"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself"

[gorfle]

Interesting perspective from the Swiss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g&feature=player_embedded

2:58

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself. And if you don't have the tools to do that then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. And the tools for that are guns."

[Old Codger]

1. In Rome

One of the signs of a free man was a sword, in fact when they freed a slave they gave him a sword as an indication of that fact.

[proteus_lives]

5. That is a great fact.

I just wrote it down.

Thanks for sharing!

[Katya Mullethov]

47. It was made of wood

But it's the thought that counts .

[OttavaKarhu]

74. The rudis was a training sword

And if you think you can't be hurt by the skilled deployment of a hunk of tree...you might have some surprises in gladiator school.

I'm not sure where the modern assumption originates that the /rudis/ was "only symbolic." There were indeed some symbolic ones presented...but the training sword called /rudis/ was perfectly capable of causing bodily harm, even death. Part of the reason for training with a wooden sword was so the martial art student would focus on movement, coordination, and footwork rather than slashy slashy. Remember that the /rudis/-bearer was also carrying a shield, and the skills of close combat are both intensely physical and mental.

/Rudis/ also referred to a fighting staff. Also capable of doing considerable bodily harm.

The "symbolism" was not a minor one. It implied a revision of the social contract between the freedman and society: a free Roman had obligations that included putting one's own body on the line for the greater good.

There were various roles for /rudii/, both in and out of gladiatorial combat.

Horace and Juvenal write about the training of Roman legionnaires using the /rudis/. So did Polybius and Livy:

DOI: 10.1086/507159
Review Article
Buttons and Wooden Swords: Polybius 10.20.3, Livy 26.51, and the Rudis
Michael J. Carter
Brock University

Sword-happy friends I know call them "wasters" but I don't know how widespread that term is. Several have ended up in hospital with blows from these "pretend" swords. As with any martial art--including America's martial art, firearms--the ultimate technology is the warrior.

[PavePusher]

75. Ow! Ow-ow-ow-ow-ooooowwwwww!

"And if you think you can't be hurt by the skilled deployment of a hunk of tree...you might have some surprises in gladiator school."

Or most of the Asian or medevial European Martial Arts.

Bokken or Shinai HURT! And an oak practice broadsword will break bones and skulls quite handily... No, Don't Ask(tm).

[lazer47]

2. Gun Control,, is a tight shot group..nt

[D23MIURG23]

23. +1

[proteus_lives]

3. Awesome video.

I want to show it to the anti-crowd and ask what they don't like about it.

Switzerland is high on my list of places to visit.

[virgogal]

6. Really? Lots of banks,lots of guns,and no minarets.

[proteus_lives]

9. Did you even watch the video?

I like the gun part. They should allow the minarets and the banks should open their files for inspection.

Unlike you, RKBA Democrats are for ALL Rights. While you only support the ones you like.

[virgogal]

11. Of course I watched the video and how on earth do you know what

rights I support or like?

[proteus_lives]

14. The sneer from your first comment.

But if I'm mistaken then let me ask. Do you support a person's right to keep and bear arms?

[virgogal]

16. Of course I do. Always have,always will.

[proteus_lives]

19. Thank you for answering.

I was curious.

[Tejas]

72. Believes in RKBA but digs the Red Sox, hmmmmm.......

;)

[onehandle]

4. The Swiss:

Anti-pretty much anyone from outside their borders.

The Freepers:

The same.

Guns are the universal 'git r done.'

[proteus_lives]

7. Did you even watch the video?

Or was that just a drive-by stereotyping and bigotry?

[onehandle]

8. Hey, I didn't vote to suppress the largest religion in the world.

That was the Swiss.

[proteus_lives]

10. I agree that was a bigoted decision.

But you can you explain why they (Or Americans) shouldn't have the right to bear arms or the right to self-defense?

[onehandle]

12. No.

We also have the right to eat two dozen doughnuts for breakfast, twenty Big Macs for lunch, a 76 ounce steak for dinner and a double chocolate paradise pie for dessert.

America Fuck Yeah!

[proteus_lives]

13. Wow, you're narrow-minded.

Are you at all interested in breaking free of your stereotypes?

But the root is that you can't think of legitimate reason to strip your fellow citizens of their rights and you're hesitant to admit you're an authoritarian.

[rd_kent]

71. You need help, dude....

Seriously.

[safeinOhio]

15. I thought we did?

Also polls show a majority of Americans agree with gun ownership for protection. Most court cases have gone that way also. I remember when it wasn't as accepted as it is now.

response to post #10

[proteus_lives]

18. We do.

And I've seen those polls. They're great.

My question was directed at the grabber crowd. I'm always interest in the reasoning behind their thinking.

[Downtown Hound]

25. What do you consider a gun grabber?

I've been called a gun grabber right here on this board because I think the .50 caliber sniper rifle should be illegal for civilians to own. I was also called a gun grabber because I thought that some students at a college shouldn't be allowed to walk around campus with empty gun holsters on their belts in protest of a policy that prohibited concealed weapons on campus.

As a side note I own two shotguns, a .22 rifle, and a .45 caliber handgun. I love going to the range and blowing holes in a target as much as the next bloke. I know of very few people that are outright "gun grabbers." Most people today acknowledge that responsible and reasonable gun ownership should be allowed. The key word there is reasonable. I am not against restrictions that make guns a little more difficult to obtain so they don't fall into the wrong hands and I'm not against limits as to the level of firepower that one should be allowed to own. What I've noticed is that the crowd that loves to throw out the term "gun grabber" has a very loose definition of what that is. I think one can support the right to bear arms but also favor regulation of how that right is implemented.

[proteus_lives]

26. Well....

I consider a person who wants to drastically or completely restrict a citizen's right to keep and bear arms a gun-grabber. I consider them as odious as someone who wants to restricts a woman's right to choose, a person's free speech or a GLBT's person right to marry.

I think (As I think most RKBA Democrats and gun-owners think) that there should be reasonable restrictions on what weapons a person can use and what situations they shouldn't be allowed to own one. (Like felons and crazies) For the most part I consider our current gun laws adequate and reasonable. But the rub is the new "reasonable" laws like what the mayor of Seattle is doing and banning of ammo sales. I argue against laws that punish legal owners and not criminals. I'm a firm believer in the right of CCW. If you're 18, of sound mental health and not a felon then there is no reason you should not be allowed access to most firearms.

I've been hundreds of "They should all be banned" posts on DU. I find it mind-boggling. I don't understand how so-called liberals and progressives support every right except the right to self-defense. It's hypocritical.

Discussion is vital to this issue. For example:
" was also called a gun grabber because I thought that some students at a college shouldn't be allowed to walk around campus with empty gun holsters on their belts in protest of a policy that prohibited concealed weapons on campus."

Why? I would view that as a legitimate form of protest. Like people wearing tape over their mouths at a march. How do you view it? (BTW, I also support CCW on campuses.)

[Downtown Hound]

31. How do I view walking around an educatinal instituation with a gun holster?

Stupid. But that's just me. A school isn't a place for you to be advertising that. Kids should be thinking about their books not their guns. And I really don't care how oppressed they or you think they are because they're not allowed to.

As for the they should all be banned posters, it isn't going to happen and they're kidding themselves. I personally feel that the paranoia that gun fanatics scream about them is just that, paranoia that they use to prevent responsible gun control measures and make themselves feel like they're more oppressed than they really are. But that's just me. Guns aren't going anywhere. Gun fanatics just like to scream that they are.

[eqfan592]

42. Thinking something is "stupid"...

...and trying to tell people they shouldn't be allowed to do something are two different things. I was part of the anti war movement at my campus. Do you think that was "stupid" as well and that I shouldn't have been allowed to participate in protests, work tables in the union or wear anti-war pins (pretty close to wearing an empty holster)? Should we only have been thinking about our books and not the war?

And what is your idea of "responsible gun control?" It seems we have a lot of that already, and that almost all of the so-called "responsible" gun control measures people tend to propose are proposed with no actual evidence supporting their ability to reduce crime. They serve no logical purpose other than to make the lives of law abiding citizens more difficult. And that gun owners speak out against these measures isn't "paranoia."

I think some people like to paint gun owners with the broad "gun fanatics" brush because they are incapable of defending their views with rational discussion and evidence. But of course, "that's just me."

[taurus145]

81. Your pins are more dangerous

It's hard to draw blood with a holster... (too lazy to add a goofball smiley)

[gorfle]

43. I agree with you.

A school isn't a place for you to be advertising that.

Advertising what?

Kids should be thinking about their books not their guns.

I agree with you. But most times when I travel to the campus I think about the Virginia Tech shootings, and how defenseless I would be in such a situation. These adults have a right to think about their self-defense, also.

Guns aren't going anywhere. Gun fanatics just like to scream that they are.

Your skepticism would be better accepted if there were not elected officials in office right now who espouse making guns go away, and if it wasn't a part of the Democratic Party Platform.

[proteus_lives]

65. Because gun-free zones have been such a success right?

Really, so you don't like expressions of free speech? You're sounding like a right-winger complaining about an anti-war march.

[PavePusher]

27. Well, I would probably consider you a grabber.

1. You seem to want to stifle both First and Second Amendment Rights on public colleges and universities.

2. You throw out the ".50 caliber sniper rifle" buzz phrase. Can you define what a ".50 caliber sniper rifle" is? What makes it distinct from any other long-range target-shooting rifle? Or large-game hunting rifle? Has it been particularly noted in the commission of crimes? How is it specifically unsuited for civilian use? This is usually a "scare tactic" used by people who's long-term goal is to ban all private ownership of firearms, one slice at a time. (On Edit: "Grabbers" are also notorious for being, with rare exceptions, stunningly ignorant about the subject at hand, i.e. firearms, their capabilities, current laws and the Constitution, and history.)

Like many labels, "gun grabber" is used to cover a wide range of people who would like to restrict firearms Rights of free citizens in varying degree. You do seem to be on the milder end of the scale, but a restricter none-the-less.

[Downtown Hound]

29. So do you think automatic weapons should be legal?

A .50 caliber sniper rifle is a rifle that fires a .50 caliber bullet. As for restricting the rights of college students, whatever. I just don't think you're all that oppressed because you can't walk around campus with a gun holder. Chalk that one under I really don't give a flying fuck.

Based on your rationale, you either support the right of the people to unrestricted firearms, including fully automatic, or you are a gun grabber too. Which is it?

[PavePusher]

30. I support civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms.

Edit: I would do away with the Registration and Tax Stamp requirements, i.e. same rules as any other firearm.

[Downtown Hound]

33. Then we are not going to see eye to eye

And I have no problem whatsoever with you calling me a gun grabber.

[PavePusher]

35. Agree to disagree.

However, I do ask why you hold that opinion?

Also, why are you against ".50 sniper rifles"?

[eqfan592]

44. I would also like to hear a defense of these possitions. (nt)

[taurus145]

34. You'll have to do better than that.

I've got a couple of .50 caliber rifles and I'll wager you're not in favor of banning either of them. They're both black powder.

Was that just shorthand or do you really not know what you're talking about? There are tons of .50 caliber and larger firearms out there that are almost useless for sniper work.

We saw in NJ several years ago what consequences can happen when the unknowing try to ban those evil .50 cals. The original bill also banned any shotgun over .410 gauge.

What do you have against leather and nylon accessories? You'd be hard pressed to distinguish some of my "gun holders" (Ain't that cute - gun holders?) from everyday fashion or utility accessories. Do you just want to bar folks on campus from wearing the obvious holster?

Lastly, yep. I'm all in favor of allowing private ownership of all firearms.

Frankly, I dislike your Animal Farm approach to gun ownership.

[metalbot]

39. How many people were killed with automatic weapons from 1934-1986?

The government only started regulating automatic weapons in 1934. In 1986, the federal government stopped issuing new tax stamps for automatic weapons.

Some people view this as common sense gun control. Surely this would save many lives, right? Except that in the entire period of 1934-1986, only two people were murdered with registered machine guns.

In Texas, there are over 100,000 registered fully automatic weapons. If they were so dangerous that they needed to be made illegal, you'd think we'd have a lot more killing going on with them.

[Euromutt]

28. Speaking for myself, I don't care for the term

I would describe myself as a recovering gun control advocate, and while I have come to disagree with those who advocate tighter restrictions on private firearms ownership, I'm leery about generalizing about their motives. I believe that gun control proponents, for the most part, are genuinely concerned about violent crime and sincerely believe that restricting legal private ownership of firearms is an effective way to reduce it. The problem is, in my opinion, that these same gun control proponents also labor under the misapprehension that a significant amount of firearms crimes, and especially firearms homicides, are committed by legal gun owners, or at least people with access to legally owned firearms; that the (overwhelming) majority of firearm homicides are the mass shootings and domestic murder-suicides that dominate the headlines. In other words, they buy into the myth that the overwhelming majority of homicides "are committed by people who would have been considered 'law-abiding citizens' up to the moment they pulled the trigger." The fact is that criminological research indicates that something in the order of 90% of U.S. homicides are committed by people who almost certainly were not "law-abiding citizens"; these are people with criminal convictions--often multiple convictions--or who should have had criminal convictions if the criminal justice system had managed to convict them of the stuff they almost certainly got up to. Essentially, a lot of the homicides in the US--as in most wealthy developed democracies--consists of both the professional and the casual criminal element killing each other over both business and personal disputes, but because these are (not to put too fine a point on it) routine occurrences, and ones of a kind that aren't likely to affect most people who watch the television news and/or read newspapers, so they're not as "newsworthy."

That having been said, I can't help getting the impression when it comes to gun control activists--the leadership of gun control organizations, and politicians who push for gun control measures--these people fall either into the camp of "magical thinkers" (people who think inanimate objects of steel, aluminum and polymer exert magical powers of mind control over their owners, causing them to commit acts they would not even consider absent the firearm) or "elitists" (people who aren't opposed to guns per se, but "merely" think that "those people"--e.g. ethnic minorities, the lower classes, etc.--can't be trusted with them). Actually, some activists fall into both camps, believing that guns exert magical powers of mind control only over "those people," whereas they themselves are too enlightened to be similarly affected.

I was also called a gun grabber because I thought that some students at a college shouldn't be allowed to walk around campus with empty gun holsters on their belts in protest of a policy that prohibited concealed weapons on campus.

I wouldn't call you a gun grabber for that, but I'd seriously question any commitment to freedom of speech you might claim to have. It's one thing to oppose licensed concealed carry on campus, quite another to think that its proponents shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion.

[Downtown Hound]

32. I never said they weren't allowed to voice their opinion

I said I supported the school ban on kids wearing gun holsters. That isn't the same thing as silencing their voice. They can still protest the ban. I just think having kids walk around campus with gun holsters sends the wrong signal and creates the wrong kind of environment for a school to have. I think the school has a right to make that decision. You and they can disagree with it all you want. But as they say, tough shit.

[PavePusher]

36. Those "kids" are all legal adults...

entitled to all the Rights, priviledges and responsibilities thereof. This does not/should not change due their status as a student.

[Downtown Hound]

49. You still have to obey certain regulations of the institution you attend though

It's also illegal to carry drugs and alcohol in most parts of a college campus. You give up that right when you agree to take a class there. In my opinion, it's a minor restriction that ultimately leaves your freedom intact. You just have to keep it outside of the school.

[PavePusher]

58. 1.In many places it's not illegal.

College and University Rules do not carry the weight of Laws. If there is a State Law that forbids weapons on certain campuses, then yes, it would be illegal. Carrying a firearm on a campus where it is not illegal, but is against school policies, could not get you arrested. They could ask you to leave and, if you did not comply, then have you arrested for trespassing. Depending on how McDonald vs. Chicago goes, you might then have basis to file a Civil Rights deprivation suit. Depending on the specifics of the incident, you might be able to do that now, but students are notorious for not having the deep pockets such a suit would demand.

2. If attending a Publicly funded/managed institution, you do not "give up" any rights. The ACLU and FIRE have worked this many times, but again, the deep pockets rule applies.

3. Having my Rights restricted "ultimately leaves my freedom intact"? Ummm, not sure how to put this gently... Baloney. 'Arbeicht Macht Frei' (spelling?) was false 70 years ago, and hasn't become any truer since, no matter who uses it, or what spin they put on it. Freedom, tempered with responsibility (internal restrictions, freely agreed to), makes you free. Restrictions imposed from external sources reduce freedom. (Apologies for adding data to support Godwin's Law...)

4. Does one never need to indulge in self-defense on school campuses? Anecdotal evidence in the news would seem to refute that, as well as various crime-on-campus studies/surveys. 31 people at VT might disagree with you, but they died disproving this theory.

[Katya Mullethov]

68. You spelled it right

SO row well, and live .

[PavePusher]

69. I wish I could come up with quotes as quickly as you.

Yeah, I'm jealous. :toast:

[Euromutt]

77. Actually, he didn't

The phrase is "Arbeit macht frei," no "ch" in the "Arbeit."

[PavePusher]

84. Euromutt for the win.

I was too busy to look it up yesterday, my bad. Thanks!

[Euromutt]

85. It's because I'm Dutch

When you're a small country surrounded by big ones, you have to learn their languages, because they have little motivation to learn yours. So we all have to take English, French and German at some juncture in secondary school. Plus, German's not too different from Dutch, and the Dutch word for labor is "arbeid"; only one letter difference.

[PavePusher]

88. I'm a somewhat atypical American in that...

I have been exposed to a number of languages in their native environments. Took 5 years of French in high school and college and lived 3 years in French-speaking Belgian Congo (Zaire), three years in Japan, and a lot of time in Germany and Italy. Don't currently remember much of any of them, but I can occasionaly puzzle out newspaper headlines and ask for the bathroom and train station.

The German quote, however, I have no excuse for not remembering correctly. Mea Culpa.

[gorfle]

41. I don't understand.

I said I supported the school ban on kids wearing gun holsters. That isn't the same thing as silencing their voice. They can still protest the ban.

If you support their right to protest speech, what is it about the holsters that is problematic? Would it be OK if the students wore T-shirts with pictures of holsters on them saying, "Students for Concealed Carry"?

[Downtown Hound]

51. Courts have ruled that schooled have the right to ban things like the Confederate flag,

swastikas, and other hateful symbols because they can disrupt learning. While a gun holster isn't by itself a hate symbol, in this era of Columbine and Virginia Tech, I could see where students walking around with gun holsters on their belts could create an intimidating atmosphere for some students. Maybe some students have had bad experiences with guns. The point is, the school said they didn't want them, and I support their decision. I really don't feel that you're all that oppressed because you can't wear one in school. So as I said before, chalk that tale of oppression and human freedom denied under I really don't give a shit. You're really just not that oppressed because you cant wear a gun holster to school.

And yes, I do think it would be okay for them to wear a shirt that said, "Students for concealed carry."

[eqfan592]

53. wow, what an enlightened attitude.

:sarcasm:

[Downtown Hound]

55. And again, don't really care what you think of it.

I prefer my college campus to not have idiots running around with gun holsters everywhere. If that makes me unenlightened then so be it. Personally, I think it just means I value an educational environment where everybody can feel comfortable and safe.

[taurus145]

76. Run for your lives!

There's a man with a holster!

Quickly! Cover yourselves with neatsfoot oil and get out the Armor All trigger sprayers to repel him!

I'll promise you, the slide rule I carried was far more dangerous than any holster I've seem.

Or. Are you simply opposed to freedom of expression except when it agrees with your narrow views?

[Euromutt]

79. No, it means you value an educational environment where *you* can feel comfortable and safe

Well, you and anyone who happens to share your opinions. Speaking for myself, I feel more comfortable in an educational environment that places more value on everybody's freedom to express themselves than on the allowing some people a veto on what opinions may or may not be freely expressed by claiming that they, or some other unspecified party, might be made to feel uncomfortable.

[gorfle]

56. That's not what I'm not understanding.

The point is, the school said they didn't want them, and I support their decision.

Yes, we understand that the school said they didn't want them.

What I don't understand is why you think walking around with an empty gun holster is inappropriate. I mean, if you think it's OK for students to wear shirts that say, "Students for concealed carry", how is that any more intimidating than an empty pistol holster? What about carrying protest signs with pictures of real empty gun holsters? Would that be OK with you?

You're really just not that oppressed because you cant wear a gun holster to school.

I'm not against it because it's "oppression", I'm against it because it's stupid that you can carry a sign, or wear a t-shirt, but not an empty holster.

[Downtown Hound]

57. Maybe it is stupid in your mind

But you do realize that you are not the ONLY one attending the college do you, and that there are others who's feeling you should take into account. I have already answered this question of why I think a gun holster is different. Lots of students there with lots of different backgrounds. You don't know how many of them might be victims of gun violence, you don't know how many of them might see that holster from far away and think it has a gun in it. You don't know how it's going to make a lot of them feel.

It's not a question of whether or not the holster itself is dangerous. It's about the type of environment the students work it. There are many students there with a diversity of beliefs and opinions. In order for all of them to get along, restrictions are going to be made. Banning gun holsters? Reasonable restriction in my book. Don't like it? Go to another college that doesn't have that restriction if it's so important to you. But if you truly value your education, I don't think you'd really let a little thing like this get in the way.

[PavePusher]

60. By that chain of logic...

you could ban students of certain races because others have been oppressed/victimized/frightened by them.

Doesn't pass....

[gorfle]

62. So it's about feelings?

But you do realize that you are not the ONLY one attending the college do you, and that there are others who's feeling you should take into account. I have already answered this question of why I think a gun holster is different. Lots of students there with lots of different backgrounds. You don't know how many of them might be victims of gun violence, you don't know how many of them might see that holster from far away and think it has a gun in it. You don't know how it's going to make a lot of them feel.

Sorry, but the whole point of protest is to express how you feel about an issue. We are a free nation that welcomes political protest in spite of how it might make other people feel. The sum of your argument is this: You don't like that kind of protest because you value some people's sensitivities over allowing protests about a Constitutional right.

I've seen proselytizers on several campuses where I went to school. That made me uncomfortable. Should we ban them? What about anti-abortion protesters? Might that make women who have had abortions uncomfortable? Should we ban them?

It's not a question of whether or not the holster itself is dangerous.

But it should be. If it's not harmful, then what's the harm in wearing it?

Don't like it? Go to another college that doesn't have that restriction if it's so important to you. But if you truly value your education, I don't think you'd really let a little thing like this get in the way.

Firstly, many people, especially working adults, have limited choices for where they can go to school.

Secondly, I wonder how you would have reacted to schools in the past who disallowed black people to attend if they said, "Don't like it? Go to another college that doesn't have that restriction if it's so important to you. But if you truly value your education, I don't think you'd really let a little thing like this get in the way."

I think your suggestion is preposterous. A college campus, certainly not public ones, should not be able to contravene Constitutional rights.

[eqfan592]

63. Interesting rationalization there.

"But you do realize that you are not the ONLY one attending the college do you, and that there are others who's feeling you should take into account."

Seems to me that you feel it's the primary duty of college campuses to protect the student's feelings now. You do realize that just about every political movement in existence offends somebody else typically, right? Your rationalization could easily be applied to any number of movements that are regularly active on college campuses. In fact, it could be applied to all of them.

Sorry, but I call bullshit on your philosophy.

[X_Digger]

64. Oh, it's about 'FEELINGS'

Heaven forfend we make students uncomfortable. Let's ban PETA ads, anti-war protesters, clowns, homeless people, and empty gun holsters.

[taurus145]

82. Are you serious?

But you do realize that you are not the ONLY one attending the college do you, and that there are others who's feeling you should take into account.

You just made the perfect argument for uniforms. Let me see, must consider the feelings of other students, faculty, etc.

Can't wear a cross, Thor's Hammer, turban, bhurka, or anything else that denotes religious teaching or leanings because those of other faiths may be offended.

Can't wear shorts, tanks, etc. (especially females) because some religions are offended by the show of skin.

Nothing political of any sort is allowed. (Can't offend those of differing political views.)

I could go on for days.

Let's also ban pork from all campus eateries and ban swine from animal husbandry. (Too obvious.)

Have you any idea how inane your statement is? OR should I say INSANE?

[Euromutt]

78. You may have a missed a few decades of First Amendment jurisprudence...

...but the Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech is not limited to literal speech alone. Wearing t-shirts bearing messages, burning the American flag and displaying one's breasts are all examples of free speech which the Supreme Court has ruled to be protected under the First Amendment. Restricting the manner in which one chooses to express one's opinion--provided that manner does not cause physical or material harm to another--constitutes both a de facto and a de jure restriction on freedom of speech.

And speaking as someone who attended college not too long ago (while in my thirties, I'll point out), I think it wouldn't hurt as preparation for the real world to learn that, in the immortal words of John Cleese, no-one has the right not to be offended and that supporting freedom of speech entails supporting the freedom of others to express opinions that make you feel uncomfortable, and/or express them in a manner that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Given that overwhelming majority of students are 18 or over, they are legally adults, and I think it does them a disservice not to treat them as such. And, perhaps unfortunately for some of them, part of being an adult is accepting that there are people in world who don't share your opinions, and that the appropriate response in a liberal democracy is not to try to restrict their ability to express that opinion, but to persuade them in a non-coercive manner that their opinion is incorrect.

[benEzra]

37. How about .416 caliber sniper rifles?

.338 caliber sniper rifles? .300 caliber sniper rifles? The group that invented the ".50 caliber terror" hysteria (the Violence Policy Center) isn't just after the .50's, especially given that the .416 Barret has superior ballistics and to .50 BMG and the .338 Lapua matches them.

And how do you feel about non-automatic civilian "assault weapons"?

The reason the .50 issue is controversial is that it is an attempt to shatter the longstanding compromise about what is and is not suitable for civilian ownership. The consensus that guns under .51 are suitable for civilian ownership, and that guns over .51 (except shotguns) should be tightly controlled, has stood for 75 years now, without controversy. Given that no .50 BMG rifle has EVER been used in a U.S. homicide in the 25-plus years they have been on the civilian market, and that they can't shoot down airliners or anything of that nature, I think the case for shattering the NFA compromise and redrawing that line isn't exactly compelling.

[Downtown Hound]

50. Non-automatic assault weapons?

That's a bit of a tougher issue to pin down. In California for example, it's legal to own a non-automatic version of an AR-15 or an AK-47 as long as the magazine doesn't hold more than 10 rounds. Personally I have no problem with that.

[eqfan592]

52. I do have a problem with that.

Unless you can produce evidence that this restriction has actually had any impact on the violent crime rate, they can be viewed as nothing more than "feel good" legislation, and such "feel good" legislation can be very dangerous to civil liberties in the long run.

[Downtown Hound]

54. Well, California and most blue states with gun control do have

lower rates of gun crime than states that don't. I take it that that means there's no evidence to you?

[eqfan592]

59. All states have gun control.

Just some have a little more than others. Please provide actual evidence to support the claim that the specific piece of legislation we are speaking on, which is restricting magazine capacities to no greater than 10, has had an impact on the crime rate.

But even speaking on the larger issue that you bring up, yes, that is evidence, but it's evidence of correlation at best, not causation. Also, please provide a link to your statistics that show states with "more" gun control have lower crime rates.

[PavePusher]

61. Bwwwwwaaaaaaaha, hahahahahaaaahaha, haaaaahahaaaa!

...Whew, tell another one, that was a whopper....!

:rofl:

[Tejas]

73. With a 20+ year ban, can't wait to hear your wisdom concerning

how low the DC crime rate is.

[Euromutt]

80. Unsupported assertion is not evidence

To the best of my knowledge, your assertion is incorrect, so if you could produce some evidence to support it, I'd be appreciative.

However, I would also contest that gun crime rates are an adequate measure of the effectiveness of gun control. The advertised purpose of gun control is to improve public safety, and that means reducing violent crime overall, not just violent crime committed using a particular means. After all, if you manage to reduce the number of firearm homicides by X amount, but the number of homicides committed by means other than firearms (e.g. blades, bludgeons, personal force) increases by an amount equal to or greater than X, you haven't achieved anything.

[eqfan592]

89. Good catch there

I totally missed that he said "gun crime" rates. Too bad he doesn't seem interested in talking about this anymore as I'd be interested to hear his responses.

[benEzra]

87. California is the ONLY state with an AWB that strict.

Most blue states allow free ownership of AR-15's and civilian AK's with no restrictions on magazine capacity, stock shape, or muzzle style. Not even Massachusetts goes to the extremes that California does.

[beevul]

66. If you are going describe in public what constitutes an "assault weapon" in CA...

At least do it accurately.

[Euromutt]

90. He's sort of right, but he's missing a major detail

It's legal to own an AR or AK (or other so-called "assault weapon") that possesses all common features of those models provided it has a 10-round non-detachable magazine; that is, a magazine that requires a tool to be removed from the receiver.

Mind you, the California AWB is for all practical purposes dead, because some bright sparks (at the Calguns Foundation, IIRC) uncovered a loophole. Thing is, the California AWB will not allow the import into or the manufacture in the state of a complete "assault weapon." But because the definition of "assault weapon" hinges on "cosmetic" features, the CA DoJ does permit the import or manufacture of stripped (lower) receivers, because it's feasible to build a firearm that is not legally an "assault weapon" based on such a receiver. However, the CA DoJ does require any such receiver to be registered as an "assault weapon." And that was their big mistake.

Because under the terms of the CA AWB, any firearm registered as an "assault weapon" may be modified to replace or incorporate any and all features that make it an "assault weapon." If you've got an AR that's registered as an "assault weapon," you can legally replace the fixed stock with a collapsible one, replace an unthreaded barrel with a threaded one, etc. So because a stripped receiver already legally counts as an "assault weapon," you can buy one, have it registered, and then build it into a standard 16" barreled, pistol gripped, collapsing-stocked M4gery complete with flash hider and bayonet lug, and there's fuck-all the DoJ can do to stop you.

Yeah, it is still registered, and if you don't have any grandfathered mags with more than 10 rounds capacity, you can't legally acquire any, but it's something.

[benEzra]

86. We're not far apart on that issue, then, although I differ with the pre-1860's capacity limit.

The most popular magazine capacities for intermediate-caliber rifles are 20-30; 10 is unreasonably low, IMO. I also differ with California's ban on handgrips that stick out on detachable-magazine rifles. That, to me, is asinine, as is the ban on flash suppressors.

I am OK with the existing tight controls on automatic weapons, though I wouldn't mind seeing the NFA registry reopened.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Ban the .50BMG and next week a gun maker will introduce the .494.

How many crimes have been committed with the .50 BMG?

Empty holsters are a free speech matter. Like wearing armbands. What do you have against free speech?

[gorfle]

40. On .50 and holsters.

I've been called a gun grabber right here on this board because I think the .50 caliber sniper rifle should be illegal for civilians to own.

Why do you hold this belief? These weapons are specialized target rifles and are very expensive, running in excess of $5000 to purchase. No crime has been committed with them in over 25 years. What is your rationale?

I was also called a gun grabber because I thought that some students at a college shouldn't be allowed to walk around campus with empty gun holsters on their belts in protest of a policy that prohibited concealed weapons on campus.

Why do you hold this belief? An empty holster is completely inert and harmless, other than sending a very clear message about carrying firearms.

[beevul]

67. Regardless of the stated reasons...

"sending a very clear message about carrying firearms"


That right there is the objection.


Anything and everything to dilute it, has been and will be done, by those that object to that message.


Calling proponents "gun nuts", or "unreasonable" are just vehicles to obfuscate the fact that its the message that is objected to.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Which religion are you referring to when you say, "the largest religion in the world"?

[Katya Mullethov]

46. I'd say they've had it up to "here"

With the ROPers. Just a wildassed guess on my part . If this is true , I would say that is mighty intolerant of them .

[ZombieHorde]

48. Islam is not the world's largest religion, but I do appreciate the picture. nt

[rd_kent]

70. What the fuck are you talking about? make some sense, please.

[X_Digger]

17. So much for the "the swiss don't actually _use_ those guns.."

Notice that they talk about a) going to the range on occasion, and b) keeping the rifles after their service is done.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. What I noticed most GOVERNMENT PROVIDED AMMO!!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

22. I love the GOVERNMENT PROVIDED AMMO!!! U.S. Constitution Article 1

Section 8: "To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia"

It would seem that the U.S. Constitution could provide for the same. . .

[AtheistCrusader]

24. I wonder if we could get the right to go along with slashing the defense budget

if we issued rifles and ammo to citizens (male and female) of age?

Give and take, and all.

[Hoopla Phil]

45. I seriously doubt that.

[DonP]

93. Once upon a time ...

The CMP and many NRA formal shooting events were all supplied with free 30.06 surplus ammo, it was the only kind permitted for the matches.

Ah, for the good old days.

[taurus145]

83. Mmmmm sexy

Women with guns. I like it.

[JonQ]

91. Absolutely correct

Rights are said to be granted by god but ultimately those rights come from individuals forcing others to recognize them. God has yet to overthrow a tyrant on anyones behalf.

So ultimately rights can be traced back to individuals who are unwilling to compromise and are willing to force others to acknowledge them.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

92. It's obvious, they are afraid to let people post comments! NeoCon tactics