Jack-booted thugs

Rosey · November 16, 2006, 12:58:00 PM

This is really incredible. It makes me sick.

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958

Jack-booted thugs. Private ownership of firearms. Choose one.

Kyle

jtwcornell91 · November 16, 2006, 01:22:00 PM

So the proper way to handle documented police misconduct is for a private citizen to shoot them, rather than, say, the legal system? ::rolleyes::

French Rage · November 16, 2006, 01:42:51 PM

They should have asked him nicely a few more times.

ugarte · November 16, 2006, 02:06:00 PM

Must... resist... urge... to... respond...

Rosey · November 16, 2006, 02:56:06 PM

[quote jtwcornell91]So the proper way to handle documented police misconduct is for a private citizen to shoot them, rather than, say, the legal system? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
No, of course not. ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: The point is that if everyone were armed all the time, this situation never would have occurred, because the police would not have tried to abuse their a-THOR-it-a! in such a public way. The outrage evident in the room makes those cops very lucky not to be in a hospital right now: it's good for them and too bad for justice that the crowd was not pushed over the edge into being a mob.

The police want us to be compliant little sheep, but I want the police to be more polite; as a result, I buy into Robert Heinlein's statement that "an armed society is a polite society." Giving someone a monopoly on force is the quickest way to tyranny. If this video doesn't illustrate that, then I don't know what would.

Kyle

Tub(a) · November 16, 2006, 03:46:06 PM

"Let There Be Guns" - The Arrogant Worms

One, two, three, four...

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
we wouldn't need the police no more, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
(Yeah!)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
Nobody'd ever get shot, 'cause everybody'd have a gun! (Makes sense!)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We'd all feel safe, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
Everyone'd be equal, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!

KeithK · November 16, 2006, 04:16:08 PM

Let there be guns.

DeltaOne81 · November 16, 2006, 09:45:53 PM

[quote krose]
Jack-booted thugs. Private ownership of firearms. Choose one.[/quote]

Um, I'm not gonna even dig into the details of this, but... you realize we have both right now, right? So, its a false dichotomy right off the bat.

Rosey · November 17, 2006, 05:27:16 AM

[quote DeltaOne81][quote krose]
Jack-booted thugs. Private ownership of firearms. Choose one.[/quote]

Um, I'm not gonna even dig into the details of this, but... you realize we have both right now, right? So, its a false dichotomy right off the bat.[/quote]
Um, you realize that:

(a) Less than 3% of all people carry concealed handguns.
(b) 0% of non-LEO personnel carry concealed handguns on college grounds.

So, in fact, it is not a false dichotomy.

Kyle

DeltaOne81 · November 17, 2006, 06:34:22 PM

[quote krose]
Um, you realize that:

(a) Less than 3% of all people carry concealed handguns.
(b) 0% of non-LEO personnel carry concealed handguns on college grounds.

So, in fact, it is not a false dichotomy.[/quote]

Well, unless your proposing *forcing* people to carry handguns, I still don't see how we currently don't have private ownership of firearms.

jtwcornell91 · November 17, 2006, 08:24:02 PM

Quote from: Dead MilkmenThere's a town in Georgia, got a law on the books
Says if we all got guns then we won't have crooks
Now what could make them think that way?
What could make them act that way?

KeithK · November 17, 2006, 09:44:59 PM

[quote DeltaOne81][quote krose]
Um, you realize that:

(a) Less than 3% of all people carry concealed handguns.
(b) 0% of non-LEO personnel carry concealed handguns on college grounds.

So, in fact, it is not a false dichotomy.[/quote]

Well, unless your proposing *forcing* people to carry handguns, I still don't see how we currently don't have private ownership of firearms.[/quote]You certainly could force people to carry firearms or at least require gun ownership. It's been a societal requirement in the past. But you don't need to have everyone armed to get a deterent effect. If a sizeable portion of the population were armed, so that you could expect several armed individuals in any grouping of people then it might be less likely that criminals or abusive public officials would act against the public.

Lauren '06 · November 17, 2006, 10:13:02 PM

[quote KeithK]You certainly could force people to carry firearms or at least require gun ownership. It's been a societal requirement in the past. But you don't need to have everyone armed to get a deterent effect. If a sizeable portion of the population were armed, so that you could expect several armed individuals in any grouping of people then it might be less likely that criminals or abusive public officials would act against the public.[/quote]
Yes, but it would be entirely likely that I would never leave my house again.

DeltaOne81 · November 17, 2006, 10:45:18 PM

[quote KeithK]You certainly could force people to carry firearms or at least require gun ownership. It's been a societal requirement in the past. But you don't need to have everyone armed to get a deterent effect. If a sizeable portion of the population were armed, so that you could expect several armed individuals in any grouping of people then it might be less likely that criminals or abusive public officials would act against the public.[/quote]

A valid point, and not one I want to get into on here anyway. Besides it would never go anywhere because its basically purely a value judgment. Depending on the local culture, it would either be a good idea or an awful one. Arming responsible, hunting, rural citizens is probably, usually, mostly a positive. Throwing more guns into urban, gang-filled areas is probably, usually, mostly a disaster. Which is why I firmly support the right of each state to set their own standards.

None of what you said, however, is "private ownership of firearms". Its "forced ownership of firearms" or "encouragement of greater ownership of firearms" or something of the sort.

But if one has the right to private ownership of firearms, one certainly has the right to waive that right. You're not making me own a gun, despite the fact that I understand and support the right of others.

Lets just not pretend that we don't have private ownership of firearms in this country. We clearly and constitutionally do.

KeithK · November 18, 2006, 01:01:52 AM

[quote DeltaOne81]Which is why I firmly support the right of each state to set their own standards...Lets just not pretend that we don't have private ownership of firearms in this country. We clearly and constitutionally do.[/quote]The Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms. It's reasonable to regulate that right to an extent and certainly appropriate to allow different states to regulate differently. Regulation that makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to meet the requirements infringes on this right though. Certain jurisdictions (e.g. New York City) make it very hard for an ordinary person to have a gun legally and I consider this unreasonable.