U.S. Gov't. position: We The People are EXPENDABLE
- Thread starter progunner1957
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Handy,
then why do you afford a different status to a CCW holder riding on a bus, or driving his own car on public roads, to one using an airplane as a conveyance? With that argument, you could argue against not just CCW, but against all gun ownership in any place but your home.
Yes, it's quite clear (to everyone but sendec, I guess) that if we fear anything, it's not that others will have a gun (since we are arguing FOR others to have guns): what we fear is that criminals or terrorists will have guns while everyone who might otherwise oppose them is disarmed by law and prevented from having the means to fight back.
That is hardly fear; it's more like objection to an unfair fettering of our ability to defend ourselves. It clearly is not a fear of others having guns. How could it be that those who argue for the right of all law-abiding people to have guns also be at the same time afraid of anyone else having guns? Check your logic, sendec.
-blackmind
Rich,
How is giving an individual the ability to risk the lives of hundreds or thousands not a restriction on THEIR liberty? "I never argued that Americans should be allowed to own nukes." Which is what I'm talking about. The Constitution says "arms" not "handheld firearms". You seem to recognize a difference between a personal weapon and something much larger, but don't want to recognize that the real weapon we have to worry about is the plane - the gun is just a trigger.
I'm straying back onto trampled ground, so we can both let this drop.
Marko,
Are you comparing cars to jumbo jets? Do you expect your Toyota to be taken over by terrorists pretending to be paid passengers?
How is giving an individual the ability to risk the lives of hundreds or thousands not a restriction on THEIR liberty? "I never argued that Americans should be allowed to own nukes." Which is what I'm talking about. The Constitution says "arms" not "handheld firearms". You seem to recognize a difference between a personal weapon and something much larger, but don't want to recognize that the real weapon we have to worry about is the plane - the gun is just a trigger.
I'm straying back onto trampled ground, so we can both let this drop.
Marko,
Are you comparing cars to jumbo jets? Do you expect your Toyota to be taken over by terrorists pretending to be paid passengers?
Just about everybody everywhere has the ability to risk my life. My life is in constant and continuous jeopardy every second that I am alive isn't it? - from both people and from nature. Every time I step outside my door and drive down the street I am surrounded by people who could kill me if they wanted to.
Where in the world does the idea come from that we are safe?
Where in the world does the idea come from that we are safe?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Handy-
We obviously read the 2nd quite differently.
I read it in the context of a newly formed, hard earned government expressing a right of The People to have access to personal protection and protection from tyranny of .gov.
To that end, firearms in the hands of The People grant them Power to throw off oppression....just ask the Afghani's and their Russian counterparts. No firearms? No chance.
Next, we come to the second part: Personal Protection. Well, it goes without saying that the 2nd does not embrace the concept of using an RPG on a mugger....the opportunity for infringing on someone else's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is, then, significant. Thus, no infringement of the 2nd by restrictions on purchase of RPG's.
And so we come to aircraft. As I've said, I couldn't care less who was carrying, were carry legal. You offered a compromise that we limit that Personal Protection in Planes to weapons, equally effective as firearms in an enclosed space. I agreed.
There's no compromise in my support of the Second. You, OTOH, are the one who stated:
Rich
We obviously read the 2nd quite differently.
I read it in the context of a newly formed, hard earned government expressing a right of The People to have access to personal protection and protection from tyranny of .gov.
To that end, firearms in the hands of The People grant them Power to throw off oppression....just ask the Afghani's and their Russian counterparts. No firearms? No chance.
Next, we come to the second part: Personal Protection. Well, it goes without saying that the 2nd does not embrace the concept of using an RPG on a mugger....the opportunity for infringing on someone else's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is, then, significant. Thus, no infringement of the 2nd by restrictions on purchase of RPG's.
And so we come to aircraft. As I've said, I couldn't care less who was carrying, were carry legal. You offered a compromise that we limit that Personal Protection in Planes to weapons, equally effective as firearms in an enclosed space. I agreed.
There's no compromise in my support of the Second. You, OTOH, are the one who stated:
I simply couldn't agree with you less, Handy, and I submit that statements like this are purely emotional and ultimately hoplophobic. The guns aren't the problem....you continue to insist they are. It's the BAD people and the BAD politicians that are the problem.....the guns are there to give you a fighting chance.
Rich
Butch,
It is entirely true that anyone can kill anyone else. BUT, a firearm is a good deterent 99% of the time because the most likely attempt is going to be crime.
A firearm will not protect you from a falling airplane. So, like with chemical plants, we the people enact certain guidelines and restrictions on what can be done with an airplane to give you the reasonable assurance that they aren't going to be falling out of the air like rain. Given a very libertarian view such restrictions are "unjust", but so is anarchy.
It is entirely true that anyone can kill anyone else. BUT, a firearm is a good deterent 99% of the time because the most likely attempt is going to be crime.
A firearm will not protect you from a falling airplane. So, like with chemical plants, we the people enact certain guidelines and restrictions on what can be done with an airplane to give you the reasonable assurance that they aren't going to be falling out of the air like rain. Given a very libertarian view such restrictions are "unjust", but so is anarchy.
Rich,
Here's the whole quote:
Here's the whole quote:
The sentence you quote is an agreement with what you said, an expantion of the concept, followed by refutation of the idea as impractical and dangerous. I'm sorry if that is not clear to you, but I'm here to tell you that the intent was to deal with that idea, then move on.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
OK Handy. Not hoplophobic at all. 
Let's go to your most recent argument that the fear of armed citizens on aircraft requires that:
Rich
Let's go to your most recent argument that the fear of armed citizens on aircraft requires that:
I hate to keep bringing this up, but you just keep doing it! This is one of the most over the top arguments for civilian disarmament, in ANY venue, I have ever heard. Must I remind you AGAIN, whose ideas and tactics you're parroting?
Rich
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Absolutely not true. It would only be safer for people who have no handicaps, and who have the physical strength and ability to resist a strong attacker. If all the guns in the world were gone, my partially paralyzed wife, for example, would be a lot worse off than she is now, since the only effective means of defense available to her against a young, strong attacker would be gone. If you diarmed both my wife and all the career muggers who are physically stronger, you'd put only her at a disadvantage, not the mugger.
Think about the implications of your statement, and maybe you'll start to realize why I said what I said about "common sense".
sendec wrote:
If the fear of hijacking is unrealistic, why did we create a whole new .gov bureaucracy and spend billions of dollars of tax money on the notion of fighting it?
If having a gun can't change anything, why are the FAMs armed with guns?
You claim that you don't need a gun on a plane because of rational evaluation blah blah blah. That same argument is the one that HCI and VPC use when arguing for a ban on guns and/or CCW.
It goes without saying that most of the time, we don't need the guns (or fire extinguishers or seat belts...) The problem is, ONCE in a great long while, they are the only thing that can save you. And that is where your argument utterly fails.
For much the same reason, we don't feel we're likely to change Sarah Brady's mind, either.
-blackmind
If the fear of hijacking is unrealistic, why did we create a whole new .gov bureaucracy and spend billions of dollars of tax money on the notion of fighting it?
If having a gun can't change anything, why are the FAMs armed with guns?
You claim that you don't need a gun on a plane because of rational evaluation blah blah blah. That same argument is the one that HCI and VPC use when arguing for a ban on guns and/or CCW.
It goes without saying that most of the time, we don't need the guns (or fire extinguishers or seat belts...) The problem is, ONCE in a great long while, they are the only thing that can save you. And that is where your argument utterly fails.
For much the same reason, we don't feel we're likely to change Sarah Brady's mind, either.
-blackmind
Handy wrote:
HOLD ON A DAMN MINUTE!
YOU CITED HIS STATEMENT AS A SUPPORT OF A BAN ON AMMUNITION, WHEN IN FACT IT WAS SIMPLY A PLAN TO ALLOW CARRY OF ONLY THAT AMMO THAT WOULD NOT PENETRATE THE AIRCRAFT!
How long did you figure we would let such obvious disingenuousness go unchallenged, Handy?
Man, that's really shameless. You UTTERLY twisted the meaning of his words.
-blackmind
HOLD ON A DAMN MINUTE!
YOU CITED HIS STATEMENT AS A SUPPORT OF A BAN ON AMMUNITION, WHEN IN FACT IT WAS SIMPLY A PLAN TO ALLOW CARRY OF ONLY THAT AMMO THAT WOULD NOT PENETRATE THE AIRCRAFT!
How long did you figure we would let such obvious disingenuousness go unchallenged, Handy?
Man, that's really shameless. You UTTERLY twisted the meaning of his words.
-blackmind
marko wrote
Hold on a sec... why would you be able to have one in your home? You don't own the street and sidewalk outside, and that's exactly where a kid on a tricycle may be when you have an ND that shoots out a window and catches him in the head and kills him.
How dare you assert a right to endanger people who are outside your windows?
So it looks like we're down to NOWHERE, according to Handy's logic, that we should be able to have a gun.
-blackmind
Hold on a sec... why would you be able to have one in your home? You don't own the street and sidewalk outside, and that's exactly where a kid on a tricycle may be when you have an ND that shoots out a window and catches him in the head and kills him.
How dare you assert a right to endanger people who are outside your windows?
So it looks like we're down to NOWHERE, according to Handy's logic, that we should be able to have a gun.
-blackmind
Handy wrote:
Scale it back a bit and ask the same question.
How is giving an individual the ability to risk the lives of 5 other people not a restriction on THEIR liberty?
You could use that as an argument against letting us have the right to CCW.
In fact, that argument can't be valid for the "hundreds or thousands" without being valid for the seventeen other people on the city bus with the CCW holder.
It challenges my imagination that you are so apparently unable to follow your own logic through, and see its obvious flaws, Handy.
-blackmind
Scale it back a bit and ask the same question.
How is giving an individual the ability to risk the lives of 5 other people not a restriction on THEIR liberty?
You could use that as an argument against letting us have the right to CCW.
In fact, that argument can't be valid for the "hundreds or thousands" without being valid for the seventeen other people on the city bus with the CCW holder.
It challenges my imagination that you are so apparently unable to follow your own logic through, and see its obvious flaws, Handy.
-blackmind
Handy wrote:
How? Well, let's start with the uncontrovertible fact that no one ever guaranteed those people a right to be free of dangers present in everyday life.
Are you arguing for the, "I have a right to be free from ever being endangered" crowd, and their mindless claims to rights that have never been enumerated, promised, or even conceived before this generation?
I've heard of people like Ted Kennedy and others arguing for "the right to feel safe," as if someone could be charged with depriving you of your rights if someone made you "feel" unsafe.
It's idiocy.
-blackmind
How? Well, let's start with the uncontrovertible fact that no one ever guaranteed those people a right to be free of dangers present in everyday life.
Are you arguing for the, "I have a right to be free from ever being endangered" crowd, and their mindless claims to rights that have never been enumerated, promised, or even conceived before this generation?
I've heard of people like Ted Kennedy and others arguing for "the right to feel safe," as if someone could be charged with depriving you of your rights if someone made you "feel" unsafe.
It's idiocy.
-blackmind
This treats as settled fact the notion that guns on airplanes have this likelihood of bringing the airplanes down. You are proceeding from a point where your alleged axiom is no axiom at all. You have still not proved the "handguns are a grave danger to the integrity of the flight" assertion.
Instead, you skip right on to the idea that it's fair to prohibit guns on planes to keep them from "falling ... like rain." You have not proved -- and we have not all agreed -- that such precautions are even necessary.
To wit: please provide any citation to any case in which handgun fire aboard an airliner caused it to crash.
Just one is all I'm asking for.
Because we can easily point to one (flight 93) where armed civilian passengers might well have used a handgun to stop hijackers before they were able to kill the pilots and bring down the plane.
-blackmind
Actually, it's not a good compromise, because the weapons that would be permitted (previously listed as knives, clubs, etc.) are not "equally effective as firearms." They require the defender to be within touching distance of the attacker; that's a danger you don't have to be subject to if you are a defender using a handgun.
-blackmind
