number 9

[zahratustra]

....you can guarantee that the government will never oppress the people, I will give up my right to own a gun of any type. Sound fair?

So it is your genuine belief BN that, if your government turned oppresive, guns in the hand of citizenry would make significant difference?

I though the Zulu wars just before them were even more interesting. If only someone had given those guys proper rifles, they would've been the ones colonizing Britain, not the other way around!

That sounds kind of neat PJ but that's also a bit of oversimplification. Zulus did have guns. True, not in any significant numbers but they were incapable of deploying properly even those guns which they had. Zulus lost this war because their battle tactics which worked perfectly against neighbouring tribes/clans proved inadequate against Voortrekkers and British.

 

[Prime Junta]

That sounds kind of neat PJ but that's also a bit of oversimplification. Zulus did have guns. True, not in any significant numbers but they were incapable of deploying properly even those guns which they had. Zulus lost this war because their battle tactics which worked perfectly against neighbouring tribes/clans proved inadequate against Voortrekkers and British.

I'm very flattered that everything I say appears to be taken so seriously, 'cuz I did mean that as more of a quip than a serious counterfactual scenario. I am aware that neither Shaka, Dingiswayo, nor Cetshwayo had a navy, which they would also have needed to make it all the way to Southampton. (That could make for a really cool alternate-reality computer game, though.)

 

[blatantninja]

It's not even certain his neighbour asked him just that. Secondly, defending your property with deadly force is again a medieval law.
The EU and other countries have been bashing China about the death penalty, but no one says anything about those ridiculous 200 year-old laws in the US.

The castle law (which this falls under), while based on historical principles, is actually quite new. 2006 I think.

Worse is, someone who owns a shotgun who decides to go and kill people.
I don't even know if his intentions were correct, hearing what he said on the phone. He wasn't like, I need to save my neighbour or anything like that... He said I'm going to kill them.

His mind was set on murdering two people...

As I said, I think this guy chose poorly, but he was within the rights of the law apparantly.

Not stopping them from robbing someone. His mind wasn't set on wounding them or scaring them away. He wanted to kill people. And you're going to tell me that the US is a civilized country ?

Ask any police officer, when you shoot, you shoot to kill. If you don't, you run the risk that they have a gun and fire back or take your gun and kill you. IF, and it's a big if, you choose to pull the trigger, you are an idiot if you aren't aiming to kill. If you are trying to wound, it's a much harder shot and you are more likely to miss and put yourself in danger. Now of course, firing a warning shot is potentially an option, but of course you run the greater risk of collateral damage.

Life isn't a game, and people like that are dangerous to themselves and people around them.

I would agree with this.

Imagine, he had missed and they took out their pistols and killed him and escaped ? Isn't that worse ? Imagine, he missed and killed someone else or wounded someone else...

Is it worse if he had gotten shot? Of course, hence why I would have stayed in my house. But again, he was within his right.

So many disadvantages, so many dangers...
There is no way to excuse such behaviour.

The law doesn't agree with you. There is an inherent danger with allowing unchecked robbery as well, and believe me, in many parts of this country, it is unchecked.

 

[blatantninja]

So it is your genuine belief BN that, if your government turned oppresive, guns in the hand of citizenry would make significant difference?

Absolutely. it did 200 years ago. It did 50 years ago in Cuba and China. It is in Iraq (not the same type of oppression, but you can't deny they've had a lot of success). It did in Afghanistan in the 80's.

 

[Prime Junta]

And you're going to tell me that the US is a civilized country ?

Civilization is a product of fortunate circumstances. We Finns did our level best to kill each other 90 years ago this year. You Belgians would be doing it now if we suddenly teleported you away from the most politically stable continent in the world and flooded the country with guns. Our vaunted European "civilization" is a product of the most lethal and destructive warfare in the world since Genghiz Khan.

Robert Howard had it right: barbarism is the natural state of humankind; civilization is the exception.

Which doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for.

 

[Prime Junta]

Absolutely. it did 200 years ago. It did 50 years ago in Cuba and China. It is in Iraq (not the same type of oppression, but you can't deny they've had a lot of success). It did in Afghanistan in the 80's.

Arg, not this again.

There are far more examples of armed citizenries endangering or destroying democracies than there are of armed citizenries successfully protecting democracies. Just read through our little discussion on Flanders and Wallonia, and imagine that Belgium was suddenly flooded with arms and "well-regulated militias," Walloon and Fleming. The country would go up in flames in no time.

For a real-world example, just look at Lebanon -- the closest the Arab world has come to an open or democratic society. They hate each others' guts, but what makes it dangerous is that everybody is armed too.

And finally, given that the government is equipped with nuclear weapons, heavy armor, SEALs, and an air force, individual armed citizens, or even citizens organized into militias, don't really count for much. (See our discussion on the American Revolutionary War for more on the "200 years ago" discussion.

For the record, I am not against gun ownership. There are plenty of perfectly stable countries with very little gun crime and lots of guns. If Americans can't handle their firearms, the reasons lie elsewhere. It's just that this particular pro-gun argument is pretty damn fallacious.

 

[blatantninja]

Arg, not this again.

There are far more examples of armed citizenries endangering or destroying democracies than there are of armed citizenries successfully protecting democracies. Just read through our little discussion on Flanders and Wallonia, and imagine that Belgium was suddenly flooded with arms and "well-regulated militias," Walloon and Fleming. The country would go up in flames in no time.

For a real-world example, just look at Lebanon -- the closest the Arab world has come to an open or democratic society. They hate each others' guts, but what makes it dangerous is that everybody is armed too.

And finally, given that the government is equipped with nuclear weapons, heavy armor, SEALs, and an air force, individual armed citizens, or even citizens organized into militias, don't really count for much. (See our discussion on the American Revolutionary War for more on the "200 years ago" discussion.

For the record, I am not against gun ownership. There are plenty of perfectly stable countries with very little gun crime and lots of guns. If Americans can't handle their firearms, the reasons lie elsewhere. It's just that this particular pro-gun argument is pretty damn fallacious.

You make two very big flaws in your assumptions. One is that an armed population would be uprising AGAINST a democracy in this country. It wouldn't. The point is that in the event Democracy has turned into some form of oppression (IE Facism, etc.), that a well armed populace would have the means to rise against (abet at heavy cost).

The second is that all of the military would unilaterally support to oppressing government. That is not likely to happen, so yes, while the government is powerful, nukes aren't going to help it against an uprising, because the time a govt MIGHT use them against their own people would be at the very end when they had already lost.

All the nukes, heavy armor, seals, etc. haven't brought peace to Iraq or Afganistan and didn't help in Vietnam either.

Lebanon isn't really that great an example anyway. There smack dab in the middle of ethnic and religious feuds that have been going on for thousands of years. Take away their guns and they will still find a way to kill each other.

 

[Prime Junta]

You make two very big flaws in your assumptions. One is that an armed population would be uprising AGAINST a democracy in this country. It wouldn't. The point is that in the event Democracy has turned into some form of oppression (IE Facism, etc.), that a well armed populace would have the means to rise against (abet at heavy cost).

The flaw with this point is that, generally speaking, populations don't rise up against fascism. They rise up *for* fascism (or some other type of authoritarian ideology); sometimes they're facing another type of authoritarian system, at other times a discredited, weak, and unpopular democracy. Examples are legion -- Italy and Germany in the 1930's, Finland in 1918, Russia in 1917, any number of Latin American countries between 1900 and today, any number of "decolonizing" countries between the 1940's and the 1960's, from Uganda to Vietnam.

If fascism ever triumphs in America, it'll do that because it'll be supported by the single strongest political faction there -- a plurality if not a majority or absolute majority. And in that scenario, an armed populace will speed it along its way, not hinder its progress.

But anyway, I've had this conversation so many times that I really don't want to have it again.

 

[Pladio]

Civilization is a product of fortunate circumstances. We Finns did our level best to kill each other 90 years ago this year. You Belgians would be doing it now if we suddenly teleported you away from the most politically stable continent in the world and flooded the country with guns. Our vaunted European "civilization" is a product of the most lethal and destructive warfare in the world since Genghiz Khan.

Robert Howard had it right: barbarism is the natural state of humankind; civilization is the exception.

Which doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for.

Well, that's one of the reasons I am against it ....

 

[curiously undead]

prime junta being the wealth of history should be able to tell us a story of the handgun rebellion that occured correct?

oh and blatantninja that article did not say anything close to what you discribed. i reread it just to make sure it wasn't a case of not being awake enough. so yes if you want to post the link to your article go ahead.

 

[blatantninja]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

When Horn confronted the men in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, police have said. However, the men ignored his order to freeze.

Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

 

[curiously undead]

"move and you're dead"---those are the words of someone defending their life?
i still have yet to find anything that says either of the two burglars were armed. is someone really going to charge a man holding a shotgun, unarmed even if they don't presumable speak the same languange?
and that bit about running towards him than angling towards the street makes sense. i think its in our animalistic nature to not 'flee' together in the hopes that a purserer will chase 'the other one'. so my guess is the one running 'toward' him had to move closer to go around an obstacle before he ran the other way. paths in life or an escape are never a straight line.

bottom line he didn't defend his life.
not even his property, but his neighbors.

i guess they picked the wrong place to rob, maybe had they been white and or spoken english they might still be alive. wonder if this guy is a minuteman in his spare time. if not i'm sure he's at least an honorary member now.

 

[dteowner]

Good gawd, CU, you paint a pretty picture. Barely any of it comes from the facts of the case, but what a story. You have a future in creating fiction.

Exactly what words are appropriate in your view? "Pardon, but would you kindly cease your movement in my direction such that I may detain you until the authorities make good their pending appearance" ?

Your leap to the racist accusation is totally unfounded based on the facts of the case, and quite frankly weakens your position to the point of invalidation.

 

[Pladio]

After the announcement, Horn's attorney said his 62-year-old client was no vigilante.

"Joe was not some sort of wild cowboy," Tom Lambright said. "He was trying to help police. He was put in a situation where he didn't have any choice."

No he wasn't ... He had a simple choice. Stay inside, while letting an empty property get robbed or outside with a shotgun trying to kill people. He decided to be the wild cowboy !
Whatever you want to say about the law, you might be right and the jury agrees with you, but he still acted as a vigilante and that law should never have passed any form of ratification from neither Congress or the President.

But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law, said it did not apply to Horn's case.

"It was not an issue in this case other than him saying incorrectly that he understood it to mean he could protect his neighbor's property," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

He said the castle doctrine simply didn't apply because, although the burglars were running across Horn's lawn, Horn's home wasn't under siege — his neighbor's home was.

"It comes from the saying 'A man's home is his castle,' " Wentworth said. "But this wasn't his castle."

Your article, all my quotes.

Again, guns don't help, they just give options for people to kill other people.

 

[Pladio]

I can't help but agree with dte's last statement though ...

 

[curiously undead]

stop?
freeze?
or how about leave it to the organization that he was in contact with, which last time i checked are the experts in apprehending crimals, and stay nice and safe in his house. if he did that, worse case scenario he would have to tell his friend/neighbor that he let him down. instead a handful of children will be told by someone their 'daddy' is dead. or in the case their not fathers, just their family which is somehow more consoling.

the jobs i've had require both research and determination based on all kinds of historical, technical, and even parole evidence. theres not a problem with that system at all i believe. the fact that my theory doesn't fit in with certain peoples views, obviously isn't going to be accepted. an indiviual protects themselves, just not always with deadly force, from the 'logic' of the world that confronts their own.

you guys can have your flat world though.
it increases the likelyhood that we won't have a confrontation in reality as when we should be merging, i'll be seeing a bright twinkle in the sky somewhere.

 

[dteowner]

I'm sorry, CU, but I have no idea what you're saying there. Perhaps a clarification?

 

[Pladio]

I was talking about race and stuff. It might have had an impact, it might not, but you have no way of knowing that. So that can't just be an issue here. I agree with most of the rest.
The statement might have come from the adrenaline and his excitement, but I agree with you he was a vigilante out to kill people.

 

[curiously undead]

listen we all have our sins, vices, etc. i just can't see how people can be so in favour of killing others whether legally justified or not.

those in favor of gun rights and or the abilty to kill in self defense or often times the same ones who decry that abortion is murder. how they come to that logic makes no sense to me. whether or not i think abortion is wrong or right i believe a women should always have a choice, with obviously some regulations. same goes for guns even though i hate them, i believe people should have the right to own them. the type and what they can use them for i think is what matters. and in this case what this guy did would be along the same lines as a woman and a man getting pregnant intentionally and with full financial capabilites to have the child, but then out of the blue he cheats on her and then she aborts the child and divorces her husband. she could have made the choice to simply divorce him and split custody or give him custody as she no longer wanted a child. she had a choice though and in this case a needless life was ended. i realize this may be a bad and unfair analogy but not in regards to choice. both cases involved choices that took lives, when no lives needed to be taken.

 

[dteowner]

That's a little easier to follow. You're actually rather consistent with your overarching belief in the sanctity of "life", whether it be animal, plant, or mineral. I don't generally share it, but I can respect the consistency.