact numbers, facts and attributions concerning so called "assault weapons" can be found at this site: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Ah, I see. Let me know when you purchase the Barrett Model 50. Why ban it? It is even better then an M16.

See, the problem here is people don't know what they are doing. You don't let them own a tank or fighter, and you don't need a military weapon. Again, I don't care about style, I am talking about military hardware, your actual in-service weapons designed for miliraty use (so no Glock/Colt M1911/Baretta comments). The most effective home defense weapon for the average user is the shotgun, not the AR15.

And yes, if the gestapo was to rise from the ashes of Nazi Germany and show up, then they would be armed with military hardware. This then becomes a "watch the watchers" issue. Eventually you have to trust that someone is OK, or you get the kind of paranoia rampant in Eastern Europe in the last 50 years. When the militaty and civilian weapons were the same, then no one knew the difference. That has not been the case since 1945, however, and there is a real seperation now. Yes, to defend against the oft-used 'secret police' or gestapo something better than a .22 match pistol might be nice. But there is a line. Responsibility is not in great supply these days. And I for one loose too much in taxes already. I am not willing to endorse the expense of training people to handle full auto weapons. And the M16 is being phased out. The new military battle rifle will have a built in 20mm grenade launcher (see here (http://www.secretweapon.com/) for more. It is rather...geeky? but accurate). This is not, repeat not, something that belongs in the hands of someone who can't figure out how to vote on a simle ballot.

The main reason to keep military hardware in the military hands is that they are trained to use it, we are not. Simple and direct. Under no reason should rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, etc. be banned. That is in direct opposition to the second amendment. For simple logical reasons, military hardware should be, and must continue to be.

Oh yes, please note I know the difference between "assault weapons" and military weapons. Again, I don't care if it has a clip, looks like death on a bad day, and a pistol grip. So what? Many really good shotguns have pistol grips. Anyway, the difference I am trying to make is the distinction in the second section on weapons with burst or full auto abilities. By the moronic HCI definitions, a .38 revolver is an automatic weapon.

Important things to think about.
I tend to think saying one gun is allowed and another isn't is not really the most rational way to go about it.

But there must be a line somewhere. I would not trust the majority of the people I work with to use a cap gur properly. And the concept of them with something with full auto abilities makes me gibber in fear. There needs to be some demarkation, or we will find ourselves in some serious trouble.

Of course, the dark side in me says that the idiots will kill each other off, and we will all be happier, but that is a high price to pay.

Well, I wouldn't trust a hell of a lot of people I know with a gun either. This is another issue that I think boils down to education, teaching people to think, to respect and not to be so damnably selfish all the time. But hey, I'm allowed to have fits of idealism every now and then.

Hehe, I love the graphics! :D

Wow. I mean, just -- wow.

I don't think I've ever seen such a well-reasoned piece of propaganda in my life.

I'm still digesting a lot of what I read and making sense out of some of the exorbitantly pathos-ridden images (even though on one of the pages there are paragraphs dedicated to the evil "conditioning" of seeing murder, violent crime through guns, etc, in the media and how that skews the public's opinion of firearms...). When I get done raging, I'll post something nice and calm and logical. It might take a while.

I think it is an issue that many people truly aren't educated about. They tend to fixate on one side or the other, and not bother to learn about both.

It's all about education, truly.

I really must confess the pictures made me giggle.

I've done what I can, when I've been able or been greeted with an opportunity, to learn both sides. It's difficult for me, though, to loosen the grip I have over my own viewpoint, as hopelessly subjective as it is.

While the site's arguments are rather logical, I still found much of it unduly appalling. Still some subjectivity. And, perhaps I didn't read as much of the site as I should have (again, some subjectivity), but I neglected to see mention of the 2d amendment taking on rational purposes for existence in today's society as the amendment was penned well over two centuries ago and had a totally different connotation.

As far as personal defense is concerned, I still don't buy it, no matter how much I've been able to glean from the pro-arms point. The point of self-defense is to remove oneself from danger with as little injurious action to either party as possible. In a wartime situation, that's much different, of course, but civilians are not military personnel on the field facing obstacles. A criminal attacker has much different intentions from a trained killer and typically won't want to kill unless the attacker is truly psycopathic or engrossed in a bundle of nervous energy. A criminal can be thwarted in cleaner, less destructive ways: knives, fists, etc. The best self-defence is to prevent oneself from being a target in the first place, and while that sounds horribly shallow, there's more truth than idealism in that. If one is aware of his or her surroundings and environment, the populace, and is confident, that person is far less likely to be threatened. I've always considered toting a firearm to be moving too quickly to the last resort in self-defence. I was victimised once, and though it was painful, shameful, and something I've never been able to forget, I feel as though my awareness of self, of my surroundings, has been the best defence I've offered since. I see myself as balanced enough to own a firearm, but I choose not to do so.

Then there is the site's tirades about self-protection and not counting on authorities to be able to assist. Granted, some authorities are not to be trusted. But there is still a large contingent of public service officials that do strive to protect and serve. Taking the site's words about media distortion and throwing it back at them, the scenes we see on tv or hear on the radio about crooked cops are so very few in reality. The "arming yourself to kill the burglar faster" simply undermines the existence of civil protection authorities. It also decimates rule and law. At what point would an armed populace cross the line from self-protection to taking law into one's own hands and coming rather close to being a populace of martial tyrants? I do not necessarily advocate depending upon the civil authorities for my protection, but should the time arise for me to call authorities, police forces are instructed not to use their firearm unless it is deemed the last resort, that that particular situation can't get worse.

So, this is full of holes. But it's the best I can do, trying to be as unbiased as I can. As for the site's author, a proclaimed Buddhist and martial-arts guru and a quasi-pacifist, why does he not elect to carry along a shakuhachi wherever he goes? I see a fundamental flaw in the author's argument, then. A shakuhachi, for instance, makes beautiful music and doubles as a whacking device for the samurai (in case he can't get to his sword). The gun, as much as the author would like to tout it as a weapon for self-defence, is still designed with one ultimate purpose: to be injurious to the point of death. That is the gun's only ultimate function. The gun encompasses no more than that and is a tool designed only for evil. Has he forgotten the five precepts already? Is it human nature to own an instrument of death for express purpose of killing? Most certainly not. Does owning a firearm change one's nature? From what I have encountered, yes. Largley, the religion he claims to practice is based on harmonious coexistence, mutual trust of others, and admonishes taking of a life. He's not being true at all to his religion, even if he is a lay Buddhist. How can I, then, trust a hypocrite? That's all from me. Serious this time.

I think about being mugged this summer, and what I should have done differently. My attacker was a lot bigger than me, and I sure as hell couldn't have taken her barehanded. If I'd been carrying a gun, what would I have done?

I disagree that a gun's purpose as a tool is inherently evil. I don't believe anything is truly, fundamentally good or evil by nature, but that's a personal quirk.

I would agree about the capacity for good and evil, but only within the scope of the human mind. All following statements are of my opinion on this:
I believe people have an equal capacity for good and evil and how they are conditioned and how they are exposed to the world influences much of how they lean (negating pyschoses for the moment). The life experience builds up systems of internal checks and balances and if nothing more tries to keep the capacities balanced. Decisions, then, are fundamentally based upon quick interpretations of what interior signals tell us. Our concept of rationality is inherently a balance, and decisions create a construct of our logic through precedent. Some people therefore feel that being cruel and in need of power is rational, and their logic has been skewed through series of unbalanced ideas and deicisions stemming from not maintaining a healthy capacity of good and evil.

Maybe a gun's purpose is not inherently evil, but the hands the weapon falls into are influenced by whatever state of being the "rational" human is in. So, people do kill people. However, the ultimate aim (no puns) of a gun is... what? To hammer down nails that are sticking out of the hardwood? To open beer cans? To shoot things. Targets are one thing, but it's practice for the real deal. Unless a gun owner plans on shooting out tires and nothing else or any other inanimate object, the general purpose of a gun is to injure to the point of death some living being. I concede that sometimes it may perhaps be warranted in extreme situations, but I still tend to think that the human populace is generally good at heart, in mind, and does wish for coexistence. It's difficult to pry my ideal away from my education on the matter. I'm talking in circles and will let myself rest up a bit mor before coming back to this.

Wow. I think you might be the only person on my friends list right now who's also pro-gun-ownership, or at least sympathetic to the idea.

My grandparents were pretty prominent, peaceful people who didn't own guns early in their lives. My grandfather's father, however, did. When the Nazis invaded Prague, guns were immediately outlawed, and any civilian found in possession of a gun faced the death penalty. My grandmother's brother joined the underground anti-nazi resistance, and all those guns of my great-grandfather's went to the Czech resistance. My grandfather almost got caught with several assault arms in the trunk of his car (he rear-ended an SS official who, thankfully, didn't bother to search the car). My grandmother's brother eventually died in the resistance, and I've always seen him as my greatest family hero. My mother and grandparents, due to their dispositions, aren't terribly happy with the idea of owning guns, but my aunt followed in her uncle's footsteps and owns a sawed-off shotgun to protect herself from burglars (she lives in the absolute middle of nowhere- no police could help her in the event of a break-in).

I personally can't shoot guns, and don't own any, but I sort of want to. It's a hard decision for me. I worry that I couldn't trust myself with it, or that my children would play with it. And then there's the issue of making gun-control laws that at least make it somewhat harder for people with actual criminal backgrounds to buy guns. It's a complicated issue. But I certainly at least want the option, considering that I'm a (mostly) psychologically balanced, law-abiding person. *sigh*

A side note, if I may. Were they involved it the death of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich? My father knew someone in Chicago who was connected to that. I can't recall how of the top of my head.

Oh, yes, the Czech resistance -did- kill Heydrich. I can't remember how either. Maybe a bomb? Or a sniper. Ack, I should know this. But I don't think my great-uncle was part of that division. As far as I know, all the people directly involved in that death were found out by the Nazis, and ended up hiding in a church basement several blocks down from where I am now. The Nazis tried to drown them by hosing water into the basement and all the trapped resistance soldiers took their own lives. In retaliation for Heydrich's assasination the Nazis also killed the whole (unarmed, to get back to the topic *wink*) town of Lidice just for the hell of it. No. Actually they killed all the men, and sent the women and children to concentration camps, and so maybe like three people from Lidice survived.

Can you tell I have huge problems with the Nazis? Oh well, I'm certainly not the only one in the world who does.

It's possible that some of the guns that my great-grandfather owned got into the hands of the guys who killed Heydrich. It's also possible that my uncle knew some of those guys. But it's impossible to know anymore.

I've been to Lidice.

No history other than that of the Russians makes me as sad as that of the Czechs. But it is one of the things I love about that country, the palpable sense of history in certain places.

A bomb, if I remember the book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0020345054/qid=1037944011/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-9663224-1734503?v=glance&s=books) I read on it. I was amazed by the '6-degrees' nature of the post.

yeah, it's rather impressive.

That's an amazing story. Wow. I have a great deal of respect for that. Thank you for sharing that story.

I think all people have the right to defend themselves from a great many things, however they choose. It's a choice, and it's one people need to take seriously. If you're going to have a weapon you should damn well be responsible with it, in my opinion.

I dislike guns. All guns. I think if you own a gun you get the itchy trigger syndrome and you want to use it. I don't believe that shit about defending yourself with a gun. What will protect you? A gun or a heavy object? A knife? Can we all carry knives if we can carry guns? And who said I can trust my neighbor to defend me or anyone else? Maybe I'm in a mood tonight, but I tend to think most people act selfishly and machiavellian.

I'd take a heavy object over a gun, any day. And who needs a gun?

I can safely say, for myself, that while people annoy the hell out of me on a daily basis, I have never seriously considered shooting anyone. It's something we joke about, sure, but that's because guns are common here. We also joke about dropping people off the 360 bridge.

Do you mean common in Texas? Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? I don' t know a lot about guns...just how many have "accidentally" been killed by them.

Common in Texas, and probably other places too.

I have not seen Bowling for Columbine yet, but I really should. I've heard it's exceptional work.

Wow! You're up right now. I'm debating whether to go into work tomorrow. I just came home from seeing a show and it is lateeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Yes, go see Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore pulled together a ton of footage, historical information, interviews and just a kickass movie. Loved the Canadians in the movie, too.

I've been up way too late for several nights running. Ahh, the joys of the unemployed life. ;)

Micheal Moore is a great guy. I hear his interview with Charlton Heston is one of those most bizarre things ever.

Yes, he unravels Charleton Heston and it is fascinating to watch. People open up around him in interviews, but he has a sharp mind and is persistent. People yelled out and laughed in the theater at different moments.

in which I ramble about guns

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

here we go...

Re: here we go...

Re: here we go...

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject