Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 2:15 PM

Robb, I admire these posts of yours so much. They are thoughtful and heartfelt without sounding aggressive or crazy. You have your facts, you back them up patiently...you are the perfect example of how those who are supporting the 2nd Amendment should sound. Thank you!

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 3:49 PM

Very good.

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 3:58 PM

Robb, this is excellent writing and a most thorough response. Splendid!

Although I will say I had the slightest twinge of envy that I did not write this myself...therefore I hate you.

Martyn

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 6:10 PM

Hi Robb. I feel like I am walking into a strange place. This response will probably be long, and I enjoy the give and take, but I put "gun control" pretty far down my list of favorite topics.

I will address every one of your specific points, in the order they appeared. I will post a few points at a time (sorry) so that nothing gets lost in cyberspace. To avoid confusion, I will number the points in order.

1. The cliche about "guns don't kill people" is false. People with guns do kill people. This does not imply, nor do I mean, that only people with guns kill people. But without a doubt, people with guns do kill people. That cliche could also be worded "nukes don't kill people"; I hope you don't think that is "true". Of course, people also kill people, but that does not contradict the point that guns also kill people.

2. No, I did not mean that I wished all violence to vanish. That may be desirable, but I would like those guns to vanish, just as I know that will never happen. I actually said what I meant.

3. Guns do make many people more violent. Just look at all the street gangs, and how some people who would not resort to violence, do, because they have a gun. A portion of these people would have let the slight or "diss" pass, but because they had a gun, they became violent.

4. Most humans have in them a tendency towards violence. Part of our reptilian brain. Guns enable some/many borderline people become violent.

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 6:45 PM

5. I can see you know a million times more about guns than I do. Are there any guns that should be outlawed in every state? What about RPGs?

6. I am shocked that you took my statement in favor of national gun control and somehow concluded that I oppose state rights. That would be like me taking your ideas in favor of state rights to mean that you do not favor any national laws. It turns out that I do favor state rights. I happen to think that there ought to be federal gun controls.

7. You took my position that the government does have a right to some information about us, and equate that with tyranny. That is quite a leap.

8. You put a lot of words in my mouth, Robb. I don't live to support you either! I have zero interest in what you do or don't do regarding charity. I am also not "radically progressive". Just a few weeks ago some guy in California called me an "Angry White Man Conservative", a libertarian, and I think a few other things.

9. I think the only fair way to have taxation is for the government to have a simpler tax system (starting with no deductions) but all income should be treated the same, whether it comes from labor, interest, or managing a hedge fund. Your idea that it is ok to hide income seems to me the complete opposite of fair. What we ought to do more of in this country is debate how to spend the taxpayer dollars, and where to cut spending, and where to increase spending. I feel very strongly that our government spends way too much money. Worse, it borrows so much. Even worse, it borrows so much from our adversaries (e.g., China and Saudi Arabia).

10. Our founding fathers, who had amazing foresight, could not anticipate the military power of future governments, such as our own. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but a bunch of guys with guns are no match against the US Air Force, or the US Army. If push were ever to come to shove, in the way you imagine, the militias would be slaughtered.

BTW, just how often have we relied on men with guns to protect us from our government since the Second Amendment was enacted? I believe the answer is "zero times".

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 6:46 PM

Dear Mr. Bal,

Welcome! I personally appreciate your coming here. All too many folks preach solely to their own choir and react poorly to dissenting points of view.

I would ask everyone to be kind to our Visitor.

Now, as for your remarks: rather than do the point-by-point thing, I'll respond in an overview of what you've written. At times, you seem to be conflating people with objects. We humans anthropomorphize everything, so your granting some human-like attributes to a firearm is understandable. Wrong, but understandable.
In terms of evolution, I am a True Believer, and as such I tell you the last major evolutionary hurdle our species overcame was the Toba eruption some 74,000 years ago. We're still cavemen. We smell better these days, but we're still cavemen. What differentiates a criminal from a law-abiding Citizen is a mix of proper socialization and some appreciable amount of impulse control.
Restricting guns as a means of social control/policy is off-point. Making a big deal over gang related shootings is deflecting the conversation from the reasons that the gangs exist in the first place.
And, the argument that because they can't use them responsibly means that nobody can have them is, frankly, infantilizing.

Nobody thinks parents burying their sons and daughters is a good idea. Really. Focusing on the tools used only allows it to continue.

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 6:58 PM

BTW, just how often have we relied on men with guns to protect us from our government since the Second Amendment was enacted? I believe the answer is "zero times".

Sir,

If you care to do the research, you will find that armed Americans overthrew a corrupt town (county?) Government, complete with Eleanor Roosevelt's glowing approval in a later article.

1946, and in the South. I apologize for not remembering the incident more fully, perhaps some of the other readers will fill in my blanks.

And I would submit that having this happen once in over two centuries is both a measure of our country and of 'we the people'. If the admixture of guns and humans have the inevitable results you posit, how is it we managed to be a united country, much less a world power?

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 7:03 PM

11. We do agree that all weaponry does not need to be controlled. I said, and I will say it again, some weaponry (including guns) need to be controlled. (Not the same as saying "banned".)

12. Supply of guns/drugs can be managed. That does not mean we can eliminate guns or drugs (and we can't eliminate either - I agree). But that does not mean we should just give up trying to manage supply. As with drugs, we also need to work on demand. Maybe through open discussions, like this one. maybe through tougher law enforcement of existing criminal law. I favor (if you check my blog) tougher criminal justice.

13. I think half the time you are arguing with someone else. "You having a cheaply made gun when I cannot have anything" suggests that I think you have no right to own a gun. I never said that.

14. "The emotion is because you have no right to tell me what I can do" You are too sensitive! I agree with you: I have no right to tell you what to do. The thing is, I never told you what to do! That is not the same as saying I favor intelligent gun control. I do think our government has a right to tell you what to do.

15. Remember, those guns of yours will likely outlive you. "I can own a gun and it will never cause the loss of another life." I hope so, but guns just like yours, bought for the same reasons, end up being used by bad guys, and that is the problem, and that is why guns need to be controlled.

Rolled Out On: 11/3/2007 7:34 PM

16. "A police state stays a police state forever." I bet you can't name even one. The fact is, governments always change.

17. "there is no anarchy". I see you haven't visited lovely downtown Trenton (substitute Newark or Camden) in my state. Bullets flying everywhere. Innocents kids getting shot. That is close to anarchy. Probably feels like anarchy to the victims. But we are fortunate: we don't have to choose between anarchy and a police state.

18. No need for the repetition: I agree: guns do not cause crime. People with guns cause crime. (Please repeat that!)

19. Sounds like you also want our government to stop controlling "street" drugs. Think about all the extra highway deaths, and drug-induced rage/murder. For someone who feels strongly about stopping criminal behavior, I am surprised you want our government to just give up the fight. We may not win the war on drugs in our lifetime, but we should continue the fight. I think we have a long way to go before we discover the "sweet spot" in gun control. We really have not experimented enough.

20. The war on drugs was not designed to increase our liberty.

21. It has reduced the amount of drug usage.

22. "That's the only thing gun control laws do is make criminals out of people who would never do you harm." Well, a lot of people out there agree with you, but they have guns and want to do me harm! (I don't lose sleep over the good guys with guns, just the bad guys with guns.) Laws can never be perfect. That is why we need intelligent laws, but not too many laws. One national gun control law, which supersedes all state gun laws. That would mean fewer laws.

23. "try something that would actually make people less violent." There is nothing I know of that would do that. Human nature is what it is. People are born violent. I am all in favor of families with two parents, good schools, clean fun, and strong law enforcement. But without gun control, it is like playing Russian Roulette.
******************************************************
I think by now you and your friends have had a belly-full of my bloviating about gun control. I will stop and visit once in a while, but like I said earlier, this is not really one of my big issues. Still, it was fun. Talk to you later, and I look forward (I think) to any comments.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 12:27 AM

BTW, just how often have we relied on men with guns to protect us from our government since the Second Amendment was enacted? I believe the answer is "zero times".

Most recently in 1946, Athens Tennessee.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 6:45 AM

Chimpanzees kill people !

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 9:15 AM

Hi Blewyn, the chimps will kill more people (and chimps) if we give them guns!

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 10:29 AM

I'm going to take Timothy at his word. He said:

this is not really one of my big issues

I believe him. His argument is not filled with supportable facts, just his own thoughts and personal beliefs. And while they might make him feel better when he tucks himself in at night, they mean nothing to me.

Oh, and if he ever stops back - Having a guy in California call you an "Angry White Man Conservative" means nothing too.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 12:12 PM

You know, Robb, people like me hate people like you.

Not only do you beat us to the figurative punch, but you blow the ball right out of the park.

Damn you. Damn you to hell.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 12:47 PM

Well, unfortunately I wrote a rejoinder to Timothy's comments, but something went haywire and all 300 pages went *poof*

I'll try to retype them if I can.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 1:57 PM

Hi Breda, when you write that "His argument is not filled with supportable facts, just his own thoughts and personal beliefs" you add nothing to the discussion; that's just a "cheap shot". And when you write "And while they might make him feel better when he tucks himself in at night, they mean nothing to me" ditto. Finally, "Having a guy in California call you an "Angry White Man Conservative" means nothing too " again misses the point: I am repeatedly called "liberal", "conservative" "libertarian", "progressive", and of course, much worse things. Ad Hominem attacks are the refuge of scoundrels, and don't belong in civil discussions, not to mention, they cannot all be right. If you want "facts", consult an encyclopedia. Like statistics, some "facts" are irrelevant. Ever hear the saying "figures lie, and liars figure"?

Robb, I look forward to your response(s).

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 2:57 PM

"facts are irrelevant", huh?

Sounds about right.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 3:02 PM

Timothy, unfortunately I won't have the same amount of time to write this as I originally did. I'll try to stick to the major points that I can remember.

First - The Founding Fathers wanted parity between armies and the populace. They didn't care what the weapons were, hence the quote from Tench Coxe "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

Unless you can cough up volumes of writings by the Founding Fathers that indicate there was a limit to arms available to the populace, then I'm afraid your argument fails there. Also, they couldn't have possibly seen the Internet or Cell Phones, yet free speech is still free speech. Oh, and another fact - 50 caliber weapons were standard back then. There are literally volumes of book written on this by the framers themselves.

Next - Police states are forever in the sense that it takes an outside force to dismantle them. No police state has ever willingly given up its power and returned it to the people. Iraq, the USSR, Germany, and so forth have all required massive wars and countless human lives to tear down their command structures. With anarchy, people band together and form mutual relationships. Heck, the very English you and I are speaking comes from an unstructured, non-centrally controlled anarchy. To even suggest that you would prefer a police state to anarchy clearly indicates you are nowhere near libertarian.

And your examples are not anarchy. The government still exists. The police are still making arrests. They may not control the city, but rarely does the government have any control at all.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 3:03 PM

Now, onto the greatest fallacy of yours which you have based your entire view on - guns do not cause crime or violence.

Violence existed way before guns did. Cain slew Abel with a rock. The Romans built an empire with spears and swords. Thievery, rape, murder - they all happened without the aid of firearms. If you put a gun in a locked box and put test subjects in the same room, they would not develop violent tendencies. Unlock the box and place it on their hips, and still, nothing would happen. With over 270 million firearms in the US, if, as you say, guns telepathically controlled humans and made them violent, we'd have already wiped ourselves off the face of the earth.

Now, weapons are tools that multiply the amount of force a person can exert, nothing more, nothing less. A walking cane can be swung giving an elderly man greater reach. A hammer can be swung, giving a pregnant woman more force per square inch on impact. A firearm can expel a metal projectile with hundreds of pounds of pressure by a man in a wheelchair. None of these objects has any moral ability to perform any action, they must be wielded by a human being.

Criminals know the same thing. One young punk can overpower a weightlifter with a bat. He can scare a grown man into submission with a knife. With a gun, he can exert his threat from a distance. What doesn't happen is a young man goes to buy a gun for no reason and then, due to having the pistol, loses all mental control of himself and decides to commit crimes with it. You will find (if you do research) that the vast majority of crimes committed with weapons are done so by people who have already committed several crimes before hand. Rarely does a person perform their first crime with lethal intent.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 3:03 PM

The problem with your statements, and to Breda's points, is that you are basing them on the foolish notion that without guns, we'd have very little crime. Britain's crime rate is skyrocketing. Mostly knife crime, but an inordinate amount of gun crime for a country that has the some of the strongest gun laws in the world. How can that be? How can you say with a straight face that stronger laws that only the law abiding would follow anyway would lower the violence that we have when you can see it over and over and over around the world where it is failing miserably?

Registration? What good does that do when criminals won't register their guns? If a man broke into my house, stole my weapons, and got away, how does registration do anything? The thief isn't going to tell you who he sold them to. All it does is tell the government who to arrest first if they wish to start locking down control. They did it in New Orleans after Katrina, don't tell me it won't happen.

As far as repelling the government, I have one word for you - "Waco". Had those people not fought back, you'd have never heard of the Branch Davidians. They would have been arrested and sent away with nary a peep. Yet a bunch of "religious whackos" held off the full forces of the government long enough so that the government couldn't hide its actions. It's not just the possibility of defeat that scares the government, but the fact that they can't hide their actions from the populace. Clinton had other raids planned and all were scrapped - they couldn't afford the exposure.

Limiting caliber? Why? A 30.06, the most standard hunting cartridge in America has more power than any AK-47 or its clones. And you might think that you could stop production of bullets, but look through my archives and you will see that I make my own ammunition. It's not only easy, you can do it with relatively little investment and using tools that cannot be tracked.

Gun control is a worthless gesture. The only people it affects are the law abiding. The "genie is already out of the bottle" so to speak, you admit that yourself, and there is no way to keep guns out of the supply chain. Guns in my hands, regardless of caliber, range, power, or lethality pose no threat to you, ever. A sharp stick in the hands of a criminal poses more danger to you and yours. By the time you've started focusing on the tools the criminals use, you have already failed in your approach. It's too late at that point.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 5:27 PM

The only response I have for Mr. Bal is that emotion does not trump truth. He is emotional, we see that in what he calls reasoning. But the thing I noticed about all his reasoning is how shallow it was. He took the soundbite of his position and in several cases they were contrary to each other, but he never applied logic to them, nor did he follow his own false logic to its inevitable result. To have done so would negated any need for reply, for he would have seen for himself just how inadequate his reasoning is.

Even his replies were reiterations of what he had previously said. So, not only is emotion not a substitute for truth, but neither is repetition.

Rolled Out On: 11/4/2007 5:50 PM

Robb again knocked it out of the park. One thing I think he missed is this little statement.
'The cliché about "guns don't kill people" is false. People with guns do kill people. This does not imply, nor do I mean, that only people with guns kill people. But without a doubt, people with guns do kill people. That cliché could also be worded "nukes don't kill people"; I hope you don't think that is "true". Of course, people also kill people, but that does not contradict the point that guns also kill people"

Frankly, Timothy most of what you say seems to be fairly benign, and just sadly uninformed. This one is simply insulting.

In my local gun club we have over 1000 active members. Many of them have been gun owners and shooters since childhood. Due to the lack of Due process concerning guns in Massachusetts, even a CHARGE of a crime can strip you of your gun rights for the duration of your state residence. Why is it these people still have their permits in good standing order? They own guns, and they have killed, harmed, and threatened nobody. Many of them are in their 60s, that's a LONG time to resist some mystical urge for violence.
Why is it nationwide only 0.2% of Weapons permits are revoked for criminal offences? Why aren't those gun owners violent? Its a VERY big sample size too.

Now lets turn around to the people who DO commit violent crime. Why is it they all have rap sheets? Why is it almost all of them have non-gun related violent crimes in their juvenile record?

Maybe its because violent people are violent. Simple as that. If they can't get a gun, they'll use knives or pipes or their hands and feet.

There are only a handful of gun control laws that actually work to keep guns out of the hands of these violent people, while allowing those of us that cause no problems (and represent the majority of the 270 MILLION guns in this country), The rest of the laws only infringe on the rights of those of us who don't cause crime, and never will.

Not only is this unjust and plain wrong, but it also leaves us disarmed when we are confronted by people who's only means of communication with the world is violence. Be he has a gun, or a pipe, or a knife, or just his bare hands, I'm not a fighter, I use my words to solve problems, while he has no use for words, only his strength that he is likely as skilled with as I am with my words.

Against such an adversary, my only real hope is a gun. My wife is smaller and weaker than me. This goes double for her.

Your argument holds zero water. I hope that you don't make such dangerous statements again.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 12:06 AM

Well, hello, Tim, and welcome!

I think you're right when you say we're born violent, (Point #23) but you contradict yourself when you say guns make us more violent (Point #3). The gangs to which you refer are already violent. What guns do is make a person more lethal; that point I'll concede. But that works for both sides. There is "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective".

The point about "Guns don't kill people: people kill people" is that guns are not living things that go around aiming themselves and pulling their own triggers. (I figure you know this, but with the constant repetition of "Guns kill people" it's hard not to believe it on some level.) By the same token, guns don't save lives: people do. In both cases, it takes a person to wield the gun. People kill people with guns, but also with knives, poison, clubs, cars, and bare hands and feet. Yes, guns make one more efficient at killing, but again, it's the reason the person has for using a gun, and his willingness to use it that makes the difference.

Guerilla warfare is a tough proposition fo even a superpower to defeat. Witness our war on terror. And as Robb said, Waco made the government look really bad as they could not hide their actions. The next time the Clinton Administration bullied someone, it was unarmed Cuban refugees. (BTW, Robb, did Clinton really have several more raids planned?)

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 10:52 AM

Hi all,

First to Breda: that is correct: some facts are irrelevant.

Straightarrow: Again, the fact that you take cheap shots demonstrates clearly that you are the one devoid of reason. You failed to refute a single thing I said. And btw, I certainly hope I am emotional. That is a trait of humans. As for reiterations, it is necessitated by the reiterations from your side. Every time one of you says "guns don't kill people" (I assume that is in the book handed out during the indoctrination class called "gun speak"), I am compelled to say "no, people with guns kill people".

Robb, I will also try to be brief, and do this in pieces, later.

Weer'd Beard, you surprise me. One minute you are civil, the next you go back to "cult-speak" as in "I hope that you don't make such dangerous statements again".

"just sadly uninformed. This one is simply insulting." No, you are the one who is insulting.

"In my local gun club...." This backs my point: we need better gun controls.

"Why is it nationwide only 0.2% of Weapons permits are revoked for criminal offences? Why aren't those gun owners violent? Its a VERY big sample size too." Another miss! This simply does not address the problem: guns ending up in the hands of the bad guys.

It seems silly for me to have to say this, but I never said the majority of "legal" gun owners were the problem. But by possessing 270,000,000 guns, you inadvertently contribute to the problem.

You already knew my thoughts about violent people, so I wonder why you keep bringing up this straw-man. To be clear, the thugs belong in jail.

Intelligent gun control does not imply that the good guys cannot be armed.

I don't know how much water your arguments hold - you said mine held zero water - but again, this is silly-talk. It says nothing; it adds nothing to the debate.

Weer'd Beard, let's keep it friendly, ok?

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 11:07 AM

OK Robb. I will try to respond to your comments as I read them, and I will try to stay focused on your comments.

You and I have a different view of the Founding Fathers. I have a long list of books still to read, and I admire (almost adore) them. They were truly an enlightened breed, and no offense intended to anyone, very rare individuals. I also know that many of them were Deists, which makes them even more admirable. Nevertheless, I will try to read up on their writings about firearms, if I find the time.

What do you think a guy like me thinks of free speech? In most other countries, I would have been locked up many years ago. (You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I have said and written. OK, maybe you would!) The thing is, I really don't give a rat's behind if, in a state of war such as we are in, the government is listening to me, etcetera. I worry more about a nuke going off in NYC killing my kids than some schmuck (pardon my french) listening to me insult some politician I have a beef with.

If the USA were to become a police state, I would ask you to show me where to sign up for the NRA or the militia. But the probability of that happening is close to zero.

You agree with me: police states do not last forever.

My point about anarchy is that it has arrived in many parts of the country, not everywhere. When a child gets struck down by a stray bullet all too frequently, and potential witnesses are terrorized by thugs with guns, I call that anarchy. That is why we need better gun controls.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 11:20 AM

Robb, on to your (first!) 3:03 posting (you type faster than this old geezer!):

Your logic escapes me. I am sure there is a name for the fallacy you used, but the course I took in college was many years ago.

The notion that violence existed before guns would refute what I said only if I said guns caused all violence in all eras.

Hey, is there some jerk out there impersonating me? "as you say, guns telepathically controlled humans and made them violent". Here is where I get in trouble for reiteration, but that is the classic straw man argument. In case anyone doesn't get it, straw man arguments are false, because the object of the ire never said what he is accused of saying.

There is nothing in the final two paragraphs of your first 3:03 comments which refutes anything I ever said. Again, I will be accused of reiteration, but the goal of intelligent gun control is to prevent the bad guys, at any time in their sordid lives, from using guns to harm people. THIS WILL NOT PREVENT ALL VIOLENCE. It would prevent SOME violence perpetrated on innocent victims by the guys we all wish were in jail.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 11:25 AM

Ok, I removed my last comment since your last one came in during the interim.

You are the one who specifically stated

People with guns cause crime.

No. People cause crime. Sometimes they do it with guns. To continually repeat this is to imply that the gun has something to do with it.

Let's cut to the chase here, Tim. What do you think gun control should entail? Let me know everything you think is an effective way of lowering the .000374% of guns from entering the hands of the criminals.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 11:41 AM

Robb, thanks for your patience. Now,on to the second 3:03 set of comments:

"the foolish notion that without guns, we'd have very little crime." Did my impersonator say that too? Not funny!

"Britain's crime rate is skyrocketing." As I explained to Weer'd Beard in another venue, criminal justice is not a hard science. It is in the same category as meteorology. We know far less about this subject than we know about it. We cannot do nice, neat laboratory experiments, with controlled variables, to test hypotheses. Even if we knew all the millions of variables, imagine how difficult it would be to assign weights to each one.

Therefore, we ought to use trial and error to come up with a set of laws to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Keep in mind, once again, that this could never be a panacea. It won't deter bad guys whose weapon of choice is hunting knife or an aluminum baseball bat. Just because the task ahead would be difficult, does not imply that we should do nothing.

"How can you say with a straight face that stronger laws that only the law abiding would follow anyway..." I never said that with any face. The aim of intelligent gun control is to alter the behavior of the bad guys, not the good guys.

I don't follow your point about the "Branch Davidians". Do you think they were good guys or bad guys?

"Gun control is a worthless gesture." No surprise: I disagree. I am glad we can disagree and still be civil.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 12:00 PM

Robb, of course people with guns do cause crime. Also, some people with no guns cause crime, and some people with guns do not cause crime. Nothing here refutes my statement that people with guns do cause crime, unless you believe that the bad guys are not people.

Of course "the gun has something to do with it": it is involved in the act of the crime.

"What do you think gun control should entail?" I believe I addressed this with brother Weer'd Beard: I have no concrete proposals, but would like to see a group of knowledgeable folks like you and WB join together with law enforcement guys and smart attorneys, and begin the long-overdue process of trying to improve on the current laws. No one would get all he wants in such a law, but I have got to believe that we Americans can improve these laws.

To R.J., thanks for the courtesies.

I agree with paragraph 1 of 3, except there was no contradiction. I think the difference is just semantics.

Re par 2: I always try to take care to say "people with guns kill people", not the abbreviated form "guns kill people". I suspect you and I agree that the semantic arguments are a waste of time. I also suspect that the semantics were started by the NRA, but I do not know that.

Re par 3, I guess I don't understand the Waco point because (remember, this is a guess) waco was some code-word for the rights of armed people to defy the government. I do not intend for that to be putting words in anyone's mouth, I truly don't understand the symbology.

Thanks for your comments, R.J.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 12:03 PM

Robb, thanks for the invitation to discuss this issue with you and your friends. I have to leave for a while, but hope to return later.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 12:37 PM

Please remember - the powerful will always have guns. Guns are where the power is. The police will always be armed with guns. Politicians will always have guns for themselves and their servants. Successful criminals will always have guns for themselves and their employees. The fantasy of no guns for anybody is off the table.

Thinking that anti-gun laws will be enforced against the powerful is a fantasy.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 1:08 PM

Tim,

Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts about Waco, that is, the Branch Davidians. They were a cult (and a rather nasty one at that) but they had not committed any crimes that I know of, except possibly possession of illegal (read: politically incorrect) guns. Remember what I said about Malum prohibitum laws? I think that's the case here.

The situation was driven by the BATFEces (I know; I have little to no respect for them), and was originally about guns. When the Davidians resisted, then the government was incensed about having their thugs, er *ahem* agents killed, and the siege began in earnest. Finally, they burned most of them alive in what I believe to be a premeditated act of murder. Did you know that after they burned down the compound, the BATFE cut down the American flag and raised their own flag? How's that for unmitigated gall?

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 5:38 PM

Straightarrow: Again, the fact that you take cheap shots demonstrates clearly that you are the one devoid of reason. You failed to refute a single thing I said. And btw, I certainly hope I am emotional. That is a trait of humans. As for reiterations, it is necessitated by the reiterations from your side. Every time one of you says "guns don't kill people" (I assume that is in the book handed out during the indoctrination class called "gun speak"), I am compelled to say "no, people with guns kill people".-Timothy Bal, Jr.


Those were not cheap shots, they were all you left to be said. Your position has been debunked with fact many times and by many people. A good deal of them, here. Yet you do not use evidence to bolster your position. You use your opinion and you do not show any evidence of consideration of fact for that opinion. Since you have posted nothing of logical verifiable evidentiary value in the debate that leaves only you to respond to.

I have noticed you did not provide any facts, nor did you attempt to refute any facts supplied you, facts which are verifiable. You merely repeated your opinion and cloaked it in the disguise of considerate and reasoned debate. That is patently dishonest.

If my calling you on it is insulting to you, that would be your problem. I saw no need to repeat the verifiable facts and provable logic others supplied you when you had already ignored them numerous times. Just because I didn't refute the point of your opinion doesn't mean they weren't refuted. No point in my wasting time doing something you have already shown you will ignore.

I addressed your character and/or your intellectual and philosophical capacities. I noticed you did not refute anything I said about them. You merely called it "cheap shots", then said that I was devoid of reason. Do you not automatically lose the discussion by your pretend rules? Or is that different? It usually is for certain types.

Rolled Out On: 11/5/2007 5:56 PM

One more thing. You could have used the opportunity to explain your "logic" or what criteria you had for your position. You did neither. You tried to win by pointing out I am not polite. You are right. Tact is not something I substitute for truth when another is trying to disabuse me of my naturally endowed and constututionally guaranteed civil rights.

"......shall not be infringed." means something and if you had any grounding in history or the principles of republican (please note the small r) liberty, you would not attempt to gain agreement for the subjugation of the citizen by voluntary surrender of those rights.

I have a brother-in-law with your attitude. When pressed to supply a basis for his opinion he would yell "The Federalist Papers, The Federalist Papers". It worked real well for him right up until I no longer gave a damn about keeping peace with that part of my family if they insisted I be less than free.

So, I finally said after his standard answer to being pressed, "Yeah John, the Federalist Papers, just what did they say?" He called that a cheap shot, too. But, you see, I had read them. He was counting on everybody being uninformed and if he was forceful enough or condescending enough he would win the debate. Didn't work for him, won't work for you. Not amongst people who really know what they are talking about.

Can't we keep this friendly? (proof I'm reasonable). Now you have to give in, right? Right? Isn't that the way you play? Just trying to get the rules down.

Rolled Out On: 11/6/2007 8:38 AM

Robb, thanks again for the "revisitation rights". I nearly exhausted myself trying to keep up with the dialog, and if anyone checks they will see I have addressed every point multiple times.

Comments by guys like "straightarrow" are a good reason why this debate sometimes gets ugly. The first rule in a debate or any conversation is to listen to the other person. I have listened, and I have responded. It is pointless for me to respond to the same unintelligent attacks over and over again. For the record, I have given my responses at 4 different websites, and yes, the reiteration is tiresome.

Too often the pro-gun side accuses me of statements I never made. Then they refute the "straw man". Too often they cite "facts" which are irrelevant to my position. (Many of the facts are relevant to the topic of gun control, but not relevant to the position I hold. That is a big difference.)

There are trillions of true "facts" on the issue of gun control, most of them unknown to us mere mortals. As I have said many times, the social sciences are not testable like the hard sciences, and there are no genuine "proofs" in them, as there are in mathematics, such as in geometry. Therefore, we must rely on our personal experiences, judgments and opinions to navigate this and other political issues, and avoid the intellectual arrogance too often demonstrated on both sides of every issue.

I think the time has come for me to return to the other issues which I actually care more about than "gun control".

Regards.