Congresswoman Giffords, Others Shot/Killed in Arizona

[ChriswUfGator]

That's the one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn

Although the story line is larger, my premise is still sound. Civilians do not stand a snowballs chance when confronting government - any government - and their arsenal and training.

It was one of my favorite movies as a kid, actually.

I don't know about that.  Governing an occupied land is a pretty difficult task even when the people like you.  The Civilians seem to be holding out pretty well in Afghanistan against a military whose capabilities were literally science fiction at the time that Red Dawn was made.

Read "Charlie Wilson's War" regarding Afganistan in the early '80's. If the narrative is even close to factual then our very own Uncle Sam's CIA funded and trained the Afgans, helping drive out the Russians. The "Freedom Fighters" were nothing but cannon fodder until  "government" with clout and weapons stepped up to the plate.

Yes, and now the unspoken truth presently is that the entire Muslim world (again comprised of governments) is supporting the resistance in Afghanistan the same as we did against the Russians. Kind of funny really.

[Shwaz]

IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.

They do sweeps for pipe bombs and whatnot at these types of events, the danger would be much lower without someone's ability to come in personally and shoot the place up. This is why terrorism is so effective, you can nullify the threats from bombs and whatnot with searches and detectors, but when a physical person decides that killing you is more important to him than his own safety, his own life, or any consequences if he gets caught, then once someone repudiates their own logical self interests like that there's really very little our society can do about it.

Our law enforcement techniques are all developed around rational self interest, and when someone isn't acting rationally anything can happen. You could literally just walk up shoot the president, or in this case a congressman, if you just didn't care at all about what happened to you. Thankfully 99.999999% of people do care what happens to their own life or safety and that's what keeps things safe in our system. But bombs and whatnot aren't the same kind of threat, because you can sweep for those. How do you sweep for total insanity?

Well now Chris, Apparently Schwaz has uncovered a new proposal to ban all guns in the entire world.  You have to admit thats pretty extreme, right?

I wonder it 'all' guns includes potato pellet and pop guns as well?

Schwaz. Im literally just breathless to see this proposal you are talking about.

Calm yourself... restore your breathing. It seems to me the discussion had shifted towards the validity of second amendment rights.. and my opinion is that lunatics like this would continue with violent acts even without the right to bear arms.

[Shwaz]

Did I accuse anyone of making that proposal?

[ChriswUfGator]

So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again...

[Shwaz]

So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again...

Still not an accusation. I simply stated "IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen"

[Shwaz]

So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again... unless one can harness enriched uranium or poison the well?

oh?  Who published this quote under your name then?

I merely mentioned my thoughts on a hypothetical situation. It's seems you disagree that other means could be used in a terrorist attack.

For the record, he also didnt use a dirty nuke, an exploding cigar, or poison the water supply.

Still, I never accused anyone of proposing a nationwide weapons ban.

[ChriswUfGator]

So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again... unless one can harness enriched uranium or poison the well?

oh?  Who published this quote under your name then?

I merely mentioned my thoughts on a hypothetical situation. It's seems you disagree that other means could be used in a terrorist attack.

For the record, he also didnt use a dirty nuke, an exploding cigar, or poison the water supply.

Still, I never accused anyone of proposing a nationwide weapons ban.

Nice to see that 2+2=73

[NotNow]

Agreed that we need to address the mental health/hospitalization issue.  But I disagree with you on the second amendment issue.  The 2nd is not about hunting.  It is about the people retaining arms, to be used at the threat of tyranny if need be as well as protection of one's self and family.  ALL of the framers of the U S Constitution advocated private ownership of firearms.  There is no question in my mind that the private ownership of semi auto hi capacity magazine weapons is a natural right, and supported by the second amendment.

I happen to agree with you on this issue, notnow, but I am curious how you square this last statement with the viewpoints of the framers.  Remember these men came from a true warrior culture, where bloodshed was honorably conducted.  I do not believe any of them would have had a taste for a weapon that sprays bullets indiscriminately into a crowd.

I am interested in your response.

The men used the most technologically advanced weapons of their time.  They believed in an armed populace.  And I believe that they would answer you the same as I do:

The weapon does not "spray bullets indiscrimanately", the person holding it did.  He could have killed more people indiscriminately with a car...or a bomb.  The tool used in this awful crime is NOT the criminal.

[NotNow]

I don't believe that the fact that the technology changes belays the principle of the freedoms expressed in the Constitution.  We don't restrict freedom of speech because of television and radio.  We don't restrict the freedom to assemble because of planes, trains, and automobiles.  All of these technologies amplify the ability to misuse a particular human right and pervert that right into a crime.

Whether or not a military force can be overcome is pretty irrelevant.  If that is a deciding issue, then I would rather favor the issuance of military arms to citizens in the Swiss style, or allowing private purchase of military hardware before I would favor disarming the populace.  I would certainly return to the old "armory" system of storing our military weapons throughout the country.  And don't discount the stunning power of 100 million pissed off armed citizens.  I can point to several instances where the military did not support, or did not fully support it's government during popular rebellion.  

Also, just because one does not feel any imminent threat from any government tyranny at this time, does not mean that throwing out the wisdom of the founding fathers is the correct course of action.  That wisdom is one of the very reasons that we have a government of the people still.  Rather, we should remain vigilant against the erosion of ANY of our human rights.  

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't believe that the fact that the technology changes belays the principle of the freedoms expressed in the Constitution.  We don't restrict freedom of speech because of television and radio.  We don't restrict the freedom to assemble because of planes, trains, and automobiles.  All of these technologies amplify the ability to misuse a particular human right and pervert that right into a crime.

Whether or not a military force can be overcome is pretty irrelevant.  If that is a deciding issue, then I would rather favor the issuance of military arms to citizens in the Swiss style, or allowing private purchase of military hardware before I would favor disarming the populace.  I would certainly return to the old "armory" system of storing our military weapons throughout the country.  And don't discount the stunning power of 100 million pissed off armed citizens.  I can point to several instances where the military did not support, or did not fully support it's government during popular rebellion.  

Also, just because one does not feel any imminent threat from any government tyranny at this time, does not mean that throwing out the wisdom of the founding fathers is the correct course of action.  That wisdom is one of the very reasons that we have a government of the people still.  Rather, we should remain vigilant against the erosion of ANY of our human rights.  

The problem with that argument is that it entered the realm of being utterly absurd 100 years ago.

If we are entitled to possess the arms regardless of technology, based on the original intent of the second amendment, then why aren't I allowed to have a personal nuclear bomb? After all, it doesn't kill people, people do, right? And since the government is allowed to have it, and we're honoring the original spirit of the second amendment without regard to what that means technologically, then that would be perfectly kosher under the original intent of that passage in the BOR wouldn't it? If the orignal intent of combatting government tyranny is still to be honored today, then why can't I have my own tanks, battleships, hydrogen bombs, missiles, and pretty much everything else the military has that I'd get arrested in 5 seconds flat if I even thought about having as a private individual?

And with all of that being the reality, then haven't we already departed from the true intent of the second amendment? The government made it illegal to own anything that could actually stand up to government weapons long ago, and all you NRA folk were asleep at the switch on that one. Now we're just debating whether we can own things to kill each other or not, and nothing you or I could possess would ever stand up to the government's arsenal. The original intent was already left by the wayside 100 years ago...

[ChriswUfGator]

Also, if you're suggesting that if things got bad enough, the military would disobey the government in today's day and age, I kind of question that. Some people are so brainwashed in our society that you can get them to do whatever you want, regardless of its moral value. I think that would be a pipe dream.

[NotNow]

Your wrong about the military.  You have probably not had much exposure to the real Armed Forces and are basing your opinion on popular culture.  The United States Armed Forces has some of the finest and most educated patriotic minds in the country.  They would be some of the first to recognize tyranny...and reject it.  And again, I can point to numerous instances in other countries where the military refused to go against the people.

Your focus on a small portion of my previous post is unfortunate, in that I would like to hear your ideas on my other points.  But as to the point of "entitlement" to weapons of war I would answer that is still largely the case.  You can still own a machine gun if you pay the fees and buy the stamps.  If you can afford a battleship or a submarine you don't need the governments permission.  Nuclear weapons are not commercially available and their production is tightly controlled by a few governments so that argument is moot.  There is little doubt in my mind as to the outcome of any conflict between an armed American populace of 300 milion citizens and a government relying on their sons and daughters to subdue them.  That is the current reality.  The original intent of the second amendment is still valid and is a natural law in my mind.  Every person has the right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms.  Owning things that kill each other?  Really?  Your entire block can be killed with what you have stored under your kitchen sink.  Humans can be killled quickly and efficiently by literally thousands of items.  Why would we ignore natural rights and take away personal defense weapons in the misguided belief that it would stop killing?

[simms3]

Chris, you are speaking like a lawyer. 

Notnow, I agree, we as the people should always be vigilant because what government doesn't want to expand?

Schwaz, you posed a hypothetical question and everyone jumped on you for making an absurd statement.  I understand your point.

Me, I think we can "ban" guns and we'll quickly find that all the criminals and underground elements of our society are still arming themselves with automatic/semi-automatic weapons from Mexico and other places.  I think we can ban semi-automatic rifles with 31 round clips because a rational American who's sane can easily put an end to a madman like in Tucson with just 1-2 bullets and all it usually takes is just a couple of bullets to defend yourself against an intruder in your home.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, you are speaking like a lawyer. 

Notnow, I agree, we as the people should always be vigilant because what government doesn't want to expand?

Schwaz, you posed a hypothetical question and everyone jumped on you for making an absurd statement.  I understand your point.

Me, I think we can "ban" guns and we'll quickly find that all the criminals and underground elements of our society are still arming themselves with automatic/semi-automatic weapons from Mexico and other places.  I think we can ban semi-automatic rifles with 31 round clips because a rational American who's sane can easily put an end to a madman like in Tucson with just 1-2 bullets and all it usually takes is just a couple of bullets to defend yourself against an intruder in your home.

Yeah, and sometimes things are exactly what they seem with no counter intuition necessary. The UK has severe restrictions on firearms, and their police don't even carry guns, and their violent crime rates are a fraction of ours. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[ChriswUfGator]

Your wrong about the military.  You have probably not had much exposure to the real Armed Forces and are basing your opinion on popular culture.  The United States Armed Forces has some of the finest and most educated patriotic minds in the country.  They would be some of the first to recognize tyranny...and reject it.  And again, I can point to numerous instances in other countries where the military refused to go against the people.

Your focus on a small portion of my previous post is unfortunate, in that I would like to hear your ideas on my other points.  But as to the point of "entitlement" to weapons of war I would answer that is still largely the case.  You can still own a machine gun if you pay the fees and buy the stamps.  If you can afford a battleship or a submarine you don't need the governments permission.  Nuclear weapons are not commercially available and their production is tightly controlled by a few governments so that argument is moot.  There is little doubt in my mind as to the outcome of any conflict between an armed American populace of 300 milion citizens and a government relying on their sons and daughters to subdue them.  That is the current reality.  The original intent of the second amendment is still valid and is a natural law in my mind.  Every person has the right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms.  Owning things that kill each other?  Really?  Your entire block can be killed with what you have stored under your kitchen sink.  Humans can be killled quickly and efficiently by literally thousands of items.  Why would we ignore natural rights and take away personal defense weapons in the misguided belief that it would stop killing?

Bull.

It took photos getting leaked to the media from Lindi England's myspace page to blow the lid off Abu Graib, dozens of people were involved in that and none of them said a peep about wrongfully torturing people, did they? And it took WikiLeaks releasing videos showing US forces gunning down innocent journalists, lying about it, and congratulating each other before we found out about it, I didn't see the military disclosing that or taking any action other than a coverup during the three years between the incident and the release of the video.

If that same military is the last line of defense against our government's wrongful actions, then we're really screwed. That whole culture is bred and trained to instill following orders without questioning the underlying logic, so are you really telling me you're comfortable allowing people in the employ and pay of the government to police the decisions of that same government against their own self interests, against their chain of command, and when their entire culture revolves around following orders? That's utterly preposterous.