Gun Controll question.

[rgraham666]

The Confederacy was doomed whether they had won the War of Northern Aggression or not.

Had they won it would quickly have fallen apart. The first time there was a major bone of contention between States of the Confederacy one or both parties would have said 'Fuck this! We don't want to stay where we don't get our own way.' and seceded from the Confederacy. It would have kept on like this until the Confederacy was a collection of city states, at best.

Just my opinion.

I was reading an old favourite SF novella recently, The Mercenary by Jerry Pournelle. The last paragraph sticks in my mind and seems relevant to what I want to say.

"Don't say that! I haven't saved Hadley. You have to do that yourselves. The best a soldier can do is buy time."

 

[kendo1]

One of my favourite authours, JP.

 

[Weird Harold]

If the United States ever reaches a point where our government wants to harm us, a houseful of guns won't be much of a hindrance.

I don't expect you to respond, you're having too much fun exchanging absurd exagerations and insults with RRm but...

It doesn't take "a housefull of guns" to make a difference, it just gives a resistance movment a head start over what past resistance movements had to start with:

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
...A crude and clumsy weapon, the Liberator was never intended for front line service. It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. The resistance fighters were to recover the weapons, sneak up on an Axis occupier, either kill him or knock him out and retrieve his weapon(s). Many resistance fighters called the FP-45 "a great weapon to get another one with"
...

The resistance movements in occupied Europe, the Phillipines, China, and various other places around the world were provided with Liberators and with varying degrees of success opposed the state-of-the-art, high-tech, occupation forces of Germany, Japan, and to a much lesser extent, the Italians.

Almost all of the resistance movements of WWII eventually received the direct assistance of allied armies before they were liberated, so I can't claim the Liberator was solely responsible for an armed populace "overthrowing and oppressive regime" but it certainly made a difference, and in some cases a fairly big difference.

 

[shereads]

I don't expect you to respond, you're having too much fun exchanging absurd exagerations and insults with RRm but...

It doesn't take "a housefull of guns" to make a difference, it just gives a resistance movment a head start over what past resistance movements had to start with:



The resistance movements in occupied Europe, the Phillipines, China, and various other places around the world were provided with Liberators and with varying degrees of success opposed the state-of-the-art, high-tech, occupation forces of Germany, Japan, and to a much lesser extent, the Italians.

Almost all of the resistance movements of WWII eventually received the direct assistance of allied armies before they were liberated, so I can't claim the Liberator was solely responsible for an armed populace "overthrowing and oppressive regime" but it certainly made a difference, and in some cases a fairly big difference.

You're arming yourself against a military takeover of the United States. And I'm the one exaggerating and fanning fear?

Jesus.

 

[shereads]

Are you still listening to RR?

How much does it take? Just ignore it already.

I was hoping to distract him before he reloads, so you could run for help. But you're right. It's too disturbing.

 

[kendo1]

Redneck Richard.

Take that, fascist government!
Ah'm armed to the teeth jest incase y'all done take ma freedoms away.

Mm. Highly likely.

 

[yevkassem72]

You're arming yourself against a military takeover of the United States. And I'm the one exaggerating and fanning fear?

Jesus.

That might seem implausible, but there are many scenarios that aren't.

One of which is also an urban uprising, in which case the police would be swamped, and the National Guard possibly as well. What then? Would the regular army be able to stop it? Would they even try? Lenin came to power through a violent coup, against the wishes of a majority of the Russian people. And he held onto power. And he was evil. I certainly wouldn't recommend following his ideas. However, mass uprisings in the cities could succeed, if well-led and well-armed. There would be little to stop them, short of martial-law, and then it might not work. Just look at the fall of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc.

And those were mostly unarmed. With arms, they might well have succeeded. The Hungarian Revolution in 1956 came very close. If Khruschev had wavered long enough, it would have been too late to quash it.

 

[kendo1]

An urban uprising now?

Yep! All those armed civilians have got to do something.

The civilians are revolting!

 

[Weird Harold]

You're arming yourself against a military takeover of the United States. And I'm the one exaggerating and fanning fear?

Jesus.

No, I am armed against the expanding population of the dreaded Bambis who are trying to eat all of the woodlands so global warming can progress faster.

You're the one claiming that my 19th century technology would be worthless against a modern high-tech army.

The Founding Fathers are the ones who felt that I should be armed against a military takeover of the US -- or a US government turned oppressor.

 

[R. Richard]

One of which is also an urban uprising, in which case the police would be swamped, and the National Guard possibly as well. What then? Would the regular army be able to stop it? Would they even try? Lenin came to power through a violent coup, against the wishes of a majority of the Russian people. And he held onto power. And he was evil. I certainly wouldn't recommend following his ideas. However, mass uprisings in the cities could succeed, if well-led and well-armed. There would be little to stop them, short of martial-law, and then it might not work. Just look at the fall of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc.

And those were mostly unarmed. With arms, they might well have succeeded. The Hungarian Revolution in 1956 came very close. If Khruschev had wavered long enough, it would have been too late to quash it.

The problem with the urban uprising theme is two-fold, First, well-armed also includes the necessity for enough rounds to conduct a firefight against the enforcement people of those in power and few civilians have enough rounds. The second is well-led. If you have an organization in place and trained, then you can provide leadership and then assume control. However, if there is not a trained organization in place, an urban uprising usually degenerates into looting and even fighting among the various groups involved in the uprising.

 

[SeaCat]

I hate to say this but I will no longer even read this thread much less post to it.

Yes I did start this thread but it has now become more than absurd.

What I started as a potentially intelligent discussion about Gun Control has degenerated into a series of insults, Bullshit, Flames and absurdity.

I am honestly ashamed to admit that I started this thread.

Cat

 

[yevkassem72]

I hate to say this but I will no longer even read this thread much less post to it.

Yes I did start this thread but it has now become more than absurd.

What I started as a potentially intelligent discussion about Gun Control has degenerated into a series of insults, Bullshit, Flames and absurdity.

I am honestly ashamed to admit that I started this thread.

Cat

I regret any flaming that might have happened here. I have tried not to do that.

I doubt that we will ever agree on gun control, but I can respect your views. It just shows how sharply divided people are on this issue. It's a highly sensitive issue, it seems.

 

[shereads]

I am honestly ashamed to admit that I started this thread.

Cat

And you should be ashamed. Don't do it again.

 

[Huckleman2000]

ROFL, it's a holy war, to be sure.

I just wanted to point out that, if Lebanon was a beacon of democracy in the Middle East before the civil war, wasn't it an armed populace that attempted the overthrow which sent it into chaos? Not sure of my history, but the point is that not all armed citizen insurrections are against tyrannical governments. sometimes it's just a really pissed off minority.

Secondly, where is RR, the staunch defender of American citizens, on the subject of the forced imprisonment of Muslim US citizens such as Hamdi? And I would remind him that the "system" is that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As he so forcefully pointed out, "Whining about the systenm will change nothing."

 

[Pure]

hey seac, to everything there is a season; sanity included.

 

[yevkassem72]

ROFL, it's a holy war, to be sure.

I just wanted to point out that, if Lebanon was a beacon of democracy in the Middle East before the civil war, wasn't it an armed populace that attempted the overthrow which sent it into chaos? Not sure of my history, but the point is that not all armed citizen insurrections are against tyrannical governments. sometimes it's just a really pissed off minority.

Secondly, where is RR, the staunch defender of American citizens, on the subject of the forced imprisonment of Muslim US citizens such as Hamdi? And I would remind him that the "system" is that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As he so forcefully pointed out, "Whining about the systenm will change nothing."

It was a religious uprising, by militant Muslims (who didn't represent most Muslims, just an extreme few) against the lawful civil government of the Republic of Lebanon. Nothing justified about it at all, and it plunged Lebanon into civil war.

 

[shereads]

Here's the thing:

If I had shot the contractor who put in my kitchen tile, as he deserved, he wouldn't have been around to repair it when the wood-floors guy dropped something heavy on it and broke a big chunk of it last week.

I rest my case.

 

[SeaCat]

Well this is interesting.

I am hoping that this man gets punished. He stopped them then commited murder. Then he tried to justify it with the Castle Doctrine. While I support the Castle Doctrine I consider what he did Premeditated Murder.

Judge rejects 'Castle' law claim
By Larry Keller
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

WEST PALM BEACH — In the end, it might have been the nine additional shots he fired at his tormentors that prevented Norman Borden from having his first-degree murder case dismissed Monday.

Borden, 44, asked Circuit Judge William Berger to dismiss charges against him - two counts of first-degree murder and three other felonies - on the basis that under Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law he acted lawfully in shooting to death Christopher Araujo, 19, and Saul Trejo, 21, in his Westgate neighborhood in West Palm Beach in October.

Berger denied the request and set Borden's trial for June 18.

The confrontation occurred when Borden and a friend were walking Borden's dogs around 3 a.m. Words were exchanged, and Borden said the other men drove at him in a Jeep.

That's when he fired five shots from a 9mm handgun, and the vehicle came to a stop against a fence.

Borden then fired nine more shots from close range into the vehicle.

Sheriff's investigators say that Trejo was a local leader of a criminal nationwide street gang called Surenos 13 or Sur 13. They say that the gang's members set fire to Borden's house a couple of days after the shootings.

Public Defender Carey Haughwout sought dismissal of the charges on grounds that the state Castle Doctrine law in effect since Oct. 1, 2005 expanded one's right to self-defense to include shooting another person in their home, their vehicle and in a public place.

The law usurped court rulings that people had a duty to retreat from violent encounters. The Castle Doctrine states that a law-abiding person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force."

That fit Borden, Haughwout said. "His actions were done out of reasonable fear for his life and safety" and that of his friend, she said.

A preponderance of the evidence showed this, she added, and that's the standard of proof that applies.

Prosecutor Craig Williams said the Castle Doctrine law states that the use of force is permitted if "a reasonably cautious and prudent person" could believe that danger could only be avoided by the use of force.

Borden might have had a valid argument after firing the first five shots at the moving vehicle, he said.

The nine shots he dispensed when the Jeep came to a stop gave police probable cause to believe that Borden did not act in self-defense, he said.

"It's clearly a jury question," Williams said.

Berger agreed, saying that since factual issues are in dispute, a jury, not he, should decide them.

Had Borden succeeded in getting murder charges tossed because of the Castle Doctrine, he would have been the first defendant in Florida to do so.


Cat

 

[rgraham666]

I'm remembering the old Monty Python sketch.

"This court would have accepted your plea of self defence. Except that you stopped to reload. Twice."

 

[SeaCat]

I'm remembering the old Monty Python sketch.

"This court would have accepted your plea of self defence. Except that you stopped to reload. Twice."

That's about it isn't it?

He dropped the five rounds into the Jeep and it crashed. Then, when he could have walked away he approached the Jeep and fired 9 more shots into it.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

That's what I'm most concerned with Cat. Not that people have guns, but that they use them with skill and care.

This man didn't.

 

[Huckleman2000]

See, now if the two guys in the jeep had guns too, then two murders could have been prevented, right?

 

[shereads]

See, now if the two guys in the jeep had guns too, then two murders could have been prevented, right?

Exactly. The way to end senseless gun violence is with sensible gun violence.

Asert your right to arm bears!

 

[Liar]

bears repeating
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg