Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 429 of total 429 in this topic |
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 4, 2013 - 01:48pm PT
|
i live in a tiny mountain community. we all know each other up here, and we know each others kids also. we drive the same dirt road, suffer through the same winters, walk the same trails, fish the same creeks and rivers, mtn bike the same loops, on and on.
in the spring we had a tragedy. it involved a gun, 3 bullets, blind white anger, mental instability and a child.
a couple were going through hard times, and were in the process of splitting up. they were still sharing a roof for the sake of their 4th grader. things were bad, there had been a couple of domestic situations that the cops were involved in, each time it was the wife who had gone ballistic. she was one of our local librarians, everyone knows her, even our children.
she found a picture of her husband and another woman on Facebook. it turns out they were work colleagues whose picture had been taken together on a business trip by a pro photographer working the event. she was enraged.
the next day on her way back from work she stopped in at the gun store. the most redneck and detested establishment in our fairly progressive community. it sits right in town among homes, businesses and schools. she purchased a revolver and a rifle and ammo. she walked out of the store with them in under 1/2 hour and drove home. that night at 2 am while her husband and son were sound asleep she decided to get even. she opened up her son's door and shot him 2 times in the chest while he slept, fatally wounding him. my friend the husband heard the shots and ran to his sons room. he carried him to the front door and cowered there trying to stem the bleeding while his wife screamed from upstairs "Kill Me!" over and over. the 911 call was printed. he was scared and trying to keep his son from dying, unsuccessfully. we are a long way from police help but have a fire station and er crew here that was only 2 miles away. there was another gun shot, she attempted to kill herself but missed her brain and survived. her son did not. she is fine with a superficial wound to her scalp.
we lost a talented skier who won the local ski-jor this winter in the carnival, dragged at top sped by a horse over jumps on snow covering cement. he hucked the 70 meter jump. he was a very talented freestyler in our sports club and regularly won bump comps. he was a skate rat who spent every free minute on the half pipe. he was a popular kid at my daughters school. he had a lot of buddies from the sports club and other activities. i knew him.
now he is dead and gone and that has left a small peaceful community reeling. the mother is charged with premeditated murder and our friend the father has a ruined life and has left our community. their house sits for sale at the bottom of the pass, haunted and devaluing our properties.
why do the extremist views of a minority of fools who have been fooled into thinking the government is trying to subvert them get to have their way? they say they have the right to own guns in an unlimited fashion. what about our right to a peaceful community and life? what about my friends right to have a son? why is this allowed to happen over and over? why does my backwards ass redneck state allow a furiously jealous insane scorned bitch who has had the police involved in her domestic affairs have the right to arm herself to the teeth and kill? she was in the f*#king police blotter for f*#ks sake.
a waiting period may have allowed her to cool down and think clearly. a full background check would have indicated current mental and emotional instability and she would have been prevented from purchasing a weapon that was designed to kill people. (i dont care what you f*#ktard as#@&%es say about handguns, saying they are not meant to kill people is like saying a hammer is not meant to pound nails).
this is not about mental instability. this is not about medication. this is not about failed marriages.
this is about the ease of which someone can get a gun and turn it on others.
i've got a great idea, why doesnt the next mass shooting happen in a gun shop. why doesnt someone go into a gun shop, purchase an automatic shotgun, pay for it, load it and blast the sh#t out of everyone in the store. maybe that would change some redneck minds.
f*#k lapierre, f*#k the nra, f*#k the gun lobbyists, f*#k the congressmen and senators who are in the back pockets of the gun industry, and f*#k anyone who thinks that there is some sort of government take over planned in which they will have to defend themselves.
guess what? if that happens your semi automatic 9mm isnt going to do much against a drone.
any thoughts?
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
|
he may be scared that he is going to get shot
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
From the details in your post, it sounds as if you're living in the 'Boat (or Clark). I lived there in the '90's and still have good friends there.
Really sad to hear and I agree, a waiting period is a good thing.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
this is not about mental instability. this is not about medication. this is not about failed marriages.
A mother murders her own son, and husband.
And it's all about pubic policy and the local gun shop.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2013 - 02:42pm PT
|
it would have been just another failing marriage fight without a handgun.
say your wife gets raped by a guy with aids- would you make the issue about contraception?
youre the perfect as#@&%e for this discussion, bring it on dummy.
i LOVE how you ignorant gun toters grasp at straws. its hilarious. lets hope you either havent bred yet or youre too ugly and stupid to do so.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
any thoughts?
Sure, I got a bunch. As does everyone, I'm sure. And, they are all different.
How do we balance these conflicting perceptions of individuals rights versus the demands of society in a meaningful way to both sustain the individual and our current civilization?
I say we can't.
Too much bad culture.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
|
WAITING PERIOD
BACKGROUND CHECKS
PERMITS/LICENSES/REQUIRED SAFETY CLASSES AND RE-LICENSING
at least treat guns like cars
i see the current situation like this: what if most of a population walked or rode bikes, and a few wanted to drive and were allowed to buy cars and drive without ever being tested or permitted.
how many people would have to die before regulations were implaced?
|
|
Mark Hudon
Trad climber
Hood River, OR
|
|
It does seem rather odd to me that we need to take classes, have a license and have insurance to drive a car and yet have nothing of that sort to own a gun.
|
|
Bullwinkle
Boulder climber
|
|
Driving is considered a Privilege, this is why you need a license. Guns are considered a Right, and this is the Problem. A waiting period and background check could save so many innocent people.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
I thought waiting periods for purchase of a handgun was a Federal statute.
If it isn't it should be.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
^^^ OH PLEASE ^^^^
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING.
Wrong place & time to say that.
meant for tami
Canada had less than 600 homicides in 2011.
U. S. had 30,000+ gun death 2011.
Don't make me sick.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Colorado has no waiting period. They should reconsider this. But according to the Denver Post, as of Jan 2013 there was a steadily growing cue of background checks (then over 10,00) which was creating a waiting period (for the background check to clear through CBI) of about 9 days and growing.
It kind of sounds like the local gun dealer there skipped the background check. If that is the case he should be tried as an accomplice to murder.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Canada has strict rules on guns and sh1t goes down with them. If someone desparately wants to get hold of a gun, they will get hold of the weapon they seek and commit the crime they wish to use it for.
1) not nearly as much of this sh1t goes down in Canada
2) just because someone who desperately wants to get a hold of a gun will get a gun, does NOT mean they should be easily available on a whim
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"any thoughts?"
"f*#k lapierre, f*#k the nra, f*#k the gun lobbyists, f*#k the congressmen and senators who are in the back pockets of the gun industry..."
That covers a lot of my immediate thoughts, right there.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Is that not like saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD!? "
That's a remarkably stooopid analogy, Ron.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
No, your bad for suggesting someone who can get a gun when they desperately want one is the same as someone who can get a gun on a whim.
Rong, your bullshit isn't even worth commenting on, but...
1) that weren't gangland.
2) knives do NOT have the "exact same results." If you really believe that, you would feel perfectly safe defending your "castle" with a knife collection.
3) "Are we to now impose regulation upon the other 2 billion gun owners" YES
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
And to follow your "logic" since one person will kill in a dui, then ALL BOOZE should be instantly declared illegal right.? Thats what MANY think..
You wouldn't know "logic" if it were rammed up your a55 sideways.
Nobody is saying "ALL GUNS should be instantly declared illegal."
Wes what do you know about death at the barrel of a gun?
I know my uncle, my friend when I was 6, and some friends/relatives of friends would not have spread their brains across the wall with a fuking knife. I know hunters don't kill deer with knifes because guns make it much, much, much easier.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
Does anyone really want to argue the fact that batsh*t crazy people and people in a blind rage should be able to buy guns whenever they want?
Really? And we should do nothing to try and stop them because law abiding citizens won't wait out background checks and a cooling down period because it is somehow infringing on their 1700's rights?
If you believe that you are a NRA/Arms Industry lackey or really paranoid.
And pulling gangs and Muslims into that discussion is ludicrous and a little disturbing.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Ron, can you answer these questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ?
*Background checks should be required for gun purchases.
*A waiting period (of some length) should be required for gun purchases.
*There should be some limitations on the types of guns & capacities that typical civilians can legally obtain.
A simple 'yes' or 'no'.
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
You guys crack me up. So I will provide the answer in images:
Enjoy the laughs and scary on. lol
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"So I will provide the answer in images:"
What part of 'yes' or 'no' wasn't clear to you, ruppell?
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
The OP points out that "everyone" knew this family and their problems for a long time yet no one gets involved in this "progressive community".
You can't have this stand-by attitude and expect life to remain a blissful coexistence. It takes work and a willingness to get involved.
Or you can not take responsibility and continue to blame inanimate objects for these tragedies.
I believe a 10 day waiting period and background check should be mandatory for those wishing to own any firearm in any state but, not for the reasons given by the op.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
The police were involved. Just not enough to prevent an obvious danger to the community to walk into a gun store, buy a gun, and murder a child.
So now it's the fault of the police?
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
apogee
Ron, can you answer these questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ?
The part that I quoted. If I change my name to Ron you'll be the first to know.
In the future if you would like every one posting a response to answer your silly questions address them to all.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
I know, ruppell. They are hard questions. And 'yes' or 'no' is sooooo complicated.
It would be nice to know that people who want to own a gun can answer simple questions.
Edit: Those graphics are sooooo novel! Who needs to speak when the interwebz is full of such genius?!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
How long of a waiting period would guarantee that such things did not happen?
Oh, right, we aren't after "guarantees," just "reductions."
Okay, let's say that HUGE "reductions" did occur. Would that make this story not happen?
No matter where you draw the line, nutjobs are gonna do crazy stuff And your claim that this is not mental instability, Pate, is ridiculous on the face of it! What MOTHER shoots her own son "to get even" under ANY circumstances??? Even a two day, or two week waiting period is far from sure or even likely to keep a mentally deranged woman like that from going off!
I think your story makes the opposite case you think it does. This woman was WHACKED, even if she didn't show it until she broke (which is usually the case with these whack jobs).
Of course, YOU'LL now go off calling me stupid with all sorts of vile epithets. That will change nothing and will only make me snicker, as "white hot" people like you are actually hurting the case you SO fervently wish to make.
So, perhaps you can just address the simple question: how long of a waiting period "reduces" the problem SUFFICIENTLY that cases like this don't occur?
Remember, if the "reduction" still allows for cases like this to EVER occur, then the occurrence COULD be the very one you just told us about. And then you'd be just as white hot. And then I'd still want to know what further law would be SUFFICIENT to "reduce" the incidence "enough" to quench your heat.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Do you think a waiting period should be a required step in gun purchases?
Yes or no?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Mr Christ,
Just so you know, guns aren't "easily available on a whim".
First you have to first show current ID issued by the state in which you're buying your gun. ( no crossing the border to Oregon or Arizona )
Then you take a written test. A failing score means you go no further.
Then, you fill out a form questioning your mental health, race, citizenship, recreational drug use, criminal background, etc. Wrong answer is a federal felony. You pay a non-refundable fee to fill out this form ( $15, I think ).
After your form is filled out, and examined closely by the clerk in the gun shop, the clerk calls The Feds on the phone, to see if there's any reason you can't have a gun.
Then you pay for your gun.
That should all take about an hour, if everything goes smoothly.
Then you go home - empty handed for now - and wait ten days before they'll let you actually take possession of your new gun.
So anybody who tells you you can buy a gun "on a whim" is either not informed or is lying to you.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
How long of a waiting period would guarantee that such things did not happen?
Oh, right, we aren't after "guarantees," just "reductions."
Okay, let's say that HUGE "reductions" did occur. Would that make this story not happen?
Jesus fuking christ! Who are you people?
Just so you know, guns aren't "easily available on a whim".
First you have to first ... blah blah blah
Then you go home - empty handed for now - and wait ten days before they'll let you actually take possession of your new gun.
Hmm, then what exactly does it mean when most states have NO WAITING PERIOD?
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
apologies
I know, ruppell. They are hard questions. And 'yes' or 'no' is sooooo complicated.
Your the one complicating it. Valid questions deserve valid answers. When you point them towards one person, as opposed to a group, you invalidate the other responses. If you would like to refine that idea that you started with I'd be happy to comply. In the meantime you'll get what you requested.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Your the one complicating it."
'You're'
How much simpler could that question or answer be?
'Yes'
or
'No'?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The police were involved. Just not enough to prevent an obvious danger to the community to walk into a gun store, buy a gun, and murder a child.
Wait a minute. As Pate interpreted the story for us, the woman was NOT "mentally unstable," so HOW was she "an obvious danger to the community?"
What SORT of background check would have kept this sweet librarian woman from getting her gun(s)?
And "police not involved enough" is concerning. What do you envision: Minority Report?
Look, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, you can't get all frothy about sh|t happening. It does happen. And in a nation of 1/3 of a billion people, it doesn't happen all that much. If you want it to happen SO much less that you want the USA to become just another European Socialist Democracy, then just go move to one of them; leave the USA what it was designed to be. In the USA (rarely) sh|t happens. And in the USA, we don't get all freaked out and engage in knee-jerk, repressive legislation in an effort to go all Minority Report on pre-crime.
Oh, wait. It's barely the USA anymore. Still, perhaps we can save what little's left of what once was.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Jesus fuking christ! Who are you people?
Oh, the answer to that is simple: somebody that gets a point your white heat apparently keeps you from getting. "Reduction" does not equate to NEVER; so this story STILL happens, this thread STILL happens, and STILL people like you are calling for SOMETHING MORE to be done to SOLVE this problem!
Problem is: the problem is not solvable! It's only "reducible" in principle. So the simple question still remains: HOW LONG of a waiting period "reduces" the problem enough to SATISFY you?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
A restraining order would have prevented her from legally buying a gun, and would have most certainly shown up on any instant background check.
But the Old Man wanted to stay together for the children.
How you supposed to help those who won't help themselves?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
ah, so now it is the husband's fault... spectacular display of intellect.
So Chaz, when states (most) have NO waiting period, what exactly does that mean?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Theoretically, the husband did a much more extensive background check on his wife than any government agency ever could.
You're mistaking waiting period for background check.
Anything that will disqualify someone from owning a gun will show up immediately. That's why lots of states have gone to an instant check system. Taking advantage of technology.
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
apogee
Since you want an answer. I'll answer your questions addressed to Ron.
You have the chance to "EDiT" do so.
yes
YES
yes
AND from me
F*#k off with your idea of how forums should work.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
You're mistaking waiting period for background check.
Anything that will disqualify someone from owning a gun will show up immediately. That's why lots of states have gone to an instant check system. Taking advantage of technology.
I'm not mistaking anything. You said:
Then you go home - empty handed for now - and wait ten days before they'll let you actually take possession of your new gun.
And the FBI says:
NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase.
NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).
If most states have NO waiting period, what are you claiming takes ten days?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"So what are you claiming takes ten days?"
It's ten now. Down from 15.
I can't remember the last gun I bought I didn't have to wait ten days. Even long guns now. It's the law in California.
Even transfers between brothers are subject to this waiting period. Two of my uncles found that out recently when one of them wanted to give the other one an over-under shotgun. Forms, fees, and a mandated waiting period all applied to the transfer.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
California is not the country.
Most states have NO WAITING PERIOD. Unless I'm mistaken, this took place in CO, which has NO WAITING PERIOD.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
ruppell, you've obviously mistaken my motivations.
And you know what...I'd answer exactly the same way. And I'd bet that most of the typical pro-gun contingent probably would, too....but they would never say so.
And that...I just don't understand.
In the post-Newtown congressional weaksauce effort, 90% of Americans polled believed background checks should be mandatory for purchases.
I'm not just pulling that out of my arse...multiple polls found the same opinion.
And yet nothing happened. Once again, the NRA and 90% of congress who are in the back pockets of the gun lobby completely caved, against the will of 90% of the American people.
I'd bet an OE800 that there's vast agreement on some of those simple questions, but the gun lobby, NRA & the media continue to keep the waters as muddy as possible to serve their own fecking interests.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"Most states have NO WAITING PERIOD."
If that's what you want, move to California. Pate, too.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
fuking idiot
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
jghedge writes:
"And most states have no waiting period.
You don't know that?"
Of course I know that.
I'm a Californian. Lifelong. I'm not allowed to buy a gun in any other state, so all of my handguns - and some of my long guns - were subject to the California mandated wait.
The mandated wait made sense back when it took the bank two weeks to clear a check, or when bad credit cards were listed in a book. When things were done by snail-mail.
But necessary background checks can be done while-you-wait now. Like an hour or less.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
To the Q how long --- Long enough to do a complete back ground check & some cooling off time 30 days should be fine. But I'm not apposed to 60 days.
IF YOU CAN'T WAIT 30 DAYS FOR SOMETHING YOU WANT you really didn't want or need it.
I've waited two years to have a gun made. I really wanted it & still twenty years later am glad I have it.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
necessary background checks can be done while-you-wait now. Like an hour or less.
Great! Now there is no reason for anyone without a criminal RECORD to wait before enjoying their very own killing machine!!!
i.e. BUYING ONE ON A WHIM
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
I've been really pissed off in the past. I wanted to kick people's asses. But, I took a hike and thought about it.
I'm pretty sure this is all Pate is talking about. Being given instant access to a tool that kills in the heat of the moment can produce really negative things.
Do you want negative things to happen?
If you're a serious gun owner, then waiting a few days for your new gun won't matter.
What's the issue here?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Domestic violence = mental instability. She was the instigator in the violence, according to the police.
No....
Shooting your own son to "get even" with the husband you're actually pissed at = mental instability!!!
No doubt she was the instigator. That's not what's at issue here. As Pate interpreted the story for us, HE claimed that "mental instability" was not at issue here. Then YOU called her "an obvious danger to the community."
Can't have it both ways. If she WAS an obvious danger to the community, then she was "mentally unstable." Which is it? And would her exact form of "instability" led anybody to project that she was capable of shooting her own SON to get even at her husband (I'm still totally lost on that one!)?
And by exactly what metrics should the police have been able to keep her from getting a gun? How should the law have been formulated to keep her (pre-crime) from doing what she did?
And nobody is yet addressing the question about waiting periods: HOW LONG of a waiting period keeps THIS story from happening again???
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
And nobody is yet addressing the question about waiting periods: HOW LONG of a waiting period keeps THIS story from happening again???
Well, it obviously ranges from the current waiting period of ZERO arbitrary time units to the maximum of INFINITE arbitrary time units. 30 days sounds like a reasonable compromise, I think. I'd even support trying a 10 day nationwide waiting period for starters. Are you willing to compromise and come up to something above ZERO? If not, why not?
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
But necessary background checks can be done while-you-wait now. Like an hour or less.
Wrong.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
A waiting period wouldn't have helped much here.
If she was nuts enough to off her own son, all that would have changed is the selected implement.
3-7 day waiting period for handguns is common.
Long guns are used so infrequently in homicides that a waiting period for them doesn't make much sense.
More people are beaten to death with bare fists and feet every year than killed with long guns.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
30 days should be fine. But I'm not apposed to 60 days.
Some are saying "a few days" now. Pretty big spectrum.
The pre-crime mentality will never, ever keep this story from happening again. Even 60 days might well reduce the incidence; I'll grant that logical possibility.
But even granting that doesn't keep some other "Pate" from having this same story to tell. And then the waiting period should, what?, be increased to six months (after all, "if you really want a gun, you can wait six months for it")? What about a year?
After all, the longer you make people wait, by this line of thinking, the MORE you "reduce" the incidence of "spontaneous" violence. Right? And, as the standard line goes: "If it can save the life of even one child like this one...."
Of course, the story can be SLIGHTLY modified: she got the guns AFTER a six month waiting period. THEN she found out about the pictures and used a gun she already legally had to kill her own son. Oh well....
Why no comparable outrage at the many, many times more children killed in this country by second-hand smoke every year? Do you really NEED to smoke, particularly around your kid? Is that a "right" you have, particularly one mentioned explicitly in our Constitution?
Come on! This "debate" has NOTHING to do with saving kids' lives. If it did, you would be consistent about other far more deadly and prevalent and UNNECESSARY wastes of kids' lives.
How about this? I give you a six month waiting period for every gun purchase, and you give me a six month waiting period for every pack of cigarettes? (And you don't get to buy cartons! You buy by the pack, as NEEDED, with a six month waiting period each time.) Now, on BOTH fronts, we're seriously talking about a reduction in sales of these items. Right?
You really want to reduce stories like this one, where an innocent kid gets killed because some adult had a twisted "need" to fulfill? Then let's be consistent! Make the MOST likely vectors of unnecessary death ALL very hard to get. And by that model, you'll go after cigarettes before you'll go after guns... or at least exhibit comparable outrage at how EASY cigs are (even for kids) to get.
Somehow, though, the "killing machine" is SO much sexier of a thing to get outraged about than "killing sticks."
Six month waiting periods! I'm all for 'em! But don't just go after guns. Go after cigs, half-gallons of ice cream, quarter-pounders with cheese, and the list goes on and on and on! Let's face it: PEOPLE abuse all of these things, and kids suffer and die because of these bad choices. People are simply NOT responsible, and kids suffer and die because of that fact.
So, let's get serious about reducing needless carnage in this country, particularly among the young! Let's get SERIOUS about "preventing" all that needless death! And, let's face it: You don't NEED any of those things either. Yayyy... NY! Let's get MORE soda-limitation laws in place. Ice cream vouchers! Maybe like Japan, we can also have male waistline-size laws, with mandatory diets and exercise for violating the law (I'm not making it up; look it up). Yayyy... Big Brother keeping us safe from ourselves! After all, if it can save even one life....
"If you really want that half-gallon of ice cream, you can wait six months for it, and your waistline (and those of your kids) will thank you for it."
Look, just because the killing is more insidious does not make it less statistically significant or certain! Put your outrage and efforts where the statistically significant causes of needless death REALLY are.
Six month waiting periods all around! Yayyyy!!! I'm on board, and I'll vote for ALL such legislation... as long as it's consistent. Six month waiting periods for virtually EVERYTHING! Stop needless death!!! Yayyy!!!
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
3-7 day waiting period for handguns is common.
How is 10 states out of 50 "common?"
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Why would you think that she was either one or the other?
I explained why: You agree with Pate in this debate. His argument included the claim that "mental instability" was not a factor here. Your argument claims that she was an "obvious danger to the community."
WHICH argument are you going with? You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Come on! This "debate" has NOTHING to do with saving kids' lives.
Of course not. It has to do with waiting periods for gun purchases; something 80% of states DO NOT HAVE but most sane people agree they should.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
jghedge writes:
"Then why did you claim that "anybody who tells you you can buy a gun "on a whim" is either not informed or is lying to you", when you claim to know otherwise?"
Because just passing the instant background check takes about an hour. Not like you're buying a Lottery Ticket - which is something you actually can do "on a whim".
If voting were subject passing a test - or even showing ID - I'm sure guys like jghedge would claim an insurmountable hurdle for those in the minority community.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Of course not. It has to do with waiting periods for gun purchases;
Ahh... some honesty. Okay, then Pate's pathos-laden tale is really irrelevant to the goal in mind here. But, then, one wonders WHAT motivates the stated goal....
...something 80% of states DO NOT HAVE but most sane people agree they should.
Well, I'm sane (heh heh... yup, really I am... I can see it when I look in the mirror...), and I think waiting periods are irrelevant, as, apparently the vast majority of states (by your lights all, apparently, insane) agree.
Once we get off the knee-jerk bandwagon and start coolly and analytically assessing the motivations for various legislative "solutions," we pretty quickly find them to be inconsistent and unmotivated.
Even if we imposed every legislative "solution" you pleased to the "gun problem," Pate's story STILL happens! And, worse, you don't even TOUCH the far, far more statistically significant causes of needless death (particularly among kids) in this country.
Just be consistent in your "pre-crime" thinking is all I ask. Should that be too much for a SANE person to ask? Consistency?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Name me one thing you can't just buy "on a whim" then, just so we're speaking the same language.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Okay, then Pate's pathos-laden tale is really irrelevant to the goal in mind here.
Wrong. Pate's tale is 100% relevant. Chick was pissed, bought a gun on a whim, and killed her son. Nuts or not, it doesn't take a genius or a serial killer to know that pulling the trigger and killing something from 10 feet away is far easier than ramming a knife through their chest multiple times or hitting them with your car.
Guns make it a fukload easier to kill things. If you disagree, go hunting with a kitchen knife and tell us how it goes. Something that makes it easier for people to kill others should be regulated and you shouldn't be able to buy it on a whim.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Where can I buy a gun?
Any of you guys selling out of your trunk?
I need one to protect me from all these psycho SuperTopo posters here.
And the drooling drones are coming ......
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
How long of a waiting period is necessary to cure a woman who's sick enough to kill her own kid?
Is ten days enough? Because if she passed the instant check, she's going to get the gun anyway.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Nobody know. Somewhere between zero to infinity days.
I'll come down from infinity days to 10 days (a compromise of infinity days) if you come up from zero (a compromise of only 10 days). Deal?
(hint: the compromise I am asking you to make (just 10 days) is far less than the compromise of infinity days I am willing to make)
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Shooting your own son to "get even" with the husband you're actually pissed at = mental instability!!!
Yes! Its vitriolic, hotheaded individuals who are killing us. Canada will have fewer murders regardless of gun ownership rates because it's prototypally a more mellow, tranquil society.
I'm not adverse to more severe firearm regulation...but not optimistic anything short of complete confiscation will abate murders by the rash pariahs in our midst.
Almost all murderers have life histories of violence, restraining orders, substance abuse problems and/or a form of psychopathology.
Though Norway has the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with comparitively high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, and Austria....more placid nations.
Why does Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, have a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria? France has 33% the firearm ownership of the U.S. but 2% as many murders. Why?
Nations with the highest murder rates are those with the most angry and mercurial disposition.
There are too many guns in the country and they're too easy for sociopaths and turbulent minded individuals to possess. But I'm afraid gun waiting periods are just a marginally effective treatment. Engendering a peaceful society requires ending the fear, loathing and the spirit of malevolent competition...
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
Where can I buy a gun?
Call me. Or google it:
LOLLOL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Guns make it a fukload easier to kill things. If you disagree, go hunting with a kitchen knife and tell us how it goes. Something that makes it easier for people to kill others should be regulated and you shouldn't be able to buy it on a whim.
That's a principled point that makes Pate's pathos-ridden tale irrelevant. You can make that point entirely without Pate's story.
The QUESTION, however, is whether the point is CORRECT! And Pate's story contributes nothing but heat to that question.
What DOES contribute to that question is consideration of the many, MANY other things we buy on a whim, use entirely irresponsibly, and that produce vast death and mayhem (much more than ALL guns) in this country, particularly among our young people. Consistency is all I ask, and, unlike an anecdotal tale, that IS relevant. Just get your outrage-ducks all properly in a row.
you old farts offend me
I think I'm making a very similar point to what you just made. So, hopefully at least THIS "old fart" is not included in your list of offenders. LOL
Hedge, am I totally confused, or do you really not agree with Pate on the subject of waiting periods? Enlighten me, because your countless posts on another, related thread would sure have me convinced that you and Pate agree on this point (I'll provide quotes from the gun control thread, if you like).
So, given that you and Pate DO quite apparently agree on the need for waiting periods, my point still stands: you can't have the argument both ways.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
But I'm afraid gun waiting periods are just a marginally effective treatment.
You are afraid? Well then, best let that fear paralyze you. No point in doing anything at all if it might be only marginally effective.
What DOES contribute to that question is consideration of the many, MANY other things we buy on a whim, use entirely irresponsibly,
Completely fuking irrelevant. Go sodomize your strawmen somewhere else. The gun was acquired EASILY, within an hour, and used INTENTIONALLY to satisfy an irrational EMOTIONAL response to her situation.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Mr Christ writes:
"I'll come down from infinity days to 10 days (a compromise of infinity days) if you come up from zero (a compromise of only 10 days). Deal?"
I dunno. It depends.
How bad's the problem?
Of all the thousands of gun murders, is the number of murders committed immediately after legally purchasing a gun via passing an instant background check closer to zero?
Or is that number closer to the top end ( "infinity", as you put it ) ?
One of the first rules of safe shooting is "Be sure of your target".
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
This isn't shooting dipsh#t. If you aren't willing to entertain a reasonable compromise, you don't belong in this society or making decisions that affect our society. Pathetic tea bagging obstructionists.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Completely fuking irrelevant. Go sodomize your strawmen somewhere else. The gun was acquired EASILY, within an hour, and used INTENTIONALLY to satisfy an irrational EMOTIONAL response to her situation.
No, you go sodomize your equally clueless non-thinkers.
IF needless, on-a-whim death is NOT the issue, then YOU have nothing to motivate your supposed outrage. And IF it IS the issue, then YOU have countless other things you should be worrying about MUCH more.
THE point.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
IF YOU think you actually have a valid point, YOU ARE an idiot.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
You are afraid? Well then, best let that fear paralyze you. No point in doing anything at all if it might be only marginally effective.
A prototypal jealous spouse gets over the irrational aspect of their indignation within hours. The mentally ill's exasperation and murderous hostility may go on for weeks...or even years.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If you aren't willing to entertain a reasonable compromise, you don't belong in a society or making decisions that affect our society. Pathetic tea bagging obstructionists.
Keep talking! The longer you blow-hards keep it up, the more you alienate genuinely compromise-seeking, thinking, cool-thinking individuals.
You and Pate litter these threads with your name-calling, vile epithets, and non-arguments! Then you stand amazed and accusing as rational people don't instantly fall all over you with showers of joy.
People are not all stupid because they don't agree with your "compromise!" YOU haven't made the point, and you are NOT consistent in your outrage.
THE point.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Do you remember when you were kids and were getting a little too heated? You had to go sit in the corner and think about it for a bit. A bit in kidspeak is a long time.
Perhaps you should have to wait it out when buying a gun?
Unless you really really need to use it RIGHT THEN, it shouldn't even be an issue.
Again, where is the problem?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
What's the point of an enforced wait, Brandon?
Seems like a *solution* in search of a problem.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
A prototypal jealous spouse gets over the irrational aspect of their indignation within hours.
And it takes less time to buy a gun in most states. If only there were a point to mandatory waiting periods...
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
I guess some people are more just comfortable with their government assuming they are a raging lunatic, rather than treating them as a grown adult.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
California used to have a mandatory cooling off period for getting married too.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Chaz, in the case of the OP, a waiting period very well may have helped. A cool down period, so to speak.
And yes, she may have freaked out with a different weapon, but a different weapon isn't as easily lethal as a firearm.
That's why guns should be treated differently.
I'm all for gun ownership, I have no beef with that. However, I'm all for tighter regulation. Nobody is going to take our guns away, but a little more regulation may deter heat of the moment crimes.
Why wouldn't you want to try it out and see if it works? And don't give me that slippery slope argument. There is no slippery slope. If it doesn't work, the gun lobby is strong enough to repeal any changes. You know that.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Brandon,
You're assuming a woman sick enough to kill her own kid would be somehow cured within the time frame of a "waiting period". Because she's just going to end up with her gun anyway after waiting out any theoretical *cooling off* period.
Try it, to see if it works? We're trying it here! How's California's crime stats stack up against somewhere like Colorado?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
the gun lobby is strong enough to repeal any changes. You know that.
The gun lobby is also terrified that a mandatory waiting period will reduce the number of guns sold in this country. So they will just use their power to resist waiting periods and keep the $$ rolling in. It is a far better option (for them) than considering any compromise.
You're assuming a woman sick enough to kill her own kid would be somehow cured within the time frame of a "waiting period".
Jesus fuking christ. NOBODY thinks that... NOBODY.
Because she's just going to end up with her gun anyway after waiting out any theoretical *cooling off* period.
And you know this how? Oh, right, you are just making sh#t up that fits what you want to believe and pretending it is fact... as usual.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Chaz, have you ever experienced 'blind rage'? First or secondhand?
I've encountered it, and seen it pass every time. Nobody ever just stayed homicidal until the endgame. They cooled down. Sure, it happens, but if it's drawn out, it's not 'blind rage', it's premeditated murder. That's what I'm referring to.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
There is no slippery slope. If it doesn't work, the gun lobby is strong enough to repeal any changes. You know that.
I, living in Colorado, know no such thing. Colorado has recently adopted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. And that over the state being a battleground state for the NRA in its efforts to keep these very laws from passing. But pass they did, and over the objections of (55 to 7) of our sheriffs who say they will not enforce these laws.
What do the sheriffs cite (and you would think that law enforcement officers would know a thing or two about the subject)? They say that an armed citizenry is the strongest deterrent against all forms of violent crime, and they don't want their jobs made any harder than they already are.
Now, if a 55 to 7 ratio of sheriffs WANTED all these gun control measures, the gun control side would be TOUTING this fact as evidence that "those in the know, that have to deal with violent crime every day, want gun control!"
But the opposite is the case.
The slippery slope does exist, and it must be resisted each and every day by citizens that do NOT want to trade ANY of their rights for even a TINY bit of "additional security" (as if such could be had in the first place).'
You see, there is one, single, fundamental divide in this country: those that deeply distrust government and want as little of it as is NECESSARY to uphold their God-given and inalienable rights vs. those that think that Big Brother is fundamentally good and benevolent and that His values should be everybody's values, such that legislation of those values will be "good" for all.
I am strongly in the former camp. Try to trade even a LITTLE rights for even a LITTLE "security," and you will soon have neither. That ratchet pulls only one way, and history proves it.
You want slippery slope? Just look at how the Patriot Act has become continual NSA violation of the Fourth Amendment, with very, very little outrage on the part of the people that all should know better!
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Unless you really really need to use it RIGHT THEN, it shouldn't even be an issue.
Again, where is the problem?
I don't think there's anything "wrong" with a waiting period for background checks.
...or anything particularly unjust about reasonable "cool down of passions" intervals. But waiting periods have NOT lowered gun homicide rates, where they exist now.
I'd rather see more FOCUS on the sickness in the soul of Americana that drives these tragedies than the incessant palavering about more feeble, ineffective regulatory enactments...
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Brandon,
If a waiting period for firearm purchases would cut down on that, then the stats should bear that out.
California already has a mandated ten-day wait on the transfer of all firearms - even transfers within the family. California should show a noticeable difference in the incidence of the rage killings you describe if a waiting period were in any way effective.
So, if you think a waiting period is a good idea - or that maybe you could benefit from one - come to California. ( real estate's like half-price now )
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"California used to have a mandatory cooling off period for getting married too."
And it takes 6 months for a divorce to finalize in Cali, too.
Go feckin' figure.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I don't think there's anything "wrong" with a waiting period for background checks.... But waiting periods have NOT lowered gun homicide rates, where they exist now.
Jennie, prepare for the onslaught of vitriol. You see, your problem is that you're trying to ask questions about the "facts" that should be "obvious" unless you are a "fvctard" or "mindlessly stupid."
Just ASK whether or not this approach even makes sense, i.e.: CAN accomplish what the Pate's claim it is "obvious" it can accomplish, and you are instantly a "mindless fvctard."
Now, you may get only a mitigated response, because you did say that there's nothing wrong with waiting periods. So, I guess that you're only a little stupid that you don't see how "obvious" it is that waiting periods would be the cure-all for stories like Pate's. Probably you can cope with being "stupid," as long as you're not a "stupid fvctard."
:-)
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
But waiting periods have NOT lowered gun homicide rates, where they exist now.
This is an unsupported claim.
According to the Community Guide criteria,
**the evidence is insufficient to determine the
effectiveness of waiting periods** for the prevention of
suicide, homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape,
and unintentional firearm-related injury death, be-
cause of the small number of available studies, limita-
tions in the design and execution of available studies,
and effects that are inconsistent in direction or fail to
reach statistical significance.
Hahn et al, 2005
We will NEVER have sufficient data if idiots refuse to compromise. Not a single person opposed to waiting periods has offered a single reason they are unwilling to compromise, other than mild inconvenience. Pathetic.
I still know idiots who think wearing a seat belt does nothing to reduce the risk of dying in a car accident. They are also rightwing nutjobs who worry that any gun regulation will result in the government coming for their guns.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-slow-firearm-death-without-banning-all-guns
As a result of those [FEDERAL] studies [on automobile safety]—and [FEDERAL] policies based on their findings—the death rate per mile traveled has fallen 80 percent since 1966. If present trends hold, in two years car crashes will no longer constitute the number-one cause of violent death in the U.S. That dubious honor will go to gunshot wounds.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Not a single person opposed to waiting periods has offered a single reason (other than mild inconvenience) they are unwilling to compromise. Pathetic.
Apparently only reasons you refuse to hear, acknowledge, or debate. Your assumption that it is "obviously" the right thing to do is what's pathetic.
I've asked a "compromise" question, and you dismiss it: How LONG of a waiting period is sufficient?
Then I would just expect you to stick with it! So, if you say "ten days," and you GET ten days, then when Pate's story is told again and again in the years following you getting what you want, THEN you need to remember this conversation and STICK with it. Because there ARE reasons why this should not be done:
1) NO "compromise" waiting period (short of infinite, or, in other words, gun prohibition) will "reduce" stories like Pate's "enough" that there won't be pressure to lengthen that waiting period even more.
2) Nothing about this whole direction of thought addresses our fundamental right of self defense. To wit....
If I come onto this planet from another planet, a person like I am now, I BRING WITH ME a right to life and a corresponding right to self defense. My citizenship is off-world; I don't get that right from any Earthly government, nor can any Earthly government take it away from me! And that right brings with it the right to possess ANY and ALL forms of weaponry that I can reasonably think might be employed to threaten my own well-being.
So, as an off-worldly visitor to this planet, I look around and see what persons are using to threaten and kill other persons. My ONLY consideration in terms of my RIGHTS is: what is my OWN determination of what I can most conveniently pack around to protect myself from the threats I see?
If everybody on planet Earth is threatening and killing each other with big sticks, then it is reasonable for me to want to pack around my own big stick. If people are routinely threatening each other with nukes, then I really want off this planet in a hurry, rather than to have my own nuke. But if people are routinely threatening each other with automatic weapons, then I want one of my own. This is a simple principle of self defense deriving from RIGHTS that I do not GET, nor that can be taken away from me, by ANY government.
Our founders recognized this basic principle, which is why they referred to our most basic rights as "inalienable."
Now, if no government can either give or TAKE these rights, then they cannot "infringe" them either. NO government can tell me, "You do have the right of self defense. We acknowledge it and have no intention of taking it away from you. However, you do NOT have the right to purchase the MEANS of your own self defense 'on a whim.' You MUST WAIT ten days before you can arm yourself to actually exercise the right we agree that you have."
The point is that the RIGHT is continual and uninfringeable. The principle is that JUST AS SOON as it enters my mind that I need this or that means of self defense, I have the corresponding RIGHT to avail myself of it. As an off-worldly being, well aware of my rights and the corresponding RIGHT I have to the means by which to protect those rights, I would literally laugh in the face of any government with the temerity to presume that IT had the right to tell me any such thing!
3) The fact that people abuse their rights does NOT provide either a logical or principled reason to infringe the rights of those that are not abusing their rights. There is NO logically sound move to go from the fact that some people drink too much sugary soda in a sitting to the LAW precluding ME from having more than 16oz in a sitting.
4) ALL such laws are by nature arbitrary, drawing "helpful" (so they say) but utterly arbitrary lines. In the case of NY sodas, you could not have more than 16oz in one drink, but you could purchase more than one. Go figure! So, what the "pro" people here presume is that a "compromise" position must be reached that will be "helpful," and people not willing to "compromise" are labeled "fvctards" and "insane." But what these people call "compromise," I call arbitrary! And I refuse to be bound by arbitrary laws, particularly those that violate my basic rights of personhood (see 2 above).
And, contrary to what was claimed, the list could go on and on! There are many, many GOOD and reasonable reasons why somebody could be vehemently opposed to waiting periods. And it is "pathetic" to claim that no such reasons exist or have been put forward.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
What are you talking about ? You asked, I answered
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Without doubt one of, if not the most, incomprehensible rants I've ever read on this site.
Would you prefer that I quote the Federalist Papers to you? Most of my students find them even more incomprehensible. It's a sad commentary on you and the likes of "thinkers" like you that you can find abstract explanations "incomprehensible." Yet, back in the day, the Federalist Papers were newspaper articles. Different quality of thinker back then!
Of course, back then we didn't elect our presidents on sound bites. People could actually parse complex sentences and abstract ideas, and they expected them. And, people actually THOUGHT about many sides of a position, rather than finding "incomprehensible" any position that wasn't their own.
What's incomprehensible to me is how we got to the point in this society where in a "debate" like this such reasoning could be "incomprehensible" to anybody. That's both saddening and discouraging.
I guess, go watch "V For Vendetta" and see if you can get the point from that mode of delivery. More your speed.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Guess you never engaged in a thought experiment or derived the point from a movie.
The point is that rights inhere in persons not governments. Persons don't get their rights FROM governments. And legitimate governments exist SOLELY to uphold the rights of persons. Thus, governments have no legitimacy in infringing on the inalienable rights of persons, among them the right to life (and its defense).
Oh, why do I bother?
Hopefully at least some lurkers have found some value. I don't write for the likes of you, Hedge. I learned that a long time and many threads ago.
Edit: since you're editing after posting, I'll at least note than I am in response. You yourself should get help... educational help. Learn to think outside of your own narrow little box.
And I DO read about people like you in the news all the time. It really saddens me.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
madbolter1--I appreciate your comments and I'm confident that others do too. Keep up the good work, and I'm glad you're not dissuaded from posting by hostility from the ST loony-left crowd.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
How LONG of a waiting period is sufficient?
And I have answered that twice. Here is the third time:
Nobody knows. Somewhere between zero to infinity days.
I'll come down from infinity days to 10 days (a compromise of infinity days) if you come up from zero (a compromise of only 10 days).
I never said a federal waiting period was the right thing to do. I said it was worth trying. There is no data showing it is not worth trying. Why not try it? You can't stand the thought of waiting 10 days for your penis extension?
NO "compromise" waiting period (short of infinite, or, in other words, gun prohibition) will "reduce" stories like Pate's "enough" that there won't be pressure to lengthen that waiting period even more.
Completely unsupported by all the available evidence. You have no idea how much a waiting period will reduce gun violence because it hasn't been tried long enough and consistently enough.
Did you read that article about car safety? Can you imagine people being stupid enough to think car design and seat belts would not reduce deaths from automobile accidents? What a bunch of idiots!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
The point is that rights inhere in persons not governments. Persons don't get their rights FROM governments. And legitimate governments exist SOLELY to uphold the rights of persons. Thus, governments have no legitimacy in infringing on the inalienable rights of persons, among them the right to life (and its defense).
Abstract concepts are all nice and pleasant, but in reality there are no inherent rights. Rights may exist without government, but without the consent of society, be it a tribal village or the United States, rights cannot be asserted, so may as well not bother to exist.
So what about that son and husband's rights, are those less important that yours?
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to wait 7 days to buy a handgun?
What inalienable right would you lose if you were prohibited from selling a gun to a total stranger?
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to show ID to buy ammunition?
What inalienable tight would you lose if you had to keep guns locked away when not in use, and report their theft to police?
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to take a training class to carry a gun outside of your own home?
TE
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:01am PT
|
I explained why: You agree with Pate in this debate. His argument included the claim that "mental instability" was not a factor here. Your argument claims that she was an "obvious danger to the community."
dont re-word my statement asshat. NOT A FACTOR is not what i said. typical.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:07am PT
|
i love these threads because the as#@&%es are so easily outed.
a nice long list of them participating here.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:15am PT
|
it's really easy to be cold and analytical when you are detached and lack personal experience isn't it? what if it was your son? your neighbor? your community? your life?
what would you say to asher? what would you say to his friends? what would you say at his memorial?
we said nothing. we listened to sobbing.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
The librarians son would still be alive if school kids were allowed to carry guns..But the crazy anti-gun liberals won't allow this...The New town massacre wouldn't have happened if all the students were packing...Hitler gave guns to his youth to fight off the communist...Berlin would have fallen sooner if not for the pistol packin Hitler youth...
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:21am PT
|
now that is some serious punk rock sarcasm!
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:26am PT
|
jim, love ya bro, but that was a retarded and meaningless post.
are you drunk? inquiring mind says yes.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
Pate, if you cared so much, why didn't you get involved?
You seem to be using this tragedy to push your own political views upon others.
You state the male victim was your friend.
Why have a stand-by attitude when you know your friend is suffering? You then present yourself on a climbing forum as a caring, involved individual when things turn tragic.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:43am PT
|
pud LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
you funny little f*#ker.
ignorant too.
the best thing about this lame web site is the drinkers come out at night and the comedy really starts.
ciao as#@&%es.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
rights cannot be asserted, so may as well not bother to exist.
That, right there, is the sort of thinking that is sending this country to hell in a handbasket.
Rights are not merely "nice abstract concepts." They are the very foundation of morality and governmental legitimacy itself. If they don't really exist, then neither does the foundation of this nation. And if they are trivially trammeled upon by the whim of a knee-jerk populace, then majority faction HAS come to rule in this nation, and this NATION might as well not bother to exist (and better for the world if it did not)!
So what about that son and husband's rights, are those less important that yours?
Absolutely not! But you conflate negative and positive rights. They have no positive right to be alive, only a negative one. And my self-defense rights cannot infringe on that negative right in the slightest. The mother violated her son's negative right to life, but you don't correct that situation by violating the negative rights of others.
You treat this situation like they have a positive right to life, which means I have a positive duty to DO something to ensure they live. But they don't, and I don't. They have only a negative right to life, and I have only a negative duty toward it. This means that I must ensure that I do nothing to infringe their right to life, and I necessarily satisfy that duty by doing NOTHING (what negative duties mean).
This country was founded on the fundamental idea of negative rights and duties, the basic idea that if I just leave you alone I don't infringe on your rights. But we've come to turn rights on their heads, and now everybody has all these positive rights to everything, which means that suddenly I've got all these positive duties toward them. FALSE! Not the intention of our founders, and NOT politically-philosophically defensible.
You don't correct violations of negative rights by violating the negative rights of others.
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to wait 7 days to buy a handgun?
The right to be free in my person and able AT ANY MOMENT to defend myself from any threat I might perceive arising at any time. I would give you a thought experiment to show how even a minute of forced delay can be a violation of that right, but thought experiments are lost on you. The sensible among us are starting to get the point and can dream up any number of thought experiments of their own. The point is that you have NO right to tell me that there is one SECOND of my life in which I can't have the means to defend myself against any reasonably foreseeable threat.
What inalienable right would you lose if you were prohibited from selling a gun to a total stranger?
If I own the gun, then it is my property. An early draft of the Declaration read, "...the right to property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," because Jefferson was very Lockean in his thinking, and Locke equated the right to property with the right to life. Again, too "theoretical" for you, but our founders thought these things through in a way you indicate that you lack the capacity to imagine.
My property IS my life in a very, very fundamental way. We've become so "civilized" that we've forgotten this principle. So, when you infringe on the ways I can deal with my property, including my ability to sell it, then you infringe on my life. It is only provided for the government to do that in extreme cases, and then only when it can be demonstrated that doing so meets a pressing (and temporary) need that can be met in no other, better way. Telling me when and how I can sell anything that is mine is prima facie a violation of my right to life. And you CANNOT demonstrate even close to conclusively that monitoring/controlling the sale of guns solves some (temporary) national problem; or that any such supposed "problem" cannot be better solved in other ways that do not violate my rights.
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to show ID to buy ammunition?
See the first point above. And you guys take SO many things for granted that you literally would think me insane if I tried to explain to you why "ID" in itself violates basic rights. So, I treat that as a lost cause: DOA.
Instead, I'll just say that if that were ALL that gun control folks were after, I'd happily "compromise," say, "No problem!" and then insist that you start requiring ID for a host of other things, such as voting in national elections. Do you realize that in 18 states you can vote in national elections without doing ANYTHING to demonstrate that you are a citizen OR that you really are the person registered to vote in the election? And in 18 others, the "ID" you show does not have to be a state-issued photo ID. So, in the significant majority of states in this great union, we have all sorts of people deciding the direction of this country that have never demonstrated that they even have the constitutional right to do so. Why don't you fix THAT instead of worrying so much about something with so little relative consequence?
What inalienable tight would you lose if you had to keep guns locked away when not in use, and report their theft to police?
This is back to the whole pre-crime issue. YOU clearly believe that it is law enforcement's role to "keep us safe" in advance. Wrong! That is not the principle of law enforcement that founded this country. In THIS country (not talking about some ho-hum Euro Socialist Democracy), law enforcement exists to, careful now, enforce laws. That does not mean keeping crimes FROM happening! We all might happen to be in the right place at the right time and serve that role to one extent or another. But both laws and law enforcement were originally intended to discourage the violation of people's rights AFTER the violation could be proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) to HAVE occurred.
If you really get your head around just that basic principle, you'll immediately be able to see how wrong-headed all pre-crime thinking is.
You want Minority Report? Well, as of today, thanks to the NSA, we're already there (as close as you can get without all the psychic BS). As the ditty said, "You asked for it; you got it!"
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to take a training class to carry a gun outside of your own home?
By "had to," I assume that you mean being legally required to. So, see the pre-crime and negative/positive rights points above.
By simply carrying a gun outside my home, I do not infringe on ANY of your negative rights. Not a one. Therefore, you have no right to tell me I can't do it.
By contrast, when you tell me I cannot, under ANY circumstances, provide for my own right of self-defense, you DO violate one of my negative rights. Just leave me alone, and I'll return the favor. That's negative rights in a nutshell.
If I then misuse my gun in some way that harms you, well, now you have a setting for law enforcement to get involved. Not until!
The problem a person like me faces in arguing these points is that this country has drifted SO far from its founding principles that now those principles sound strange, even alien. We've literally turned many things on their heads. So, it's like Kuhn's "incommensurable paradigms." The words we use don't even mean the same things.
And you've demonstrated again and again that trying to achieve clarity about the terms themselves is just an "incomprehensible rant" to you.
You SEE rights so differently from me (and from our founders) that there is nothing I can say to help you. And the typical response to such a statement is: "Well, the founders were great and wise men, but they couldn't look hundreds of years into the future and see all the things we have to deal with today. So our present laws have to take TODAY into account, not 300 years ago," or something like that. Trust me, I've heard it in other threads here on the taco stand.
But that just throws a bare, picked bone to the founders; and, worse, it completely conflates principles with laws. The PRINCIPLES of our founding were timeless, and our laws were ALWAYS supposed to reflect those principles. Those principles are very different from the principles upon which any other nation on Earth was founded. But now we just can't throw those principles away fast enough! We want SO badly to use statistics to compare ourselves to Euro Socialist Democracies, thinking that if we don't "measure up" to them according to this or that statistical analysis, we have to CHANGE SOMETHING!
What you guys don't get is that our founders cried, "Give me liberty or give me death," and they presumed that down through the generations we would always prefer liberty over every other core value! They would never have imagined a generation of "Americans" that would virtually silently submit to the greatest subversion of basic human rights in the history of the world (NSA surveillance). Our FOUNDERS would have risen up in arms, with blood in the streets long before this!
The point of the foregoing paragraph is that we don't even GET what "liberty" means anymore! We don't fight for it! We capitulate and "compromise" to satisfy piles of non-existent POSITIVE "rights," while giving up our REAL negative rights with nary a glance, much less complaint.
Can you stand in an airport security line and HONESTLY cry out (or even think): "Give me liberty or give me death?" Bullshit!
Our founders WANTED a country in which people would die more than in other countries; that is a necessary result of a truly FREE country! So, your statistics leave me COLD, because you are barking up the wrong tree with them. You think you are "proving" something with them. All you PROVE is how unprincipled we have become as a nation! They are completely the wrong metrics of evaluation!
And if you didn't want a long rant, then don't ask a pile of questions all in one post. If I don't answer, you accuse me of punting and being unable to answer. If I DO answer (and, trust me, not nearly as long or developed as the response really deserves), then you accuse me of "incomprehensible ranting." So, I answer, and here's your rant.
Maybe it can do some good. I'm fairly fatalistic about it at this point. I expect to be dead before the real sh#t hits the fan. And you goofballs will have brought it on yourselves.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
So the theory is that a woman scorned, and apparently otherwise greatly disturbed (killing her own son because her husband cheated??), didn't have access to A BIG BAD GUN....
That she would have what? Had a good-natured pillow fight that night?
Checked in for counseling the next morning and eventually had a good laugh over it?
People kill people for all kinds of reasons. Some crazy, some not-so-crazy. Always have. Always will. They killed each other before guns, before crossbows, before swords, before spiked clubs, before poison, before fire, hell maybe before we had opposable thumbs.
We're a violent bunch sometimes and no new laws are ever going to change that. You have to get to the root of each situation which is sometimes impossible.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Why even listen to hedge as he continues his usual ridiculous hypnotic distraction apparatus exercise.
Take all the guns away and still industrialized society's kill millions of living entities a day.
What a moron ......
|
|
rwedgee
Ice climber
canyon country,CA
|
|
This gun will have no serial # and no wait period. And best of all....included is ALL THE BEER I CAN DRINK !!! Now that's America !!!
Self build parties are the new "mens Tupperware" parties. I've lost way more friends to cars than guns. Besides Facebook is to blame for this anyways. It's probably destroyed more lives because crazy people think those FB friends are real. What if she ran them over ? Would you want a 24hr delayed start on the car ? Blame crazy people and the mental health care system(or lack of it). Her friends should have stopped her. Oh wait...you were one of the friends who did nothing and now feel guilty ??
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Murder rates in other comparable democracies, where they've outlawed guns, prove you wrong.
Even if that were true, which it's demonstrably not (there are many counterexamples showing that what you've got with your chosen statistics is at best a correlation rather than "proof" of causality), as I said, you are barking up the wrong tree.
The USA was never SUPPOSED to be just another Euro Socialist Democracy, so comparing what "they have" with what "we have" in terms of deaths by gun is patently irrelevant. It's entirely the wrong mode of evaluation.
Their entire societies are based upon communitarian assessments of "compromises" between liberties and security. OUR government, by STARK contrast, was designed to secure ONLY ONE THING: liberty. And it was designed on fundamentally libertarian (philosophical rather than political) principles.
So, I evaluate the present success of the American body politic by looking at how free we are, not how many of us die in this or that pursuit or how many deaths could have been prevented by this or that legislation. Since legislating security (as if) is apparently your primary consideration in this discussion, we're in truly incommensurable paradigms.
Nuff said.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Wow...
I hear you loud and clear on that one, captain.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
I do not want to get involved with the debate as such. Condolences to the people, the father, the family, a young man is dead. That is very sad.
Argue amongst yourselves, but this is a tragedy. And pick California, Mexico, Syria... pick wherever you choose. Death by violence, death by automobile, death by climbing... I know that I am stating the obvious.
I am not religious, but this young man did not deserve to die. Who does? I lost my closest brother to cancer a little over a year ago. At 62, Jennie's age, Mac did not deserve to die. But fate chooses these things.
This young man did not deserve to die at the hands of the mother who gave birth to him.
Outside of what Pate wrote, I have no knowledge of the circumstances. But it seems that...
I do not know.
|
|
mdavid
Big Wall climber
High Springs, FL
|
|
That's an extremely sad situation. I'm not sure a background check or waiting period would have changed the outcome, no one will ever know.
Hate to break it to you but most psychologists/therapists aren't recording the unhinged folks and taking away their guns, or logging it anywhere a background check will find.
Media glorifies ultra violence and trains our youth to ignore their conscience. We abort baby humans at an amazing rate, torture animals prior to butchering them and generally act like the as#@&%es of the earth.
We have conditioned ourselves to ignore the suffering of other creatures in the search of a larger burger and clogged arteries. Our compassion is almost non existent.
Only a fool would put humans in charge of this planet.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Still not a single logical reason to oppose a 10 day waiting period, other than: I don't want to... I shouldn't have to... we don't even know if it will work... you can't make me... whaaaaaah.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Ineffective is a good enough reason for me. We have more than enough do-nothing laws on the books now as it is.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
I'm a gun owner, shooting enthusiast and self defense advocate. I have zero problem with a State mandated waiting period and background check for gun purchases/sales. In CA it's two weeks, from a manufacturer or between individuals.
I do have a problem when the various gun transfer laws extend down to me handing a gun to a friend at the range to try out. Applying a waiting period or background check under those circumstances is absurd. I think this was one of the problems with the law the Senate kicked to the curb recently.
How do y'all feel about me lending a gun to my wife? Let's say her gun is in the shop for repair. I'm going out of town. I tell her my gun is in the safe good to go should the need arise, or a friend calls up and wants her to go to the range for some target shooting. Or maybe she wants to take a tactical course, but the instructor requests she bring a semi auto but hers is a revolver...
All you folks who want fewer guns in circulation should consider the unintended consequences of such rules (I.E. my wife would then want multiple guns.)
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Kris, I really don't shoot much anymore, but I have lent out rifles at the firing range & shot other people guns. I've never heard of a waiting period to use a friends gun.
You could fill a library with what I haven't heard of.
Last year when my neighbor finished the howitzer he made in his garage, he invited a few of us out to fire it off, I must have fired a dozen different peoples rifles. We were passing them around, there were several police officers there.
But I think you are talking about future legislation.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Mark I'm quite sure that provision was in the background check law the Senate did not pass. Not a waiting period but a background check, as handing the gun to another person was considered a transfer. Whether it got negotiated out before the final vote or not I have been trying to look up, but I have other work to get done right now.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"We do too know."
Not according to the most recent study on Waiting Periods, described in this article:
http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/gun-safety/evidence-brief/waiting-period-laws-gun-permits
This study has been cited frequently since it was released a few years ago, and held up by the pro-gun nutz as evidence that there is no evidence that waiting periods work (no doubt it's the one you base your opinion on, Chaz).
If you bother to read it, though, you'll note that the study concluded not that waiting periods don't work....it's conclusion was that the framework of the study was not sufficient to draw a clear conclusion, one way or the other.
Of course, the gun lobby has twisted this meaning in the media as 'proof that waiting periods don't work', and has basically worked congress so as to not fund any further studies by the CDC on such things.
That's not 'proof', Chaz. That's manipulation.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I'm a gun owner, shooting enthusiast and self defense advocate. I have zero problem with a State mandated waiting period and background check for gun purchases/sales. In CA it's two weeks, from a manufacturer or between individuals.
I do have a problem when the various gun transfer laws extend down to me handing a gun to a friend at the range to try out. Applying a waiting period or background check under those circumstances is absurd. I think this was one of the problems with the law the Senate kicked to the curb recently.
How do y'all feel about me lending a gun to my wife? Let's say her gun is in the shop for repair. I'm going out of town. I tell her my gun is in the safe good to go should the need arise, or a friend calls up and wants her to go to the range for some target shooting. Or maybe she wants to take a tactical course, but the instructor requests she bring a semi auto but hers is a revolver...
All you folks who want fewer guns in circulation should consider the unintended consequences of such rules (I.E. my wife would then want multiple guns.)
Have to report some illogic in the above. If you think waiting periods are fine, why are you upset that your wife may not be able to get a gun at any particular time? Why not make her wait until her gun is back from the shop?
Sounds like you have a nice double standard going on--strangers have to wait and that's fine with you, but if you or someone you know may have to wait even 1 second to have access to a gun when you would like them to have access, all of a sudden that's a big problem?
But your post does do a nice job of implicitly explaining why waiting periods may be a bad idea, even if that wasn't your intent. (To spell it out for the dimwits, someone may reasonably need a gun to defend him- or herself right fuking now, not in 10 days.)
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Sounds like you have a nice double standard going on--strangers have to wait and that's fine with you, but if you or someone you know may have to wait even 1 second to have access to a gun when you would like them to have access, all of a sudden that's a big problem?
Double standard? If I want to buy or sell a gun, that is to take ownership of said weapon, the background check and waiting period apply. But if the buyer, for example, wants to go to a range with me and try said weapon, I cannot hand it to him or her without doing the paperwork and waiting two weeks? There is no transfer of ownership.
Why is making someone wait to buy one OK, but they shouldn't have to wait if you just want to give it to them?
I'm not "giving it to them," I'm letting them use it to try it. At a range or other shooting site.
The situation I describe with my wife is somewhat different. Allowing a husband and wife to have joint ownership would be one solution, just as we do with cars. Anyway we're a joint property state, so this might be an interesting court case.
Relating to the tragedy in Colorado, the subject of this thread, I still wonder, as I inquired up-thread, if the local seller there skipped the background check (which due to the backlog should have delayed the purchase by some days.) If so he should be up for accomplice to murder.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Do gun shops just "let you try it"? Of course not. They'd be breaking the law.
Actually many do. They need a range on the premises. And most indoor ranges rent guns. You can go a range and try various guns 'till the cows come home, then go buy the one you want.
Your primary goal, as you have made clear, is to ban all gun ownership except of course for the government. It is quite obvious that we will never agree.
Cheerio.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Kris I have no problem with you, your wife or any other responsible person owning many guns. I have Several dozen rifles & one pistol.
I have a big problem with mentally ill being able to walk into a store and by a gun. & I don't want to hear we have laws to cover that -- cause they aren't working.
Kris, usually if I know that someone I am traveling with has a gun I will ask them to leave it at home or will go climb somewhere they are not. I would never even think of asking that of you --- I trust you not to do something stupid. We may disagree on many things & argue about all things under the sun , but I have always found you & you're beautiful wive to be honorable good people. I wish I could say that about more people than I can.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
hedge, there is a gun shop target range near me and they will let you try any gun you would like.
This is the kind of thinking that drives me crazy.
Gun shop don't let you try guns out for the same reason that bike shop don't let you ride motocross bikes before you buy them, there is no place to test ride in the store.
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
And when they redefine you as mentally ill?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
hhmmm one shooting one death, meanwhile in gang lands,,, 100 die.
Yes this was a tragic thing, but harldy a first and knives fire place pokers and many many other items have been used for the exact same results.
Are we to now impose regulation upon the other 2 billion gun owners over the actions of one disgruntled person?
Is that not like saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD!?
Did you know that hundreds of thousands shot guns in a safe and fun manner the same day of the incident?
Every bad guy has a gun, every criminal gang member has a gun. The time for hand wring over guns was the late 1800s. Now is far too late.
This hits home for you because it happened near you- fully understandable. But the reactions are typical and broad brushed ..
Take the reaction from our Natil guard commander who, after the IHOP shooting in Carson, gave orders to her troops NOT TO wear their uniforms to lunch?>?>>> THAT coming from those charged with PROTECTING its citizenry..
So as a result the Natl guard became LESS effective than even yur average gun owner/carrier. Since when does the military HIDE themselves from aggression?
Rong, you have not addressed the point of the original poster, and I must say, virtually no gun enthusiast seems willing to do so:
What harm is caused a legitimate legal gun purchaser by a mandatory cooling off period and a robust background check, and mandatory gun use training?
your response seems to be about hypothetical situations with national guard, etc.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
This just in
Major gun crime collectively dropped for a fourth consecutive year statewide, while firearms sales climbed to a new record in 2012 with 490,119 guns purchased in 444,844 transactions — a 16 percent rise over 2011, according to federally licensed gun dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
The proliferation of guns occurred as the total number of major reported crimes committed with all types of firearms in Virginia dropped 5 percent, from 4,618 offenses in 2011 to 4,378 last year, according to Virginia State Police data.
Looking back over seven years, total firearm sales in Virginia have risen a staggering 101 percent from 2006 to 2012, while gun-related crime has dropped 28 percent during that period.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/va-gun-crime-drops-again-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_a9a3cd36-dc50-5192-9b97-e14258e6168a.html
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
See any difference in crime stats between California and any of the "instant check" states? I didn't think so.
As pointed out, over and over and over again, the data is inconclusive. You don't think so, but you don't know... but you convince yourself you do know... that is what makes you an idiot.
CA gun murders went down 3% from 2010 to 2011 (the period of data that I found readily available). The majority of states without a waiting period saw an increase in gun murder rate during the same period. Of course, you think you already KNOW waiting periods (and other gun legislation) are ineffective and no amount of ACTUAL data will change what you BELIEVE. Again, that is what makes you an idiot.
You know about the Brady Bill, right? You know when it was introduced, right? (hint: look for the steady decrease in handgun homicides) You know when the waiting period imposed by the Brady Bill expired, right? (hint: look for where the handgun homicides stop declining). I'm sure it is just another coincidence... you KNOW better, dontcha... idiot.
more info:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
As Mark Twain said, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Interpret and apply them 'em how you wish.
You know, the "fvktard" and "idiot" bit is really wearing thin, even for taco threads (and that's saying something!). Perhaps it's time for Chris to get involved in this thread (and/or review some user accounts) to see if this sort of vitriol is exactly what he was referring to regarding changing the complexion of this forum to hang onto his advertisers.
You guys "win" (in your own minds) by basically browbeating everybody else off of the threads you frequent. And then you cite the "nobody can provide a logical response" line as "proof" that you've "won." It's pretty self-serving and intellectually dishonest. Nobody that disagrees with you can keep up with your insults, nor are we willing to endure them for very long. So you "win" debates by just being so painful that nobody wants to engage anymore. It's not a discussion; it's a few of you guys doing nothing but lobbing constant and even vile insult-grenades.
Not everybody (in fact, virtually nobody) that disagrees with you or your interpretations of the "damned lies" that are statistics are idiots. And, as I pointed out upthread, even the philosophical relevancy of your chosen statistics is up for grabs; and people questioning that relevancy are certainly not idiots!
How about showing some basic human respect while you are so stumping for saving human life?
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
Tell me ,, how does one conclude someone is mentally ill if they have not shown any tenancies of said afflictions?
one sign is arguing with hedge...
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Perhaps it's time for Chris to get involved in this thread...
Go ahead, cry to daddy. Waaaaaa... the smart kids won't accept my blatant misinterpretation of facts as valid... waaaaaaa.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
I heard a joke sort of on this topic. Can't tell it till this thread has gone the way all threads go.
Edit:
It went even as I was typing.
Woman walks into a drug store. Says to the pharmacist, "I need some arsenic." Pharmacist asks her what she needs it for. She says, "I need to kill my husband."
Somewhat put back the pharmacist says", If you were to do such a thing you would be in serious trouble. And the sheriff will want to know where you got it. I can't give you any."
Woman hands him a photo. Of her husband in bed with the pharmacist's wife.
Now much more relieved the pharmacist tells the woman, "I am sorry. You should have told me right away that you had a prescription."
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
What this thread needs is some Loctite.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
This thread, with a few exceptions, is people telling each other their opinions over and over and over
and over.
and not listening. Madbolter has already answered your question about 100 posts ago Harry. I agree with his most recent as well.
Madbolter said: "As Mark Twain said, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Interpret and apply them 'em how you wish.
You know, the "fvktard" and "idiot" bit is really wearing thin, even for taco threads (and that's saying something!). Perhaps it's time for Chris to get involved in this thread (and/or review some user accounts) to see if this sort of vitriol is exactly what he was referring to regarding changing the complexion of this forum to hang onto his advertisers.
You guys "win" (in your own minds) by basically browbeating everybody else off of the threads you frequent. And then you cite the "nobody can provide a logical response" line as "proof" that you've "won." It's pretty self-serving and intellectually dishonest. Nobody that disagrees with you can keep up with your insults, nor are we willing to endure them for very long. So you "win" debates by just being so painful that nobody wants to engage anymore. It's not a discussion; it's a few of you guys doing nothing but lobbing constant and even vile insult-grenades.
Not everybody (in fact, virtually nobody) that disagrees with you or your interpretations of the "damned lies" that are statistics are idiots. And, as I pointed out upthread, even the philosophical relevancy of your chosen statistics is up for grabs; and people questioning that relevancy are certainly not idiots!
How about showing some basic human respect while you are so stumping for saving human life? "
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
What this thread needs is some Loctite.
Nah, needs some of this,
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
I really couldn't give a shite if waiting periods work or not. If the NRA does not want them then I'm 100% in favor of the longest waiting periods possible.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Idiots KNOW gun legislation doesn't work.
Brady Bill... federal waiting period... 1994 to 1999
I guess we could "blame" the decrease on Clinton if you prefer.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
I don't see myself as mentally unstable...So what if i own a crotchless clown suit and an arsenal of vintage WWll Schmeisers and Lugers...?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Def should be a waiting period to buy snakes--could cut down on snake homicides--won't know until we try.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
Seems from that graph that the best course of action would be to ban handguns entirely.
|
|
abrams
Sport climber
|
|
You anti gun nuts are barking mad! Woof woof!
That graph just shows that everyone needs to be mandated to carry a pistol to protect themselves.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
No, the graph shows handgun deaths decreased SUBSTANTIALLY when waiting periods and other gun regulations were enacted at the federal level. Once again, your bullshit fantasy opinions vs. reality.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
No, the graph shows handgun deaths decreased SUBSTANTIALLY when waiting periods and other gun regulations were enacted at the federal level. Once again, your bullshit fantasy opinions vs. reality.
You're no statistician! What those sorts of statistics show is (at BEST) a correlation rather than a causal relation.
For years there was a close correlation between the number of Methodist pastors in some state (I'd have to look it up) and the number of divorces in that state. Perfectly up and down on the graphs... "obviously" related. Causal connection? Almost certainly not. And when viewed in a broader time slice, the "pattern" reduced to insignificance.
A really big problem IS time slices! You can pick any particular time slice and show convergence. But in another (or larger) time slice, the pattern disappears. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
You really should stop accusing people of "bullshit fantasies" just because they don't agree with your narrow interpretation of a limited set of data.
|
|
abrams
Sport climber
|
|
You can't just threaten my opinions without consequences Dr Cristco.
I demand you be banned for your serial bad behavior.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
"Dr. Crisco" showed up about two months ago and immediately started filling the (almost exclusively) political threads with his vile and abusive vitriol. Whoever "he" is, he's here riding a particular hobby horse and apparently with nothing but time on his hands (almost 600 posts in almost exactly two months).
I have no reason from his posts to think "he" is even a climber.
So, Crisco, what's your real name? What have you climbed? Are you even a climber?
I care about "political" threads on a climbers' forum BECAUSE I care about how climbers (not the mainstream people) think about such things. But it's not a "climbing" thread if its most vociferous (and abusive) poster is really a poseur.
So, who are you? Care to get real?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
I never claimed a causal relationship you fuking idiot.
I said the handgun deaths decreased SUBSTANTIALLY when waiting periods and other gun regulations were enacted at the federal level. That is a statement of correlation and nothing more.
The undeniable fact is that handgun deaths decreased during the period in which a federal waiting period was in place and stopped decreasing when the interim waiting period expired. FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT you fuking idiot.
Until you provide an alternative hypothesis to explain the DRAMATIC decrease in handgun deaths during that period, and a way to test it, only a fuking idiot would conclude waiting periods and other gun legislation are ineffective.
I have a very simple hypothesis, based on a very clear correlation of existing data, that is very easily testable. You have your bullshit fantasy opinions. Stop trying to play smart with your high school level understanding of statistics.
Plenty of people here know exactly who I am. If you can't figure it out you are dumber than you appear to be... "madbolter1"... whoever the fuk you are.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Same chart shows the federal ban on assault rifles did absolutely nothing to lower the rifle deaths.
A ban on handguns would likely have the same ( zero ) effect.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Agreed on your first point Chaz, but then rifles aren't the weapon of choice for most crimes, so a ban on a small portion of rifles is not really expected to have much effect.
A ban on handguns would likely have the same ( zero ) effect.
Likely? How do you come up with that, seriously? Did you just pull it out of your ass because you want to believe that or do you have some other insightful reason for believing it would "likely" have no effect?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Plenty of people here know exactly who I am.
IF that's true, then you undoubtedly have "plenty of people" warning you to dial it back a LOT of notches or get banned. And "plenty of people" is a complete punt. You hide behind your handle while spewing the biggest load of garbage I've seen on any thread. Apparently you've never read Chris's thread about the future of this forum. You are NOT helping. Perhaps you are intentionally hurting.
So, publicly state your name, as I will: Richard Jensen (although most here already know that, unlike in your case).
Quit hiding behind a handle and put a public and real name behind your cowardly abuse.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
you undoubtedly have "plenty of people" warning you to dial it back a LOT of notches or get banned.
Nope.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Ron, where is your source of information? Seriously, I'm curious. It could very well be that CCW permits were the cause... I don't know.
The only information I can find is that the number of states that "shall issue" CCW's increased between 1994-1996, which I assume led to an increase in CCW's.
But the states that "shall issue" stayed essentially the same between 1996-2002. I acknowledge the decrease in handgun crimes between 1996 and 1999 could be a residual effect of CCW permitting... but then one would expect a similar decrease in 2002 when the number of "shall issue" states increased again. Unfortunately there was not an decrease, but rather an increase in handgun murders in 2002.
Now, if you can provide data on the actual number of CCWs nationwide...
Bharata... which do you think is easier for the average person to do (both physically and mentally): pull a trigger a few times from 10 feet away or repeatedly ram a knife through someone's chest?
Also, compare the number of handgun deaths to knife deaths in the figure above... idiot.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
If you told Dr Christ that the sun rises in the east, he'd say "where is your source of information?"
Open your eyes and see it for yourself. There's your source. Get out of the university for a while and go live among the general public. You'll soon see.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Wow, you can just open your eyes and observe how many people are killed each day by handguns nationwide? And you don't think claims like that earn you the title of idiot? Idiot.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Those people are all killed for reasons as unique to each as their own fingerprint. No two are alike.
You, as a product of the universities, can only see people as members of groups - not as the unique individuals we all are. Hence your blind reliance on *studies*.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
By a gun.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
You, as a product of the universities, can only see people as groups - not as the individuals we all are.
Wrong again. As a product of the universities I can see the importance of objective data in determining policies that affect over 300 million people without evaluating each person individually. I wish it were simpler... I wish there were far fewer people and each could be "seen" as the individuals they are... but I live in the real world, not a bullshit land of fantasies.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Madbolter, please don't start your rant by misquoting me.
I had just written a much longer response, but then I re-read the end of your post...
Our founders WANTED a country in which people would die more than in other countries; that is a necessary result of a truly FREE country!
... and I gave up. That right there shows the fundamental flaw in all forms of democracy.
TE
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
I wish there were far fewer people and each could be "seen" as the individuals they are...
so logically you should be for the promotion of any implement that leads to "far fewer people".
I guess then that means your opposition to private gun ownership is because government monopolies on the same have always preceded mass population reductions.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
so logically you should be for the promotion of any implement that leads to "far fewer people".
If I want fewer people, then your "logical" conclusion is that I want more people to die tragic deaths? And if I want more money, I promote theft? And if I want more beer, I promote alcoholism?
What a deplorable display of idiocy.
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
If you changed how accessible guns were in your country (eg, treat them like a car) - you wouldn't have so many deaths.
If you changed what you Americans imprinted on, or thought about guns from birth on up, (eg. as a tool to solve problems vs. a tool to get dinner with) - you wouldn't have so many deaths.
That is essentially the two big differences between 3000 deaths and 600 deaths per year per 30 million people.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
The gun violence table in the link Mr Hedge posted earlier...might leave some pondering social turmoil and its overwhelming effect on violence.
If the statistics for the District of Columbia are correct, they manifest a very high homicide rate, there, despite a very low rate of gun ownership.
...D.C. having 21.8 murders per 100,000...more than double the next highest, Louisiana, at 9.6. The District having, by a wide margin, the lowest gun ownership (at 3.6%) in the nation. Are those statistics accurate, and do they differ markedly from other years?
Washington D.C. appears to have had about ten times the murder rate of the intermountain states(MT, ID, WY, UT, CO)... but gun owner ship there only a small fraction (Idaho, Montana & Wyoming having over 50% gun ownership).
(Perhaps it's the significant numbers of hunting rifles in the mountain states make these statistics look so lopsided)
:-/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
You do realize the population density of DC, unlike the states, nearly doubles every day of the work week due to commuters, right? That kind of throws a wrench in those murder rate calculations.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Are the commuters primarily victims or perpetrators?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Dunno. But I do know violent crime is strongly correlated with population density... which increases daily in DC... yet the population used to calculate murder rates would not. Hardly fair to compare DC to western states.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Or another way to look at the plethora of examples slanted in either direction: Gun laws have little or no effect on actual violent crime rates.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi all have significantly higher murder rates than CA, or the rest of the country. Shouldn't an armed, conservative population result in lower gun murder rates?
That's the theory...
But the "heavily armed" conservative mountain states don't have the socio/economic inequities of "the South".
Liberal California and the conservative mountain states of the west have a much different social ambience than the deep South.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
>Cooling off periods? When do mentally unstable people "cool off" and how does one tell?
Once again, you don't address the issue. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a person becoming very angry, and doing something in the heat of passion when they're not able to rationally consider the consequences.
Often times, a few days allows a person to calm down.
Surely, they taught you about this as a LEO? They certainly teach that to modern officers.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Rong, since you did not answer my question, nor did anyone, I ask again:
What harm is caused a legitimate legal gun purchaser by a mandatory cooling off period and a robust background check, and mandatory gun use training?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
There are all sorts of interesting statistics that may relate to relative murder rates. Hedge's obsession with population density is sort of interesting, but isn't Western Europe pretty densely populated?
Wessy's theory about DC and those evil commuters gave me a good chuckle-- yeah, it's those damn federal employees who live in MD and VA who must be responsible for the high murder rate there.
Here's some stats that might correlate with murder rates, at least based on the states that Hedge mentioned.
1 Mississippi 1,074,200 37.30%
2 Louisiana 1,452,396 31.98%
3 Georgia 2,950,435 30.02%
4 Maryland 1,700,298 29.44%
5 South Carolina 1,290,684 28.48%
6 Alabama 1,251,311 26.38%
7 North Carolina 2,048,628 21.60%
8 Delaware 191,814 20.95%
9 Virginia 1,551,399 19.91%
10 Tennessee 1,055,689 16.78%
11 Florida 2,999,862 15.91%
12 Arkansas 449,895 15.76%
13 New York 3,073,800 15.18%
14 Illinois 1,866,414 14.88%
15 New Jersey 1,204,826 14.46%
16 Michigan 1,400,362 14.24%
17 Ohio 1,407,681 12.04%
18 Texas 2,979,598 11.91%
19 Missouri 704,043 11.49%
20 Pennsylvania 1,377,689 10.79%
21 Connecticut 362,296 10.34%
22 Indiana 591,397 9.07%
23 Nevada 218,626 8.10%
24 Oklahoma 277,644 7.96%
25 Kentucky 337,520 7.71%
26 Massachusetts 434,398 7.02%
27 California 2,299,072 6.67%
28 Rhode Island 60,189 6.36%
29 Kansas 167,864 6.15%
30 Wisconsin 359,148 6.07%
31 Minnesota 274,412 4.57%
32 Nebraska 82,885 4.50%
33 Colorado 201,737 4.28%
34 Alaska 23,263 4.27%
35 Arizona 259,008 4.16%
36 Washington 240,042 3.74%
37 West Virginia 63,124 3.58%
38 Hawaii 21,424 3.08%
39 New Mexico 42,550 2.97%
40 Iowa 89,148 2.68%
41 Oregon 69,206 2.01%
42 Wyoming 4,748 1.29%
43 Utah 29,287 1.27%
44 New Hampshire 15,035 1.22%
45 South Dakota 10,207 1.14%
46 North Dakota 7,960 1.08%
47 Maine 15,707 1.03%
48 Idaho 9,810 0.95%
49 Vermont 6,277 0.87%
50 Montana 4,027 0.67%
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Hedge's obsession with population density is sort of interesting, but isn't Western Europe pretty densely populated?
That is the point, dipsh#t. Violent crime rates vs. population density in Western Europe are consistent with those in the US and elsewhere, but the MURDER rates are much lower... due to fewer guns.
Wessy's theory about DC and those evil commuters gave me a good chuckle-- yeah, it's those damn federal employees who live in MD and VA who must be responsible for the high murder rate there.
Holy fuking clueless.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Shouldn't the densely populated conservative states, with their CCW laws, have lower gun murder rates, instead of, in LA's case, double CA's?
If the theory that an armed populace lowers homicide (and crime) rates were 100% correct...
But it's not.
Armed citizens may dissuade some crime...but places with great turmoil and discontent will still have violence.
Yes, confiscating guns would likely lessen homicides in locales with much social discord (i.e. Africa and parts of Hispania). But will that make innocent populations more vulnerable to predators?
There aren't easy answers...but ultmately the fever of violence has to be cured with social equity and abatement of the fear and loathing.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Yes, clearly, if you don't want the government monitoring your communications you obviously don't want them regulating tools designed to kill... or toxic waste... or pollution... or corporations... or banks... or food and drugs... or anything at all.
Makes perfect sense.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Hopefully those stats represent gun murder rates?
This thread topic being gun murder?
This list I pasted shows the percentage of African American population.
Now don't get panty-bunched or anything, we're just noting correlations here and I couldn't help but notice that you were picking on some fine Southern states that I'm sure do have a high percentage of right wing conservatives. But they also have high percentage of an ethnic group that is involved in a disproportionately high percentage of murders, both as perpetrators and victims.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
IF it was left up to our local LEOs, our gang problem would be solved in days.
What would they do, Ron?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Ron, can you answer these questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ?
*Background checks should be required for gun purchases.
*A waiting period (of some length) should be required for gun purchases.
*There should be some limitations on the types of guns & capacities that typical civilians can legally obtain.
A simple 'yes' or 'no'.
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
It's actually encouraging. From the viewpoint of keeping the rest of the world a little scared of the United States.
They already know they cannot stand against our military but its icing on the cake to have implanted into the worlds citizenry a mindset that Americans can all pull a gun out and shoot if given the provocation.
You know the old argument about intentions versus capabilities.*.)
|
|
mdavid
Big Wall climber
High Springs, FL
|
|
Gotta love threads where folks call each other idiots arguing points of view they'd never change.
As for me, statistics are irrelevant.
I had to pull a gun on a man who had ordered my pregnant wife out of a car at gunpoint in Seattle. I came within seconds of killing him right then and there, luckily he turned and left.
I'll never put myself in a position to let some criminal hurt me or my loved ones while I sit by powerless.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
"This list I pasted shows the percentage of African American population."
So, I'll try asking again - those are gun murder stats?
We're having a little "failure to communicate."
I did not post any murder stats, gun or otherwise.
I just posted the "List of U.S. states by African-American population" taken form Widipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population
Whether it's interesting or not that there seems to be some correlation between the states you mentioned in your recent posts and the list--draw your own conclusions.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
But none of that will happen due to fed policies being imposed.
Stupid presumption of innocence... like that is even a cornerstone of democracy or universal human right or anything!
drives crime rates lower these days in the cities and towns that have SYG and CCW laws. Murders are also going down. But never mind pesky facts.
Yeah, never mind those pesky "facts" for which you have never provided any actual evidence.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
I don't think the "discussion" here will resolve the question of whether a waiting period will reduce murder/suicide events, but I was kind of surprised no explicit link to the original event has been posted yet.
Pate's original description agrees with these reports on the essential details.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/arrest-affidavit-reveals-details-of-suicide-note-found-by-police/
http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2013/may/31/lisa-marie-lesyshen-arrested-charges-first-degree-/
http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2013/jun/11/routt-county-sheriffs-office-making-arrangements-p/
It was apparently not due to a misinterpreted facebook photo, though. Quoting from the 3rd link:
"According to the warrant, Kirlan told his wife on May 27 that he was in a relationship with another woman. That same day, Lesyshen bought a Smith & Wesson .22-caliber revolver from a Steamboat pawn shop after passing a background check. Also that day at about 6:30 p.m., a neighbor told investigators she had a conversation with Lesyshen via text messages. The neighbor reported that Lesyshen asked her if she had any .22-caliber bullets because kids were coming over to shoot guns off the deck. The neighbor told her she did not have any bullets.
The next day, May 28, investigators say Lesyshen went to a Steamboat gun store and bought bullets. Kirlan received a text message from his wife later that day asking if he was coming home, according to a warrant. The shootings occurred in the early morning hours of May 29."
Also,
she is fine with a superficial wound to her scalp. No, she is paralyzed (spinal cord injury at the neck). Unclear if permanent.
Perhaps the moral is "if you are going to shoot yourself, don't use a .22" (try .38 maybe). And of course shoot yourself before shooting others.... :-)
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
haha... madbolter1 has got to be the biggest beotch on the planet. He can't back up his pathetic bullsh!t so he whines to CMac and tries to get me banned. What a fuking pussy!
|
|
Bowser
Social climber
Durango CO
|
|
mdavid,
Your story should be headlined in mainstream news media. You took responsibility to protect your family against someone who intended great harm. And kudos for realizing you were not going to have to kill the guy. Let's just hope he got the message and decides that kind of behavior will not be tolerated by armed citizens.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Thats the point isn't it?
If it goes bad it makes the news, but use of guns for self defense (often without firing) is so common that you will never see it leading on the nightly news.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Gotta love threads where folks call each other idiots arguing points of view they'd never change.
As for me, statistics are irrelevant.
I had to pull a gun on a man who had ordered my pregnant wife out of a car at gunpoint in Seattle. I came within seconds of killing him right then and there, luckily he turned and left.
I'll never put myself in a position to let some criminal hurt me or my loved ones while I sit by powerless.
Likely most here won't change their minds, but the past ten years have completely changed mine. Most gun-nut posts here reinforce that opinion change.
This isn't about putting any law-abiding person in a position where they are unable to defend themselves, this is about constitutional restrictions which will reduce the likelihood of ever needing to do so. I don't think waiting periods would have a significant reduction in crime or murders, but I am confident that the odds of someone full of rage calming down in seven days, or finding a less lethal outlet for that rage is far greater than the odds of a law-abiding person being murdered while waiting seven days to buy a gun. Look at that recent nutjob at the boardwalk, in other states he could have bought a gun on the spot.
The Gun Nuts have never come close to showing that the numbers of lawful civilian defensive actions using guns are even in the same order of magnitude as the unlawful uses. They compare murders with every time someone carries a gun for defense, but forget the tens of thousands of injuries, hundreds of thousands of threats and the millions of people who live in fear of violence in our cities.
None of the various proposed restrictions would affect the lawful actions but would over time reduce the ease of access by criminals for unlawful purposes.
TE
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
i've got a great idea, why doesnt the next mass shooting happen in a gun shop. why doesnt someone go into a gun shop, purchase an automatic shotgun, pay for it, load it and blast the sh#t out of everyone in the store. maybe that would change some redneck minds.
This is a quote by the OP from the first post on this thread.
Anyone that thinks along these lines should never be allowed to own a firearm and should be identified as such.
I won't argue with tail-chaser hedge but, if this is an example of the mentality of most anti-gunners, their 'cause' will most certainly self-destruct.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
That link and site layout is weird, the interesting parts are at:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
There are also several other interesting pages linked from the left column.
Pesky facts. Probably just made up by those commie liberals in Massachusetts.
We found that one-third of adolescents reported handling a firearm, 5% without adult supervision or knowledge. Smoking, drinking and parents not knowing the child’s whereabouts in the afternoon were associated with unsupervised gun handling. These events usually occur away from home, with friends. Half involve shooting the gun.
I'm surprised those number are so low, a testament to responsible gun owners, or proof that teenagers will lie?. I was taught and shown responsible gun handling as soon as I could walk far enough to go hunting, but that there accurately describes several of my late teenage evenings and weekends...
TE
|
|
xtrmecat
Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
|
|
After reading the above information, I can now make more sense of Joe and his cohorts.
It must be terrible to be so afraid and angry. Living like that must take so much energy.
Too bad.
Burly Bob
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
"It explains a lot of that crazy "rage" you'll frequently see in rabidly anti types."
Every other comparably developed, industrialized democracy on earth is crazy, then. Because they've all outlawed guns to various extents.
But of course, that's iirrelevant, because it destroys your argument, and makes you look like a myopic fool.
The US and the individual states have all "outlawed guns to various extents" also, some of just think that they've outlawed them to a more-or-less reasonable degree already. And as you implicitly note, not all the "developed, industrialized" democracies have outlawed guns to the same extent. (And the US is not necessarily as comparable to Western Europe as the libs would have you believe; we're similar to Europe in some ways, but probably more similar to Brazil and Mexico in others.)
It is a fair question as to why the anti-gun nuts seem so angry--it's not as if we're ever going to get proof of it (not all of them admit it, and they may not know themselves), but I thought the link gave some plausible theories and reasonable suggestions on how to deal with them.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Remember this guy from your beloved UK (sorry the pic is tiny; but I think you see who I'm talking about)?
Is that what we can expect here when we finally regain our senses and outlaw guns even to the extent that most police don't have them, so terrorists walk around cutting people's heads off, and the docile population just goes about its business.
Sorry but I'll stick with our good ol' gun laws and have a little American pride.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
"It explains a lot of that crazy "rage" you'll frequently see in rabidly anti types."
Every other comparably developed, industrialized democracy on earth is crazy, then. Because they've all outlawed guns to various extents.
But of course, that's iirrelevant, because it destroys your argument, and makes you look like a myopic fool.
Lashing out Hedge? What a surprise. See yourself in that article eh? I thought so.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/us/pennsylvania-town-hall-shooting/index.html
(CNN) -- Three people were killed and several more were wounded in a shooting at a town supervisors' meeting in eastern Pennsylvania, officials said Monday night.
Earlier, Pennsylvania State Police said four people were killed, but later revised that number.
The shooting broke out around 7:30 p.m. ET at the Ross Township building in Saylorsburg, about 75 miles north of Philadelphia, Monroe County Emergency Management Director Guy Miller told CNN.
Police identified the suspect as Rockne Newell of Saylorsburg. Newell was among those shot and was being treated at Pocono Medical Center Monday night. Police said exactly how he was shot is under investigation.
State police Lt. Robert Bartel said Newell had an ongoing dispute with officials involving the condemnation of his property and issues with his sewer. Bartel said it's not clear whether Newell knew any of the victims shot.
According to several here, this man is a patriot upholding his constitutional right to oppose government tyranny. The plan of the Founding Fathers, more dead people.
Blablah conveniently forgets to mention how many people those British "terrorists" killed, or injured... Pesky facts.
TE
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Well I'm late to this cat fight, but I'll pitch in anyway since a very early post brought tears to my eyes.
I know my uncle, my friend when I was 6, and some friends/relatives of friends would not have spread their brains across the wall with a fuking knife. My Father's good friends (and my acquaintances) Jerry and Galen (separately) 35 years ago, my neighbor's wife and our friend G 7 years ago and another neighbor's 19 year old son 3 months ago all spread their brains across the wall.
Would gun registration have prevented any of these? Doubtfully. Jerry was an ex Highway Patrolman, G's family had guns in the house for years, the 19 year old knew there was a gun stashed away in the garage that had been given to his dad and never used (or locked up).
SO why the hell do more than 30,000 Americans lose their lives to firearms every year?
The US has a Gun Culture. Where the gun is the quick easy answer to problems, personal or interpersonal.
Speaking of anger, WTF was neighborhood watchman Zimmerman even doing with a gun? He had a car, his own eyes, and a radio. He was in contact with the police dispatcher. The notion that he felt empowered to chase down Trayvon Martin for any reason is social madness. That he also carried a gun is insane.
The notion that two fully suited up San Jose police officers have the right to shoot a non-threatening Vietnamese woman holding a vegetable slicer is social madness.
The thought that Adam Lanza's mother had the right to fill her house with an arsenal of weapons is social madness.
Do we sell dynamite in the hardware store? No, you've got to have a license to buy it. To get a license you've got to have training. And why is that? Because even though MOST people would use dynamite responsibility, the social cost for irresponsible use is UNACCEPTABLE.
Tell me how gun ownership is any different. Besides your warped interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
What part of "well regulated militia" implies that any idiot or moron or really angry person can purchase any sort and any number of firearms he/she likes? And in many states on a moment's notice!
OH, and speaking of absurd arguments. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the guns were muzzle loaded matchlocks. Even the Colt revolver and repeating rifle came half a century later. Glocks and AR-16's? Give me a break.
So as long as I'm rambling, back to my original concern: suicide.
There's a HELLUVA difference in committing suicide with a gun versus a knife, pills, jumping off El Cap or even swinging from a rope (which a friend of mine's teenage daughter did).
The gun is EASY. and nearly always fatal. And although I suppose not many people have survived to tell about it, at least the suicide candidate can believe it will be instantaneous and painless. Unlike the other means.
I see absolutely no good reason (except the insanity of our gun culture) that firearms shouldn't be:
registered from point of manufacture to time of destruction;
only available to licensed users;
and users carry liability insurance just as we have to do for cars.
Then gun owners will have a real incentive to see that guns are used responsibly!
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
OH, and speaking of absurd arguments. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the guns were muzzle loaded matchlocks. Even the Colt revolver and repeating rifle came half a century later. Glocks and AR-16's?
I am so tired of hearing this ridiculous argument. Anyone who says something like that just shows their utter ignorance of history and logic.
The truth is, many Americans before, during and after the Revolutionary war, had the best, modern military rifles you could buy. In fact often the guns carried by the Minute Men, who were American civilians, were superior to those of the British army. The British used the smooth bore Brown Bess and the Americans had the "Kentucky" longrifle, which was much more accurate.
So the argument could be made that the founders believed in being able to own rifles that are as good as the military has.
Next you are going to tell me that freedom of speech or freedom of the press doesn't apply to the internet because the internet didn't exist in 1791. It's the same logic.
BTW, the Revolutionary War started because the British tried to disarm the Americans and were coming to confiscate their weapons from the Lexington and Concord Armories. It wasn't about taxes.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Thanks, Shack. It's good to hear somebody else but me (and at times Ron) disabusing the "other side" of their ridiculous logic. Not that it will change their minds. But, again, perhaps the lurkers....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Or that the Founders never intended the Constitition to be altered.
Not the principles! That's why the Constitution contains so few specifics, as, for example, the type of "arms" are never specified. And in writings like the Federalist Papers we can get very clear insight into what they were thinking about the principles, such as, for example, what the "militia" is and what its purpose is. There we can see that the principle underlying the right to have and bear arms really is so that the average person can be equipped for both self, local, and national defense.
Once you see this principle and how they thought about it, you see how ludicrous it is to claim that they "only saw muskets" and would never have wanted the average citizen to have automatic weapons.
They wanted the average citizen to be fully and capably armed, and that means with the weaponry of the era (whatever era); as self, local, and national defense is impractical if the average citizen is pitifully armed by comparison with the in-principle threats.
|
|
lubbockclimber
Trad climber
lubbock,tx
|
|
I walked into academy sports and left with two 9mm handguns and 500 rounds of ammo in about 15 mins. I hope that rubs a liberal or twos the wrong way.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
The truth is, many Americans before, during and after the Revolutionary war, had the best, modern military rifles you could buy. In fact often the guns carried by the Minute Men, who were American civilians, were superior to those of the British army. The British used the smooth bore Brown Bess and the Americans had the "Kentucky" longrifle, which was much more accurate.
So the argument could be made that the founders believed in being able to own rifles that are as good as the military has. Or the argument could be made that when the best, modern military rifles you could buy fired one or two shots per minute and that any able bodied adult or child could run beyond the effective range of those weapons in less time than it takes to reload, that the founding fathers felt that the the personal and common defense benefits outweighed the social cost. Modern weapons massively change that risk/benefit equation.
Next you are going to tell me that freedom of speech or freedom of the press doesn't apply to the internet because the internet didn't exist in 1791. It's the same logic.
A perfect example of limits to all rights, you do not have a right to free speech when it endangers the lives of others, the right to keep and bear arms should be no different.
And in writings like the Federalist Papers we can get very clear insight into what they were thinking about the principles, such as, for example, what the "militia" is and what its purpose is.
Conveniently forgetting that the Federalist Papers were opinions and propositions written by a select few of the founding fathers, in order to persuade others. Where such views were not incorporated into the Constitution, it may have been because those others did not agree. We don't use the Republican Party manifesto to judge the constitutionality of Roe Vs Wade, why would we use the Federalist Papers to judge the constitutionality of waiting periods, background checks, magazine limits?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Conveniently forgetting that the Federalist Papers were opinions and propositions written by a select few of the founding fathers, in order to persuade others. Where such views were not incorporated into the Constitution, it may have been because those others did not agree.
And those very "opinions and propositions" were the ones that actually won the day.
Can you give a single example of a principle espoused in the Federalist Papers that did not make it into the Constitution?
Did, for example, the "militia" in the Constitution refer to some other, very different entity or body than it does in the Federalist Papers?
Show your work!
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
Lots of stuff in the federalist papers didn't make it in to the constitution. Just read them both. In any case it doesn't matter what the federalist papers say.
Gun restrictions were common and widely accepted at the time the federalist papers were drafted and the constitution ratified.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
I've got a PTW91 that I need to put a laser on today.
Why would anyone want a handgun that takes a 30 round (H&K) 7.62 x 51mm magazine?
Well,... I'm working on that, but he likes his big brother, the HK91.
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
Toker...I read where Slidefire now makes a "Slidefire stock" for Saigas... I am wondering if it will fit my Saiga 12? Now that would be wild...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Lots of stuff in the federalist papers didn't make it in to the constitution. Just read them both. In any case it doesn't matter what the federalist papers say.
"Show your work!" No, instead just a bunch of hand-waving. I actually have read them both, many times, and taught university-level classes on them both.
No more fluff... tell me one specific principle that didn't make it in. "Lots of stuff" is laughable.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
See, the problem is: you guys don't want to talk PRINCIPLES. You cling to the idea that whatever transitory practical "application" suits your fancy at the moment should trump the principles.
So, if you don't like a certain set of present statistics (damned lies), then the principles are right out the window.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
My Saiga 12 fires fast enough!!!
(I got a 20 too)
I just bought a Slidefire, but haven't put it on an AR yet.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
I'm pretty sure this didn't make it into your sacred amendment:
(re the milita)
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
If you are looking for more lulz, may I suggest reading madbolter1's dissertation. Divine command theory... bahahahaaaaaaaaa. Almost as useful as a dissertation related to the effects of fairy dust on garden gnome neuro-chemisty.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
A good stab at it. Citation?
Problem is that this isn't a principle; it's a particular practical implementation of a principle. The principle concerns what IS the militia and that fact that, as your own passage reads, it is important for it to be "properly armed and equipped."
Now, you COULD derive from this passage (and others that are more explicit on this point) the principle that the militia should be well trained. The interesting question, then, would be whether or not the IDEAL of it being well-trained could legitimately ground a LAW requiring a certain training course before an individual could get a gun.
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
Toker.. a Pistol in 308 would be sweet. I have a plr-16 with a 100 rd beta mag and a Drago with a 75 rd drum...Why would anyone want one in 308 cal.? because I can, This is America and no NL socialist lib is going to tread on me..
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
Not to get all blue book, but here you go:
The Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton).
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
etc etc etc -Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 29
Sounds like principles to me.
Thanks OTEASTD
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
If you are looking for more lulz, may I suggest reading Richard Jensen's (madbolter1) dissertation. Divine command theory... bahahahaaaaaaaaa.
Looks like we got cyberstalker on our hands.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Dude provided his name, apparently as an invitation to check out his cred. His dissertation is on his website for anyone and everyone to read. I read a small portion of it. It was entertaining, if you like incredulity, but if I am going to read fiction I can think of far better works.
But back on topic... how about them principles in the Federalist 29... on which the 2nd amendment is based?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ah, yes. Thank you.
It is interesting that you quote only the subset of that larger passage, because the larger passage actually quite clearly specifies the principles that would not appear to serve your purposes nor the very thing you emphasize in your quote. Here is the larger, containing passage:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Then Hamilton goes on to explain the great economic loss that would result from trying to train up the average Joe to become truly "well-regulated" (a term meaning "well-trained"). Then the passage you quote appears.
But Hamilton goes ON to discuss the creation of a truly well-regulated militia, and we see the closest outworking of this principle in our current National Guard. And the combination of "the people at large" and the National Guard are supposed to act as "the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
The FEAR at that time was the formation of a large standing army (as the USA presently has). It was felt (apparently rightly so) that a large standing army under direct control of the Federal Government (directly under the President) was a HUGE threat to individual liberty, because such an army could on a whim be directed against "the people at large."
This was, in fact, a major point in the federalist/anti-federalist debates. So, in this Paper, Hamilton endeavors to lay that concern to rest BY outlining the principles: 1) it is necessary that "the people at large" be well armed and equipped, and: 2) from among such people, a genuinely well-regulated militia be formed and continually available.
Let's start by noting that the large standing army (with drones aimed at US soil) is a present reality that the anti-federalists feared, and it IS the very abridgment of liberty they feared.
The very fact that so many of you anti-gun folks argue that it is absurd to think that "the militia" or "the people" could EVER successfully take up arms against the US military... well, that MAKES the very point that Hamilton endeavored to make.
Hamilton responds to the anti-federalists regarding this very fear by saying, in effect, "Look, this is an unfounded fear. First, 'the people' will never tolerate such a standing army. Second, between 'the people' and 'the militia' all being 'well armed and equipped,' and with them ever ready to rise up in defense of liberty from enemies both foreign and domestic, IF a standing army ever did get formed, the people would EVER have the capacity to rise up against it and subdue it if necessary."
Read further on in the next paragraph from the one you quote: "This [well armed people and a well-regulated militia] will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
A number of things are notable from these passages, and NONE of them help the anti-gun case in the slightest!
1) There was never supposed to be a large, standing army in perpetuity. The principle was that "the people" could be called upon directly by the federal government (a "draft," if you will) in any case of national distress requiring large-scale force of arms. And if a temporary standing army were deemed expeditious, the emphasis was on "temporary."
2) It was presumed throughout this argument (in this Paper) and in many others throughout the Papers that "the people" and the derivative "militia" would be EQUALLY armed and equipped as any standing army! This is the very POINT upon which the anti-federalists were assured to not fear a strong federal government: "No worries, folks! The PEOPLE and their derivative militia will ALL be 'little if any inferior to [that army]' and so will be able to rise up against it if it EVER attempts to abridge liberties at the behest of a strong federal government."
3) The intent of the Second Amendment is made CRYSTAL clear in this Paper, including definitions of "well regulated" and "militia," AND how these principled ends are to be derived DEPENDS 100% on the FACT that "the people" of the USA were to be "properly armed and equipped," which, in the context we find these statements, can ONLY mean "armed and equipped comparable to the very standing army that they act as the better alternative to and that they might well have to rise up against!"
Unlike the Euro Socialist Democracies we now see, OUR nation was formed with a deep-seated fear of despotic power (and not enough of that today!), and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY was presumed to trump all.
It was PRESUMED by federalists and anti-federalists alike that "the people" would be well armed and equipped to defend their liberties against ANY form of federal despotism. And the idea that it was never intended that "the people" would take up arms against any standing army the USA might muster is FLATLY DENIED by this very Federalist Paper. Indeed, Hamilton assuages the fears of his anti-federalist opponents BY assuring them that they are all (federalist and anti-federalist alike) on common ground as regards the three principles I've outlined above.
Thus, you anti-gun folks are DEEPLY begging the question when you assert that the average Joe should not have military-style arms! You say "Joe can't take on the US military, so that can't be what the founders intended." Yet the founders DID intend for Joe to be ABLE to take on the US military IF it ever became a threat to liberty. That requires both comparable ARMS and, for a subset of "Joes" derived from "the people" into a well-regulated militia, TRAINING... so that Joe and his proxies could band together at will to put down any threat from a US standing army!
So, yes, the average Joe SHOULD (and according to THIS Federalist Paper, and others) have access to EVERY form of weaponry the standing army has and comparable training should he also desire to join "the militia."
Thus, contrary to your claim about "this" not making it into the Second Amendment, I would beg to differ. Indeed, EVERY principle of this Federalist Paper DID make it into the Second Amendment. Anti-gun folks just refuse to accept all these implications because they prefer some set of damned lies to trump the founding principles.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Of course he deleted that post, along with many of his other post...
Which post do you say I deleted? I'm baffled because I NEVER delete posts. Yes, I am principled that way. lol
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Aww c'mon D.C. You must've made up that quotation from Federalist 29. (sarcasm intended)
odd isn't it, how ANGRY the gun toters get? As if they're afraid of people knowing they really are irresponsible?
How the H*** can responsible citizens get so freaked out about proposals to reduce irresponsible behavior?
That is part of the social madness.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
How the H*** can responsible citizens get so freaked out about proposals to reduce irresponsible behavior? That is part of the social madness.
How the H*** can "responsible citizens" NOT get so freaked out by a government that has become totally despotic and tyrannical?
Oh, right. Silly me! They really are NOT responsible citizens.
And that IS part (a huge part) of the social madness.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Then Hamilton goes on to explain the great economic loss that would result from trying to train up the average Joe to become truly "well-regulated" (a term meaning "well-trained"). Then the passage you quote appears.
hahahaaaa... interesting, because the parts I quoted are within the first 2 paragraphs.
ah, yep, my bad... your post is still there. I just overlooked it. Sorry Richard Jensen. Carry on.
So, yes, the average Joe SHOULD (and according to THIS Federalist Paper, and others) have access to EVERY form of weaponry the standing army has and comparable training should he also desire to join "the militia."
Sure, SHOULD HE DESIRE TO JOIN THE MILITIA, regulated at the direction of the national authority... as Hamilton CLEARLY expressed. If not, he should be subject to reasonable gun regulations... like waiting periods, restrictions on mass killing machines, etc.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
the parts I quoted are within the first 2 paragraphs
I was responding to ontheedge, not you.
Yours and my posts "crossed in the night," so I wasn't responding to yours.
I find nothing in yours now that needs any response, as my larger post encompasses the points you were emphasizing.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
I thought you had already responded to OTEASTD with your 'good stab' post. It took you that long to dribble that additional load of rhea?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
you've NO idea what a tyrannical and despotic government looks like.
You and I likely have a similar number of things we don't much like about our government (most likely of opposing views), but it is NOT despotic or tyrannical.
Try Putin's "democratic" Russia or Iran or Syria. How about Saddam's Iraq? That was a government despotic enough for Bush to lie to us about reasons for invasion. Didn't hear too many gun toters saying Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and gang were despots. Didn't hear too many gun toters questioning the Patriot Act.
So actually when I think about it, the Bush regime was the closest to a tyrannical and despotic government we've had in my not so short lifetime. And even there, the people's elected representatives had the option of saying NO. They just didn't have the cojones.
Go live in North Korea, or even China, for a while and come back and call your government tyrannical and despotic. Then you might have some credence.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Sure, SHOULD HE DESIRE TO JOIN THE MILITIA, regulated by the militia at the direction of the national authority... as Hamilton CLEARLY expressed. If not, he should be subject to reasonable gun regulations... like waiting periods, restrictions on mass killing machines, etc.
To respond to your late post-addition....
Hamilton not only did NOT "clearly" express what you say he does, he CLEARLY expresses the exact opposite of what you claim:
ontheedge quoted it.... "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped...."
In other words, "We can expect them to be trained up like military men, but at least they can be armed and equipped like military men."
And keep in mind that it was from these very people that the militia would be formed and add to the "properly armed and equipped" ONLY additional training.
Show me any place in this or any other Federalist Paper that distinguishes between the armaments of "the people at large" and those of "the militia" or a standing army! In fact, this ludicrous point is flatly refuted by the very arguments Hamilton makes. I reiterate from my post above:
The COMBINATION of "the people at large" and "the militia" derived from them, ALL being "properly armed and equipped" is what was supposed to make a standing army unnecessary AND act as the security against any standing army being misused by a strong federal government.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Then Hamilton goes on to explain...
ACTUALLY, what Hamilton then goes on to explain in his hypothetical address, in the VERY next paragraph that you conveniently skipped over (while accusing others of skipping relevant information) is:
But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
The undeniable PRINCIPLE expressed by Hamilton in Federalist 29 is absolutely federal involvement in the training and direction of "a well regulated militia."
Leave it to the gun nuts to shoot themselves in the foot.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Go live in North Korea, or even China, for a while and come back and call your government tyrannical and despotic. Then you might have some credence.
I don't need to LIVE in other countries to be able to compare their operational principles.
We live in a (presently) benevolent tyranny, but it is a tyranny nevertheless. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of that fact, because from your posts it is clear that principles and definitions are not things that move you. If you can look at the IRS, the NSA, the Supreme Court asking "If government can do this, what can government not do?" and then in effect answering: "Government can do ANYTHING," and none of this moves you to outrage and the recognition of our present state, then NOTHING I say is capable of moving you. Waste of time, although I would urge you to WAKE UP!
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
In other words, "We can expect them to be trained up like military men, but at least they can be armed and equipped like military men."
I assume you meant "can't." And if so, you need to reread Federalist 29, and this time take your head out of you ass.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
ACTUALLY, what Hamilton then goes on to explain in his hypothetical address, in the VERY next paragraph that you conveniently skipped over (while accusing others of skipping relevant information)
Clearly you didn't actually carefully read my post. Not only did I not "overlook" that paragraph, I quote directly from it, making the case that Hamilton argues that BOTH a "well armed and equipped people at large" AND a well-regulated militia (derived from those well-armed and equipped people) are the preferred substitute for a standing army AND the best protection against any abused perpetrated by it!
THIS is the point you keep insisting on not getting, although HAMILTON (not me) is crystal clear about it: THE PEOPLE and the militia were to be armed and equipped comparable to any potential standing army! The ONLY difference between "the people at large" and "the militia" is their training, which in solely a function of the time they devote to "being under arms."
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
I have a question for all of the constitutional scholars. "The People" are mentioned in 5 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Are "The People" in the 2nd somehow different than those in the first? Or can freedom of the press, of speech and to peaceably assemble be limited to certain special groups ( as in the case of a government sanctioned militia?) Or are "The People" in the second different than "The People" mentioned in 4 other amendments?
1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[69]
2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I assume you meant "can't." And if so, you need to reread Federalist 29, and this time take your head out of you ass.
Yup, "can't."
And before you start going off with vile epithets again, I'm not overlooking entire POSTS, as you are! LOL
I find it honestly hilarious, and I'm sure many lurkers are finding it at least as entertaining as I do, that when you cannot "win" arguments using a careful, thoughtful, reasoned verbiage, you INSTANTLY devolve into vile epithets and ad hominum attacks.
Keep it up! Get a bit drunker and then really GO OFF in your typical spectacular style! LOLOL
You are making my case for me: anti-gun people are mostly knee-jerk reactionaries arguing that statistics trump founding principles and that we should all fall all over ourselves to as quickly as possible become just another Euro Socialist Democracy.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
What part of Hamilton's direct quote, which was in the paragraph following the part you quoted but that you absolutely did not quote in your post, do you not understand:
it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need.
idiot
Over and over and over Hamilton calls for Federal involvement in the planning and formation of this well regulated militia. Only an idiot could miss that and conclude Hamilton is arguing that a bunch of nut jobs who can buy guns on a whim is close enough... or someone who does not have the full document.
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf
or
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
Get a bit drunker and then really GO OFF in your typical spectacular style!
Nah, after you cried like a bitch, I promised the authorities I wouldn't... for the sake of the kids.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
There are numerous restrictions on the press, speech and other rights provided for in the bill of rights.
The second amendment was more or less ignored for about two hundred years. Nature abhors a vacuum so that dead space has been filled with the NRA beginning in the late 60s early 70s and now any moron with an internet connection and an opinion. Currently, the only recognized constitutional right re guns is the right of an individual to have a gun in his house. The rest is just spew.
The idea that there is a constitutional right to overthrow the government is so stupid it does not even warrant a reply.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"well regulated" had a very different meaning back then. It had nothing to do with government control. Especially federal government.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ksolem, "the people" mean one and only one thing throughout the Federalist Papers and the Constitution: as Hamilton puts it, "The people at large" and "the great body of citizens."
"The people" are technically distinguished from "the militia" and "the states."
You might be triggering on the fact that the "militia" and "the people" are mentioned in the same amendment, which is why we need to understand their relation. "The militia" is a subset of "the people" derived from "the people" and distinguished from "the people" according to Hamilton by ONE quality: the amount and intensity of their military training.
According to the arguments of Federalist 29, the ONLY thing making "the militia" distinct from "the people" is the additional training "the militia" receives, and that is 100% a function of not wanting to cripple the economy by taking "the people" out of the workforce for the lengthy periods of time such training takes.
Their armaments and "equipping" were supposed to be the same.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Chaz, you read the federalist papers? If not, you should... I provided links above. Tell me where Hamilton called for anything other than government involvement in the formation, training, and regulation of militias.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
as long as you all are playing fast and loose with context here...
we should all fall all over ourselves to as quickly as possible become just another Euro Socialist Democracy.
now you're making sense!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Wow, ontheedge! Well, I'm glad that your calling someone an idiot doesn't make them so.
Apparently you can't digest what the whole Federalist is saying. And I'm looking at the book of them right now, not some online post of them, so I THINK I'm getting the whole thing. lol
The passage you emphasize does indeed intend for federal involvement in the formation and regulation of the militia. I SAID in my lengthy post that "the militia" is best thought of as our present National Guard, so I'm certainly NOT denying your assertion regarding federal involvement in the militia!
What YOU are not seeing from the WHOLE Federalist we're discussing is that Hamilton distinguishes between "the people" and "the militia" on ONE and only ONE point: training! "The militia" are dedicated to a course of training that the average Joe simply cannot afford to take; AND it is better for the national economy for Joe to not be taken out of the work force. So a SUBSET of "Joes" form "the militia" and are simply longer and better TRAINED.
NOWHERE in that or any other Federalist Paper is a distinction made in terms of TYPE of armament. In fact, as I have quoted above, Hamilton PRESUMES that "the people at large" will be equally armed and equipped as the militia SO THAT they can join their militia should need arise to defend THEIR OWN LIBERTIES.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
now you're making sense!
I sense another civil war on the horizon.
edit: gotta run, so don't read "punt" into my not responding for awhile.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
I sense another civil war on the horizon.
you'll lose this one, too...
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
And nowhere does Hamilton promote arming "the people at large" with no training or government oversight. That would be IDIOTIC.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Currently, the only recognized constitutional right re guns is the right of an individual to have a gun in his house. The rest is just spew.
I suppose it's spew in the sense that none of us are federal (or even state court) judges, but I don't think the founders would object to citizens' opining on the proper interpretation of the Constitution, would they?
Anyway, your little summary is notably deficient: you forgot to mention handguns.
ksolem, I don't think anyone's addressed your point on the significance of the 2nd Amendment's explicit reference to the "people"--you'll never get a good response of what a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be that does not include an individual right of weapons ownership.
Could it really be that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the army (as defined as the National Guard or the federal army or any other branch of state or federal government) is allowed to have weapons? As opposed to an army that isn't allowed to have weapons? Just makes no freaking sense.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
SUCH A FUN THREAD!!!!!!!
MORE PLEASE!!!!!!!!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Tapped the fore end an hour ago.
The rail is fixed.
Now mounting a Streamlight TLR-2 G.
Why would anyone want a handgun that takes a 30 round (H&K) 7.62 x 51mm magazine?
Vehicle interdiction!
Instant engine "off" switch.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ahh... made the mistake of checking one last time before walking out the door. These are quickies, so:
you'll lose this one, too...
NP! As climbers we know there are fates worse than death. At least, if it comes to that, I'll die on my feet.
And nowhere does Hamilton promote arming "the people at large" with no training or government oversight. That would be IDIOTIC.
How about the very passage that got us into Federalist 29 in the first place, as quoted by ontheedge? "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped...."
Perhaps you have forgotten, but the "idiotic" sentiment HELD by "the people" at that time WAS that they should be FULLY armed comparable to ANY standing army. The Revolutionary War started (as was noted by somebody else up-thread) BY the British attempting to seize the armaments of the people, and THE PEOPLE rallied themselves into an impromptu militia (despite their lack of training), and kicked British butt in part because they were comparably armed.
The real "idiocy" is to presume that "the people" cannot be trusted with the defense of their own individual liberties. This has ever been the sentiment of people who want their government to tell them what to think, what to value, what to buy, and in EVERY other way (as it is now) how to live.
"The land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE...." not!
NOW I'm out the door.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Yeah, how about that? In place of your ..., how about we include the rest of the sentence:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
neglect: to give little attention to; to leave unattended through carelessness
idiot: madbolter1
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
There's that pesky phrase again, "the people." This time "the people at large" just to be sure it is understood. Then he writes "in order to see that THIS not be neglected..."
But to what does "this" refer? Obviously at having "the people at large properly armed and equipped." He is saying that the people at large should be armed, and this should not be neglected, "this" being the arming of the people. It is very straight forward really.
But here, I'll save you the trouble. Ksolem: idiot.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
People includes corporations, according to the Supreme Court.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ksolem: idiot.
It is funny, in a fascinated horror sort of way, to see how inconsiderate and pejorative these guys are that are ostensibly trying to convince everybody that their perspective is so "obviously" correct. I mean, is it supposed to be effective argumentative tactics to insult in the most foul ways the people you claim to have such an "obvious win" over? Looks more like tactics adopted by cowards cowering behind their online handles that merely revel in drive-by pot-shots... online only, of course!
And, "Christ," regarding the section following the ellipses, if you look up-thread, you'll see that that part has been quoted and addressed repeatedly thus far. Do you REALLY need to go over it again?
If so, then puullleeease excuse me for my "idiot" level of "neglecting" your needs.
Just let me know....
Actually, don't bother. I think the points that can be made have been made, and any non-idiot readers can see the evidence on both sides and derive an intelligent perspective. No point in further beating this dead horse.
If anything of new interest crops up, well, we'll see.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
neglect: to give little attention to; to leave unattended through carelessness
Pretty fuking simple.
in order to see that [properly arming and equipping the people] be not [left unattended through carelessness], it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Do we need to define "necessary" for you too?
|
|
LarryD
climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
Hey madbolter1-- thanks! Your scholarship is impressive and your analysis is the essence of clarity. It gives me hope to know that there are men such as yourself carrying the torch.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
It is funny, in a fascinated horror sort of way, to see how inconsiderate and pejorative these guys are that are ostensibly trying to convince everybody that their perspective is so "obviously" correct.
Really?
You're doing the same thing.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Kris, the people were well armed. A. Hamilton watched untrained militias get butchered & or run when put up against well trained troops. He was adamant that future militias be well trained.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
He was also adamant that the people be armed.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Thank you, LarryD and Ron. Nice to get a bit of positive feedback in the morass of "idiot," etc.
Course, Ksolem is another "idiot" too. Us "idiots" gotta stick together; we're a shrinking minority in an ever-growing sea of people SO smart that they KNOW, absolutely KNOW, how it OUGHT to be for everybody.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ahh, looks like TGT is another "idiot."
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Speaking of training, there is a 4 fold increase this year alone in civilians taking more serious combat classes. This is just in CT. Part of the reason is the interest and availability of retired military instructors. After the explosion of new people joining the ranks of the armed this year after Newtown, I think this interest is a great thing.
I do think training is critical, esp. real live-fire drills with simulated munitions. Shooting at paper 50 yards away just doesn't cut it.
And the funny thing a lot of the "anti's" keep harping on is the training aspect. They assume local and state police, rank n' file military, and other triple letter agency fodder are receiving SEAL-like intensive training. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your average cop and solider is FRIGHTENINGLY untrained. I'd put most police that we shoot with up there as some of the most inept and sometimes dangerous folks out there. Dangerous because they don't tend to listen.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
To be more specific, the decrease in gun murders and gun crime was between 1994 and 1999. I see the number of "firearms to market" (which I suppose is intended to be a proxy for firearm ownership) has steadily increased, according to TGT's "figure." You realize in that case gun ownership can not be the primary cause of that decrease in gun murders/violence, right?
As pointed out over and over and over, the decrease in gun murders and gun crimes occurred during the federally required waiting period and other gun legislation. That is a FACT based on real data. Ron suggested the increase in CCW permitting also increased, but failed to provide any proof that the number of permits issued actually increased or when they increased. I think this is very interesting and I honestly wish he would find some supporting data. If his idea is true, we should see a decrease in gun crime as a result of the increase in CCWs that resulted after the more recent gun "debate."
I commend Ron on his idea, but without proof it fails to contend with the strongest current hypothesis to explain the decline:
The introduction of a federally required waiting period and other gun legislation between 1994 and 1999 was the leading cause of reduced gun murders and gun crimes between 1994 and 1999.
Any other contending hypotheses?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Federally required waiting period?
Run that by me again. WTF are you talking about?
And how come it didn't exist in Utah?
And why hasn't anybody called ME an idiot?
(I feel so neglected)
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
The Brady Bill Toker. Look it up.
You may be an idiot, but I have not seen clear evidence... just ramblings about some numbers and letters, which I assume refer to some cool hardware you have that might actually be fun to shoot... if you are into that sort of thing.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
And why hasn't anybody called ME an idiot?
(I feel so neglected)
Because you are the best armed "idiot" here.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Kris, if he was so much for arming the people why under President Washington did he go to Pennsylvania & disarm the people revolting from our gov. & hang the leaders.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I'm really angry now!
The guy with the guns for sale out of the trunk of his car never showed up.
I waited in the alley for a whole week ......
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Dude never showed -- that sucks.
My neighbor has a cannon he might sell you.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
I witnessed Kris fixing a recalcitrant VW Rabbit with seven shots form a pistol while it's owner pleaded with him,
"Don't shoot my wife's car!"
It ran fine after that,
just a bit noisy.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
It ran fine after that, just a bit noisy.
Nice! lol
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Kris, if he was so much for arming the people why under President Washington did he go to Pennsylvania & disarm the people revolting from our gov. & hang the leaders.
Traitors are not "the people."
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
blahblah- what do you mean re handguns? Just curious.
The Supreme Court found a constitutional right to individual ownership-- I disagree, and think the Court chose its own inaccurate history in making its opinion, but that's now the law of the land. As an aside, I've owned guns, have shot plenty and have no real dog in this fight.
The question now will be to what extent regulation will be allowed. In my opinion the NRA recognizes that is a losing issue in the courts and thus spends its efforts at the legislative / a.m. radio level.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
In 1776 were not the people traitors?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
in order to see that [properly arming and equipping the people] be not [left unattended through carelessness], it will be [logically unavoidable] to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. - A. Hamilton, FEDERALIST 29
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Can you give a single example of a principle espoused in the Federalist Papers that did not make it into the Constitution?
5 minutes it took, if somewhat the inverse of your challenge: I could also go into the several references about the vital importance of abolishing slavery when the constitution prohibited its abolition for at least twenty years and did nothing to promote its abolition thereafter. A compromise, just like the rest of the entire document.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.
The rest of the paragraph gives ammunition to both side of this particular discussion, but you repeatedly cite the Federalist Papers as support for your arguments when one of those papers affirms that your precious Second Amendment should not exist at all! My original point is that the Federalist papers were only one side of the constitutional discussion, and the excerpt above demonstrates just that.
Once again I ask, when reminded here of the Bill of Rights, why is it illegal for me to put up a 30ft high billboard in my yard, illegal to blare my music at 2am, illegal for me to organize a march on DC without permits, yet perfectly legal for me to sell a gun to a total stranger with no responsibility to ensure that he is not a felon? What is so special about the second amendment that makes it more important than any of those other rights, that it should not be restricted when it infringes on the equal rights of others or when the obvious damage to general welfare exceeds the (now) negligible benefit to the common defense?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The rest of the paragraph gives ammunition to both side of this particular discussion, but you repeatedly cite the Federalist Papers as support for your arguments when one of those papers affirms that your precious Second Amendment should not exist at all! My original point is that the Federalist papers were only one side of the constitutional discussion, and the excerpt above demonstrates just that.
Ahh, finally something really thoughtful! I'm pleased to respond!
First, your "inversion" doesn't satisfy the challenge, because the relation between the Federalist Papers and the Constitution is not a biconditional one. My claim was that the Federalist Papers inform us about the principles underlying the Constitution, not the other way around. And I instantly grant that the Constitution contains compromises. But they are compromises that are principled, and we can find the principles that won the day elucidated in the Federalist Papers.
Now, to your very, very prescient point about the Bill of Rights not being necessary to the Constitution, and even "dangerous." Interestingly enough, this very point MAKES the point of my previous paragraph.
This "unnecessary and even dangerous" passage contains a point that very, very few people have ever stumbled upon, and virtually nobody realizes the nature of the "danger" referred to.
The "enumerated powers" clause of the Constitution was designed to accomplish something that our founders recognized COULD be turned on its head by a Bill of Rights. I'll explain.
After positively and EXHAUSTIVELY listing ALL of the power inhering in the federal government, the clause ends with: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The POINT here was to provide for a STRONG but also extremely LIMITED federal government. And this clause was taken to state, in effect: "The feds have power to do x, y, and z. But THAT'S IT! The feds do NOT get to do ANYTHING else but x, y, and z; and EVERYTHING else that is not x, y, or z remains in the power of the states and/or the people."
But the anti-federalists were SO afraid of an over-powerful federal government that they INSISTED on a Bill of Rights, and thereby got the exact opposite effect that they intended, which is exactly what they were warned about in the passage you quote.
The "danger" in a bill of rights is that it has the potential to logically undo the enumerated powers clause. After all, if you really GET what the enumerated powers clause is doing, a bill of rights IS unnecessary, because you are then saying, in effect: "The feds have power to do x, y, and z. But THAT'S IT! The feds do NOT get to do ANYTHING else but x, y, and z; and EVERYTHING else that is not x, y, or z remains in the power of the states and/or the people. Oh, and by the way, the feds ALSO cannot do a or b or c or d or e...." And this places the "burden of law" ON the Bill of Rights to exhaustively enumerate what rights the states and people do have over and above the "everything else" granted them BY the enumerated powers clause. It thus makes the enumerated powers clause INSUFFICIENT to specify what the limitations on the feds really are and what the rights inhering in the states and people really are. Ambiguity is introduced where there was NONE before!
Prior to a bill of rights, the burden of law would be on the feds to say: "What we propose to do falls into our powers of x or y or z."
But with a bill of rights, the feds can instead say: "What we propose to do does not violate a or b or c or d...."
The federalist founders recognized that EXACTLY the situation we now find ourselves in with regard to the second amendment COULD arise with a bill of rights, yet it would be almost impossible to arise without a bill of rights.
So, the passage you quote is NOT saying what you take it to be saying. It is NOT saying: the right to bear arms was taken to not even BE among our rights; only a "compromise" got it placed among our rights in the first place.
The exact opposite is the case!
Without a bill of rights, the burden of law would be on the FEDS to explain exactly how gun control would fit into their enumerated powers. And there is no clear fit. So the presumption would be that THIS right would inhere in the states and people, and federal gun control would be almost impossible to get off the ground.
Now, of course, in our era virtually EVERYTHING has been taken by the Supreme Court to fit into the "interstate commerce" clause. So, that would surely be the take the feds would take to INCLUDE gun control among their enumerated powers. After all, asked and answered regarding Obamacare: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" Answer: "Nothing. the Federal government can do ANYTHING!" Screw the Bill of Rights, because it says NOTHING about disallowing something like Obamacare. And with the interstate commerce clause "writ large" as it now is, that clause no longer has anything resembling the founders' intent for it!
But that is a digression. The point is that the bill of rights shifts the burden of law from the feds explaining how a proposed federal law fits among their enumerated powers... to a situation in which the feds need only claim that they do not violate the bill of rights with whatever they propose to do.
The point is that the anti-federalists wanted a VERY limited federal government, and by "unnecessary and even dangerous," they were being warned that a bill of rights would have the OPPOSITE effect they desired.
So, the reality is the opposite of your claim about that passage. Indeed your claim itself MAKES the very point about what the federalists were warning the anti-federalists WOULD result from including a bill of rights. BOTH sides wanted a limited federal government. It's a political philosophy issue to decide how best to achieve that; a bill of rights is the wrong way to go about it.
Federal gun control was something our founders would never have IMAGINED, as they did NOT have a "liberal" view of the enumerated powers granted to the feds, and the interstate commerce clause would NOT have been taken to include gun control! Thus, absent a bill of rights, there would not even have been the START of a debate on federal gun control as we now debate it! The instant response to such a proposition would have been: "Federal gun control fits NOWHERE in the enumerated powers. Thus no federal law like that can be constitutional."
The Bill of Rights really HAS proved "dangerous," because, just as was projected, it has thrust us into "rights debates" that would have been stillborn in the face of having ONLY the enumerated powers clause.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
The Brady Bill Toker. Look it up.
Uh,.... "waiting period"?
(what a putz!!)
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
In 1776 were not the people traitors?
Yes. That's why the conservatives of that time wanted to hang the Founding Fathers.
|
|
xtrmecat
Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
|
|
Ron, Montana must have missed the waiting period boat also. Takes only minutes to do the paperwork and away you go with whatever in hand.
There is just so much progress to be made in a conversation with those armed with all the knowledge and "the facts".
Burly Bob
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Yeah, yesterday I picked up a Sigg 938, spur of the moment.
Now I can sell my Colt Government .380
They're the same size but the Sigg is a 9mm.
What with the extra clips, 2 holsters, clip grip, "collector's" value, and original box, I should get well over a yard.
Maybe I should take it to a "gun show".
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
Last week I traded a Llama 44 mag and some cash for a 96 Geo tracker, a handshake later and it was a done deal..
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The guy finally showed up in the alley.
I got the gun.
I'm gonna shoot Hedge in the ass with it.
It's a paint ball gun .... :-)
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Randy Grandstaff got shot in the ass by his cousin.
.22 magnum! OUCH
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
blahblah- what do you mean re handguns? Just curious.
The Supreme Court found a constitutional right to individual ownership-- I disagree, and think the Court chose its own inaccurate history in making its opinion, but that's now the law of the land. As an aside, I've owned guns, have shot plenty and have no real dog in this fight.
The question now will be to what extent regulation will be allowed. In my opinion the NRA recognizes that is a losing issue in the courts and thus spends its efforts at the legislative / a.m. radio level.
OMG--An important aspect of District of Columbia v. Heller is that banning handguns (specifically) is unconstitutional.
Agree that it's clear from Heller that lots of regulation is and will be allowed. And if we keep electing Democrats as president, sooner-or-later the makeup of the USSC will change, and the 2nd Amendment will be "reinterpreted" as you suggest.
But I'll again put it out there, since no one took the bait the first time, and ksolem has also asked essentially the same thing:
What is the proper "standard liberal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
That the National Guard has the right to have guns?
The "collective right" interpretation seems so intellectually dishonest that I can't believe that anyone really believes it--but 4 members of the Supreme Court profess to, and I expect that number will be at least 5 before too long.
I have my own theories--something like citizens do have the individual right to possess firearms, but they may be compelled to participate in militia-like training activities if they choose to exercise that right at least with respect to certain weapons. I fully admit that's just my "spew," is not and will not be the law of the land, etc.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Toker, you idiot:
The Brady law provides that the
waiting period provisions of the law
were effective on February 28, 1994, and
cease to apply on November 30, 1998.
**Brady imposes a waiting period of 5
business days (defined in the statute as
days on which State offices are open)
before a licensee may sell, deliver, or
transfer a handgun** (other than the
return of a handgun to the person from
whom it was received) to a nonlicensed
individual.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-02-27/pdf/95-4886.pdf
WARNING: information contained in the ACTUAL implementation of the law may differ from your imagination.
Gun crime and gun murders dropped more during the 5 year period the interim waiting period was in place (1994-1999) than during any other period on record.
in order to see that [properly arming and equipping the people] be not [left unattended through carelessness], it will be [logically unavoidable] to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. - A. Hamilton, FEDERALIST 29
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Madbolter, your intellectual rigor is at least more informative than the deranged delusions of some others here, but you're missing my point. Since the Federalist papers were written to promote the draft constitution, they obviously primarily discuss the Constitution so your challenge was somewhat skewed, yet I still found two principles espoused in the papers that did not make it to the constitution (ending slavery and non-necessity for a bill of rights).
I made no claim that the quoted essay supported my views, indeed I suggested otherwise, which bring us back to the validity of such papers.
Your original point was that the Federalist Papers detail the thinking of the founding fathers. Mine was that they detail the thinking only of a limited few of the founding fathers, and as in the example of slavery, could describe principles they held strongly that were intentionally not in the ratified document due to different opinions held by the majority. A federalist author describing activities for the militia (or any other topic) not elucidated in the Constitution may well have been describing the unanimous intent of the drafters, but may just as easily have been describing their personal view on a topic where the majority held sway to limit such purposes.
Still waiting to hear why second amendment rights are so special...
TE
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Christ, want to see a dozen guns I bought from dealers from '94-'98 without waiting?
What a putz!!
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Toker, want to see the law... again. Just because YOU snuck past it using one of the loop holes, does NOT mean it did not exist... idiot.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
You people are far too stupid to own guns.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
I didn't sneak past anything.
That provision of Brady was never put into effect. Bills get changed.
But some things stay the same, like you being a putz.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Clearly reality is no match for your imagination.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Here's the direct quote, lifted from Federalist 29 ( on militia regulation ) free of Mr Christ's butchering :
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
All the armed and equipped shooters I know assemble to shoot at least once or twice a month. Then there are guys like my uncle, who's at the range every morning.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
hahahaaaa... now substituting the precise definition of words is "butchering?" You guys would be so hilarious if you weren't advocating for easy access to guns on a whim.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
You were doing more than "substituting the precise definition of words".
Dropping inconvenient parts of the sentence is butchering in my book. And then after re-writing the rest of it, you attributed it to Hamilton.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Arguing about old words is irrelevant.
Our society has changed, our culture has changed.
Laws should be adapted to reflect our current social structure. We are no longer in the process of seceding from England.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Our society has changed, our culture has changed.
Laws should be adapted to reflect our current social structure. We are no longer in the process of seceding from England.
Laws are changed all the time, and the Constitution has been amended 27 times.
Do you think the Constitution should just be ignored if you don't like what it says? How would you feel if you like what a particular law or aspect of the Constitution says, but the government just decides to ignore it, perhaps because someone in power thinks "our society has changed"?
Things aren't quite as simple as you would like them to be--but don't worry, this is in fact all just "spew," none of our opinions really matter much--you don't have to trouble your mind thinking about any of this if you don't want to.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
Got it blah blah. I focused on the individual right in a home aspect rather than the type of gun. My own spew is that individuals have a right to own guns subject to far more restrictions than what currently exist.
I also think Scalia's opinion was so intellectually dishonest that it leaves itself open to question down the road. Mr. originalist certainly casts that doctrine aside when he wants a result.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
The Bill of Rights was incorporated at the insistence of the Antifederalists as a condition for ratification. The reason for the second amendment establishing the PERSONAL civil right to weapons ownership is clear from Anti Federalist #29.
OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
“A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST,” appeared in “the Pennsylvania Packet,” October 23, 1787; following #29, #30 is excerpted from THE ADDRESS AND REASONS OF DISSENT OF THE MINORITY OF THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, December 12, 1787.
The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.
First, the personal liberty of every man, probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial. To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.
Secondly, the rights of conscience may be violated, as there is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of hearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the State [Pennsylvania]. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description inflamed our passions, and when every person who was obliged to risk his own life must have been exasperated against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.
At this momentous crisis, the framers of our State Constitution made the most express and decided declaration and stipulations in favor of the rights of conscience; but now, when no necessity exists, those dearest rights of men are left insecure.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them . . .
http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_29.php
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
? why bring up a losing argument.
The Federalist won the argument the anti federalist lost the argument.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Yeah Joe, looks like there's going to be a waiting period on your hoped for waiting period.
I have to wonder why so many liberals wish to remain in a country with 85M people so prepared and eager to kill children. I just don't get it.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/08/v-fullstory/3550483/woman-shot-to-death-in-south-miami.html
Posted on Thursday, 08.08.13
South Miami man kills wife, posts photo of bloody body, then turns himself in to police
BY DAVID OVALLE AND DANIEL DUCASSI
DOVALLE@MIAMIHERALD.COM
Derek Medina’s life was open to the world.
On YouTube, the 31-year-old South Miami man posted scores of videos of himself enjoying sports.
He authored six online books, with long-winded titles about spirituality, saving the world and hunting ghosts. Medina snapped photos of his arm tattoos, meals, boating trips and drinks poolside with his wife.
But on Thursday, Medina shocked South Florida by making one last announcement on Facebook: that he had shot and killed his wife before posting a photo of her twisted, bloodied body lying on a linoleum floor.
“I’m going to prison or death sentence for killing my wife. Love you guys. Miss you guys. Take care. Facebook people you’ll see me in the news,” Medina wrote in a Facebook post that remained public for hours Thursday evening before the site removed his profile page at the request of police.
Even in a world accustomed to intimate details of people’s lives plastered on social media, Medina’s posts — which went viral — were shocking.
Medina walked into the South Miami police station around noon Thursday, then spent the evening speaking with homicide detectives about what led up to the shooting death of his wife, Jennifer Alfonso, 26.
Investigators, armed with a search warrant, began documenting the crime scene inside the couple’s townhouse at 5555 SW 67th Ave., then charged Medina with first-degree murder late Thursday.
Alfonso’s 10-year-old daughter from a previous relationship was upstairs at the time of the killing, but was unharmed. Officers quickly escorted her out of the home, with a blanket wrapped around her, after finding Alfonso’s body.
Medina is likely to claim self-defense.
His father, Derek Medina Sr., told reporters his son killed Alfonso only after she brandished a knife. In the younger Medina’s Facebook post, he did not mention a knife, but wrote: “My wife was punching me and I’m not going to stand anymore with the abuse so I did what I did. Hope u understand me.”
But according to an arrest report, Medina admitted to investigators he got into an argument with Alfonso. The report said he went upstairs, fished his pistol from a closet and pointed it at Alfonso.
Alfonso yelled she was “leaving him,” according to the report by Detective Jonathan Grossman. Then, Medina — still brandishing the weapon — followed her downstairs to the kitchen, where she grabbed a knife.
Medina said he disarmed Alfonso, put the knife in the drawer, then shot her several times after she began punching and kicking him, the report said.
The photo Medina posted on Facebook shows Alfonso, wearing all black and pink socks, on her knees, twisted backward in a bloody heap.
Alfonso’s former boss at a West Miami-Dade Denny’s told the Miami Herald that the husband was extremely jealous and had hit Alfonso in the past.
“She would be bruised up,” said Amada Cooper, who described Medina as a controlling husband who tried to force her to quit her job as a server because he didn’t want her working nights.
After several violent episodes, another co-worker implored Alfonso to leave him. “He would always come back, begging her … come back,” said Cathy LaBella. “She would say he was going to change. She was in love with him.”
Medina and Alfonso initially married in early 2010 after dating only a few months. The marriage was stormy and friends said he would often kick her out. The two always got back together, however.
They divorced in early 2012, then remarried a few months later, records show. Cooper said the two fought often because Medina, most recently a property manager at a posh Coral Gables condo building, could not hold a job for more than a few months.
“He wouldn’t even let her talk on the phone,” Cooper said. “He always waited for her outside. One time, he went storming in, looking for her, telling her to get outside.”
Another friend, who did not want his name used, said Medina once threatened to kill him and another pal on Facebook after deciding “they weren’t real friends.”
He also recalled that Medina, during one of his break-ups with Alfonso, had angrily blasted the young woman on his Facebook page.
At Denny’s, where she worked as a server, Alfonso was known as a dependable worker with a loyal customer base, who worked the graveyard shift to care for her daughter.
“She was a beautiful person,” LaBella said. “Her daughter was her pride and joy.”
She had a quirky personality and loved anything that had to do with ghosts, aliens and the supernatural. She boasted a dark sense of humor and would often utter her catchphrase “Sasquatch” after long nights on the graveyard shift.
“She would just blurt it out. That was her release. She used that phrase a lot,” remembered a co-worker, Tina, who asked that her last name not be used.
As for Medina, who also shared a love of ghosts, his eccentricities were proudly on display online.
He had appeared as an extra on the Miami television crime drama Burn Notice, which he touted on his Facebook page.
Medina was an avid poster of YouTube videos, chronicling his leisure time: pick-up basketball, driving golf balls, sitting in the cheap seats at Miami Heat games, boating, playing the Call of Duty video game. His account had 143 videos.
He was also a prolific author of self-published e-books with long-winded titles: How a Judgmental and Selfish Attitude is Destroying the World We Live Because the World is Vanishing Our Eyes.
A blurb on the back cover of that book notes: “the author has formed his own ghost hunting team and has worked several cases.”
Another book, which centers on ghost hunting, says the author’s wife was attacked by a ghost during a New York trip.
“The author can relate to the world of victims who have been attacked by evil spirits,” the website states.
He dedicated one 11-chapter book, published in February 2013, to his wife: How I Saved Someone’s Life and Marriage and Family Problems Thru Communication .
On his public Facebook account, Medina had 164 friends. His post on Alfonso’s killing was shared by more than 100 people on the networking site before Facebook shut down the account.
A Facebook spokesman said the website does not comment on law enforcement investigations.
“The content was removed via our own processes,” the spokesman said. “The content was reported to us, and then we took action on the profile — removing the content and disabling the profile, and we reached out to law enforcement. We take action on all content that violates our terms, which are clearly laid out on our site.”
Tina, the former Denny’s co-worker, said she was outraged when she logged on Thursday and saw Medina had posted the photo to Alfonso’s Facebook page.
“He knew what he did was wrong,” she said. “He’s a monster.”
Stunned friends began commenting on Medina’s admission. “WHAT??????” said one woman, who later “tagged” her own friend in the death-scene photo. “That is my friend.”
Her tag received three “likes” on Facebook.
People have long been implicating themselves in wrongdoing through social media, said Lee Rainey, the director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, although Medina’s case was a particularly gruesome example.
“Social media runs the spectrum, from the most noble and altruistic loving act to the most heinous,” Rainey said. “This is just another showing of how people integrate social media into every dimension of the human experience.”
The following reporters contributed to this story: Maria Perez and Melissa Sanchez of El Nuevo Herald and Benjamin S. Brasch Douglas Hanks, Cory Nightingale, Glenda Ortega, Hannah Sampson and Luisa Yanez of the Miami Herald. Miami Herald researcher Monika Leal also contributed to this report.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Medina said he disarmed Alfonso, put the knife in the drawer, then shot her several times after she began punching and kicking him, the report said.
Even assuming this is true (which is not likely)
Having disarmed his wife he clearly had the option of walking (running) out the door.
But oh no, he had the quick and easy answer tucked away in the upstairs closet.
Or if his claim is not true, is it Alfonso's fault that she DIDN't run upstairs, get the gun and blow him away in self defense? After all aren't guns in the home specifically for self defense?
EDIT: looks as if Medina was one of the thousands of Americans prepared and eager to use guns to settle a marital dispute.
There are 94.5 guns per 100 people in the US
yes ONLY 34% of Americans own guns. So on average, every gun owner has 3 guns.
I'd better hurry out to the next gun show and stock up my arsenal. I don't have 3 guns yet.
more guns are certainly the answer to our national violent streak.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
It would have taken a hell of a long waiting period to have made any difference in that case.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
So Chaz,
what's your idea to reduce the +30K gun deaths each year in the US?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
I'm doing my part. I haven't killed anybody.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
righhhttt…..good answer. very insightful and productive.
Just as long as you keep on not killing anybody.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Is that it? 30K?
Gee, and you still can't swing a dead cat without hitting a "stupid American".
Clearly the proper people are not getting shot!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2013 - 07:08pm PT
|
Most of you might remember a certain New York newspaper that made national headlines for publishing the names and addresses of gun-permit owners.
Gun owners were outraged and those who had information published felt threatened. Inevitably one owner’s house was broken into by burglars and though his guns were thankfully locked in a gun safe, the safe and house were damaged during the incident.
It’s been a long time coming, but finally, according to the Rockland Times, editor Caryn McBride has been fired along with 17 other journalists working at Journal News.
Journal News came under heavy criticism after their 2012 decision to publish the names and addresses of all gun owners, but no repercussions ever occurred. Now the Times reports that McBride had called the Clarkstown Police Department to notify them of complaints and angry phone calls after the newspaper published the map.
Though the editor felt threatened by the complaints, police didn’t believe there was enough to warrant an arrest and/or police protection. Many responded to the newspaper’s actions by publishing their own, “Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?” This prompted the staff to hire armed security guards.
Quite a load of hypocrites in our book. How is it fair to hire armed security guards for yourself (under no credible threats) but gun owners can’t protect themselves with firearms in their own home. Looks like after a long period we finally have some closure to this terrible act by Journal News. Hopefully these media contributors have learned a lesson about respecting privacy and the Second Amendment.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2013 - 10:14pm PT
|
I would wager most of those good sheeple don't even know what the Bill of Rights is.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
|
Yeah she can handle a shotgun, which is okay by me, but it's pretty redneck blasting all that lead and launching all those spent shells into the stream there.
Now this teenager is a real pro, and on her way to a great career...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
|
This gal on the other hand, knows how to handle a shotgun.
Were any of those shots at more that 20 yards? Most were less than 10, hardly impressive, but it does look like a boatload of fun.
Still waiting for Madbolter's libertarian constitutional explanation why right to bear arms cannot be restricted in any way even when it infringes the equal rights of others, when all other rights are routinely limited?
What happened to the freedom of the press, how dare gun nuts complain when a newspaper posts public information? Hypocrites, the only rights they care about are their own. That's fascism.
TE
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
|
Were any of those shots at more that 20 yards? Most were less than 10,
Most real combat shooting situations happen at ranges of under six yards.
Still, The most impressive little girl I ever shot with was Kim Rhode.
At the time she was about the same age. She'd be playing with her Barbie's until it was her turn on the Skeet field, pick up a Perazzi that was as long as she was tall, clean the station, put her gun back in the rack and go back to playing with her dolls in the dirt till it was her turn again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Rhode
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
|
Most real combat shooting situations happen at ranges of under six yards.
And there's still nothing impressive about shooting a stationary steel pig at ten yards with a shotgun, especially when the pig isn't armed. It is however a good demonstration of how appropriate a shotgun is for the purpose of home defense, and how completely inappropriate a 30-shot semi-automatic "modern sporting" rifle is.
Still waiting Madbolter.
TE
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2013 - 11:25am PT
|
especially when the pig isn't armed
Clearly, somebody experienced with pigs.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2013 - 11:32am PT
|
When I was a kid, I learned that guns are always loaded. I also learned that pigs and bantam roosters are always armed.
But maybe we just had mean pigs.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 03:21am PT
|
Wow, a lot's happened in the last few days. I got really buried with work, etc. Okay, starting from the top....
Toker, you idiot:
Finally, it's happened! Toker, you've officially joined the club. Congrats. I know that I'm getting a little misty over here just thinking about it. You must be so proud.
TradEddie wrote:
...so your challenge was somewhat skewed, yet I still found two principles espoused in the papers that did not make it to the constitution (ending slavery and non-necessity for a bill of rights).... Your original point was that the Federalist Papers detail the thinking of the founding fathers. Mine was that they detail the thinking only of a limited few of the founding fathers, and as in the example of slavery, could describe principles they held strongly that were intentionally not in the ratified document due to different opinions held by the majority.
Yes, my challenge was indeed somewhat skewed, and I'm really happy that a few took me up on it. The level of discussion is significantly higher now, thanks to responses like yours! I think your point is well taken, particularly on the slavery bit, and I actually think that the role the Federalist Papers can play today is somewhere in the middle of my expressed position and yours. Hyperbole for effect, and you did indeed rise to the challenge. I won't dicker the fine points, as I think we're using the term "principle" in different senses, but you are certainly correct that not everything expressed in the FPs made it into the Constitution.
I do, however, continue to maintain the the FPs elucidate the principles of federalism (which IS our form of government) better than any other extant source, that intent DOES matter in Constitutional interpretation, and thus that the FPs remain vastly important in trying to understand the verbiage of the Constitution.
Another important point is that the anti-federalists "lost" in some grand, sweeping sense; so we often don't think of them as among the "founders." But the primary difference between them and the federalists concerned the underlying form of government: confederation vs. federal. In THAT sense the "federalists won," but, particularly regarding amendments that made it into the Bill of Rights, there was significant agreement between the two "poles" on the principles underlying those amendments! The legal implementation to ensure the protection of those principles differed, but generally not the principles themselves.
Both wanted to protect individual liberties, and both presumed an armed and even semi-trained populace. The primary difference, as has been discussed, was not over whether the population would be armed; it was over the best way to ensure the protection of individual gun rights. The anti-federalists had less faith in the lasting effect of the enumerated powers clauses, while (more than a few) federalists saw a bill of rights as effectively undoing the logical force of the enumerated powers clauses.
It appears that the federalists were correct, as a recent Yahoo News article illustrates:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/comma-gave-americans-own-guns-224121479.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UaHyglSmQcAyhHQtDMD
First, look at the title. Ms. Sterbenz is confused on the VERY point in question! BOTH federalists AND anti-federalists would strongly disagree with her, as BOTH would say: "Wrong! Government doesn't GIVE people gun rights! We ALL presumed individual gun rights; in fact we BOTH saw gun rights as fundamental to the protection of a free society. Our ONLY difference on approaching how to ensure that basic principle was implementation." And the entire article is based upon developing the implications of the title confusion.
Now the federalists would say, "See! We told you so! Now instead of ANYBODY asking, 'Where among the powers explicitly granted to the government would gun control fall? Yet ANOTHER addition to the interstate commerce clause?' everybody just presumes that if proposed gun control doesn't obviously violate the second amendment, it's just okey dokey for the government to legislate it.'"
And even discussion on this very thread talks about the need to modify or get rid of the second amendment, as if that would somehow "fit" gun control automatically into one of the powers explicitly granted to the federal government. But you take the second amendment completely out of the picture, and you are left with the same issue: nowhere in the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution do you find a neat fit for gun control. And the tenth remains a big problem, even without the second!
Anyway, NICE thinking! I applaud you.
Fire power increases. The ability to conduct mass killings will increase in lock step. More and more people will die till finally we the people will rise up and demand change.
Fire power has been increasing and increasing persistently for decades, even more so in the last decade. Yet the correlation you state is not observed, even by the damned lies that are statistics.
How many more people will be slaughtered before we the people demand change.? I've hit my limit and am willing to consider significant restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. But if the gun toters don't rally to this cause then nothing will change and the bodies will continue to pile up.
What if you could cut the number of gun homicides virtually in half overnight? Would that take you back a ways from your limit? Intuitively speaking, WHERE is your limit? I mean, if "we the people" need to in some sense share your intuitions on this point (so that the bodies don't keep piling up, and all), then we should have some clue about what it would take for you to FEEL like things were on the right track.
Would cutting the gun homicides almost in half overnight calm you down a lot?
If you say "no," then you lose all credibility!
If you say "yes," then I would tell you to solve the gang problem rather than a non-existent "gun problem."
These gang-bangers are NOT primarily getting legal guns through legal channels. I know because I've been in that life. NOBODY I knew, and myself included, got their guns by going into a gun shop or purchasing them from somebody that had gotten them legally. THEY are not going to obey gun control laws; never have and never will.
And EVERY "war on __" in this country has proved to be a grand joke, from prohibition to the "war on drugs!"
The issue here isn't that there are lots of guns around (there are hundreds of millions of them!). The issue is that the WRONG people have them. And you don't solve that problem by making access to the guns "more difficult," just as you don't stop drunk driving by making access to alcohol "more difficult." Before we can even effectively TALK about how to address the gang problem, we have to first stop trying to put band-aids over the symptoms of that problem!
Anyway, solve the gang problem, and you cut gun homicides virtually in half.
We'll fix it. Liberal social remedies take time to implement, but we always win, eventually.
Yeah, and it's called "majority faction." I hope to be long-dead by the time you guys get very much further down the road of "fixing it."
I would wager most of those good sheeple don't even know what the Bill of Rights is.
No, but they are "proud to be American!"
Still waiting for Madbolter's libertarian constitutional explanation why right to bear arms cannot be restricted in any way even when it infringes the equal rights of others, when all other rights are routinely limited?
You are conflating negative and positive rights.
The right to bear arms is a negative right; I exercise it by doing nothing, and you avoid infringing it by doing nothing. Whether or not I actually have a gun, I have the right to a gun. If I don't lift a finger to ever get a gun, my negative right to one remains unchanged. The corollary is that if you just leave me completely alone, you do not infringe on my right to bear arms.
By contrast, you talk about "infringing the equal rights of others." But I have to ACT to do that. I cannot "infringe" by doing nothing, so whatever I am DOING cannot in principle be something that I have a NEGATIVE right to do!
To illustrate, consider this question: "Exactly HOW can my right to bear arms (by itself, just the right) infringe on ANY negative right you have?" Can I, for example, just merely by having the RIGHT to bear arms somehow conflict with your right to free speech? No, and obviously not. By doing nothing, I cannot in principle infringe on anybody's rights.
So it is NEVER the having of a negative right that needs limitation! What needs limitation is HOW people seek to fulfill their rights in positive (active) ways.
My negative right to bear arms does NOT say that you have some duty to buy and provide me with arms. ALL it says is that you cannot DO anything to keep me from bearing arms.
Correlatively, your right to life is negative. That means that by leaving you along I avoid infringing on it. But it also doesn't mean that I have some duty to ensure that you have a life, or some particular quality of life. My negative duty as regards your negative right to life is to DO nothing.
So, the negative rights elucidated in the Constitution cannot in principle conflict. My right to bear arms cannot in itself conflict with your right to life!
The "conflict" we are all discussion really has NOTHING to do with the second amendment or its stated right. You could leave that entirely alone and not limit it in the slightest, and you would still not have the slightest conflict between that amendment and anybody's right to life.
The conflict with the right to life emerges ONLY when people DO (actively, positively) something that infringes another person's right to life... such as using a weapon to kill another person.
But that is ALREADY illegal on countless legal levels!
Back to "free speech." That right is not "limited" or infringed by laws making it illegal to falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. The "limitation" you perceive is not a limitation of the right of free speech; it is instead a simple principle precluding ANY means by which to mislead people into situations that infringe their right to life. Be it use of a gun, use of a lie, or use of fraud, we consider all such ACTS to be a violation of a spectrum of rights, particularly the right to life.
I AM free to say ANYTHING I wish, and that right is actually unlimited. However, just as the very principle (long established and upheld again and again by every court) of "no prior restraint" establishes the truth of what I'm saying about free speech, it is also the case that I am held legally responsible for the results of my speech (after the fact) if my speech actually did infringe anybody's rights.
So, the issue here has nothing to do with some negative right of mine infringing the rights of others. The issue here has to do with how I ACT in the context of having that right. The RIGHT is unlimited and unrestrained; I am held accountable for how I ACT in the context of that right.
Just as the principle of "no prior restraint" legally governs free speech (and, btw, clearly the law recognizes the ABSOLUTE right of free speech, as that is EXACTLY what "no prior restraint" implies), there should be a legal principle just like it regarding the second amendment: NO prior restraint on the right to have and bear arms... but HARSH penalties for violating the rights of others in how you ACT with your arms.
In short, there is no conflict of negative rights, and there should be NO limitation on such rights (just as is completely explicit in the principle of no prior restraint regarding free speech).
By merely possessing a fabulous arsenal, I infringe NO rights of yours. By carrying around all sorts of weapons, I infringe NO rights of yours. And I have to actually infringe one of your rights before I can be held legally accountable for such an infringement.
Philosophical libertarians favor "no prior restraint" regarding ALL negative rights, with HARSH penalties for individual actions that do in fact violate the negative rights of others. We do not believe in a "pre-crime" police state.
So, show me exactly how the second amendment, in completely unrestricted form, violates the negative rights of others; and then we'll talk more.
Good luck - you picked the guy with the worst critical reasoning skills on the site.
LOL.. coming from you, I take that as a HIGH compliment! Thank you very kindly!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
|
The conflict with the right to life emerges ONLY when people DO (actively, positively) something that infringes another person's right to life... such as using a weapon to kill another person.
But that is ALREADY illegal on countless legal levels!
WRONG! In most states for example it is perfectly legal to sell a gun to a total stranger, provided the seller has no reasonable suspicion that the buyer is a criminal. In practical terms, this not only provides a simple way to bypass the background check requirement, but it also makes it extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchasers. "Your honor, that gun I bought that turned up in a multiple homicide, I sold it to some bald dude in a bar. That other gun of mine that killed a police officer, I left that on the passenger seat of my unlocked car, and it was gone when I got back."
Your assertion that laws should only be reactive, not preventive might be more credible if you hadn't expressed support for Voter ID laws to prevent in-person voter fraud, a virtually non-existent crime, which hasn't ever resulted in the death of even a single person. All I ask is the same restriction on buying a gun or ammunition (prove your identity and your eligibility), but that's unacceptable to you.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 02:59pm PT
|
TE, you haven't explained exactly how my SALE of a gun constitutes a violation of anybody's negative rights. If that gun is later used in a murder, the GUN didn't violate anybody's rights; the USER of the gun did and should be held accountable for that ACTUAL violation of a negative right.
Regarding "pre-crime" and voter ID, you seem to think that the worst possible violation of rights is murder. Yeah, it's a terrible violation indeed. But when a person not even legally authorized to vote nullifies my vote, then he/she certainly takes something very important away from me too: stealing my very property, as my vote is really my property (arguably the most significant property I have). Vote nullification is a clear violation of my right, while the unauthorized voter HAS no such right. It's theft, plain and simple; and it allows for a large sector of people to change the direction of this country when they have NO right to do so.
There is zero correlation between vote nullification and sale of property.
Your side of this debate will become a lot more credible as soon as your side recognizes that GUNS are not the problem; people are the problem. And you don't deal with that PEOPLE problem by violating their negative rights in an effort to "pre-crime" them into being good.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 08:42pm PT
|
TE, you haven't explained exactly how my SALE of a gun constitutes a violation of anybody's negative rights. If that gun is later used in a murder, the GUN didn't violate anybody's rights; the USER of the gun did and should be held accountable for that ACTUAL violation of a negative right
The sale of a gun to an ineligible person, or the theft of an unsecured gun is an irresponsible act which contributes directly to the violation of the rights of anyone later threatened, injured or killed with that gun. Not knowing someone is a criminal is not adequate moral defense when you are providing someone the means to so easily kill, a means which they are prevented from buying through other channels. Universal background checks would do so much to reduce the availability of guns to criminals, yet have no practical effect on the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
You are free to decide which of your rights you consider most precious, but you DO NOT get to decide that for others. If you'd prefer to be shot than have your vote diluted by 1/1000000, fine, but most would choose otherwise. Earlier you suggested that "Give me Liberty or give me Death" meant that the founding fathers felt life was less important than liberty, you appear to have missed the fact they were prepared to give up their own lives, not endanger someone else's.
TE
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 08:45pm PT
|
Yo appear to have missed the fact that they were willing to kill for liberty as well.
A fact not lost on a few thousand lobsterbacks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 10:28pm PT
|
You are free to decide which of your rights you consider most precious, but you DO NOT get to decide that for others. If you'd prefer to be shot than have your vote diluted by 1/1000000, fine, but most would choose otherwise. Earlier you suggested that "Give me Liberty or give me Death" meant that the founding fathers felt life was less important than liberty, you appear to have missed the fact they were prepared to give up their own lives, not endanger someone else's.
Lots to respond to here, so I'll take it step by step.
First, "You do not get to decide that for others." Amen and amen, brother. So, since we don't get to decide that for each other, I would suggest that you just leave mine alone! From the founding through to today, I have had an unrestricted RIGHT to have and BEAR arms, and your desire to INFRINGE that right JUST IS "you getting to decide for ME" what rights are more important. If you can manage to get the second AND tenth amendments radically modified or removed, more power to you. Until then, quit trying to INFRINGE. Plain and simple.
Next, "If you'd prefer to be shot than have your vote diluted by 1/1000000...." Well, actually I figure my odds of getting shot by a gun that would be out of circulation AS A RESULT of legislation you seem to favor is about as close to zero as is statistically possible. I'll take my chances! Meanwhile, my vote IS being nullified, and it's not just mine alone. It is a serious problem that people with NO stake in this nation and NO RIGHT to vote are doing so anyway; and they are having an effect on the direction of this nation. That is a FAR bigger threat to my RIGHTS (in toto) than is the infinitesimally tiny chance of getting killed by a gun your ideas would keep out of the "wrong" hands.
...they were prepared to give up their own lives, not endanger someone else's.
I'm not endangering anybody else, nor are the vast, vast majority of gun owners. And you have never even started to make the case that the guns are the problem (nobody else on your side has either).
I earlier asked the question: How much of a reduction in gun homicide would be "enough" for you to feel good about the effects of your slate of proposed legislation? Would cutting gun homicides in half overnight have you feeling pretty solid?
If you say "no," then your position suddenly loses a lot of credibility.
If you say "yes," then I would point you to the gang problem in this country. Solve that, and overnight you will eliminate about half of the current gun homicides. And none of the legislation I've heard suggested on this thread will even touch the gang-bangers getting their hands on guns.
Finally, as I said up-thread, there is a serious problem that remains entirely unacknowledged by your side of this debate: EVERY "war on _" the feds have tried has been a money-pit dismal failure.
Prohibition? What did that get us? Welllll.... how about organized crime?
The war on drugs? Please! Get serious!
EVERY time you legislate the creation of a black market, you do NOT keep the contraband out of the hands of anybody! All you do is further support gangs and organized crime, and the criminals CONTINUE to get their hands on whatever they wish.
So, to sum up:
* At present you have no Constitutional grounding to infringe my gun rights, so, as YOU said, quit trying to define what rights trump others for ME.
* There are FAR more pressing issues in this country than the infinitesimally tiny odds of being killed by a gun that your proposed legislation would have kept from killing somebody (if it were even possible)!
* "Wars on..." have yet to demonstrate success in this country. Let's start a war on guns to go alongside the war on drugs. Good luck with that!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
|
And you have never even started to make the case that the guns are the problem (nobody else on your side has either).
Nope PEOPLE selling guns to criminals are the problem, and the politicians who happily allow it to remain legal while equally happily passing laws requiring ID to vote.
I earlier asked the question: How much of a reduction in gun homicide would be "enough" for you to feel good about the effects of your slate of proposed legislation? Would cutting gun homicides in half overnight have you feeling pretty solid?
If you say "no," then your position suddenly loses a lot of credibility.
If you say "yes," then I would point you to the gang problem in this country. Solve that, and overnight you will eliminate about half of the current gun homicides.
I have no idea how you draw your conclusion on the "yes" answer, but would love to hear how you are going to solve the gang problem while maintaining your libertarian principles. Any law that reduces homicides while negligibly affecting the right to self-defense is fine by me; one life, a hundred lives, ten thousand. I also don't care whether 50 state laws or one federal law achieves this.
And none of the legislation I've heard suggested on this thread will even touch the gang-bangers getting their hands on guns.
And just how or where do you think gangs get guns? Ron is convinced they're all smuggled up from Mexico, what's your delusion?
No, I don't get to decide which rights are more important either, but society does, and as I originally pointed out, if society does not concur, the concept of inherent rights is wonderful, but irrelevant. If you disagree, then ask yourself what value was a slave's right to be secure in his own person?
Society as a whole supports universal background checks, courts have ruled that reasonable restrictions are constitutional, it's simply a matter of time before politicians who refuse to acknowledge the will of their electorate will be held to account at the polls. I don't have to make a constitutional argument, all I have to do is allow democracy to take its slow course, and help speed it up.
Anyway, I've got to go climbing (remember that?)
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 12:27am PT
|
No, I don't get to decide which rights are more important either, but society does, and as I originally pointed out, if society does not concur, the concept of inherent rights is wonderful, but irrelevant. If you disagree, then ask yourself what value was a slave's right to be secure in his own person?
No, "society" does not either, unless there is a genuine super-majority of society. So far, gun-control advocates do not make up even close to a super-majority. Meanwhile, the Constitution (in its present form) gets to decide, and IT decides that all this knee-jerk gun control froth is just that; and if politicians try to do other than what the Constitution (and a long history of interpretation on this very issue) says, there are still enough Americans that do read the Constitution as it reads to ensure that such laws will find their way to the courts.
Oh, and, as in Colorado, likely the majority of law enforcement officers will simply refuse to enforce such laws, knowing as THEY do that these laws are neither effective nor constitutional.
When you talk about a slave's rights, you again conflate principle with practice. The fact that our Constitution provided legal groundwork for the abolishing of slavery indicates something about the fact that slavery was an institution of the greed and convenience of UNPRINCIPLED men. Practice ultimately aligned with the correct principles.
Going climbing is great! Have a good one!
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 12:54am PT
|
Trad Eddie writes:
"WRONG! In most states for example it is perfectly legal to sell a gun to a total stranger, provided the seller has no reasonable suspicion that the buyer is a criminal."
It is a Federal FELONY to sell a gun to a prohibited person, no matter what. Whether you knew it or not. You can get ten years in The Joint for doing that. ( and a $250,000 fine )
Federal law is enforced in all fifty states, so it is not perfectly legal in most states, or any state.
Let's start enforcing THAT law, before we pass any new laws.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 01:42am PT
|
Oh, and, as in Colorado, likely the majority of law enforcement officers will simply refuse to enforce such laws, knowing as THEY do that these laws are neither effective nor constitutional.
Ok you lost me there--lots of people have different views of what is "constitutional" and how the entire constitutional-law game should be played. But I've never heard a legitimate theory put forth that local LEOs are the guys who should be determining what laws are or aren't constitutional, and deciding which ones they'll enforce on that basis.
In case you haven't been paying much attention to history as it's unfolded for the past 150 years, states (and municipalities) haven't done real well when they've gone up against the federal government, for better or worse.
For example, feds can just withhold funding from badly-behaved states until they toe the line--not much a state can do about that.
|
|
Crack-N-Up
Big Wall climber
South of the Mason Dixon line
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 03:34am PT
|
Some amazing posts here from some true patriots! How frustrated those who oppose guns are. They who cannot control themselves or emotions just proves why they should not have a gun.
Really there is no argument here about the right to be armed, the Second Amendment solves the argument for us.
If the guns were taken away from the criminals there would be less crime. If the criminals are the only ones with guns, well, just look at Chicago, the most anti-gun place in the USA, something like 320+ murders so far this year if I am not mistaken.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
|
It is a Federal FELONY to sell a gun to a prohibited person, no matter what. Whether you knew it or not
I wish it were true, but once again, you've been misled. Those pesky facts again;
18 U.S.C. § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise
dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that such person - ...
Show me otherwise, and I'll retract/edit my earlier post, otherwise retract/edit yours.
TE
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
|
They who cannot control themselves or emotions just proves why they should not have a gun There's the pot calling the kettle black.
Or to put it more rationally.
There are dozens of examples every day in this country of gun owners who cannot control themselves or their emotions blowing people away senselessly.
Just yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23698277
…….told negotiators in the town of St Joseph a device was implanted in his head, said police.
Really there is no argument here about the right to be armed, the Second Amendment solves the argument for us. It most obviously doesn't settle the argument.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 01:46pm PT
|
Ok you lost me there--lots of people have different views of what is "constitutional" and how the entire constitutional-law game should be played. But I've never heard a legitimate theory put forth that local LEOs are the guys who should be determining what laws are or aren't constitutional, and deciding which ones they'll enforce on that basis.
No, no! I'm not saying that local LEOs are the guys that should be "determining" what laws are or aren't "constitutional." Courts do the "determining!"
But, that said, ANY individual has the right to engage in civil disobedience based upon their own interpretation of what really is legal. And if a huge proportion of local LEOs are finding gun control laws both dangerous and unconstitutional, then perhaps that's worthy of note.
That was my only point about the fact that the huge proportion of Colorado LEOs are rejecting recent Colorado laws and are filing federal suit on the subject. They are taking it to the courts to decide. Meanwhile, they are engaging in civil disobedience.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
|
had an interesting discussion last night at a party. after enough beers and ports had loosened everyone's tongues.
Somehow came around to guns for self defense. "A" really feels that his semi-auto 9mm pistol is the thing he and his wife need for home defense. "A" has the weapon but has never had professional training.
B is a Brit, ex Metropolitan Police (London) with a license and training to use semi automatic pistols and sniper rifles, and until recently was an armed security officer for people/companies he won't name in the Mideast and US. A pretty tough and level headed lad. He is just as certain that thinking you need to protect yourself and home with a gun is nonsense. That it is in fact more dangerous as you are more likely to end up in armed confrontation and the other guy is almost certainly to have the advantages of intent and surprise.
Not to mention that the chance of an armed intruder coming into your house while you are there is extremely small.
Interestingly while B was a Bobby, even he had to specifically check out a firearm and had to document a reason for needing it.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 03:12pm PT
|
awww Sh*t jghedge
don't try to confuse the debate with facts.
That's an excellent article but the gunslingers will either not read it, ignore what they read or try to debate the facts.
Although news agencies and blogs continue to report 2012 as a “record homicide year” for Chicago, and they also continue to falsely claim that Chicago has the highest “murder rate” in the country, both those claims are demonstrably false. Chicago’s homicide rate even in the deadly year of 2012 was lower than every year from 1991 to 2003. While, Chicago remains a dangerous city for homicides, statistically it is still safer than forty other American cities. If this nation is to engage in a debate about the merits or shortcomings of Chicago’s gun laws, they should at least begin from a foundation of truth, and not use a series of myths upon which to base their arguments. The last paragraph in the article.
The substantiating facts are in the rest of the article.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 03:35pm PT
|
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/may/31/peter-nightingale/university-rhode-island-professor-says-united-king/
This article corroborates the claim:
"The UK has … a firearm fatality rate that is 40 times lower per capita than in the U.S.
"The UK has an unarmed police force….." The article explains carefully how this is NOT true. Correctly speaking, the UK has a MOSTLY unarmed police force. 6653 "authorized firearms officers" like my friend B in my previous post.
However this is important: In England and Wales
During 2010-2011, police "discharged a conventional firearm in three incidents," a drop from six such incidents in 2009-2010, according to data published by the British Parliament.
For comparison, England and Wales are about 58 million people, California is 37 million.
And all 6653 firearms officers had a total of 3 firearm discharges.
In 2011, the rate of gun deaths of all kinds, including suicide, was 10.3 per 100,000 population in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the rate was 0.25 per 100,000.
That is indeed 40 times less than the rate in the U.S. So Nightingale’s figure checked out.
(The gap is even wider for "gun homicides": in 2011, the United Kingdom’s rate was 0.04 per 100,000 people, 90 times less than the 3.6 per 100,000 in the United States.)
Just the facts Ma'am (my apologies to Sgt Friday)
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 03:47pm PT
|
Rate of UNINTENTIONAL gun death per 100,000 people in high income countries
http://www.gunpolicy.org
Rate of firearm possession regardless of country's economy
YEAH, WE'RE #1
nearly 1 gun for every man, woman and child in the US
No wonder the gun lobby has $$$$$$
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
|
6653 "authorized firearms officers" like my friend A in my previous post.
I thought it was your friend B.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
|
That was a test to see if you were paying attention!
(fixed it)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 04:22pm PT
|
Hahahahaha, lying idiot. If you ever got a single fact into that little pea brain of yours, it'd be a miracle.
Too, too funny! Two points about your response are hilarious:
1) The site from which you quote labels itself as: "Real Liberal Politics." Nuff said on that point.
2) The very first paragraph sustains Ron's claim: "Yes, in sheer numbers Chicago leads the nation’s cities in murders...."
Of COURSE a "Real Liberal" site is then going to take the facts (that it even admits) and cast them in terms that make ITS case! To be expected, but certainly not some "objective" grounds for calling Ron's claim "pea brained."
LOL... remember "Lies, damned lies, and statistics?"
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
|
That it is in fact more dangerous as you are more likely to end up in armed confrontation and the other guy is almost certainly to have the advantages of intent and surprise. Not to mention that the chance of an armed intruder coming into your house while you are there is extremely small.
Your overarching point about training is well-taken, and I would be wholeheartedly in favor of a sweeping education campaign to get armed Americans closer to the intent of the founders on this point!
However, this bit about "intent and surprise" doesn't fly for me. If there IS an armed confrontation with an intruder in my house, believe me, I am the one with "intent" in that situation. And I know my own house far better than he does. So, I think I've got a good shot at surprise (pun intended).
And, if there really IS an "extremely small chance" of the intruder and my family ever seeing each other, then the force of your points (even potentially) utterly evaporates!
edit: I mean, which is it? Either I am "more likely to end up in armed confrontation," or there is an "extremely small chance." You can't have it both ways: one way to make one point and the other way to make another point!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
|
1) The site from which you quote labels itself as: "Real Liberal Politics." Nuff said on that point. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home
the site I quoted (and Real Liberal Politics references) is Australian, non-partisan and partially funded by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
nicely done madbolter1, taking my words out of context
The need to protect yourself and home with a gun is nonsense. That it is in fact more dangerous……. If I have to put it differently, I will:
That if even if you have a gun, there is an extremely small chance that an armed intruder will enter your house and IF it happens the intruder has the benefit of surprise….
If you think that's having it both ways then I can't help you. I'm actually conjoining three related reasons that policeman "B" with advanced firearm training and I both think the belief that you need a gun for self defense is silly.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 08:45pm PT
|
People like madbolter will in the long run get guns made illegal.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 09:08pm PT
|
But, that said, ANY individual has the right to engage in civil disobedience based upon their own interpretation of what really is legal. And if a huge proportion of local LEOs are finding gun control laws both dangerous and unconstitutional, then perhaps that's worthy of note.
I for one can't wait to see how few of those LEO's will risk putting their jobs and pensions on the line by doing anything illegal to challenge these laws. I'd genuinely welcome it as it would bring these laws to the supreme court faster.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 09:22pm PT
|
If you think that's having it both ways then I can't help you.
LOL, the way you are wording it NOW is indeed not having it both ways. But the way you worded it before WAS having it both ways. Thanks for the clarification. I see that what you intended to say was not what you originally said. No problem; clarity is difficult to achieve in natural languages, even given the best of intentions.
Like I posted earlier, this guy has the worst critical reasoning faculties on the site
Awww, there you go again, buttering me up and all that. Coming from you, such statements act as a double negative, which, unless my terrible reasoning skills are failing me, means a positive. [bows modestly] Thank you, thank you!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 09:29pm PT
|
huge proportion of local LEOs are finding gun control laws both dangerous and unconstitutional unsupported generalization.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/
Read this article to get the not so neatly packaged truth.
, it was a self-selected Internet poll, in which more than 15,000 of PoliceOne.com’s 400,000 registered members chose to respond, either because of email solicitation or a link to the survey on the PoliceOne.com website.
And there was no question asking whether “background checks” would have an “effect on violent crime.” “Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?” Nearly 80 percent of respondents answered “no.” The question says nothing about requiring background checks, which would be much different than prohibiting private transfers, period.
When the very same survey specifically asked about background checks and mass shootings the results were significantly different.
The survey asked, “Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?” Forty-five percent said no, and 31 percent said yes. The remainder were unsure. But the NRA said nothing about this.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 09:45pm PT
|
Forty-five percent said no
LOL
So, you find where they cast the question "just right," and they STILL couldn't get most of those pesky LEOs to give the "right" answer.
I don't know... seems to me like your latest post helped establish the generalization.
'Course, my reasoning skills and all....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Potemkin Village
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2013 - 10:55pm PT
|
I didn't know this:
"no one gets a permit in California to carry a gun on the streets—except for law enforcement and some DAs. So the average citizen has no business carrying a firearm on him, period. If you’re out in public—or even in another person’s home—and you’re involved in an incident while carrying a gun, you’re in trouble."
Good to know.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/self-defense-and-the-law
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 12:40am PT
|
no one gets a permit in California to carry a gun on the streets—except for law enforcement and some DAs.
Feinstein got one. Power has its perks.
|
|
Crack-N-Up
Big Wall climber
South of the Mason Dixon line
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 02:19am PT
|
Don't worry, I will never try to change a liberal anti gun advocate's opinion. Not worth my time. They can run their mouths and try to change my opinion all they like.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 02:27am PT
|
HFCS,
Thanks for posting that article link. That was extremely interesting and well worth reading!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
|
Feinstein got one. Power has its perks. Yes, after she had received numerous death threats and one assassination attempt, while she was a San Francisco supervisor.
She gave it up long ago.
In 1995 a hearing on terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinstein recounted how, in the 1970s, she was the target of the New World Liberation Front which first attempted to blow up her home. After the bomb failed to detonate, Feinstein explained, she decided to arm herself.
"Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms," Feinstein said in the 1995 hearing.
"When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon," she said. "I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was a period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country."
Feinstein got rid of the permit once the New World Liberation Front was no longer a threat to her.
Sometime before 1995
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273989-feinstein-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore
You got a good reason to fear deadly violence? You can get a concealed weapon permit in California. You get it from your county Sheriff. And you don't need proof of training. Ease of obtaining the permit varies widely by county. You want one in SF or LA County? You probably have to have a VERY good reason.
Go get it in one of the rural counties. It's valid statewide.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
|
You need a gun to safely backpack? I'm glad I don't live in your world.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 03:45pm PT
|
Sure am glad I had my pistol in my house when a meth head broke in with a knife.
I told him he would die if he did not leave. Then I racked a shell.
Heard the door close behind him.
What would you guys have done?
Or the time I was carrying, and 4 latino's tried to jump me in downtown SF. Once again, racked a shell and asked them if they wanted to die.
Those guys are pretty fast runners.
Thanks for all of your thoughts on gun control. I am quite happy with all of my firearms, and the PROTECTION they deliver in a trained hand.
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 03:46pm PT
|
I bring a gun while hiking in wilderness(large gun)as there are always a threat of GRIZZLEYS and and ocational murderer on the run from Calif.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 03:57pm PT
|
The basic problem ALL of the gun control advocates have is that at heart they honestly do not believe in individual rights and liberties. They are fundamentally communitarians, so they believe in a VERY different America than the founders (federalists and anti-federalists alike) set up. They make perceived consequences and highly-interpreted statistics trump individual rights and liberties, because ALL individual values must be derived from and work to support the (nanny) state.
What we have here is not just a "failure to communicate;" it's incommensurable paradigms, so even the underlying definitions of the "same words" are not the same.
Posters to this thread largely have their paradigms firmly fixed. The question every "lurker" on this thread needs to consider is: Do you want to live in the land of the free and the home of the BRAVE, or do you want to live in the land of the repressed and the home of those seeking security (provided BY the nanny state) against every possible threat (including your own tendency to drink too large a soda in one sitting)?
If the former is your choice, then you will resoundingly reject the pre-crime, communitarian ideals. If the latter is your choice, then you explicitly choose to "sacrifice a little liberty for a little security," and you SHALL ultimately have neither.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 03:58pm PT
|
Excellent posts, Tioga. Bravo!
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 04:09pm PT
|
Madbolter I have been following your posts and they are very well thought out and reasonable, without the name calling and insults. Keep up the good work and don't let the ranting California Cuckolds get you down with their gun grabbing agenda..
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 04:24pm PT
|
Thank you much, Frank. I really appreciated that note of encouragement.
Sadly, they do at times get me down... not because of the insults but because it does often seem that they are winning. America really is becoming something vastly and fundamentally different than what I "signed up for."
And it is not doing so in an intentional and principled way. It's just the pathetic decline of trajectory-inertia brought on by the increasing mass of "voters" that really have no clue (thanks in large part to our socialized educational system) about such simple but important distinctions as negative and positive rights, or libertarian vs. communitarian principles. So, sadly, the ultimate end does seem inevitable to me. But that's all "weepy," so I'll pick myself up and carry on. LOL
Small posts like yours give me some hope, because I know that there have to be lots of people like you out there!
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 04:29pm PT
|
On two occasions I have been advised by LEOs to have a gun.
One was when I was camped at a remote Panamint Valley cragging area with a very attractive partner. We were the only people there. It was late in the day when a BLM ranger came driving up the road. I think he was as surprised to see us as we were him. We exchanged greetings. He saw our tent and asked if we were spending the night. I said we were. We chatted for a minute and he turned to leave. After a few steps toward his jeep he turned around and asked me "Do you have a gun?" "You bet" I answered. "Good" he said. "Have a good night."
The other was a matter which I won't get into except to say that an LAPD officer said to me "I've seen situations like this before. If you don't already have a gun I'd suggest you consider getting one."
Regarding a jury convicting a person in a clear cut case of self defense, if I were prosecuted by a DA and was absolutely certain of my innocence I would not choose to go before a jury. I would choose to stand before a judge.
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 04:30pm PT
|
Tioga.. A good gun for all around is a "judge" that way the wife can just point and click and not have to chamber a round as she always has some kind of lotion or goop on her hands.. that and it is a mini shotgun..
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 04:35pm PT
|
at heart they honestly do not believe in individual rights and liberties What a crock. see Norton ^^^^
they believe in a VERY different America than the founders (federalists and anti-federalists alike) set up. The reasoning behind the second Amendment is certainly controversial. Please explain to me the STRICT construction of "A well regulated Militia…."
Since Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of a strict construction.
1939, United States vs Miller
determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. Then 70 years later
2008, District of Columbia vs Heller:
In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession. However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment Cornell University Law School
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
individual values must be derived from and work to support the (nanny) state. more Tommy Rot.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
|
I also believe that a certain part of the population should not be allowed to have guns people like convicted felons, people what are diagnosed with mental disorders and so, I believe that we as a civil society should do more to stop them from having guns
The issue of "believing in individual liberties and rights" is on a sliding scale. It certainly sounds like you are more libertarian in your principles than most of the gun control advocates on this thread. If so, then my statement certainly applies far less to you than to them.
However, the problem is in defining what a "civil society" even means. Any time you advocate a pre-crime measure, that measure by definition will be infringing on individual liberties in an attempt to provide a bit more "security in advance" to "society." That is necessarily going to intentionally and illegitimately infringe on individual liberties in an attempt to purchase a bit of security.
By "civil" you do not seem to mean merely one in which people basically and generally treat each other decently. You seem to imply by "civil" that SOME liberty is insignificant enough to give up in exchange for some measure of pre-crime security. So, it seems simply "obvious" that "convicted felons," etc. should not have guns.
But why shouldn't they?
First of all, there's a huge spectrum of "convicted felons," and most of them would be as responsible with a gun as any other citizen. So, do you mean just "violent felons?" Well, violent in what way? In what context?
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that people IN prison should have guns, but there is a principled reason for that distinction that involves the status of their rights, NOT because they are "convicted felons" as a group.
If our legal system puts somebody back out on the street, then their legal rights status should be restored. If, in individual cases, only some limited set of rights gets restored, then it must be a on a case-by-case basis in which the state can clearly demonstrate exactly what rights are not getting recognized and why.
A major problem with sweeping legislation of all sorts is that it pidgin-holes ALL people of a certain "type," and that will necessarily violate the legitimate rights of particular members of that class.
Most would say, "Oh well.... who cares?" But that blithe response just is communitarian rather than libertarian. The libertarian mindset says that EVERY individual (and their attendant set of rights) is vastly important, and society has NO business infringing on individual rights without compelling and principled reasons, applicable individually.
So, while I also share the intuition that "convicted felons" should not have guns, I also believe that the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis rather than by sweeping legislation that blithely lumps all "such" into the same class. I know that fine-grained approach is a BIG hassle, and it's much more "efficient" to just sweepingly legislate. But for a libertarian, "hassle" is a non-issue; do the job right or don't bother doing it!
The mental health issue is much tougher, as I have very little confidence in the "mental health" (in scare quotes for a reason) industry! Sure, there are clear-cut cases. But there are far more non-clear-cut cases. Again, I'm after case-by-case evaluation rather than sweeping legislation.
So, I would say that my point still holds even for you, although certainly to a much lesser degree than most of the other gun control advocates on this thread! And, seriously, thank you for your service to this country!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 05:12pm PT
|
The reasoning behind the second Amendment is certainly controversial. Please explain to me the STRICT construction of "A well regulated Militia…."
I've done so at length up-thread. And the fact that you can quote some cases in which courts got it wrong is meaningless to the principles themselves.
Look, when the courts start getting it more and more consistently wrong on enough issues, coupled with a bare majority of "the people" deciding for the bare minority that we're going to become a communitarian rather than libertarian nation, then you HAVE at that point crossed the line to a state of majority faction. And that, my friend, is the basis of revolution.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 06:05pm PT
|
After many years, I trust him explicitly not to be such an idiot again, and truely he is a different man.
Great story, Nutter! I'm happy for you and your son. Also glad to hear that his rights are recognized again.
Best to you!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 06:09pm PT
|
Doesnt anyone find it odd that Congress DOESNT know what DHS is up to and has to ask them?
I find virtually everything about our "representatives'" knowledge of things, as well as the various entities (topping the list: DHS) that they supposedly oversee more than just "odd!" As you know, Ron, it's sick and wrong.
We live in a police state. It's a benevolent one, so most people don't see an issue. But it is a police state nonetheless.
The "Patriot Act?" Classic 1984 Doublespeak.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 06:12pm PT
|
"And the fact that you can quote some cases in which courts ruled is meaningless to the fact that the principles themselves are wrong." You stand corrected.
No, I stand confused, baffled even. I don't know what you think you accomplished by so reworking my statement, but clearly you think you accomplished something. Uhh... okay... faint applause?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 07:44pm PT
|
The "Patriot Act?" Classic 1984 Doublespeak. I don't think it's doublespeak. It says quite clearly the intent. It does however deliberately leave far too much discretion to the Executive Branch.
I opposed most of it at the time and have ever since. There's plenty of blood on the hands of Dems and Repubs for this one.
The FISA Act was passed in 1978, amended by the Patriot Act to broaden it's scope.
The FISA rules are a travesty of justice. Secret courts with secret rulings? Now THAT is 1984, just not in doublespeak, in plain English. The NUMBER of FISA requests and approvals is public and astonishing.
In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.[9] This number has steadily grown to 2,224 warrants in 2006.[10] In the period 1979–2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved Only 5 rejected? That's what I call a Kangaroo Court. More than 40 warrants a week in 2006? That's what I call a rubber stamp.
Of course there was the post 9/11 hysteria trumped up by the Bush admin. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft. And The People were taken in by it:
Gallup poll response to the question "Based on what you have read or heard, do you think the Patriot Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" showing that between 2003 and 2004 nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough.[50] In response, the Department of Justice established a website, www.lifeandliberty.gov, that defended the Act from such organizations as the ACLU (which itself had created a website that campaigned against the Patriot Act called Safe and Free).[51] At the same time, Attorney General Ashcroft toured 16 cities giving speeches to invite only crowds defending the Patriot Act and touting its importance.[52][53] In the speeches — which among other things made allusions to Bunker Hill, Antietam, the Argonne, Iwo Jima, Normandy and Abraham Lincoln The complete history of the proposed and enacted legislation before and after the Patriot Act is collectively a disgrace.
Bush's 2004 State Of The Onion address:
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act.
you know, there might be such people as Libertarian Liberals. Or at least an overlapping interest in personal freedom and privacy.
To my addled Liberal mind, Ron Paul was usually the most cogent candidate in the Republitard Presidential debates. Generally regarding national security and law enforcement.
Romney?? MEH
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 08:00pm PT
|
There's plenty of blood on the hands of Dems and Repubs for this one.
We are certainly on the same page about this. Neither party had a principled leg to stand on here.
Yet, it's the gift that keeps on giving, and neither party seems willing/able to unring that bell, despite the many abuses that have emerged from it, just as I (and it sounds like you) predicted when Bush was falling all over himself to get it passed.
It's good to find a bit of common ground, HighTraverse. Seriously.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 08:04pm PT
|
whaddya know!! ;-)
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 09:11pm PT
|
The other afternoon I get a call from a good friend. He says he wants to give me a gun. He says it's a gun every self respecting gentleman should own. He goes on to say he doesn't want to do any official transfer etc. No paperwork.
I'm kind of confused and have my mind made up I wont accept the gun when he shows up with this...
http://www.bugasalt.com
What a hoot! This thing shoots a pinch of salt with sufficient force to nail flies, like a miniature shotgun.
Since city of LA has already made it illegal to shoot a bb gun I'm sure they'll be all over this one too.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2013 - 11:19pm PT
|
Any time you advocate a pre-crime measure, that measure by definition will be infringing on individual liberties in an attempt to provide a bit more "security in advance" to "society." That is necessarily going to intentionally and illegitimately infringe on individual liberties in an attempt to purchase a bit of security.
Says the guy who supports Voter ID laws... To prevent a non violent crime that hasn't has a single proven occurrence in decades, that completely co-incidentally will disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republicans.
If you think that the United States has been anything like the Founding Fathers intended for at least the last one hundred fifty years, you are even more delusional than I thought. The Founding Fathers themselves didn't want it to stay the same, or they wouldn't have written the means of change into the constitution. You didn't "sign up" for the Founding father's nation, guessing at your age, you signed up after at least 10 amendments after the death of the very last founding Father.
Perhaps you would prefer to return to slavery, non-applicability of most of the Bill of Rights to state laws, male only suffrage...
Luckily for the rest of us, you don't get to choose.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2013 - 12:28am PT
|
Says the guy who supports Voter ID laws... To prevent a non violent crime that hasn't has a single proven occurrence in decades, that completely co-incidentally will disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republicans.
I'm totally confused by this snippet. Let's see if we can parse it out....
a non violent crime that hasn't has a single proven occurrence in decades
First of all, voter fraud is indeed one of the most violent acts that can be committed against both a society and the legally-valid individuals that compose it. If you don't think that legislation is a form of controlled violence, then you really do know nothing about political theory.
But of even more interest is that if there are not any occurrences, then I'm really baffled how you can so confidently state: co-incidentally will disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republicans.
If there are no "proven" occurrences, then HOW could you know what bloc of voters would be "disenfranchised?"
Also, even the choice of word, "disenfranchised," seems odd! If a person is legally entitled to vote, then HOW can he/she be "disenfranchised" by a law that simply ensures that he/she IS legally entitled to vote? If a person is NOT legally entitled ("franchised") to vote, then HOW can he/she then be disenfranchised?
Ohhh.... Could it BE that the recent successes of the Democratic Party have come about BECAUSE of a huge cadre of voters that would be "disenfranchised" if they DID actually have to demonstrate their legal right to vote? And are these the same people MOST wanting a handout at the taxpayers' expense? I don't know. I'm just confused because you seem to KNOW things that it seems impossible to know. Please explain.
Meanwhile, regarding a Voter ID law being an example of a "pre-crime" law, as you suggest, you now conflate innate, inalienable rights with derived rights.
You have an innate, inalienable ("human") right to life. So a law precluding murder prohibits an act someone might commit in violation of your innate, inalienable right. The same principle of an inalienable right holds regarding the right to self-defense. So, no valid law can preclude you ("alienate" you) from every needed means by which to defend yourself.
By contrast, you have only a derived right to vote. THIS right is not inalienable; it is a product OF the system in which you participate by voting (or wanting to). It is not a "human" right; it is a right strictly derived from a particular political arrangement, and, thus, it is ENTIRELY beholden to the rules of that particular game.
Furthermore, a law prohibiting you from voting (if you can't produce adequate ID) would violate NO rights of anybody that actually HAS the right. IF you DO have the legal right to vote, then the system simply says, "Prove it!" If you can, you vote, and no right of yours has been violated by the law. If you cannot, you do not vote, AND NO RIGHT OF YOURS HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE LAW.
Thus, I can well and consistently support a Voter ID law while simultaneously resisting all these pre-crime laws and inalienable-rights violations your side of this debate advocates.
If you think that the United States has been anything like the Founding Fathers intended for at least the last one hundred fifty years, you are even more delusional than I thought.
You're on the right track, but overstating by quite a bit. The real beginning of the end occurred under FDR, imho. So I believe that you've about doubled the actual time frame of the serious decline.
The Founding Fathers themselves didn't want it to stay the same, or they wouldn't have written the means of change into the constitution. You didn't "sign up" for the Founding father's nation, guessing at your age, you signed up after at least 10 amendments after the death of the very last founding Father.
Just because the document has a mechanism for change does not mean that the Founders thought Americans would pitch off a cliff in terms of the founding principles, such as the sacredness of individual liberty.
Perhaps you would prefer to return to slavery, non-applicability of most of the Bill of Rights to state laws, male only suffrage...
If you try to get even a bit serious, you might have more of an effect.
Luckily for the rest of us, you don't get to choose.
LOL, none of us, not even you, get to choose.
|
|
perswig
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2013 - 08:31am PT
|
Kris' rig reminds me of my grandfather loading 20ga shells with rock salt as a nonlethal varmint shoo-er.
Dale
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2013 - 08:45am PT
|
First of all, voter fraud is indeed one of the most violent acts that can be committed against both a society and the legally-valid individuals that compose it. If you don't think that legislation is a form of controlled violence, then you really do know nothing about political theory.
Somehow, I think having my brains blown out would be just a might more violent than some Marine voting in the wrong precinct.
But that's just me.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
|
I'll bite.
First of all, voter fraud is indeed one of the most violent acts that can be committed against both a society and the legally-valid individuals that compose it.
No response needed, but it bears repeating just to show how completely bizarre your thinking is.
But of even more interest is that if there are not any occurrences, then I'm really baffled how you can so confidently state: co-incidentally will disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republicans.
If there are no "proven" occurrences, then HOW could you know what bloc of voters would be "disenfranchised?"
I was thinking that jhedge was a bit harsh criticizing your reasoning skills, but perhaps he is right. In a court hearing here in PA, state lawyers were unable to present evidence (not proof, merely evidence) of a single case of in-person voter fraud in recent history. In-person voter fraud is already a crime (perjury), but to counteract this non-existent problem, Republicans passed a law that required government-issued ID to vote. Got that? No evidence that this crime exists AT ALL. Please offer any evidence to the contrary, and compare with evidence of the numbers of gun-related crimes.
Several independent studies show that those without valid Photo ID are more likely to be Democrats (city dwellers, younger voters), of course many Republicans will also be caught up by this, but as long as a higher proportion of Democrats don't get to vote, the goal is still achieved. I'm not even opposed to Voter ID laws theoretically, but when the details of such laws are so obviously biased against democrats, it becomes very clear who is damaging society and the legally-valid individuals that compose it.
Finally, back to the original point. The nation envisaged by the Founding Fathers failed in less that ninety years, ending in a civil war that reversed the relationship between state and federal governments, I merely pointed out some realities of that previous utopia that you repeatedly assert was morally superior.
TE
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2013 - 02:29pm PT
|
Somehow, I think having my brains blown out would be just a might more violent than some Marine voting in the wrong precinct.
You definitely fixate on the most obvious and personalized notion of violence. However, the Marine is not the issue, and "violence" takes many forms. The difficulty is to elevate the thinking of people from an entirely personalized view of society to a principled one.
No response needed, but it bears repeating just to show how completely bizarre your thinking is.
I knew when I wrote it that you'd puke on it. But your visceral reaction makes the statement no less true.
In a court hearing here in PA, state lawyers were unable to present evidence (not proof, merely evidence) of a single case of in-person voter fraud in recent history.
There is so much wrong with this statement that I scarcely know where to begin. We could start with the sample size. We could start with what "in person" picks out (ie: not the real problem in the first place). We could start with what "recent" means. But why bother? It gets even worse in following sentences....
...but to counteract this non-existent problem, Republicans passed a law that required government-issued ID to vote. Got that? No evidence that this crime exists AT ALL.
As I stated earlier, if there is no crime, then nobody is "disenfranchised" by the law. This is the point you seem unable to "get." It might, by your lights, be a USELESS law. But if NOBODY is adversely affected by it, then you have nothing to carp about.
And "no evidence" doesn't move me a lot, given the sample size and geography you refer to. The great State of PA is not the sort of state I'm too worried about.
Several independent studies show that those without valid Photo ID are more likely to be Democrats (city dwellers, younger voters)...
I just LOVE lines like "several independent studies show." The phrase "studies show" in general is a HOOT. To critical thinkers, such a phrase is one of the biggest evidentiary red flags possible! LOL... worse than "damned lies."
And you'll get NO sympathy from me about the lack of photo ID. For those that cannot be BOTHERED to obtain essentially FREE state-issued ID, well, sorry, but you don't get to vote. Like, you care enough about society that you MUST vote, but you just can't be PART of society enough to get ID??? Yeah, right. Sorry, I'm not moved.
The nation envisaged by the Founding Fathers failed in less that ninety years, ending in a civil war that reversed the relationship between state and federal governments, I merely pointed out some realities of that previous utopia that you repeatedly assert was morally superior.
Wow! Just wow! Literally too much to say here than CAN be said in a venue like this. This paragraph is so chock full of bogus assumptions that I literally cannot even get started in dealing with it. I'll merely say this....
This particular part of our debate started when you accused me of being inconsistent regarding my favoring Voter ID legislation AND having a libertarian, no-pre-crime perspective. I think we can sum up at this point by saying that you have not only not even started to sustain that accusation, but I believe that any unbiased thinker is going to recognize that my perspective on this is at least consistent.
No point in dickering over the endless nuances of "utopia" or "moral superiority," because, as I've already said, we live in incommensurable paradigms. We use words that sound the same, but they have wildly different meanings.
Well, I'm done for at least the foreseeable future. I think that the principles underlying this whole issue are pretty clearly on the table at this point. Reasonable thinkers have enough from "both sides" in this thread to make up their own minds. And, over time, this nation will go the way of the majority view, as it always does.
If that ends up becoming full-on majority faction, then I do predict another major upheaval in this society, perhaps even another civil war. We'll see how it all plays out.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2013 - 07:50pm PT
|
As I stated earlier, if there is no crime, then nobody is "disenfranchised" by the law. This is the point you seem unable to "get." It might, by your lights, be a USELESS law. But if NOBODY is adversely affected by it, then you have nothing to carp about.
Everybody else gets it. Nobody is being disenfranchised at present (the PA law has been stayed by the courts) because in-person voter fraud essentially does not exist, if you disagree, please provide any evidence to the contrary, take whatever sample size you want.
The PA Voter ID law was passed to prevent a non-existent crime, but the law if implemented will prevent legitimate voters from voting, even if its only the few hundred who forget their ID. Disenfranchised is a strong word, but the end result is the same. These laws are intended to reduce voter turnout in urban areas, by young people, or people too poor to own a car or spend the money needed to get Voter ID.
These laws have been crafted because tiny changes in election results in swing states like PA matter a lot. 20 electoral college votes up for grabs is well worth corrupting democracy for.
Back to your inalienable rights, I acknowledge the theoretical difference between voting and the concept of an inalienable right (I don't actually acknowledge the existence of inalienable right except in theory, a theory I do like), but while self-defense is in inalienable right, purchasing a firearm for that purpose cannot be an inalienable right because it is dependent on another person.
Off climbing for a week, enjoy.
TE
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2013 - 04:51am PT
|
dingus wrote:
I don't have a fear of guns but I am sexually and emotionally retarded.
At least you're not an anti-dentite.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2013 - 05:00am PT
|
madbolter1,
All that writing about the sanctity of the second amendment and never a peep from you regarding the Patriot Act. Why is that?
In your verbose posts I have yet to read a clear explanation as to why background checks are unconstitutional and why holding a gun owner responsible for what happens with their gun(s) would also be unconstitutional.
We have lots of laws and regulations providing a framework for rights laid out in the Constitution. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?
A recent study of crime stats revealed that the large majority of guns used in murders (and the recent high-profile massacres) were purchased less than 3 years prior to the crime. So the argument that "there are lots of guns already out there" does not hold water to the reality of the murders being committed.
Also, the NRA represents a small sliver of the US population, and primarily lobbies - contrary to popular belief - for gun manufacturer interests. The situation is the way it is today because gun manufacturers want it that way in order to continue to make money (through the legal or illegal sale of guns, they don't care) hand over fist.
Anyway, here's what a I wrote in another thread almost exactly a year ago and it still applies:
First, there will always be deviants and criminals, but that does not mean that one should not have laws. But indeed, there needs to an effort that goes beyond simply banning weapons in order to address the violent crime in the United States. How about universal healthcare? Better schools? The village raising the child so to speak.
Second, this issue is similar to immigration or healthcare: the system is not changing because those who are making a huge amount of money off it don’t want it to change. For immigration, crack down on the employers and you will see much less illegal immigration; in healthcare the pharma companies and the big corporate providers are okay with bilking the American public as long as no one lifts a finger; and with guns, the gun/bullet manufacturers are all too happy to make money off the current system (legal or illegal sales, their bottom lines don’t care), crack down on them and things will change.
Third and lastly, I always find it ironic that those in favor of such repressive legislation as the Patriot Act, or trashing every other portion of the Constitution, evoke the second amendment as if they even care about the Constitution. Why not just be honest with yourselves, you like guns, like the easy access to guns in the US and are hiding behind the second amendment? Jody, et al, you know who you are, since when have you cared about liberty?
I'll add, madbolter1, when have you ever cared about liberty?
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
|
Yikes!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2013 - 09:15pm PT
|
...never a peep from you regarding the Patriot Act. Why is that?
Degaine, congrats... that might well be the most disconnected post on this whole thread. I mean, you obviously disagree with what you THINK I'm saying or stand for, but you rail on me (clearly) without having actually READ what I've written. "Never a peep?"
First, this thread is not ABOUT the Patriot Act. A thread on that topic would garner more discussion from me about it. But even in this thread, here's the "never a peep" show from me....
Aug. 4: "You want slippery slope? Just look at how the Patriot Act has become continual NSA violation of the Fourth Amendment, with very, very little outrage on the part of the people that all should know better!"
Aug. 15: "The 'Patriot Act?' Classic 1984 Doublespeak."
To which HighTraverse posted a lengthy expose' on the Patriot Act, stating that both parties had blood on their hands for passing it. And that same day I responded to HighTraverse saying: "We are certainly on the same page about this. Neither party had a principled leg to stand on here. Yet, it's the gift that keeps on giving, and neither party seems willing/able to unring that bell, despite the many abuses that have emerged from it, just as I (and it sounds like you) predicted when Bush was falling all over himself to get it passed."
So, either you're a flagrant troll, or you literally don't have a clue what principles I believe in or stand for (which would indicate intentional ignorance, given all I've written on this thread).
And, on the topic of the Patriot Act, we now find that the DEA has for years been supplied data from the NSA (supposedly all "meta," if you'll all remember) to support the DEA's (utterly failed) "war on drugs;" and the DEA then repeatedly and regularly manufactured evidentiary trails and lied to courts in order to cover up the fact that the "evidence" they had in many drug cases was illegally obtained. This process was used so often that DEA agents were explicitly trained in how to manufacture evidence in order to obscure the source of the original evidence that was obtained solely from the NSA's secret spying program, thus making it appear to normal courts that the DEA's evidentiary trail was "normal," legal, and intact.
Now caught on this, the response is that the Patriot Act both justified and legalized this behavior. HOW the DEA can try to float that normal drug enforcement investigations qualify as a matter of national security or relate in any way to the war on terror will be the subject of a lot of discussion going forward!
So, Patriot Act, and next thing you know, the whole rule of law is right out the window, and we live in a Police State.
(Is that enough for you in THIS thread on how I feel about the Patriot Act?)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
|
A far right wing Christian....
LOL, and I mean ROFL! You are so clueless about what I believe.
Abortion? Should be legal!
Gay marriage? Should be legal!
Drugs? Should be legal (and taxed)!
Need I go on?
I'm about as far from a "right wing" Christian as it's possible to be. You don't recognize basic philosophical distinctions: Libertarian != Right Wing.
So, your attempt to sum me up? Fail!
ROFL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
|
We don't give sh!t how they do it in the UK.
This is America.
In America we slaughter everything sight and all over the world too.
Wake up Hedge.
Your vacation will be in the UK.
You'll be safe there. (rolls eyes)
Here in the slaughterhouse of America this how it's done.
Stop slaughtering everything first and then your gun control will naturally take effect.
You have to stop violence first.
America is the most violent country. Guns got nothing to do with it.
Get your ticket to the UK.
They're pretty violent too there ......
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2013 - 01:19am PT
|
At the 2010 British Press Awards The Telegraph was named the "National Newspaper of the Year" for its coverage of the MPs expenses scandal (named "Scoop of the Year"), with William Lewis winning "Journalist of the Year".
The Telegraph won "Team of the Year" in 2004 for its coverage of the Iraq War. The paper also won "Columnist of the Year" three years' running from 2002 to 2004: Zoë Heller (2002), Robert Harris (2003) and Boris Johnson (2004.
|
|
Sredni Vashtar
Social climber
The coastal redwoods
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2013 - 01:19am PT
|
As her Britannic majesty's envoy to Supertopia I can comment on all things from the sceptred isle.
Yes, we are a rowdy bunch who like to mix it up after a night drinking wife beater at Wetherspoons but thankfully we don't shoot each other all that often. The poll on the Handgun ban was conducted by the Telegraph newspaper (I think) and its read by a conservative bunch, like fox hunting, a lot of people feel that laws were passed in a reactionary knee jerk manner in response to (in the case of the handgun blanket ban) a horrific crime. Overnight law abiding handgun owners became potential criminals if they retained possession of their firearms. Its not so much people want open carry on the streets of Tunbridge Wells its just the way it came about. Unfortunately for you guys, there are far too many firearms doing the rounds and no real records of who has them.
On a side note, I read on some other web forums about how some people will only venture into the backcountry armed, what is everyone so afraid of they treat camping like combat? is it 'squatches? pot growers? two legged coyotes? In other countries there doesn't seem to be this fear and I am curious as to why its so prevalent here.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2013 - 01:25am PT
|
On a side note, I read on some other web forums about how some people will only venture into the backcountry armed, what is everyone so afraid of they treat camping like combat?
Aside from Grizzly Bear habitat very few people here feel the need to be armed in the back country. Even in Grizzly terrain there are many who travel safely without a gun. In the areas I go in wilderness I would never carry a gun.
Some of the places I car camp are another story.
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2013 - 01:25am PT
|
^^It's the big bad wolf they're afraid of.
|
|
Sredni Vashtar
Social climber
The coastal redwoods
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2013 - 01:39am PT
|
To clarify, I live here in the US now and I know for a fact some people take handguns into the backcountry and certainly not in grizzly country.
r.e gun owners still being alive, criminals can still source guns for crimes, the knee jerk gun ban just criminalized those people that legally held guns and trust me, you have to jump through hoops to own guns in the UK. we still have shotguns and rifles there but the licensing is a strict vetting process and a criminal record might well prevent you from holding an FAC (firearms certificate).
Anyway I don't need a gun, I got a Donk
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2013 - 01:48am PT
|
and I know for a fact some people take handguns into the backcountry
Hardly a good idea if you care how much weight you are carrying.
By "donk," if you are referring to a shortened baseball bat with a strap through the handle, possession is a felony in California.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
|
Borrowed shotgun blasts and stops terrorist.
A drug crazed half naked boat hijacker who stole a yacht near Seattle WA and was ramming moored vessels damaging them severely was stopped when
a military veteran who served briefly in Vietnam, said he borrowed the shotgun from the owner of an adjacent boat to end the 11pm rampage.
He decided to fire, he said, because the stolen boat appeared headed to ram a boat that he knows someone is living in.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021838559_marinashootingxml.html
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2013 - 12:38am PT
|
533- sick troll. DMT is smarter than all of you combined.
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 02:04am PT
|
My husband is a "dyed in the wool" fisherman, not a hunter. We have been in Wyoming 20 years. about 10 years ago he started fishing at the Fire Hole in Yellowstone and in Pilgrim Creek, which opens at 10AM and closes at 5pm due to Grizzly activity. In the county we live in now, there are 1,000 lakes- but he HAS TO fish Yellowstone. Sheez
One time at the Fire Hole he heard a big crack in the willows. He started to look around and HOLY SH#T!! a bunch of cars had stopped on the road on the other side of the Fire Hole, obviously wildlife watchers- He fled.
You can hardly have a day in Yellowstone anymore without some observation of grizzly activity. The wolves have had a very successful 10 years (+) as well. Wolf packs have split and split again. Finally they have issued wolf tags to hunters.
If you wonder what initiated these introductions, it was the Elk. The Elk refuge in Jackson Hole was feeding 20K elk in the winter. The Refuge managers and the feds wanted the #'s down. This was getting expensive and over populated. Elk and Buffalo transfer brucellosis to cattle- a big issue in Wyoming. Brucellosis makes cows abort. Also, in the 30's, Wyoming had to shut down her borders due to scabies- which came from elk and were transferred to all pasture stock. Over population is a problem. Hunting tags were issued left and right and deprivation hunts were also given to hunters when elk caused a financial burden on a rancher by eating his hay intended for cattle. Now the number of elk on the refuge is closer to 12,000.
Since we arrived 20 years ago, it has been said that a rifle report is a dinner bell in Grand Teton- especially around 2 Ocean Pass. A lot of hunters have had the experience of not being able to recover their elk. Mostly it is grizzlies, but wolves have had their turn as well. Mostly, though, wolves are blamed for taking down fawns and elk calves.
I bought my husband a .480 Ruger- which fired smoother than the Freedom Arms Casual (I think that is how you spell it-It is supposed to be the biggest hand gun you can buy.) A grizzly attack changes your life. Your body becomes a liability, not the asset it was. At that time you couldn't bring a handgun into a National Park- You have all heard SSS- shoot, shovel and shut-up. He was gonna carry that pistol if you'd have asked ME.
There is no waiting period here in WYOMING, at least there wasn't for me. I had to fill out a questionnaire * that was ridiculous*.
Have I broken out of jail or prison?
Have I escaped from a mental hospital? That caliber (pun) of questions
It was a joke- and there lies the problem. Extrapolate that....
In Germany you can own guns but you have to belong to a gun club, and you don't keep them at home. You check them out, use them and bring them back to the club when you are done. Now, there is an idea to con-volute and improve on..
I have heard the same arguments as you have. WTF! Do you need automatic weapons for robbing a 7-11? or are you expecting Ruby Ridge?
Me, I carry a .357 when I travel with my horses. I have seen two terrible rear end accidents involving horses and horse trailers and I won't wait for someone to show up (Officer Joe Blow- thanks- he's never shot a horse in his life- horses have a lot of adrenalin it is hard enough to shoot them once). . Please don't take my gun away. I need it here in Wyoming- I have never thought of having one before I moved here. Most situations can be cured with a $60 can of bear spray- especially during divorces. The jury is still out on a griz encounter vs bear spray.
Anyone going unarmed going into remote back country in the Rockies should be fully aware what the consequences could be. It is coming- the wolves and Griz populations have swelled to dangerous. Someone is going to be headlines soon. Don't let it be you. Believe the close call stories that you have heard.
|
|
xtrmecat
Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 08:29am PT
|
Bruce Kay wrote,
To clarify.... A hand gun - even a 44 - is no sure bet with a grizzly and in any event, bear spray is statistically proven better than any fire arm in preventing damage from bear attack.
Which begs the question - why bother with a gun when bear spray ( mace ) is a superior deterrant without the risk of fatal injury?
Answer: Killing tastes better
Bruce, I will take your question on. I can tell the poster just below yours is obviously not qualified, or very honest either.
There are several different kinds of encounters. Accidental encounters with a griz are not the most dangerous, because the bear may run back away from you and assess the situation. Bear spray would be the perfect tool for an encounter of this sort.
Another type of encounter would be a chance sighting, with some ground between you and the big old bruin. This is another great time to have a fresh can of spray, in case the bruiser decides you warrant a closer inspection as a potential food source.
The worst case of meeting a griz is a predatory encounter. I will give you a likely and probable scenario. I have personally had the example occur to my wife and I more than once. Any encounter at night should be considered predatory as the bear is not traveling through, just curious about you or your camp. He is there to gleen your camp and you for any food possible. His behavior is predictable and dangerous. You cannot spray him through a tent, even the netting should you have your fly off renders the spray useless. This is one time it is truly you or him and lethal force is your best tool.
I can think of several other experiences I have personally had that the revolver I carried was the best tool for the incident. I luckily have never had to dispatch one of these spectacular beasts, and as much time as I am out there, have had many close encounters.
Scenarios while hunting can require a deadly force use as well. I can think of many more but haven't the time to write all morning. I am heading out to be among the critters, predators and all.
I carry both spray and a large ultralight handgun. Two of the tools needed here to prevent becoming a statistic.
Don't think you have an understanding because you have read and heard of many things from many sources. You may be wrong. It doesn't taste better. Just what you must do. Experience is the only way to know for sure.
To the poster right below from Wyo. .
The question you say you answered were a joke when purchasing your gun, were part of a federal form we all fill out and has only had slight changes to it in many years. Your description of it is so less than real, I beg you to shut up. It makes your argument useless when you do this, and you may be causing damage to other enthusiasts who can be honest and have a real need also.
Burly Bob
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 09:40am PT
|
"Mr. Bear, would you be kind enough to move around me so that you are downwind before I deploy my can't fail spray can ?"
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 12:12pm PT
|
Anyone going unarmed going into remote back country in the Rockies should be fully aware what the consequences could be. It is coming- the wolves and Griz populations have swelled to dangerous. Someone is going to be headlines soon. Don't let it be you. Believe the close call stories that you have heard.
Fear mongering poppycawk.
http://www.grizzlybay.org/LearnMore/AttackStats.htm
Anyone waking up in the morning and not crawling into a bullet proof bubble should be fully aware what the consequences could be.
Why is there no big political brouhaha around the right to conceal carry beer spray?
Yummy!
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 12:54pm PT
|
Burley Bob-
The form I filled out to purchase the .480 had those questions on the form- If I remember correctly, it was 1/2 of a page of questions and they struck me as ridiculous- I really remember that. Now, I will check to see if that was a state form, which I suspect it was.
Living as close to Grand Teton as I did for 13 years, I have heard of many close calls, griz and wolf. Myself, I have only seen bear scratches high up on trees- it is obvious when you come across them that it is not a brown or black bear.
I bought bear spray for my parents, my aunt and my friend in L.A. I carry a can too-I don't believe in firing a pistol unless you are sure of your shot and have no way out. Otherwise, live and let live and eat what you kill.
sorry, I won't shut up. The point IS discussion.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
|
I have heard of many close calls...
Stories are great entertainment. In all of North America, there have been 12 fatalities by brown bears and 12 by black bear in the last 7 years.
I don't question your need for a gun up there. I'd most likely carry if I was out and aboot up there... although I have spent plenty of time in MT and never carried a gun. But you have to admit, using bear attacks to justify opposition to increased firearm legislation is idiotic.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
|
Mr Vashtar writes:
"I read on some other web forums about how some people will only venture into the backcountry armed, what is everyone so afraid of they treat camping like combat? is it 'squatches? pot growers? two legged coyotes?"
Weschrist writes:
"Stories are great entertainment. In all of North America, there have been 12 fatalities by brown bears and 12 by black bear in the last 7 years."
You don't suppose one has anything to do with the other, do you, Professor?
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
|
MeChrist- F*#k that-"story" sh#t. I live around people that are outfitters and people that work in the park or forest, people that are passionate fishermen. It is a bad thing to think that you have to run and leave your dog as bait. The view from my deck is designated WILDERNESS. I am not sitting in suburbia thinking about these things. We do have a gun problem in the US and it is apparent to me that some restrictions could be a good thing- but, I also think that my 357 is necessary.
Rejection by some people is a complement.
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
|
FYI-I am not talking about California or the Sierra's. Or even the Cascades- I have never felt that a pistol in the back country in those places was necessary and I have spent a lot of time in those places.
I am awake now- good bye
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
|
F*#k that-"story" sh#t.
you seem to have gotten all emotional and missed this part...
I don't question your need for a gun up there. I'd most likely carry if I was out and aboot up there... although I have spent plenty of time in MT and never carried a gun.
Not sure why discussions of guns seem to get gun owners so emotional and irrational... retaining only what they disagree with... jumping at the opportunity to react.
But out of curiosity, how many times have you, or anyone you were with, used a gun to deter a bear or wolf attack?
I also know plenty of Geologists who have done field work in Alaska... weeks of remote field mapping/hiking/camping... each and every one of them packing heat. Plenty of stories about seeing grizzly bears... not a single one ever used their gun. I suppose Chaz would argue the bears didn't attack because Alaska is open carry.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
|
not a brown or black bear
Hmmmm,....
I didn't know there were polar bears in the Tetons.
Or is it a feral sun bear? A sloth faced bear?
Bigfoot?
Quite the mystery.
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
|
1.You imply that I have an exaggerated cave man reaction to camping or hiking.That I'd prefer killing stuff than experiencing them in their environment. My husband and I don't even hunt- which is rare here- I'd rather buy a 1/2 a beef each year from a rancher.
2.You say that I am not truthful. I just wake up in the morning waiting to get on line and lie. WTF..
3.The other states like Washington, California, Montana(North Texas sheep f*#kers living in single wides, if you ask me- I can be insulting too- I have made a point not to- you set the tone.) Those states do not have an elk refuge with numbers as high as 20K that has caused the government to reintroduce wolves and grizzly's into the ecosystem. Yosemite-Moab- the hippies are the scary factor in those places.
4.These predators have done very well since being reintroduced.
5.I have fear that the liberals and the democrats will want to make legislation for all states regarding gun owner ship.
6.I have not encountered a wolf or a grizzly, but Monday I needed to put a horse down. It broke it's leg in a freak accident- what? I am supposed to ask the horse to wait for the vet-two hours for a ranch call?
You wonder why I am reacting to your posts? Because I am a republican gun owner (assumption) I could give a sh#t about politics unless something directly will affect me. So, NO way.. It is because you are insulting. That's why.
SO here- do me a favor- go to Yellowstone and Grand Teton- and then get back to me.
Toker Villian- You need to learn how to read- I said that the scratches were obviously griz and not brown or black - I was talking about scratches- I could have said it this way, "12 feet up a tree 6' long and 2" deep". Instead of critiquing me, why don't you write your own sh#t- your not funny. I have driven through Toquerville- pretty place at first but weird inbred vibes - creepy..
And Burley Bob- or whoever you are, try spell check-
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 04:45pm PT
|
Not as creepy or inbred as Pinedale.
At least people here know that griz = brown bear, dumbshlt.
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
|
like I said, you need to learn how to read- a Griz is a variety of the brown bear.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 06:28pm PT
|
Which is why you said "griz not brown"?
Nice to see a fellow gun owner who doesn't believe in bigfoot,..
|
|
Chewybacca
Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 08:03pm PT
|
One of my favorite activities is tracking and watching bears. They are such interesting animals, especially sows with cubs. This last season was my best one yet with nearly two dozen grizzly bear encounters and about the same in black bear encounters.
For my personal protection I prefer bear spray. I'm not anti-gun but there is no doubt in my mind that, for the average person, spray is a more reliable deterrent. All the studies I've seen and my own experiences support this.
That said, the fear that many people have of bears is overblown. Just because a bear sees a person doesn't mean they will try to hurt that person. Here is a link to some of my bear photos from this season. As you can see I was pretty close to some of these animals yet none of them acted in an intimidating manner or aggressively towards me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65037107@N07/sets/72157635415704382/
Don't shoot me bro!
|
|
xtrmecat
Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 10:39pm PT
|
Manemachen wrote,
Nov 10, 2013 - 09:54am PT
Burley Bob-
The form I filled out to purchase the .480 had those questions on the form- If I remember correctly, it was 1/2 of a page of questions and they struck me as ridiculous- I really remember that. Now, I will check to see if that was a state form, which I suspect it was.
You suspect wrong, and your recollection of the questions is also as wrong. Same federal form as the rest of us use. Filled out about ten of them this year so far, and the only changes the form has seen in years is the ones related to race and ethnicity. It is just over one page of questions and is mandatoryby the federal govt..
Manemachen wrote,
And Burley Bob- or whoever you are, try spell check
I did not realize the poor writing due to my Ipad mini's autocorrect offended. I apologize and even corrected some or most of the post real quick this afternoon. Ironic the tool trying to make the pad easier to use makes so many errors. On my pc now so you needn't worry.
I still wish you would quiet your posting. You make some of the rest of the backcountry folks appear kind of hickish when you drag us along on your rants. You are obvious to us who are the real deal. Before your rant about not knowing "your" country or setting, I would be willing to bet I have more hours and miles in your backyard than you, as I have had a lifetime to accomplish this, not the last thirteen years. Your stories are about other peoples encounters with wolves and bear. Mine are strickly first person.
Mechrist, I am one who has had to discharge my weapon in defense of critters in question. I can get other people to tell me of their first person accounts and type them in as they recite, but what would be the point? It is mostly a geographical anomolly I suspect. I occurs here more frequently than one would think. I won't bore readers with details, and I really do not wish to incriminate myself if I had in fact done something illegal, but you get the point. It does happen, more here than I would suspect even in Alaska. I would say that only because the browns in Alaska know they can and will be shot. Here they are more at ease as they are many generations removed from ever being hunted.
Ron, I also don't know of any bigfoot critter, and have logged in so many miles that I am truly convinced of his nonexistance, and that has been my whole motivation for the out of doors. Ps, to this, got my first Timney and it is the last component of my varmit tool. Opinion? It seems to be the only item that keeps it from tack driver status.
Pepper spray is a great tool, but only one tool in the quiver seems kind of foolish. I sometimes go headlong into places I know are ripe for sighting and getting close to these wonderful critters same as Chewybacca. The wife always enjoys closer than comfortable photography with them, and always pretends that she wishes she hadn't come along, and yet there she is. Hmm???
Burly Bob
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2013 - 12:34am PT
|
you get your wish Bob- This social media thing was and experiment, because I love writing. I have no reason to lie- I couldn't really give a f*#k what anyone thinks these days, I was relating what I have observed here. Tonight I had dinner with a old guy that spent most of his life teaching in the marine corp. I asked him if he ever filled out the form that I remember. Since he was a competition shooter much of his life also, I expected an honest answer. He remembers the same form as I do.
I think I have better places to expend my efforts- It has been interesting. It has reaffirmed my experiences.
I started in Yosemite at 18- about 3 yrs there. Yosemite is why I tripped over this web site, went to the Alps for 3 years to ski after the military, worked for the forest service 3 seasons at Randle Ranger district, between Mt St Helens and Mt Rainier and then came to Jackson Hole for 13+ years, now reside in Sublette County, up against the Wind River Range the past 6+ years - sorry that I lost the contest. I had to go to college and work a little bit. My friends are outdoor people, ranchers, farriers, outfitters, small business owners..
I don't walk on water, but I am a straight shooter. (That is why I can stay married 25 years) BTW, I ran this by him- he says don't argue with strangers- Goodbye..BOB..no insults intended this time.
Toker- you do have a good sense of humor-goodbye.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2013 - 01:19am PT
|
As an ex-Alaskan I too am down with bear spray but I also believe in, at the least, 44 cal backup.
A lightweight S&W 50 is better and a12ga is best.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2013 - 01:23am PT
|
damn, that chick (I assume) is twistin!
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
|
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
The only form required in the state of Wyoming to purchase a firearm-issued by the ATF- and see if some of the questions don't strike you as ridiculous.
I personally approve of the gun laws in Wyoming- but I would consider a three day waiting period if it came to discussion. I think the form (as an affidavit) is not going to expose anyone willing to lie-
like a fugitive or a nut case- (or ME according to BOB).
example: Did you just got out of a mental hospital?
Do you use alcohol or marajuana to excess?..read it for yourself.
BTW- each state has it's own gun laws...even Moooontaaaannnnnaaaaa..
mechrist- at least you referred to me as a chick, which implies that I am young-(thanks)
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2013 - 12:56pm PT
|
imagine what could be accomplished by a person in the same amount of time that they spend posting their opinions on supertopo.
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2013 - 02:57am PT
|
To whom this might apply -ya baby- twistin' for more than 24 hours now- have been trying to wrap my mind around the conflict here. I don't get it- I don't get how you can publicly call someone a liar before you look up what it is that is being discussed. I don't get the venom. I look at the names and where the posters are from and my guess is that 70% of everyone is from California and the unique draw to this website is the common experience of climbing there. I don't get that when I try to convey a unique situation where I live that I thought could warrant a bit of a warning, how convoluted the subject could become.
My husband and I, from 1997 to 2005, owned and operated Flat Creek Automotive and Flat Creek Towing in Jackson Hole. My husband has been a factory trained Ford Mechanic for 30 years, and we hired a factory trained Dodge Mechanic along with a few other people with different skills. These two were the best mechanics in town. We were the 5th automotive shop in Wyoming to become AAA certified. Flat Creek Towing was the primary service provider for AAA and we did 6000 tows a year for that contract alone. Sooner or later, we delt with just about everyone in town including Game and Fish and the Forest Service. Can you follow this part of the RANT ?(it is an interesting word you chose to use-tells a lot about you.) I would think the information (STORIES) these folks told us were probably correct- (Unless you think everyone is a liar) That was the same time that my husband had started fishing in Yellowstone. The dodge mechanic spent some of his off time antler hunting and at that time he was reading a book about Grizzly attacks. He was concerned. If you look up books on grizzles on Amazon, there are currently 24 books for sale on bear attacks, survivors of Grizzly attacks etc. What we had, that those that were critical of my 2nd hand info, might not have, is a local NEWSPAPER in our town- the Jackson Hole News and Guide, which printed stories about local events, such as wildlife encounters.
I really don't know much about guns. I spent my time in those days either working my ass off, or riding my horse in the Bridger Teton Natl Forest. The scariest encounter was a surprise grouse that made my horse jump sideways. A couple of brothers that grew up as ranch kids, haying with horses in the 30's and 40's, told me about the scabies quarantine and how it affected everyone- I wasn't there--so beat me!! I wrote about that because overpopulation of elk has caused big problems, hence they introduced wolves and grizzles back into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The only Grizzly in California, as far as I know, is on the flag, So maybe it is nice for someone to bring it up so that you may give it second thought as you head out.
One climber that I know went running in the late afternoon near Mormon Row in Grand Teton. While running, he noticed three wolves that had begun to track him and were diagonally coming at him. He turned around and headed back toward his car, surveying the ground all the way back, hoping for a big stick. He was spooked. How is that 2nd hand info any different than reading your posts? At least I know him somewhat and trust that he is straight up. That is what he told me and that was part of my decision to purchase the pistol.
I think that I believe that if you think I am wrong, have the courtesy to take a moment- before you fire from the hip- Either #1. look it up and let me know or #2. move on and write your own sh#t.. but to camp on my ass and tell me " to shut up"- unbelievable and humiliating,
"I have more back country time than you do- and more contacts with bears." B.F.D. I don't get it, that comment. Second hand or not, MY POINT was my thoughts about this area and it's circumstances before buying a gun, and I ended it with "BE CAREFUL." I CAN COUNT years since the re-introduction.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN AND NEITHER DO YOU AND IT IS MY PREROGATIVE TO BUY A PISTOL JUST AS AN ADDED LEVEL OF SAFETY for someone that I love. Complex concept for you? Most animals, if offered a chance to get away-flee.
As for the questions on the forms I filled out-my memory WAS correct.
The questions smacked like-"let me lie and get outta here". I do think they need to make a change-develop a better approach like a reference system to verify the character of the person, like a notary has to have, or a three day waiting period. We, as a country have a problem.
Please, if I bore you at this point, move on..I won't be reading any more critiques, so don't bother..
A Final, Final note- my peers trust my judgement- so I haven't had a personal attack like this in a long time. I felt this possibly could be a good place to exercise my writing, getting my point across, and a little though provoking information might come my way, but I feel shell shocked. I might as well go jump in Boulder Lake-freezing as it is, then to continue to participate in this lost exercise. What is it, this challenge that I am an irrational, emotional gun owner. Really.?. I think it is more like male EGO - "I have purchased 10 guns this year" He happens to be the one that isn't aware of what the form says (seriously unbelievable) or he translates "ridiculous" as something else (because I am sure we don't speak the same language). I did copy the address- you can go back and look.
My head has been "twistin'" but I won't let that happen EVER again. It is not for me- I have already had my share.. I needed to say this in this forum, so I could turn off my "twistin" head and limp away.
|
|
manemachen
Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 04:51pm PT
|
HMMM another 24 hours pass, no BALLS, no CLASS, no APOLOGY.
just what I thought..
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 04:59pm PT
|
LEB has a gun and lives in Wyoming now? Wtf?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
"The nation was in shock. This does not happen in our country," said Thora Arnorsdottir, news editor at RUV, the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service.
She was referring to a 59-year old man who was shot by police on Monday. The man, who started shooting at police when they entered his building, had a history of mental illness.
It's the first time someone has been killed by armed police in Iceland since it became an independent republic in 1944. Police don't even carry weapons, usually. Violent crime in Iceland is almost non-existent.
"The nation does not want its police force to carry weapons because it's dangerous, it's threatening," Arnorsdottir says. "It's a part of the culture. Guns are used to go hunting as a sport, but you never see a gun."
In fact, Iceland isn't anti-gun. In terms of per-capita gun ownership, Iceland ranks 15th in the world. Still, this incident was so rare that neighbors of the man shot were comparing the shooting to a scene from an American film.
The Icelandic police department said officers involved will go through grief counseling. And the police department has already apologized to the family of the man who died — though not necessarily because they did anything wrong.
http://pri.org/stories/2013-12-03/iceland-grieves-after-police-kill-man-first-time-its-history
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
And 13 dead in Oregon, another dozen or more injured.
Where will it end????
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
When the human race ends.
It's a story as old as Cain and Abel.
All he needed was a big rock.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
'Abel'
Edit: Thanks for the correction! Makes us spelling nazis smile.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 429 of total 429 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!