This is very frustrating

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HelgeS

New member
Oh man, life is a cruel jest.

First, all the threads don't feature any good discussion and even if some words of usefulness come through, the thread is closed before a real discussion can erupt. Then finally a new moderator shows interest, a nice person who seems to be interested in making the discussion a good one. So for a short while there is some really good discussion going on and suddenly, without warning, everything disappears.

Now we are at zero again... no fun at all. Looks like this board is really not made for me. Once the people calm down a bit, the "gods" of the internet kill my discussions.

cheers

Helge
 
Helge, the TFL software (Ultimate Bulletin Board) is flaky. Forums tend to develop problems that have absolutely no reason for occurring. Makes me wonder if UBB is actually written by Microsoft. ;)

------------------
"I dislike violence, but I'm awfully good at it." --Saunders, "Soap"
 
Helge, some of the forums here do on occassion go down. Yes, it is frustrating.
I don't know what happened to our CBS poll topic, so I'll reiterate what I had to say to you.

Taking a poll here on TFL concerning firearms ownership wouldn't work, since we are all gun owners (well, almost all). It would be akin to taking a poll on a Harley forum and declaring that everyone in the US rides a Harley.

We, as gunowners, have every reason to question the stories and polls put out by the mainstream media. On the issue of guns, the media has engaged in acts of omission, distortions and outright lies. They talk about a "gun show loophole" where no such loophole in the law exists. What they are acually referring to is the private sale of firearms. You may object to private sales; that's your privelege. However, distorting an issue through buzzwords and catchphrases is not ethical journalism.

Another example of media bias is the bait-and-switch, which is often applied to semi-automatic "assault weapons." (A term which is a misnomer). The TV anchor will talk about semi-automatic rifles while the video footage shows fully automatic rifles being fired. The media cannot afford to make a distinction between semi and full because they were complicit in confusing the public about assault weapons in order to champion passage of the 1994 ban.

Probably the most egregious act of journalistic irresponsibility is the constant repetition of the phrase "13 children a day killed by guns." This would be true if you defined as "children" gang bangers and drug dealers as old as 21. Our US government's Center for Disease Control statistics show that, in 1997, there were 338 children under the age of 14 killed in firearms-related homicides, and 142 children under 14 killed in firearms-related accidents. If you don't believe these numbers, you can find the information at http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus.html

I could go on and on with examples of how the media distorts the gun issue, but I'll rest with these. Most Americans, and especially gun owners, do not trust the media. And with good reason.

Dick
Want to send Bush a message? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Helge:

Having read the majority of the threads in which you have posted, I am refreshed to hear someone challenging my sincere convictions on this issue, despite some reservation regarding your motives.

I believe that most of the discussion has been balanced and thoughtful, and what hasn't could be found at any point on the ideological spectrum.

the moderators and administrators here contribute their time, voluntarily, to prevent this site from devolving into a form much less civilized, which is readily available elsewhere. I do not accept the implication that their motives are arbitrary or capricious.

I respectfully disagree with your views, acknowledging your right to hold them. Others have demonstrated more effectively than I the lack of merit in your position.

That said, I hope I represent another voice for calm, reasoned discussion.

SA Scott
 
Helge,

I'm one of those "No Compromise" types. I have that luxury because I know I am absolutely right. I sincerely believe that your sole purpose here is not to debate, but to convince some of us that we are incorrect. It is a waste of time.

We know gun control is pure politics. It is the result of isolated incidents blown out of proportion by the liberal media to provide fodder for the emotion-laden campaign strategies of socialist politicians. The media bias is thick, and so are the heads of the uninformed lemming masses who unquestioningly absorb it through their televisions. Why do think it's called "programming"?

Here's your sign. Put it on your lawn. You will soon be having some of the most interesting and challenging discussions that you could have ever imagined. It's a great way to meet a diverse, interesting group of people. It should add new dimensions of excitement to your polling process.

gunfree22x2.gif


------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org

[This message has been edited by Longshot (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
- Poll:
The harley comparison wasn't quite right. It was more like "how many members of the harley club are white?"
But I didn't really want to debate the issue. I just wanted to quickly make obvious how silly some people here behave:
"a study says that most sheep are white"
"NO, that's all a big fraud from the anti-white-sheep group!!"
"Well, look out of your window and check the colour of the sheep around you."
"Hah, it is GOOD that sheep are white!!! Yeah"

Anybody see the problem in the discussion?
That's all I wanted to point out. Your movement would do a lot better if only the thinking part of its supporters would open their mouth in public.

- Media:
That's how politics is made. Yes, the anti gun media fights a ruthless war using all the tools they have. But then, I am pretty convinced that the pro gun media does so too (a lot of cases can be observed right here in this forum). That's how politics in our world is made, sadly. You can get all the smart and knowledgable people agree on an issue, it doesn't matter at all if somebody manages to rouse the stupid people with propaganda. The only way to avoid that dilemma is through education. If the stupid people are outnumbered eventually (or gone) then there is finally a chance that decisions are made on the basis of thought, not on the basis of "who shouts the loudest". Sadly, the US is still far from that point (with a good 2/3 of the population having an education standard below or at highschool level), so are most other countries.

- My intentions here:
Dude, I said it before, I say it again: You are irrelevant. Whether I convince you of anything or not doesn't matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. If I really wanted to "move votes" in one direction here, then I would have long stopped posting here. Instead, I would have written an article about the issue, put in a few citations of the racial slurs and other such unpleasant things I encountered here from "pro gun people" (people love it if their "enemies" are displayed as even dumber than they are) and published it. I just published a little series dealing with "young offenders" in the canadian economist, and the effect of the published word never ceases to suprise me. A simple thing like that would have "pushed more votes" than all my talk here.
But then, I am not here to convince, I am here to debate. As much for my benefit as for yours.

- Longshot:
A few words of wisdom for you:

a) "I am right" is a very silly statement, only beaten in silliness by "I am right, thus my argument is right". If I drop a pen and claim that it hit the ground due to gravitational pull, am I right? NOPE! I might be "correct" under the current law of physics and so forth, but "right"? 1000 years ago the claim would have been that the pen felt due to divine intervention, 2000 years ago due to the "natural tendency to move towards the center of the universe (the earth center)". But groups were "correct" at the time, were they right? It is human arrogance to claim "right" for all those statements they make. What tells you, that in 1000 years the people won't laugh about our view of gravity (or that of guns). The best one can do is to establish ones believes of the best arguments. That is, if I want to inspect the problem of gravity then I study the ancient versions of the problem, then our current version, check them each throughoutly using logic and nothing else. Then I reach a conclusion and claim that "most likely it is correct that the pen felt due to gravitational pull".
I think all the thinking members of this forum will agree that the gun issue IS indeed a very complex one (that doesn't mean that one can't have a position in it, it just means that all positions are given by logical thought and analysis of the available information, NOT by "I am right"). I myself would allow me the arrogance of assuming that my analysis of the situation, derived from incomplete data, is the ultimately "right one". Think about it Longshot.

b) Look up "debate" in the dictionary. A debate is the clash of different views. Quite naturally that requires the participants to differ in opinion. It also requires both of them to believe their position to be justified. And that in turn leads necessarily to attempts of "convincing" the other.

c) I see in your signature that you served or serve in the USMC. That means that you have sworn an oath, right? If tomorrow the government issues a strict "anti gun law", therebye (in the opinion of many of you folks) attack the "people of the US". Same pro gun folks decide to "fight back" (there are so many folks on this board that claim that the reason for having guns is that it allows the "people" to fight the government if they "attack" the "people"). What would you do? Where would you stand, soldier?

cheers

Helge
 
All of Helge's intellectualism is built upon a foundation not uncommon among European cultures. It is not a foundation based upon the sovereignty of the individual. It is a group mentality that expresses itself as Socialism, Communism, and Facism in varying degrees. The premise that an individual has an absolute right that transcends government is foreign to them. Helge builds his arguments upon this foundation. All manners of evil can be justified via statistics. Would you like the objective reasoning behind the extermination of the Jews in Europe? Do you want the Excel spreadsheet that documents the absolute need for Stalin's actions in Russia? A study which shows the benefits of "Tianenmen Square"?

It is this foundation which allows the twisted moral equivalency of New World vs. Old World attrocities.

Helge lacks the standing to argue the gun control question. Just as we lack the standing to argue France's dependence on nuclear power, or Germany's public transportation policy.
 
HelgeS, I'm not a former military officer, but I was present when a close friend of mine was sworn in...
Like the president of the US, members of the military are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the government. As such an order would be unconstitutional, members of the military would have no duty to obey it. This is not to say they would not be court marshalled, but many soldiers would find the idea of the military being loosed on the citizenry it is supposed to defend morally abhorrent. How would you feel about your elected officials sending your military to your home town, kicking in doors, shooting at civilians, terrorizing you and your loved ones?

FWIW, I don't doubt that most gun owners are white males. I also don't doubt that there are a significant number that are either non-white, non-male, or both. There are many here. We share one common ground - we don't believe that our safety is someone else's responsibility. Don't generalize or marginalize us.

Also, you should think of the study from another viewpoint - the vast majority of violent crime occurs in urban areas, while the legal gun-owning population is higher in rural areas. What does that say about the correlation between the availability of guns and violence?

Another simple example is a local town - Kennesaw, Georgia. Kennesaw is about 20 minutes (about half the average commute here) north of Atlanta, one of the two most violent cities in the United States. In Kennesaw, every home is legally obliged to have a gun in it. In the time since the law was passed, the population of Kennesaw has tripled, while the total number of violent crimes has remained virtually unchanged. I shop there regularly, at all hours. I have yet to feel uncomfortable there.
Walking across the street to my car after work is a different story - I work in Atlanta...



[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
Helge,
I was also a U.S. Marine. The Oath is to "Defend the Constitution of the United States". Orders by superiors to attack and disarm U.S. civilians on U.S. soil would have been judged by me and most of who I served with as “unlawful” and in direct contradiction to the sacred oath you refer to above. Not only would I have not complied with such orders by choice but would have had (and still do) a duty via the oath to disobey. Do not under estimate where the loyalty of our military lies.



------------------
“This is my rifle, there many like it but this one is mine …”
 
Helges: I've visited plenty of forums, and TFL is far from the buggiest; You just dropped by during a bad patch.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
-
c) I see in your signature that you served or serve in the USMC. That means that you have sworn an oath, right? If tomorrow the government issues a strict "anti gun law", therebye (in the opinion of many of you folks) attack the "people of the US". Same pro gun folks decide to "fight back" (there are so many folks on this board that claim that the reason for having guns is that it allows the "people" to fight the government if they "attack" the "people"). What would you do? Where would you stand, soldier?
[/quote]

Scott Evans is correct. My oath was to the constitution, not the government that cannot interpret it correctly. I am not singularly motivated by it. I am obliged to uphold my duty to defend the constitution because I am a citizen. As a citizen, I am a member of the militia. The founders of our country charged me and all other citizens with the task of defending the Republic. To me, it is the opposite of treason. Further, fighting in the streets is not the intention of the vast majority of TFL members. We understand that private ownership of firearms is akin to our country possessing nuclear weapons. It is peace through strength. I can assure you that few of us want to make the sequel to "The Omega Man" or "Red Dawn". It's a political war, and a war of public opinion.

I hope that wasn't too "silly" an explanation.

Here is a recent example of why I think firearms are a plus in our society:
http://www.insidedenver.com/news/0718murd2.shtml

Here's a good place to learn about the second amendment:
http://www.gunfacts.org

And here's a place to get more signage and such if your views remain unchanged:
http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/

FYI: The term "soldier" applies to the members of the United States Army. Many marines take offense to it. I tend to not get so worked up about it, but somebody else might.

I'll let the more verbose and tolerant members of our board continue these discussions.

----------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org

[This message has been edited by Longshot (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
Your movement would do a lot better if only the thinking part of its supporters would open their mouth in public.[/quote]

Advice that is equally applicable to folks on your side, and to people in general.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, the anti gun media fights a ruthless war using all the tools they have. But then, I am pretty convinced that the pro gun media does so too (a lot of cases can be observed right here in this forum).[/quote]

Ahh, the old false analogy.

First, the anti-gun media (particularly the television networks) represent themselves as unbiased and nonpartisan, when in fact that claim is demonstrably false. (Re-read Monkeyleg's first post in this thread.) All of here on this forum will freely admit that we are not neutral, we are advocates.

Second, as for pro-gun media: Where? Surely you don't mean it's fine for network news and major metropolitan newspapers to campaign against gun ownership because we here at TFL support the right to own guns.
 
Well, nice to see everyone back from our "Vacations".

Once Again I must point out too all and Esp. HelgeS, that the majority of people on this board (myself included) are pretty much single topic people.
I will state that the majority of Americans don't give a flying fig about Gun Control. They all have an opinion on the matter, but not to the point that they'll spend anytime a week thinking about it or actively researching the issue. So We (TFL) and Them (MMM, HCI) et al are fighting a war nobody really notices. That, almost by definition, makes us all zealots. So wandering in here with a left of center attitude, and insulting people is the on-line equivalent of sticking your male member in a beehive. You're going to get it a lot of attention, but none of it good.

If you want to debate the self-defense issue I'll start:
1) Humans have a right to life.
(Premise)

2) Humans have a right to protect their life
(Premise)

3) A lawful Person will not become a murderer, because of their possession of a firearm. Nor will they commit crimes simply due to the Presence of a Firearm.
(Observation/Premise) Note 1

4) A firearm is the most effective way to protect ones life. (Observation/Premise)

If Humans have a right to life, and to protect it, and a firearm is the most effective way to defend oneself, and the mere Presence of a Firearm will not invoke illegal acts in the owner. Then there is no reason to disallow the use of the most effective way to protect ones self. (Firearms)

There are few ways to attack this argument.
1) Guns cause more harm then good.
A: Accidental Deaths
B: Illegal acts.

2) Attack one of the premises

And I have no easier way to explain it. Note this doesn't even address the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't have to.

Note 1. Less than 1 in 5000 of CCW permits issued in the last ten years has been revoked do to assault or murder by the holder.


Now I really hop you respond to this you always seem to ignore my posts.
:)



------------------
"Big or Little, it's all the same to a .45
Which comment embraced the full philosophy of the Gunfighter"
R.E. Howard
 
One more agreement from the peanut gallery;

I served in the United States Army. The oath, which I'm sure is the same or similar for all services, states that you swear to defend the Constitution, not the government. During my active enlistment ('89 to '93) I didn't meet any soldier who would have attacked his own citizenry for any reason. Even further, it is only the Marines (a rather small if very tough force) that are Constitutionally allowed to act as a police force within the US anyway.

And Longshot is right, he is/was a Marine, I am/was a Soldier ;)
 
Ok, I will ignore the slur (surprisingly it was only one this time) and jump right to the argument kindly prepared by meji:

>1) Humans have a right to life.<

Yep

> 2) Humans have a right to protect their life (Premise)<

That one is already tougher. I would say: Humans have a right to protect their lives if that does not inheritely mean taking other lives. Sounds odd, but consider a few examples:

- Imagine you have a bad liver. you are going to die soon. Are you justified in killing somebody else to get that persons liver, thus protecting your own life?

- Imagine you are a soldier protecting a little settlement with 100 people. An enemy soldier comes along wiht only one bullet. He can either shoot you or shoot the power generator of the village, blowing it up

- You are a criminal convicted to death (well, I don't like that system very much, but in several of the US states it is done). Are you allowed to kill guardian after guardian in a desperate rage to protect your life?

And of course:

- A kid stops you on the street and wants to rob you. You COULD get killed by the kid if it attacks you with bare hands, likely not, but possible. Are you justified in pulling a gun and blasting the kid away?

>3) A lawful Person will not become a murderer, because of their possession of a firearm. Nor will they commit crimes simply due to the Presence of a Firearm.
(Observation/Premise) Note 1<

Smart guy. Yes, a lawful person will not become a murderer. Will s/he take lives though? If you never break a law you won't be a murderer. Yet, if you never break the law and make a mistake, then you might well be charged for manslaughter.

>4) A firearm is the most effective way to protect ones life. (Observation/Premise)<

In our current environment, yes. Overall, I am not sure. See, if the environment would be largely gun free, then criminals would not need to run around with guns either. Then suddenly running away becomes much more efficient (as in "nobody gets hurt, attacker AND defender"). A british bobby can execute the law with a hard rubber stick. He can do that, because the amount of guns out there is minimal.

>If Humans have a right to life, and to protect it, and a firearm is the most effective way to defend oneself, and the mere Presence of a Firearm will not invoke illegal acts in the owner. Then there is no reason to disallow the use of the most effective way to protect ones self. (Firearms)<

It IS an illegal act to take life with a gun UNLESS you are acting in self defence. Self defence is NOT to blow away that robber we threatens you with a fist. I don't know if this is the case in the US, but in europe you are only allowed to defend yourself if your life or that of others is directly endangered AND you are supposed to defend yourself with adequat tools (a gun shot against the rubbers fists is NOT adequat!).

>There are few ways to attack this argument.
1) Guns cause more harm then good.
A: Accidental Deaths
B: Illegal acts. <

That I don't know. Might be, might not be.

>2) Attack one of the premises <

Done.

Imagine the following:

Tomorrow all guns disappear from the US. Yes, some criminals still get some new ones from somewhere. Now look at the different positions:

- Police: the job of the police is a LOT easier. First of all, the moment they find a gun, see a gun, etc during normal patrols, car stops, etc, they can immediately take the holder into custody. The holder is guilty of a crime. That means that the awareness for guns as well as the opportunity to actively go against the guns is much better. If a cop nowadays walks across the street and a block away sees a person with a gun somewhere then he has to approach, ask, etc. In "US Imaginary" he could just right away call for reinforcements, pull his gun and arrest the fellow.

- Juristriction: They can now make the punishments for being arrested with a gun MUCH higher. Nowadays they can't make it very high since a good part of the population has illegal guns and putting all of them into jail of 5 years wouldn't be very good for society. If guns are only with the criminals, well, then the moment you catch one, you can charge him straight away for attempted murderer, since that is the only reason for having a gun (if it is forbidden to have one).

To be honest, I am not sure whether the end result of this enhanced work of police and juristriction will be sufficient to outweight the current "protect yourself with your own gun" criome prevention numbers. I am not sure, but I think they would (using western european countries for comparison).

cheers

Helge

PS: To all the soldiers, marines, sailors and whatnot out there: You have sworn an oath to protect the constitution of the US, NOT the PEOPLE of the US. If they pass a law tomorrow that forbids guns and some rabid pro gun folks start marching (armed) towards Washington then that is simply: "bunch of freaks VS government. The constitution is not violated in any way. Not engaging the aggressive mob will not only get your court marshalled but also make you oath breaker. Simple as that.
 
Well I don't have a lot of time tonight so I'll keep this brief:

Fom the top I hope your not saying I slurred you, And If I did I apologize.

" > 2) Humans have a right to protect their life (Premise)<"


" - Imagine you have a bad liver. you are going to die soon. Are you justified in killing somebody
else to get that persons liver, thus protecting your own life? "
(The liver argument does not work in this case because in doing so you are going against Premise #1)

- Imagine you are a soldier protecting a little settlement with 100 people. An enemy soldier
comes along wiht only one bullet. He can either shoot you or shoot the power generator of
the village, blowing it up
(I can't see how this has any bearing on the argument what so ever)

- You are a criminal convicted to death (well, I don't like that system very much, but in
several of the US states it is done). Are you allowed to kill guardian after guardian in a
desperate rage to protect your life?

And of course:

- A kid stops you on the street and wants to rob you. You COULD get killed by the kid if it
attacks you with bare hands, likely not, but possible. Are you justified in pulling a gun and
blasting the kid away?
(In just every case mentioned by HelgeS, there is a clear cut "aggressor" one who is acting against the rights of other. In doing so the "aggressor" looses the protection of his right by the law, because he is stepping out side of the law in his actions the law becomes both the grantor and protector of the individuals rights under this convent i.e., you follow society's laws, and society will protect you. In every case above there is another element added as a premise being a bad liver or child or criminal that take the argument out side of the stated enviroment. There by allowing the argument to be challanged. )

>3) A lawful Person will not become a murderer, because of their possession of a firearm. Nor
will they commit crimes simply due to the Presence of a Firearm.
(Observation/Premise) Note 1<

Smart guy. Yes, a lawful person will not become a murderer. Will s/he take lives though? If
you never break a law you won't be a murderer. Yet, if you never break the law and make a
mistake, then you might well be charged for manslaughter.
(A lawful person, by definition, never breaks the law. Changing the enviroment see above.)

>4) A firearm is the most effective way to protect ones life. (Observation/Premise)<

(The ability to make a gun free enviroment in outside the capabilities of government. You cannot legislate a technology. It would be impossible to stop guns from being created unless you killed averyone capable of making a firearm.)

In our current environment, yes. Overall, I am not sure. See, if the environment would be
largely gun free, then criminals would not need to run around with guns either. Then suddenly
running away becomes much more efficient (as in "nobody gets hurt, attacker AND defender").
A british bobby can execute the law with a hard rubber stick. He can do that, because the
amount of guns out there is minimal.
(Check new British crime rates)
>If Humans have a right to life, and to protect it, and a firearm is the most effective way to
defend oneself, and the mere Presence of a Firearm will not invoke illegal acts in the owner.
Then there is no reason to disallow the use of the most effective way to protect ones self.
(Firearms)<

It IS an illegal act to take life with a gun UNLESS you are acting in self defence. Self defence
is NOT to blow away that robber we threatens you with a fist. I don't know if this is the case
in the US, but in europe you are only allowed to defend yourself if your life or that of others is
directly endangered AND you are supposed to defend yourself with adequat tools (a gun shot
against the rubbers fists is NOT adequat!).

(In America, since fists cause more deaths that assault rifles, see New York Crimes stats 1997, Any assault can be defended from with a firearm.)

I think the majority of you US Imaginary is all ready in effect. A person who is illegaly holding a firearm is taken into custody. ANYONE seen with a gun on the Street will be expecting a visit from the cops in no time at all. Except in very Rural areas. More jail time then attemped murder. Check Virgina's Project Exile.


Well I hope you like it, I'm off to a concert for the rest of the night maybe I'll be back on later.


------------------
Go Ugly Early.

AD HOMINEM; Helping Morons argue since 1549!!!
 
Is anyone else reminded of the dinner party conversation in Frank Herbert's Dune? The young hero-to-be attempts to describe a world (Earth) that many of the others have never seen. A world where water falls from the sky and runs along the ground. A idea so foreign to their dry, sandy, nearly waterless world that they don't believe him. Just a thought in passing. Excuse me for butting in. John
 
Helge, are you a student of Kant?

If you have a bad liver you DO have a right to your life, and a right to seek a cure with respect to someone else's life. Basically, you have the right to trade for a liver; but since you don't have a right to steal from someone else (Depriving him of right to life) you may not be able to trade for one and may die.

As for the kid mugging you, yes you DO have the right to use deadly force in defense of your own life.

Even against an unarmed criminal, in defense from that criminal you would STILL be better off with a firearm - I don't see how it becomes less effective simply because it's not used against someone with one - what is this, "paper scissors stone"? (Yes, I know there are close-in fighting techniques that work well but having a firearm gives defender one extra choice - it does not leave defender worse off).


Guess what, HelgeS? The laws already work as you described, the police DO assume nefarious intent of someone with a gun - that's why there are carry bans and gun bans.


I think you could go one better in a Western European police state, HelgeS. Why not ban people from walking the streets at any time except when being bused under armed police escort to a state-mandated job? Then, anyone caught walking the street could be summarily shot - he clearly is out burglarizing.

If it saves one life. . . .

Battler.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top