IS? [Pic+]

Submitted by: McDuff73 3 years ago in

Gun journalist silenced for being reasonable.
There are 50 comments:
Male 14,332
[quote]And in response I cited the Waco siege as an example of what happens when civilian arms go up against government weapons...and that wasn`t even the military. It was civilian law-enforcement. [/quote]

Except that was a small group of people that molested children that no one supported......

[quote]I do remember, and I had plenty to say: you referenced a whole bunch of countries and situations that differed from the US by one crucial factor: the US spends a metric f**kton on their military, putting them in a whole different league, and totally out of the range of what well-meaning civilians with rifles could hope to touch.[/quote]

Since when has a revolution been the military siding with one side completely? Never happened keep lying to yourself to support the fallacy. BTW the whole Switzerland arming it`s civilians AKA milita and it`s track record during WW2 might show you there`s something you`re ignoring.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

In short, a gun won`t save you from the government. But other things will.

A gun might save you from a criminal, or a bear, and those are legitimate reasons to want a weapon. I accept those reasons.

Our only difference is that I question whether the cure is worse than the disease; that having a gun defends against one risk by exposing oneself to an even greater risk.

THAT we can debate about. But we need to put to rest the debate about guns being a tool against oppression; because they just aren`t.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
McGovern1981

"Remember when I gave you a ton of examples of when that`s exactly what happened and you had nothing to say? Shall I again?"

I do remember, and I had plenty to say: you referenced a whole bunch of countries and situations that differed from the US by one crucial factor: the US spends a metric f**kton on their military, putting them in a whole different league, and totally out of the range of what well-meaning civilians with rifles could hope to touch.

Sticks and stones against the lightning.

And in response I cited the Waco siege as an example of what happens when civilian arms go up against government weapons...and that wasn`t even the military. It was civilian law-enforcement.

It didn`t work out well for the civilians.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@DromEd

"And no, we`re screwed with ou(r) pistols and rifles if the US military is turned against us. So you suggest we be even MORE screwed if that were to happen. Thanks a lot mate! Personally I don`t see the US military ever doing that no matter who gave the order."

Our views match: if the US military doesn`t side with the government, then the tyranny won`t succeed. And if they do side with the government, civilian arms won`t be able to stop them.

Either way, the presence of civilian arms has very little effect on preserving freedom against tyranny.

There are many good and reasonable justifications for civilian arms, such as self-defence, etc, and there are good discussions to be had about the costs/benefits of those justifications. But having the debate always turn to civilian arms being about preserving freedom is just rot.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote] However the members of the militia are not licensed gun owners though they are included in the gun owner statistics.... [/quote]

I`m not seeing this discrepancy no real milita numbers there. If you get to bring a gun to your home as a milita member licensed or not they consider you responsible for it right? That would pretty much mean you own it then huh.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]Also ammo is available for licensed gun owners(though it is restricted). [/quote]

Not in quantity like you said only armor piercing and incendiary which you can`t get here either.
0
Reply
Male 819
@McGovern: Funny that the site that you linked lists Switzerland gun policy as restrictive and the US gun policy as permissive...

Also ammo is available for licensed gun owners(though it is restricted). However the members of the militia are not licensed gun owners though they are included in the gun owner statistics....
0
Reply
Male 5,874
No-one has mentioned little green men or zombies yet. Y`all gonna need gurns aginst them critturs!
Ack-NaK!
0
Reply
Male 2,460
And no, we`re screwed with out pistols and rifles if the US military is turned against us.


Typo sorry...that sentence is supposed to read "with our pistols etc."
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]In all three cases you would be turning your weapon against another human being.[/quote]

[quote]Guns are given to almost all men aged 20-30 for national defense[/quote]

What would those be getting used against a moose invasion?
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@xavroche

Licensed firearm owners in Switzerland are permitted to possess any quantity of ammunition.

Gun policy.org bet a site devoted to firearms laws worldwide knows more than you.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]And you think civilian rifles and sidearms are the tools to stop them? They who have tanks and jets and bombs and tens of thousands of highly-trained professional soldiers? [/quote]

Remember when I gave you a ton of examples of when that`s exactly what happened and you had nothing to say? Shall I again?
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]Americans with guns are violent. [/quote]

And UK`ers don`t even want to trust themselves with sharp object which explains a lot about you people......

[quote]We did the ground work for you and USA still says[/quote]

ROFL!! Said the people from a continent that formed the EU not so long ago! A union of European states...geee what`s that sound like? A UK`er I bet too keep your Orwellian utopia and sing god bless the queen sheep....
0
Reply
Male 2,460
Oh yeah...

And for your blanket statement "Americans with guns are violent." thanks for showing your complete and utter ignorance and lack of logical thinking.
0
Reply
Male 2,460
@Musuko...Funny how little argument the rest of the Constitution engenders. Tell me, how did the framers manage to make the rest so clear but so royally screw up the second amendment? Or could it be people who don`t like it will find any reason to argue against it?

And no, we`re screwed with out pistols and rifles if the US military is turned against us. So you suggest we be even MORE screwed if that were to happen. Thanks a lot mate! Personally I don`t see the US military ever doing that no matter who gave the order. I can see the possibility of police stepping over the line and in that case our guns would do us credit. I rest comfortably at night knowing that every tin plated dictator with delusions of grandeur knows full well that there`s a gun behind every blade of grass in the US and that ANY invading force on earth wouldn`t stand a chance.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
At first i was sure that this is again one of the IAB right wing nuts preaching their gospel. But it`s actually a good article. I still haven`t found any good reasoning why gun control is bad when it clearly works in other countries.

It`s the same with a lot of issues, the rest of the western world has adopted some concepts, tweaked them for decades and has come out with better results. We did the ground work for you and USA still says "we are special, it doesn`t work here". Yeah, you sure are "special", you are not even willing to try..

Guns have nothing to do with citizen having tools to counter oppression. You got the freaking strongest army in the world.. You got maybe the strongest arm manufacturing section that spends millions and millions to keep "guns free".. ffs, you are stupid.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Andrew155

"See, no correlation exists. No matter how you run the numbers."

What it does tell us is that some populations, for whatever reasons, are more violent than others. Scandinavians with guns are peaceful. Americans with guns are violent.

If you know a person is violent, would you want them to have a weapon? The debate isn`t about guns causing the violence. It`s about whether the American population in particular is too violent to be responsible with guns.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@mykunter

"Yes the realities still exist. The government has way too much power. I don`t trust them."

And you think civilian rifles and sidearms are the tools to stop them? They who have tanks and jets and bombs and tens of thousands of highly-trained professional soldiers?

If it came down to a shooting match, it`ll all weigh on whether the American military put this part of the Soldier`s Creed...

"I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values"

...ahead of this part...

"I will always place the mission first."

...if the mission winds up being "oppress the American people".
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@MeGrendel

"Take, for example, the `Knock-out` Game going on around the country. The VAST MAJORITY of them have been black-on-white attacks. Now, which ONE has been `interpreted` as a `hate-crime`? Why, it`s one of the very few white-on-black ones....funny that."

That`s a VERY bold claim. Please could you show me the specific examples of it happening that led you to that conclusion? I`m genuinely interested in how you come to form these opinions, and what you base them on.

Because it strikes me that the ethnicities of knock-out game perpetrators, and how the media and public and justice system classify them, is unlikely (in my opinion) to be something that`s seen comprehensive study.

Are you basing your opinion on anecdote? A small number of news stories that tells only a minute picture? Your prejudices? Or has such a comprehensive study been done?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@DromEd

"No. Realizing that the whole intent of the framers of the constitution was to construct a document that was simple to understand and thus be open to as little interpretation as possible."

And you know what they say about good intentions.

If that was their intent, the amount of debate and argument and interpretation that goes on suggests they`ve failed quite badly, doesn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 1,983
Leave it to Old Ollie to approve of gutting someone for telling the truth and trying to educate those too ignorant to have paid attention during Civics class.

NONE OF OUR RIGHTS ARE UNLIMITED!
And requiring someone to take 16 hours of training before allowing them to wander around in public with a hidden gun is NOT AN INFRINGEMENT on the Right to possess a firearm.
0
Reply
Male 819
(Cont.)

Anyway in my opinion there are four main factors that dictate gun violence :

1)Gun prevalence
2)Gun restriction policies
3)Gun culture
4)Socio-economic factors

For all four of these factors the realities in the US lead to higher gun violence.

In the examples that you gave: Switzerland, Serbia, Scandinavia, Etc; You only stated the similarities in one of these factors, while completely ignoring the fact that the others were radically different and in fact very mitigating for the reasons I`ve stated. Hence your comparisons were faulty.

Anyway I`m neither for nor against the second amendment. But I think that it is undeniable that there is a problem with gun violence in the US, and at one point it needs to be looked at. What pisses me off is that every time you try to have an intelligent debate, people either a)get hyperemotional and completely unreasonable or b)throw out very twisted statistics like you have done.
0
Reply
Male 819
@Andrew: Wikipedia ftw? Not really.

Serbia:If you do a little research you will see that these numbers are the high end range of very speculative estimates. Most of these weapons are left over from the war and the government is very actively trying to get rid of them.

Switzerland: Ammunition is readily available at firing ranges, but it is counted and must be fired immediately. Government issued guns are to be kept at home in case of invasion.

Scandinavian countries: Guns are prevalent but heavily regulated. Guns are essentially only for sport and hunting. Gun culture there is to use guns to shoot at animals and bulls-eyes. As opposed to the US where the right to bear arms stems from right to personal self defense, right to national self defense, and right of defense against possible tyrannical government. In all three cases you would be turning your weapon against another human being.
0
Reply
Male 14,827
“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

- i.e. nutjobs
0
Reply
Male 15,832
He $#!+ his bed; now he has to lie in it.

No sympathy here.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
And after a little research about Switzerland, xavroch - You can easily get ammo in Switzerland.

"There is no restriction on possessing personally purchased ammunition capable of being used in their issued weapon, and such ammunition is readily available in shops and at many firing ranges."
0
Reply
Male 2,578
xavroche - if you want to argue guns per capita, here.

Scandinavia and Germanic Europe have some of the most. And they have low murder rates.

Serbia actually has the most guns in Europe, by far. Obviously that Eastern European country must be violent.

Actually, the Serbian murder rate is the same as the UK.

See, no correlation exists. No matter how you run the numbers.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
[quote]The 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago to reflect the realities of the time, however do those realities still exist? If not, is it time to make changes to the second amendment? [/quote]

Yes the realities still exist. The government has way too much power. I don`t trust them.
0
Reply
Male 2,460
Good luck defending your nation with a gun and no bullets.
0
Reply
Male 819
@MeGrendel:It really isn`t as clear cut as you make it. The wording of the second amendment is short and is known to be ambiguous. Case in point, DC v Heller was 5-4. If it was so clear cut, all party affiliations aside, it would have never gone as far as the supreme court nor been decided by such a narrow margin.

Anyway I`m neither for or against the right to bear arms. I just think it is idiotic to spend so much time trying to interpret every word of a text without asking a more fundamental question: The 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago to reflect the realities of the time, however do those realities still exist? If not, is it time to make changes to the second amendment?
0
Reply
Male 819
@Andrew The Czech Republic has relatively few guns per capita...

The Switzerland example just pisses me off because it is the perfect example of statistics being absurdly distorted to suit a political agenda, and idiots everywhere repeat it ad nauseam. Guns are given to almost all men aged 20-30 for national defense (guns are not meant for self defense). However ammunition is extremely regulated. Most people who have open access to guns do not have open access to the ammunition. Good luck committing gun violence when you can`t fire your weapon.
0
Reply
Male 7,740
And no, the Constitution is NOT `open to interpretation`. It`s states itself very well.

It`s idiots `interpreting` things that gets us in trouble.

If a Liberal can`t find somethig offensive, they `interpret` something to be offensive. Calling it `code-words` or deeming the `intent` racist/bigoted etc.

They consider themselves the ultimate `interpreters`. If something is said, it will be `interpreted` offensive if it was said by a conservative, or be `interpreted` as non-offensive if it is said by a liberal.

Take, for example, the `Knock-out` Game going on around the country. The VAST MAJORITY of them have been black-on-white attacks.

Now, which ONE has been `interpreted` as a `hate-crime`? Why, it`s one of the very few white-on-black ones....funny that.
0
Reply
Male 7,740
lauriloo-"Admitting the Constitution is open to interpretation is the first step to your recovery."

When you contort yourself to such asanine `interpretations`, such as `it depends on the what the definition of the word "is" is`, you demonstrate yourself to be an idiot.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It`s meaning in 1789 is the ONLY way it can be interpreted.

It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people`s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
0
Reply
Male 2,163
I am a well armed "Liberal". Heh-heh-heh...
0
Reply
Male 1,059
@MeGrendel, you`re right, of course, but just to hammer home my point, there is a comma in the middle of the sentence. Right...

"...free state[HERE--->],[<---HERE] the right..."

That means, there are two thoughts in the sentence. To make it very clear, you can add the word, "Because" at the beginning, and "therefore", in the middle, to fully understand what`s being said here. BECAUSE of A, THEREFORE B is necessary. Any adjectives or qualifications on A does not affect the resulting B. The second half of the sentence ends with "shall not be infringed", not "shall also be regulated, much like the militia". Get it?!
0
Reply
Male 1,059
@McGovern1981, another point I rarely see argued is that the amendment is basically saying that because "a well regulated militia" is necessary, there is a possibility that said militia (in today`s terms, armed forces, police, etc.) could potentially lead to tyranny. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms is meant as a check against the well-regulated militia, preventing said militia from empowering the government to become tyrannical. THE PEOPLE in this case are meant to mean, "everyone who is NOT in the `militia`".
0
Reply
Male 2,460
[quote]Admitting the Constitution is open to interpretation is the first step to your recovery.[/quote]

No. Realizing that the whole intent of the framers of the constitution was to construct a document that was simple to understand and thus be open to as little interpretation as possible.

It is not a living document that means one thing today and another tomorrow based on how people interpret it or feel about it. It means what it means for all time until the end of time unless it is amended and the process for doing just that is spelled out very clearly.
0
Reply
Male 5,874
Bare guns. Naked guns?
Bear guns. Ursine army?
All Americans have the right to bare arms, just roll up yer shirt sleeves!
0
Reply
Male 308
Well, the LGBT community has been doing this to people for years... so has the Jackson / Sharpton regime. Say something they don`t like, and you lose your name, your face, your livelihood, and have to go into a disgraced exile.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Sweet mother of... Are there no nuances whatsoever in the US? I know there must be in a nation of what, 300 million citizens, but your media does a very good job of making it either black or white, and nothing in between.

Fanaticism makes stuff worse for everyone.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@lauriloo

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"THE PEOPLE" <---- See that part they said the people not the militia for a damn good reason. You`re interpreting things how you want to see them. It`s pretty clearly stated.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that
"the adjective `well-regulated` implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"1. He purposefully miss-interprets `well-regulated`. "

Admitting the Constitution is open to interpretation is the first step to your recovery.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Did you guys know that Czech Republic has concealed carry? And it has one of the lowest murder rates, right there with heavily armed Switzerland (about .8/100k)

I`m not saying it`s the guns, I`m saying that there is more to crime and murder rates than just the government trying to centrally plan citizens` behavior.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Duh. It`s a PRO GUN publication.`

Yes, but he is pro-gun. He just suggested the debate might be more nuanced.

It`s more as though Ebony magazine published an article suggesting that not everything wrong in your life can be blamed on whitey.

Seems to me that most gun owners are fairly responsible and sane but that the gun industry is out there where the busses don`t go.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
That would be like the NY Times publishing pro gun article huh??
0
Reply
Male 7,740
Unfortunately, McDuff, it was NOT a reasonable article.

While the majority of it is reasonable, he does get unreasonable at times.
1. He purposefully miss-interprets `well-regulated`.
2. He pulled the old `you have be licensed to drive a car` fallacy, thus comparing a Right with a Priviledge.

Whether or not it`s `reasonable` is irrelevent. If it`s not in keeping with the purpose of the publication, he`s not going to have a job long.

That would be like a writer for Paula Deen Magazine suddenly start spouting the PETA agenda. I`m sure Springer Mountain Farms Chicken wouldn`t be too happy and would threaten to no longer advertise with the magazine.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I mean, sure it could be reasonable, yes. That`s not the issue, though. Look at the Magazine he`s writing for. Consider this, an abortion rights magazine (let`s make one up), and one of the columnists suddenly calling for abortion restrictions.

Or an open borders advocacy magazine with a columnist suddenly advocating for immigration limits.

Left or Right tilting magazine having a columnist suddenly go rogue.

Hunting magazine with a columnist calling for the banning of hunting, or the limiting thereof.

Porn magazine with a columnist calling for the limitation of porn.

You can do this with a bunch of them. So, I hope you see why they might not want him to write for them.
0
Reply
Male 2,460
Life lesson #22: Don`t forget which side of your bread has the butter.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

Duh. It`s a PRO GUN publication. If he wants to write about limiting guns he can go work for an ANTI GUN publication.

Do you expect EBONY magazine to publish articles favoring the KKK?
0
Reply
Male 871
Link: IS? [Pic+] [Rate Link] - Gun journalist silenced for being reasonable.
0
Reply