|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 6 users and 48 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:04pm.
Okay, I'll entertain gun porn and conversations here. In fact I would enjoy hearing from anyone here who is anti-gun or desires to restrict arms in the hands of citizens. Below is an image of a female soldier in Isreal. Common citizens as citizen-soldiers! Government issue battle rifles for the masses! Oh horrors. Isreal knows what happens when citizens are disarmed. Switzerland has not had to fight a war in hundreds of years.
‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
| |
(No subject)
Submitted by DC on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:07pm.Such a bad way to carry a rifle
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:13pm.Did not know
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:20pm.HST
Submitted by DC on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:51pm."In a prosperous democracy that is also a society of winners and losers, any man without an equalizer or at least the illusion of one is by definition underprivileged."
From the brilliant work of Oleg Volk
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:01pm.http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/
I learned to shoot when I
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:13pm.I shot my first twelve-gauge when I was ten: nearly disconnected my shoulder.
I've mainly stuck with rifles. I sometimes shoot my Great-Grandpa's .22 which is from the 19th Century.
Haven't been hunting since '92 or '93. I was the guy with the Field Glasses telling my buddy with the rifle to focus on a prominent tree across the way a bit, move the scope down until the trees just out of sight...then move to the left a little bit..."I see them"...and one squeeze of the trigger later we had steaks and sausages.
I have a t-shirt somewhere that shows a Glock and says "I don't call 911"
Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake
Changed quote
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:22pm.Gun talk huh?
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:31pm.OK.
I got my first gun at ten, too. It was a Harrington & Richardson .410. Single shot, break barrel and if you didn't get the bird with the shot, we used to joke that you had second chance to to hit him with the empty shell when it was "ejected".
I was raised to believe you eat what you shoot and limits are the hunter's friend.
At 20, I had 5 guns for hunting...3 shotguns and 2 rifles...then I found my brother about to kill himself with the.410 and decided I didn't need any guns in the house.
I am fine with hunting with guns. What I find disturbing, is fanatical gun worship. I do not believe in violence towards people so guns that are just for that, are not ok in my book.
What he said.
Submitted by Rick on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:35pm.> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <
Can't speak
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:50pm.for yourself Rick? I'm glad someone else was able to speak for you then Rick. Somehow I had hoped you of all people might have had some words of your own to say, rather than ride on the coattails of others.
You honestly thing there is a difference in guns for sport and guns for defensive or offensive reasons? Excepting highly specialized guns on either end of the spectrum they are almost interchangeable. Many people shoot 1911a1 style .45's in competition, and the US military issued the same type of handguns in four different wars. What's the difference? A few fancy match grade parts, some tighter tolerances, and the end use.
As I said before, guns don't kill people, people kill people. With that in mind let's work on changing society, rather than trying to eliminate tools, and thinking society will change. There was once a time in this country when people were freely and openly armed with weapons the equal of what the army issued. There were no school shootings, mall shootings, or other senseless acts of violence. Now armed citizens are few and far between, personal accountability has vanished, and violence prevails. It is not the way the gun looks, or how many rounds it holds, or even if it has a bayonet or not that leads to crime. It is people, the way people think, act, believe, and act.
Change society and you will end violence. Disarm society and you will encourage violence.
‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
We've had this conversation before on OlyBlog...
Submitted by Rick on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:12pm....so look it up.
> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <
what?!
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 11/28/2007 - 11:54pm.six, whatup bro?
"Now armed citizens are few and far between"
did you post this? are you serious? (just started reading your blog tonight)--
Violence towards people...
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:41pm.Thanks for sharing Yoda. The violence towards people statement is a slippery statement, as any gun (or almost any other object for that matter) can be used in that regards. Nearly every gun on the market is based on technology that was first used in the military. Be it muzzle loaders with minie balls, or semi automatic rifles with removable magazines, at some point or another nearly every technology was used for military purposes.
The problem with this belief is that it leads to pointless bans on features and apperances. A bolt action hunting rifle is usually a direct descendant from the German Mauser 98 action. A Ruger Ranch rifle is nothing more than a scaled down M-14 that was offered as a replacement for that same rifle.
Should you fear a gun with a black stock and a pistol grip more than one with shiny wood and a fancy finish? Guns don't kill people, people kill people and will use any tool at hand. There is very little difference between a military rifle and a so-called sporter. Look at how many AR-15's are used in high end target competition. The fact that they have a pistol grip and can take a 30 round magazine is pointless.
My SKS was designed during WWII to field against the Nazis, although very few were fielded then. I use it for target shooting and will use it for hunting. I also use it for home defense.
Please don't travel down the designed for "violence towards people" slope, as sooner or later that will empower a tyranical government to take away all guns. The gun is no more evil than the person weilding it. Taking tools away from law abiding citizens does not work.
I will use any gun, any knife, any tool, any stick of wood, any club, any blunt object, any sharp object, whatever it takes to defend myself should the time comes. I abhor violence towards people, but realize that sometimes one has to be violent to stay alive. Any tool that will do that for me, will suit me fine. Thanks again Yoda for sharing.
I wonder...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:56pm....if statistically, it could be shown that guns make people safer. It seems like that's where you are coming from sec6...
Yes they do
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:25pm.Just for starters ask yourself how many dictators have allowed a freely armed populace? Why did Hitler disarm the Jews for instance. At any rate here are some useful links with cites.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
Do you think criminals prefer armed or unarmed victims? England has a skyrocketing crime rate, and essentially no armed citizens. I could go on, but look at states and cities where the People are freely armed versus cities and states where they are not.
Well...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:36pm....if there is ever a dictatorship in our country...ahem...
I'm sure you'll either be defending us (or yourself) with fantastic guns...
...or be one of the first ones "they" come for.
What if it was a dictatorship that you supported?
I don't support
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:48pm.Dictatorship, nor do I own any "fantastic guns" rather ordinary guns. It's all in how you use them.
As for being one of the ones they come for, I leave you with two quotes
"When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come, with your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun?" --The Clash
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
I know what I hope I would do. What would you do Yoda? History has already left us several lessons in the 20th century.
In case you haven't noticed my main advocacy is gun rights :-) Tied in to the private responsible ownership of arms is the ability to maintain every other right we enjoy in this nation. You cannot lose one right without losing them all. The free press, and the freely armed citizen support this nation. Lose one or the other and we fall.
I may have freaked you out with my firebreathing, but I have to ask you this, would you take up arms in your defense? In defense of someone else? Have you been a victim of violent crime? Have you witnessed violent crimes against others? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, I find people take one of two tacks, they either demadn an end to all violence and lash out at the tools of violence, or they decide that sometimes righteous violence is the only thing that stops senseless violence.
I chose not to become a victim ever again. I also chose to never allow another person to become a victim if it is within my power to prevent it. Call it what you will, but I have trod the path of victimhood and will never walk it again.
On the same token, I will move heaven and earth, to avoid violence, and with as much effort will I meet violence if I cannot avoid it. So far I have avoided it, and aided some others to avoid it as well.
I am not noble, nor a physco, just a guy who does not want to be hurt again, nor see another innocent hurt. Please understand that.
and just for the record...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:57pm.Against violence
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:08pm.I have never had to draw my gun in anger, nor remind anyone of it's presence. I hope and pray everytime I put on my gun (I don't carry at work, per my empolyer's request) that I never have to use it, but that if I do, that I will have the strenght to do so in a legal and ethical manner.
I am sorry to say this...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:20pm....but you sound dangerous right now.
What is with the obsesive concern for security? Have you been the victim of a violent crime in the past?
I sound dangerous?
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:29pm.How? I take and accept responsibility for my own protection. This may be hard for some to grasp, but not everyone is content to rely on the government to protect them.
And if you really want to know, yes I have been subject to violence in my past.
I abhor violent criminals, and those who prey on the weak. But at the same time I will do everything I possibly can to avoid a confrontation with someone. I will turn and walk away from a potentially dangerous encounter rather than let it get worse. I will only fight if I am cornered or have no other way out. I wil also aid others if needs be.
If you will accept my statement that I have never drawn a gun in anger nor had to remind someone confrontng me that I have one, I would say I have a pretty good track record.
Is there a problem with security? Cops are just minutes away in a dangerous situation and a person's weapons are only seconds away. I carry varying levels of force, including pepper spray. My pepper spray has been out more than my gun. My knife has been out more than my gun. I have never sprayed, cut or shot anyone. Make of that what you will.
This is going to be a giant
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:23pm.Then lets go fishing!
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:30pm.Wouldn't it be cooler...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:42pm....if you could just learn martial arts to defend yourself. That ought to take care of most anything you find here in town. You could still abhor violence, walk away from fights and never use your deadly power and it might help you feel even more secure to know that you could defend yourself (and others) without weapons.
"Your weapons...you will not need them."
What is the difference?
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:52pm.I know some hand to hand, probably not as much as I would like, but some. But honestly what is the difference? I have already told you I use appropriate levels of force. An unarmed man is met with pepper spray, and any other intimidation I can add through my actions. An armed man is met with arms. Having a weapon is not a bad thing, nor is knowing how to deliver a roundhouse kick to the head. Rather it is knowing when and where to use it.
What I think would be wonderful would be a world where people would not have to know martial arts or have skills with weapons. But that is not happening anytime soon, so the next wonderful thing would be that the good guys would be skilled enough in martial skills to make the bad guys think twice.
Ahh... Bad Guys.
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 2:25am.Funny thing happens when that "good guy" gets pissed off at his ex wife, finds her in a parking lot, and - well, you've read that story in the Tacoma papers recently enough anyway.
Bad is not what you are, bad is what you do.
You have a right to defend yourself, sure. I've begun to arm myself a lot more lately, with all the following behavior and whatnot. Can't say with what, just that it's legal.
But I am not a good guy, I'm just a guy who tries to do good. Ask Jon Nelson, I'm sure he can tell you all about being a guy who tried to to good, and did OK, and now has a lot of questions and "what if's" to live with for the rest of his life.
I sure don't envy him, Harley's widow, or anyone else in that situation. Would I have done what Jon did? Yup. (Except I would not have been trained to use that handgun and I would not have been chasing Harley in the first place, but IF I WERE, yeah - I would have taken that shot. Probably. Maybe. Hope I never have to find out...)
Suddenly it's not so damn black and white, is my point.
And by the way, if we're so damn free because of all the distributed firepower - then why do we have a higher per capita incarceration rate than Nazi Germany? Why do we have the Patriot Act? Why did the DOD irradiate little boys with leukemia to death in the 1970's to find out how many neutrons their bomb needed to kill Soviet citizens? Your assumptions that we're "free" sound like you live with a LOT of privilege. You might even want to examine why we're a "we" (as in, whose country is this; is it "America," "The United States," or "Cascadia / Turtle Island?")
I certainly don't feel free to practice MY religion in this country, unless I am on private land far from outside observers.
Privilege?
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 2:51pm.Nope not very privileged. Just secure in myself. Do I have to be wealthy in order to enjoy and believe in rights? I'm not going to share my annual income, but I can assure you that by the standards of the liberal left I am not one of the "priveleged" class unless you mean that by holding down a job, getting paid every week, and living on a boat I am somehow privileged. I could just as easily keep an apartment as a boat, but I sacrificed a lot to get the boat and the lifestyle choices I have.
I guess Nazi Germany's incarceration rate did not include the millions gassed? If you live in a place where you are in constant fear of someone kicking down your door, and your neighbors are all snitches, what do you think the crime rate will be?
Our society is crumbling and not accepting responsibility for their actions. Certain groups of people still do not get enough education to properly cope in society. The poor are still marginalized in places. Society must change to lessen crime rates
Futhermore Nazi Germany did not exist long enough to provide meaningful statistics. I would be curious to see the per capita incarceration rate of the US at the same time.
The patriot act is a freak piece of legislation and I believe the system is slowly doing it's job and will eliminate it. On the other hand there is not enough outcry against it to force change. I would rather see all the energy that goes into protesting an allegedly illegal war go into protesting the patriot act.
What is your religion if you don't mind me asking that you don't feel secure practicing? I for one will tolerate any religion. And will defend that right for anyone.
Privilege isn't strictly financial.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 10:08pm.So
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 10:12pm.because I am a tall white male with longish hair, a beard and a bit of a belly I am somehow privileged? I doubt it.
Does dressing normal include my sidearm? Remember, I rarely conceal. I believe that some would find that abnormal, although I am surprised at the number of people I talk to who don't find it odd at all... This is an interesting town.
I do not consider myself privelaged though. I view all as equals until they prove otherwise and tend to get treated the same.
Yes it does actually.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 10:17pm.Taller people get paid more than shorter people. Men more than women. Those with hair more than baldies. Slim people more than obese people. They are also more respected than the other and are taken more seriously.
I work on
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 10:26pm.straight commission, the scale of which is fixed by the company and applies to all of the sales force.
I think we are getting a bit off topic here, I am enjoying this conversation, but am going to start a new blog entry.
A person is as priveleged as they carry themselves. I was homeless for a while, but it was not widely known, nor was I ever treated badly. Why? Because I did not carry myself as homeless. I was working at the time too, and got out of it after a few months.
You are not free, you are only left alone
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 3:50am.When I said you were privileged, I didn't mean you own a yacht. I didn't imply that you're owning class. I meant that you seem to swallow whole the idea that we (Americans, US Citizens, whatever group you identify as being part of) are free. I gleaned this from your argument that keeping rifles will preserve such freedoms - that was one of your arguments for keeping and bearing arms.
Don't misunderstand - I hold my rifle to be a right, not a privilege. I believe it will preserve my life someday to have it (likely as a means of harvesting deer). But to say that this rifle, or a hundred like it, or a thousand, or ten thousand, have ANY chance of overcoming the armies of the United States and their planes, rockets, missiles, nuclear warheads, poison gases, Willie Pete, biological warfare, psychological operations and torture - is simpleminded hokum. The days when rifles preserved liberty died at Greasy Grass Creek on a summer afternoon in 1876. You would probably know it as the Little Bighorn. If you think that Ta' Shunke Witko won that fight, ask those who survived it after the next ten years of their lives.
Since then, the Gatling gun and the other weapons have proven that "some are more equal than others." Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden, Nagasaki, and many other civilian targets have proven that our "Allied" leaders are willing to wipe out masses of us, if we get out of line. Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Janowska, Jasenovac, Majdanek, Sobibor, Warsaw, and Treblinka taught us that the Axis leaders had essentially the same program, but foreshortened it into emergency measures to be even more brutal and naked - a society of total domination. A factory system which produced the disposal of surplus labor, of de-nationalized people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi-German_concentration_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
The point is, you are not free. A sheep in the meadow is not free, it is eating grass and marking time before the shearing or the slaughter. Arguing that the right to bear arms is a way to preserve your freedom is to factually misinterpret the history of the twentieth century.
Richard Rubenstein wrote a nice, short book you should read: The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future (New York: Harper and Row, 1975). We have two copies at Media Island.
Then explain
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 11:47am.Why the entire might of the US Army is unable to defeat a bunch of guys in turbans with AK-47's, whatever RPG's they can scrounge and some homemade bombs?
I never said it would be easy, but even so a bunch of people with guns, and whatever else they can capture/make/scrounge creates a deterent. Plus how many nukes have been used in anger since WWII?
I hope in this country if it ever happened there would be a better job of resisting a Nazi style mass murder. I doubt it though.
So are you saying I should give up this funny notion that I am "free" and start grovelling in the dirt like the rest of the peons? Sounds like something my often trod upon step father would say.
Try acting like you have no freedoms and rights, and see how far that gets you.
I will cling to any scrap of liberty I can get my hands on. Guns, books, privacy, free speech, etc...
And I don't want to talk about my opinions on the port protest here. I'll do it in another blog. Olympia was lied to about "non violent protests" and that is my biggest complaint. The abject lies and failure of their leadership. Had they simply come out and said "Hey, we're going to get a little violent, throw some stuff in the streets, etc..." I would have supported them, because they told the truth.
But that is for another blog entry/topic
don't spew racism on our blog
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 2:36pm.#1 - We're not exactly using all of our military might on them. #2 - We don't train our soldiers to fight guerilla battles, we train them to fight traditional battles. It's our own fault we're in the position we're in, and the best thing to do is get our troops out, and diplomats in.
Not racism
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 9:54pm.I was hardly trying to be racist. Making a comparison between guys in fany hi tech battle armor, night vison, gore tex, etc... versus a bunch of guys wearing turbans and using old school gear. No racisim intended. Fancy schmancy gear vs the guy on the street.
This country has never trained the military to fight guerilla wars, and I dont' see it changing any time soon. Using fancy weapons works when you are trying to fight a nation with fancy weapons. My nuke against your nuke. My cruise missle against your cruise missle. Until this army is taught to fight a guerilla war, most of the tech advantage is lost. Nuking a city does no good if the fighters crawl right back out of the woodwork.
Missed the point entirely
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 7:11pm.The Afghan country is crawling with US troops, covered by US aircraft, and occupied by US allies within Afghan society. They are not free, either. And that we still see resistance there is a sign of desperation, not freedom. It obviously has not deterred the Israelis from occupying Palestine, and they have done so with higher casualties for much longer. The Palestinians are not free just because some of them can shoot rockets into Israel once in a while, or carry their AKs openly.
"So are you saying I should give up this funny notion that I am "free" and start grovelling in the dirt like the rest of the peons? Sounds like something my often trod upon step father would say.
Try acting like you have no freedoms and rights, and see how far that gets you."
HUH? When did I suggest that anyone GROVEL? Knowing I have no rights secured by a community organized to defend them does not remove my dignity, Security Six. It motivates me to organize a community to defend my rights. I'm just saying that to do so with rifles alone will be pointless. Argue that point with the survivors of Mt Carmel (The Branch Davidian home near Waco TX) and find out how well being armed and organized helped them. They repelled 100 ATF thugs, and then what happened? Uh Huh. Armed resistance is so effective, isn't it? A similar fate befell Falujah. And a similar fate would befall Olympia, too. If we ghetto ourselves, we make our autonomous zones into free fire areas. If we win by changing the fundamental assumptions of people who used to support the war, and withdraw our consent in peaceful ways, we will win our liberties again.
Your disappointment with the rock-throwing folks who responded to the police concussion grenades is shared by many within PMR, which is NOT the only organization out there. Check out PLF or IAC for that matter. If you think we can control everyone who shows up at one of these things, you have no idea what it's really like to be in an open direct action area. WTO was run by thousands of small groups, most engaged in a common set of tactics; but not all. Olympia was remarkably solid this time, but I disagree with rock throwing (who brings a rock to a rifle fight?) and smashing windows at banks (who cares if we move a chit from the insurance company to the glass company?).
Different point
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 9:59pm.I was switching back and forth between freedoms and tactics. Asking a question on why the US army is having a hard time fighting a guerilla war illustrates my point that a rifle can be useful.
The Branch Davidians barricaded themselves. The fought a stand off not a guerilla war.
I never said the afghans or palestinians are free. They are fighting for their rights and survival.
I repeat what I have said before. I am satisfied my liberties are present, and I belong to and participate in several communities working to make sure those liberties are not lost.
Satisfaction
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 3:56pm.Getting back to the state of my religion - No, I cannot name it. I cannot name it for the same reason Malcom Little cannot tell you his original family surname and took "X" for a temporary name. The name of my faith is lost to history and has been / is being "reinvented" by many people (commonly this is named Wicca, though I find that practice to be wholly inadequate and too recent in origin to adopt fully).
My religion has undergone so many suppressions and genocides that it is difficult for me to begin to recapture it adequately in words. From what I can figure out, we've been originally formally erased so that Xtianity could flourish (public festivals banned or co-opted), eliminated (in our home traditions) so that the Allopathic Medical system could profit, and scapegoated (Satanism) so that Xtianity (again) could have an internal social enemy (for its own cohesion).
Our tradition is one of enchantment, seeing the world as living and dead in itself, a cycle, with its own intentions and reasons for being / dying. The counter-tradition of Xtianity and Capital Worship instead mystifies and denies death while worshipping nothing which is not dead, and turns all that is alive into profits (dead) or waste (dead). A cult of death, of death-eaters if you will.
I serve life. It is my fundamental morality to serve the immediate, and long term interests of life. This is why I oppose warfare, Xtianity, Capital Worship, and Imperialism. It is also why I tend to think about human history in generational terms and think of humans as a divided and confused social organism rather than as individuals. Our social structures are memes, thought virii, with which we program our responses. Different memes can make all the difference - and indeed are the longest lasting legacy an individual human can generate.
"Your weapons...you will not need them."
Submitted by DC on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:59pm.LOL!
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:01pm.I was the subject of violence.
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:19pm.I was jumped from behind by a bunch of kids. I would not have had time to use a weapon and in fact, they could have easily disarmed me and used the weapon on me.
In 56 years, I've not found the need for a weapon for self defense. The incident of which I speak, speaks for itself. If I was carrying that night, I'd probably not be typing this right now.
To each his own
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:25pm.I will not armchair quaterback an incident to which I was not privy. This is why I open carry. I believe that it is a deterant to such behavior.
There is something to be said for situational awareness. But again, I was not there. I have had an instance where I was surrounded and about to be jumped and bluffed my way out with a can of pepper spray. Criminals are cowards, that is why they travel in groups. Nobody wants to be the first one to get a bullet, a knife cut or a face full of pepper spray.
I'm glad you came out all right.
You do know that most people...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:27pm....don't walk around with loaded guns, don't you?
Like I said, fanatical gun worship is disturbing. What would you have done in New Orleans? Shot the "law enforcement" officers that were trying to take your guns?
In a declaration of emergency, a lot of rights get taken away. By the way, if it ever happens here, that is how we will slip into a dictatorship.
I'm about done with this conversation.
About 10%
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:43pm.Of people in this state have valid concealed weapons permits.
I would not have been in New Orleans. I know better than to stick around when a friggin' hurricane is coming.
Would I have been dumb enough to stick around, I would have made sure I had at least two guns hidden.
So now because "most people" do not do something makes it wrong?
"Most people" do not ride a bike or walk to work or other places.
"Most people" do not practice "green" living
"Most people" do not read at a college level
"Most people" do not practice sustainable living.
I can go on about a lot of things "most people" do not do. Does that make something wrong if "most people" do not do it?
Dang, "most people" in Olympia do not use Olyblog.
Responsible gun owners are not the danger. Criminals are the danger, and only a change in society can deal with criminals. I hope the cops can always get to you on time when you call for help. I prefer to up the odds in my favor a bit.
I hope this is just your
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:56pm.I could have phrased it better.
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 11:05pm.Yeah my gruff side coming out. Given the type of person I am, I personally would have been dumb to hang around. But I also keep a bag packed to grab should I have to leave a situation. To top things off I live on my sailboat, so would have further been "dumb" to hang around in that situation.
Yes, they got stuck there, they were not "dumb"
Myself, personally am prepared to leave places, on foot even if I have to. By boat is my prefered mode of travel, but I can leave if I have to, and plan to leave at the signs of a disaster.
I have nothing but the harshest words for how the government f---ed up NOLA. I apologize if I came across otherwise.
that doesn't mean 1 in 10 carry guns
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:59pm.I could have used a different word for "most"...but I'm trying to be polite.
______ people don't carry around loaded guns...
...is what I meant to say.
No it doesn't
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 11:07pm.One man's advocacy
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:47pm.Is another's "fanatical worship"
Is it fanatical homeless worship to champion the cause of the homeless?
Is it fanatical anti war worship to advocate against the war?
I have shared my opinions and beliefs on gun use, ownership and how I believe it to be a right. I am just as "fanatical" about free speech. Of course free speech is different right? I champion ignored, trampled and forgotten rights. Start a thread about privacy rights and I will be just as "fanatical" and I suspect will get more supporters. But privacy is a "fashionable" right is it not? Thank you for the discussion though.
We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast...
I feel like I get you....
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:53pm....if the government was coming to take away your guns...you would give them some but keep some for yourself. But you wouldn't shoot the people taking away your guns.
You are non-violent enough for me. May you never have to use you weapons of violence.
Peace, brother.
Depends...
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:55pm.Crazy NOLA stuff, they can have a throw away gun or two. Let them think they got what they wanted. I'll get 'em in the courts. Now a bunch of states are passing laws to make sure that cannot happen (should never have happened) Nazi Germany stuff, I'm hiding in the woods and trying to link up with others.
I prefer to call them weapons of peace, but thank you for your sentiments. I'll PM you with something I wrote on a gun board.
OMG SO MANY WORMS!!
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 11:54pm.I should never have asked
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:00am.For pro gun/anti gun discussion. As if it will be settled here. Now all that happened is that Yoda and I got into a scuffle and I got into engergetic salesman/RKBA advocate mode... you can tell when sales are slow is when I wind up having the really long blog conversations. Nothing else to exercise my mind...
Yup. Worms. :-p Oh well, maybe the Second Life for Linux software I'm downloading will work with my laptop's video card and keep me occupied for five or ten more minutes... nah....
are you calling this picture
Submitted by Carmella on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:04am.I think it was a bit of a joke
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:09am.You got it Norm
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:13am.Umm no.
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:12am.Gun porn, car porn, whatever. Refers to taking an inanimate object and subjecting it to the same level of photographic care as a live model. In this case I posted the woman with the gun one, because the gun was the primary object of the photo, two the woman is attractive, and three because she is actually an off duty Isreali soldier.
now THAT'S scary
Submitted by Marcie on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:42am.How scary that you assume that: number 1. The woman is attractive and number 2. that it's a woman at all. If that were woman to turn around, you might be slightly mortified at her face.
Just because she might fit the stereotype of an "attractive" woman from behind, does not mean she is attractive from the front or even on the inside (but that's a whole nother arguement). Second, what validates the fact that it's a woman at all? Is it the bra straps? The butt? The muffin top? I would say that I've seen men that look exactly like that women from behind...including the bra straps :)
Interesting that you are so quick to make assumptions. Let's hope you don't "assume" that it's a burglar in your house when your drunk friend tries to get in to crash on your couch at three in the morning. Or that the "aggressive" person on the corner has a gun, when in fact it's a hairbrush. You just might find your self on the wrong side of all of those assumptions you're so quick to make.
Whoa
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:47am.For the love of all that's unholy....
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:48am.I have seen the picture in context. It is part of a photoshoot of female isreali soldiers. I'll have to find the website.
Forgive me for finding a member of the opposite sex attractive from whatever angle I saw her from. Jeez.
Given as you were unaware of my prior knowledge of the context of the picture perhaps you should be the one careful with assumptions.
What other mistakes have you made?
You assumed I live in a house or apartment. I live on a sailboat. No couch. Behind a locked gate. No friends of mine have keys to get in.
You assume things about how I would react to a potentially dangerous situation. If you want to talk about situational awareness PM me,
You assume that I had no knowledge of the picture or information in the picture.
You assume I cannot make a judgement on what I find attractive in a woman. Jeez.
you still assume it's a woman
Submitted by Marcie on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:49am.There was this one night
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:54am.down at Jakes, where my friends and I (2 women, 1 man) had the hardest time deciding if this person was actually male or female. I didn't have the guts to ask him/her and I'm not sure I would have received a straight answer....no pun intended.
Dichotomies
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 2:36am.Yeah, call me odd
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 1:25pm.reminds me of a funny story
Submitted by Marcie on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:55am.I witnessed...
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 10:19am.A bunch of guys in the lumber business hooting and hollaring at a Tina Turner impressionist at a convention. They reached up and grabbed "her" ass. It was none other than Perry Watkins, the soldier that beat the army when they tried to drum him out for being homosexual. Yes, Perry pulled off his wig during the final encore. The applause became boos.
Some 10 years later, I ended up living next door to Perry. We had a few laughs over THAT one.
Photo in context
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 1:07am.For the women who are offended that men may be attracted to women... here is the picture in context
http://shabot6000.com/blog/2005_11_01_archive.html
and here is a photoshoot of female Israeli soldiers
http://www.serialno3817131.com/thumb.html
And no, I do not have a "thing" for female soldiers, or Israeli women say per say.
So do you have any other assumptions you want to make or things to take out of context? Or will the be the typical "hit and run" where you think you have scored points against a horrible man for finding women attractive? Or do you just not appreciate women more empowered than yourself?
Jeez. There are some insulting words I want to use here, but am not going to.
Great link
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 1:39pm.Stacked
Submitted by JT on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 5:24am.security,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 8:05am.Big Sigh
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 11:39am.So are all you gun people G.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 1:45pm.No
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 2:01pm.He was one of the judges for
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 1:51pm.Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake
Yup...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 2:09pm.Source?
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 10:15pm.England which has very strict gun control laws is one of the most dangerous industrialized nations. Per the UN.
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm
The graph is about gun deaths,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 12:27pm.not about the prevalence of a variety of crimes, the most serious of which was assault. But if you really want to open that can of worms, you'll need to address the low rates of crime in places like Japan as well and not just cherry pick you "most dangerous" England. From an epidemiological perspective, guns are a public health hazard. No ifs ands or buts about that.
Here is some pretty good research about guns from a public health orientaion.
Uh, Jim
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 12:06pm.Have you thought about the "other" laws in Japan? Very different creature than the US. Take a read
Illegal gun possession, like illegal drug possession, is a consensual offense. There is no victim to complain to the police. Accordingly, in order to find illegal guns, the Japanese police are given broad search and seizure powers. The basic firearms law permits a policeman to search a person's belongings if the officer judges there is 'sufficient suspicion that a person is carrying a fire-arm, a sword or a knife' or if he judges that a person 'is likely to endanger life or body of other persons judging reasonably from his abnormal behavior or any other surrounding circumstances'.[32] Once a weapon is found, the policeman may confiscate it. Even if the confiscation is later admitted to be an error, the firearm is sometimes not returned.[33](p.29)
In practice, the special law for weapons searches is not necessary, since the police routinely search at will. They ask suspicious characters to show them what is in their purse or sack.[34] In the rare cases where a policeman's search (for a gun or any other contraband) is ruled illegal, it hardly matters; the Japanese courts permit the use of illegally seized evidence.[35] And legal rules aside, Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much the more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police.[36]
'Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police...' explains the Japanese National Police Agency. In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own.[37] The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure that no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.[38].....
Almost everyone accepts the paradigm that the police should be respected. Because the police are so esteemed, the Japanese people co-operate with their police more than Americans do. Co-operation with the police also extends to obeying the laws which almost everyone believes in. The Japanese people, and even the large majority of Japanese criminals, voluntarily obey the gun controls.
There is no right to bear arms in Japan. In practical terms, there is no right to privacy against police searches. Other Western-style rights designed to protect citizens from a police state are also non-existent or feeble in Japan.
After the arrest, a suspect may be detained without bail for up to 28 days before the prosecutor brings the suspect before a judge.[42] Even after the 28 day period is completed, detention in a Japanese police station may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Rearrest on another charge, bekken taihö, is a common police tactic for starting the suspect on another 28 day interrogation process. 'Rearrest' may (p.30)occur while the suspect is still being held at the police station on the first charge. Some defendants may be held for several months without ever being brought before a judge.[43] Courts approve 99.5 per cent of prosecutors' requests for detentions.[44]
Yeah, sounds like a free nation of non-gun owners there. What are the suicide numbers in Japan again?
The datum to be explained...
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 1:14pm....is deaths caused by the availablity of guns. The absense of guns in a particular culture is not the issue under question.
> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <
It's relavant
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 1:51pm.and something I found to be interesting, perhaps Jim will as well. IF you plan on disarming this country, how do you plan on doing so? IF it happens what do you think the side-effects will be? Tell me Rick, which do you value more, freedom, or security?
Is the reason that Japan has a lower homicide rate due to the lack of firearms, or is that secondary to another aspect of the culture? Number crunching isn't always the end all answer to all of lifes problems.
I'm not planning or advocating disarming everyone
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 2:43pm.There is considerable evidence that firearms are a serious public health issue and should be treated as such. Therefore I think licensing, registration, education, mandatory testing and insurance, taxes, and extensive background checks are probably a pretty good idea. The Supreme Court will weigh in on this soon...the fist time in over 70 years. I am guessing that they will remind us once again that the second ammendment protects state rights, not indivdual rights. This isn't about freedom vs. security. It is about making sure these toys are in the hands of responsible boys. We regulate a lot of things for economic/public health reasons, why not guns?
It's absolutely freedom vs
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 3:27pm.Actually, the new guys will work against you Norm
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 5:50pm.I don't even know where to begin
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 11:48pm.So I'm just going to let it go. You are running on assumptions of how I interpret the amendment (it's not just the NRA) and although you aren't against owning guns, there are people, powerful people, out there who want the same things you do...but only to begin with. Personally I am buying as many as I can at this point, so that I can have my fun before they are gone or restricted into oblivion.
You talk like the right to gun ownership is...
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 3:53pm....an end in itself. Is it not just to counterbalance the power of the state? Don't you think that voting might actually be a better protection from tyranny in this modern age?
> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <
With all due respect voting
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 6:32pm.I would think that the people claiming that the police abused their power, and who presumably believe that the police will continue to do more of the same, would want to arm themselves in anticipation of the next time. If I truly believed that an entity was coming for me, to incarcerate at best, harm or kill at worst, for no good reason..that I had done nothing wrong and that an illegal display of power was coming to strike me down..I would want to be better prepared than some rocks and chants.
Like Norm and Six I'm not anti-gun, in fact I have some myself. Unlike some gun owners I don't have any problem with background checks, registration, etc. I have no problem with certain people (such as convicted felons) being barred from possessing let alone owning them. And I'm not a big fan of anything more powerful than what's necessary for standard hunting or target practice. I don't find it necessary to shoot through a few trees to hit an elk almost two miles away.
Having a gun in the home can be smart, but for each kid added to the home the danger rises. My sister and I were taught well, never even dared mess around in the area where the rifles were. But not all parents are responsible; not all kids behave. An alarm system (sometimes even just the sticker saying so), a big dog, a big home owner with a baseball bat, can all be just as effective.
The more rural a home is, the longer it takes for 911 to bring help. Thieves know that and those homes are often targets during the day. (I learned that at a neighborhood meeting which included a deputy when I lived in Littlerock.) The thieves also know that traditionally those homes are armed and they're rarely targeted at night unless it's an armed invasion. With rural meth labs becoming common the above scenario has been happening more often. But even without that kind of desperate bravado they know they could score some firearms when the owners are at work.
As with most everything there really isn't any simple answer.
Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake
I prefer the state amendment personally
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 11:50pm.Norm are you honestly trying to make a connection between
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 2:13pm.No
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 3:24pm.Yes I did
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 3:29pm.And the guy who wrote the entire essay tries to draw a link between gun control and suicide. Regardless, yes, there are differences in culture that can explain violence in general. Do you believe those differences in culture are at play here?
Notice that Alaska
Submitted by Debmonstrative on Sun, 11/25/2007 - 5:51pm.This is interesting:
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 1:16pm.From the Harvard site that G. linked to.
Social capital and gun prevalence.
Working with experts on income inequality, social capital, and mortality, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and measures of social trust and civic engagement across US states.
Major Findings: States with more guns have lower levels of both mutual trust and civic engagement, after accounting for urbanization, poverty and median household income.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Kennedy, Bruce; Kawachi, Ichiro; Putnam, Robert D. "Firearm Prevalence and Social Capital." Annals of Epidemiology. 2001; 11:484-490.
> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <
That's interesting. I've
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 6:36pm.Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake
In this state
Submitted by security_six on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 7:26pm.Gun ownership is a civil right. Furthermore, none of the Bill of Rights was intended to be for the protection of the states, but rather the people. The scholarship is too plain, and too common, I have no desire to go over all the massive amounts of information on that subject.
However for information on 2nd Admendment cases heard by the SCOTUS with cites and additional info http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
Note in the Miller case that the main concern was if a particular weapon could be useful to "the militia" Note in other places the "militia" is not defined as the national guard or an organized state militia, but rather (and is enshrined in the washington state constitution as such) is any adult male capable of bearing arms. Of course in this day and age it would be any adult capable of bearing arms.
When free speech is registered then let's talk about gun registration. You simply cannot register a civil right.
The right to bear arms is not about hunting, it was, and has always been about the common defense, of the people, of the several states, and of the nation. Do you really want the government to decide what guns you can and cannot have? How about what books you can and cannot have?
And let's talk about Switzerland's low gun crime rate