🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <369a70fe.0@news.mho.net>, Melissa <Melissa9Z@Zmho.net> wrote:
>Let's get a few hundred Pro-Second Amendment folks together and go invade 
>Dottie Wham's office and demand that she stay out of the way! Sort of a 60's 
>style demonstration. :) I love it!
>
>We did this with SWARM a few years ago, and had about 30 of us march, 
>unannounced,  into Gov. "Gunban" Roy's office to insist that he sign a CCW 
>bill, backed up by about 100 NRA members who stayed out in the hall. Boy was 
>Gov. Roy pissed! :)

  Whatever. At least call the media so you can be on the news.

>>more and more states are passing shall-issue CCW laws, attempts
>>to censor the Internet have been repeatedly and empahtically smacked down
>>by the courts and medical marijuana referendums are passing like crazy.
>
>Let's pass one here! :)

  Easy by me. But, uh, as the Boulder Weekly said, tongue in cheek, "When
the members of NORML sober up, they might actually get something on the
ballot. But we're not expecting major results this coming year." Heheh.

>>  Really, Melissa, you need to pull your nose out of that Soldier of
>>Fortune magazine and read http://civilliberty.miningco.com/ once in
>>a while. Not all the news is bad.
>
>But come on. I think if the proof is there, that all our gun control and 
>banning laws are patterned after Adolf's, don't you think this should be
>looked into and that they should be repealed?

  That would depend on the particular law, of course. I still don't
agree that all gun control laws are a bad thing.

>>The throwbacks in Washington are
>>about 10 years behind the curve, but they're always like that. People
>>in general are pretty liberty-oriented these days, with a few exceptions
>>on certain issues.
>
>Now which magazine do YOU need to take your nose out of, with a silly
>statement like that? Our liberty has been taking it in the ear.

  Well, yeah, in some areas it sure has. Your rights to be free of
unreasonable search and seisure has definitely been tattered. But
free speech remains in pretty good shape. Abortion rights seem to
be holding up well.

>An email friend was telling me that in UK, they need to get permits to
>exercise free speech. Are we headed for that too?

  Doubtful. Too many people defend their free speech rights too vigorously.

>With no Second Amendment, there's nothing to stop them from slowly
>deleting the rest.

  Pah. If that's truly the case, then put your money where your mouth is
and lead an armed revolution now. You're crossing into gun nut territory
here saying that guns are the first, last and only recourse to any problem.
Ever hear of "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box - use in that order"?
Seems like a lot of gun nuts want to use the ammo box first. As often as
they quote the founders, they seem to forget that the founders put not
only the second amendment in the constitution but also a bunch of stuff
about due process and redress of grievances. Stuff that seems to work
pretty well, most of the time. We're a young nation yet, but I predict
that if we last a good long time, it's going to be because we managed
to form a system of government that encourages non-violent ways to
solve problems.

>>  I really can't agree that it's only apathy and authoritarianism that's
>>driving gun control. Some gun control, maybe, but probably not all of it.
>>I think people have good reasons to want gun control. If nothing else,
>>simply to protect their own life and liberty.
>
>Ah but it doesn't. The sheeple have been purely propagandized into believing
>it does, just like they believe the millenium ends this year. 
>
>[...]

  No, you give other people too little credit, as usual. We may not agree
with your opinions, but there are people out there who have thought well
through their beliefs and believe them for rational rather than dogmatic
reasons. And I don't care when some religious nuts claim the ultimate savior
of mankind (ha!) was born - I'll just take any excuse to go party that I can.

>>  Hm. Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect that if that happened, there'd be
>>70 or more million non-gun owners arguing against it. (And I'd probably be
>>one of them, come to think of it. The idea of repealing *all* gun control
>>laws is simply not something I think would be good.)
>
>I know, you've been propagandized badly. It takes the recognition of the fact 
>that gun ban and control laws only take liberty from the already law abiding. 
>By definition, criminals don't obey laws. They don't care. They don't have to.

  Har! Here we are again with the "You don't agree with me, so you must be
stupid or brainwashed." I know criminals don't obey laws, but let me repeat
my mantra: That doesn't mean laws prohibiting criminal behavior shouldn't
be passed.

>>  Because people are generally rationally lazy and ignorant. If we don't
>>require something, there will be people who don't do it.
>
>Time for my macro again:
>The difference between a libertarian and an authoritarian, is that the 
>authoritarian thinks most people are too stupid, evil, and/or incompetent to
>be trusted, but that government is not. The flaw to that way of thinking is,
>that the government is made up of people.

  Don't think I'm saying I trust the government any more than the common
man. I sure don't. I consider both of them incompetent. I'm not sure what
that makes me. Concieted, perhaps. Or hypocritical. Take your pick.

>> Most of the time
>>this isn't a big deal, but the few idiots *always* ruin it for everyone
>>else.
>
>Yes, we can trust govt with lethal weapons, but we can't trust the people. 

  As I said, I don't trust the government with lethal weapons. Hell, I
don't usually trust the government with making and enforcing laws, and
that's their whole purpose.

>> Even if these classes you're talking were offered free, there
>>will always be the people who claim they're too busy, or those whose
>>ego makes them think they already know how to safely handle a gun despite
>>evidence to the contrary. These "ignoramouses" and "cowboys" are exactly
>>the ones who need training to educate them. So unfortunately we have to
>>dictate that everyone take classes just to catch the idiots. It's stupid,
>>but I can't think of any better way.
>
>Most authoritarians can't. :)

  Well, I'm open to suggestions. If you think you have a better way, do tell.

  Just as an example, let's consider the following situation... Why don't
we have my little brother live at your house for a year. We'll give him a
Glock, something in double-action with a 15 round magazine. He'll keep it
under his pillow. You and anyone else won't be allowed to train him in the
proper use, storage, or even the most elementary safety precautions
related to firearms. What do you think of that scenario? Sound a little
dangerous?

  So how come you advocate people who have the same gun safety knowledge
as my little brother being able to carry a gun, concealed, on the street?
To quote South Park... "This... is Chewbacca! This... does not make sense!"

  If there's any logic at all to your position besides repetition of the
statement "people should be able to do whatever they want even if it
endangers others," please tell me what it is. Even free speech is not
allowed if it unduly endangers other people.


          -Ben
-- 
Ben Cantrick (mackys@dim.com)        |     Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem:     http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs:  http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"But do not program in COBOL if you can avoid it." -The Tao of Programming