Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards 1435
inode_buddha writes "Not long ago we ran a story about how a NY newspaper published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor, amid 'large volumes of negative response.' From the article: 'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said. The guards are protecting the newspaper's staff and Rockland County offices in West Nyack, New York.'"
Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
... is that what irony looks like?
Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing they have all those guns (Score:4, Insightful)
So, basically, you should only get armed protection if you're a politician or a sleazeball newspaper editor. What a great strategy to disarm your opposition so you can oppress with no fear of retribution!
They are assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm in favor of banning guns, I'm not in favor of violating the privacy of thousands of people. What this paper did was, while still legal, incredibly unethical. It was a vindictive attack on gun owners to try to inspire fear in the public.
Compare and Contrast Arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
"If everybody just used public transportation, these roads wouldn't be nearly as crowded. Except me, of course. I need my car!"
Striking similarity, eh?
Re:Mommy... (Score:2, Insightful)
The irony of 2nd amendment proponents threatening 1st amendment practitioners? That's not irony, it's bullshit.
Re:Would that not be protected information? (Score:2, Insightful)
By state law, it is public information. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/local-government-refuses-give-local-newspaper-data-its-gun-owner-map/60498/
Actually, there's a county trying to stop the release of the information with which I have a bigger problem. Fix the law if it's bad, but I don't expect county officials to violate state law on their own discretion.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, shit, here I am sitting with mod points and you're +5 before I ever even see the article ;-)
Irony.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that the point has been proven: when irresponsible unstable people are allowed to own guns, bad shit happens.
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said.
So the newspaper is against guns and publishes a list of gun owners... and then hires a bunch of folks armed with, yes, guns. When push comes to shove, the reality is clear. Guns are effective as a defense measure. Criminals do not care about laws so outlawing guns will not take the guns from the criminals. This mean that all gun laws are for the explicit purpose of making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.
Guns can be used to make committing crimes easier and to make defense against crimes easier. Seems like a null proposition and that all guns should be abolished. Right? Well, not quite so fast there. Guns equalize the situation. Without a gun, crimes and defense against crimes depends purely on physical characteristics of the aggressor and the intended victim. A large and fit criminal can pretty much do whatever they want. Everyone else gets to suffer. Guns change this equation. Anyone who can shoot can defend themselves against aggression as long as they can aim and pull a trigger. This rebalances the equation in favor of having guns around for self defense.
I do not even personally own a gun (kids in the house and such) and yet I feel safer knowing that people around me could be carrying guns. Criminals always perform their crimes when the police are not present.
Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (Score:4, Insightful)
Would the person you're quoting happen to be made of straw?
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously there is an irony to all of this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.
And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?
First amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a misconception that the second amendment was written to allow for hunting or even just private home defense. Instead the second amendment was written to allow private citizens to own the same weapons that the government had access to, therefore assuring that if the republic would turn to tyranny the citizens could stage an armed revolt and change the government.
Re:Irony.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Irony at its finest. It always baffles me that those in favor of banning guns are the very ones that use them. Of course its perfectly alright to have people with guns protecting them, yet it is entirely unacceptable for others to use them to protect themselves and their family.
On the other hand they have clearly shown that gun owners are all not the rational people they keep telling everyone that they are. But given that Bell curves apply to even gun owners, I have never assumed that they were all rational anyway.
Re:Irony.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or for angry gun owners to make threats to said newspaper.
I was going to point out that you missed the deeper, sadder irony, but then read your sig and decided that would likely be a waste of time.
Re:They are assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
So you are in favor of violating an explicitly stated amendment(the Second Amendment explicitly protects citizens' rights to arms equal to our military, considering the portions "A well regulated militia..."(the word regulated meaning equally or well equipped, as used during the inception and passing of the Second Amendment) and "...the right of the people..."(while "The People" and "the people" both refer to the citizenry, from whence the authority of the various government is derived from, "The People" is termed to discuss the wider authority(our governments); "the people" directly refer to the citizenry). The whole "...shall not be infringed." part would cause any bans to be severe violations of the Second Amendment) to the US Constitution, for a protection that isn't explicitly stated but decided through case law? While both protections are important, and I support both, I fail to see how anyone, of any intelligence, would advocate violating the highest and most important document in the United States.
There were close to 100 million firearm owners in the United States that have not used their firearms to commit any crimes, nor knowingly commit any crimes, of any kind, either recently, nor at any time in the past. So, considering the odds, legal firearm owners are the most law abiding citizens that exists. Those are the people that should have arms, considering the reason our rights were protected(The Second Amendment protected an already existing right; that Amendment didn't create any new right.).
The difference (Score:0, Insightful)
What people seem to be missing is that there is a difference between having guards, who are trained, licensed, certified, bonded, etc, who carry guns only while on a job vs who-knows-which random, semi-literate, entirely untrained, barely certified yahoo packing guns who knows where. The "back ground" checks for random citizens buying guns are a joke. This is why we have one tragedy after another with schools, offices, etc becoming shooting ranges. And before you try to claim that putting guns in the schools will solve the problem, please note that Columbine *had* armed guards.
The problem with letting random citizens own guns is that most people are too careless, too random, too emotional to be predictable and safe. Guns make it far to easy for one person to kill lots and lots of other people in the heat of a moment. In addition, armed guards are of limited use when someone has decided to target a facility. The attacker can choose the time and place of the attack and prepare for the response. The people being attacked don't know when or if an attack is going to come and there is no way to be prepared at all times. That is why the armed guard at Columbine was unable to prevent the attackers at the school.
Bottom line, guns kill 30,000+ people every year. Banning guns will not completely eliminate their presence, but it will severely curtail it. And with fewer guns there will be fewer deaths. Trying to claim that more guns is the answer is kind of like trying to put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it. Trying to claim that we should allow guns because we cannot completely eliminate them is specious reasoning.
Also note that many of the people who advocate guns like to claim that this is their way of ensuring that they can fight back against the government. So these people are harboring fantasies of hiding in the bushes fighting their own government! Hardly what I could call a patriotic attitude...
Only people who have a job that requires guns should have guns. And people who apply for those jobs need to be run through very through, and ongoing, vetting to ensure that they will use them in a responsible manner.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns
You mean like CCW permit holders?
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.
The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is "Gun owners are incredibly poor at introspection." modded "insightful"? Sounds overgeneralized and condescending to me...
Assault Rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I'm a card carrying NRA member, and I'm also a card carrying ACLU member.
Right now, no matter if one stressing the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment, or both, it is already way too late.
The so-called "Freedom of Speech" is but a damn charade - for it's the so-called "freedom" allowed by tptb.
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
America is no longer the land of the free - although there are still a lot of very brave people living there.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.
Re:They are assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
You are a fucking idiot. I don't say that lightly. There is no such thing as personality disorder medication. This is because you can only treat the traits of a personality disorder with medication, not the personality disorder itself. Things like depression, anxiety, and psychosis can be treated with medication. But that doesn't treat a personality disorder itself. A personality disorder is treated by changing the way a person thinks and responds to the world. This is because a personality disorder is primarily a malformed way a person learned to deal with stress in the world, partially due to biological reasons and partially due to environmental reasons. For example, a child who was repeatedly raped by a parent or guardian might learn than you can't trust the ones you love and that people that you love are secretly trying to hurt you. They might have incredible abandonment fears while still rejecting everyone around them due to fear. No medication can fix that. That is what a personality disorder is. Actual mental illness isn't the funny or nutcase stories you hear. It is incredibly painful and tragic. Finding out you have a personality disorder is no more fun than finding you have cancer.
So, lets take this one step further. Many people with mental illnesses have been victims of serious trauma, before or during their mental illness. Your desire to publish these lists will also include tons of child abuse, rape, and PTSD victims. You also punish people for trying to get help in their lives and reinforce the massive stigma associated with mental illness. If people had a list of those with mental illnesses, they would be able to refuse to rent to them or employ them. This already occurs, but you would take it to the next level. And because of that, people who think they have a mental illness would refuse to try to find treatment (which already occurs 2/3rds of the time).
Here's a secret: people with a mental illness are no more violent than the general population. You only think they are because you are stupid and haven't read the research. Stop attacking people with mental illness. It is bigotry and should be treated as such.
Re:First amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mommy... (Score:0, Insightful)
First Amendment does not and should not protect my ability to publish your social security number, birth date, bank account numbers, and other such information which is personally identifying and very likely detrimental to you when published (because it can be used to clean you out).
It also should not protect your ability to publish whether or not I legally purchased a gun, since that is very likely to result in me being unjustly harassed by anti-gun nuts like you.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. The lesson learned here is "don't piss off people with guns" rather than anything noble about the constitution.
The cold hard facts that force of arms and intimidation decides things instead of merit.
Re:Mommy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Gun control advocates love to indicate the 'logic' that less guns correlates to less homicides. But Logic, also requires that negation hold true. More guns = more homicides... right? However when gun sales have surged in the last 10 years, increasing nearly 40% in the last 10 years, homicides, especially gun related homicides, are down. Funny how "a clear correlation between guns and homicides" breaks down when applying basic statistics. .0003% of guns used in homicides... clearly a problem with guns, if and only if you lust after leaving people defenseless and powerless. Of course if less gun = less homicides then more guns = more homicides which... well isn't true.
Wait it isn't linear... wait there are more regressors... wait there are more excuses and attempts to over-fit a model... Did you know that the price of gasoline correlates to the number of homicides committed between the hours of 9 PM CST and 11:41 PM CST. Of course the question is how strong the correlation is. Good lore you would be surprised what you can make correlate to something.
The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang violence problem. You take out gang related homicides and guess what, were are nearly identical to Canada, England, France, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Germany, and the rest of the top 30 peaceful nations per 100,000. The problem is inner city poverty, broken homes, and poor childhood development which is the American cocktail for gangs.
Keep your head in the sand and keep ignoring the gang violence problem. Yeah ban the last line of defense citizens have against those lawless gangs...
Re:Obviously there is an irony to all of this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.
And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?
As I said in a comment above, we have no idea who (if anyone) made these threats. The way that they published the information before makes me think they are attention whores. We all know attention whores do what they can to get more attention. But lets assume they were threatened. We still do not know who the people threatening them are, whether they own guns, whether they even live in the same time zone as the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of crazy people out there who would get a kick out of making such threats. I would agree making such threats would not qualify one as a responsible gun owner, however.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
The larger problem is determining who is the good guy and who is the bad guy often enough.
Sure, someone shooting children is most likely the bad guy.
Sure, the FIRST guy running through the mall with a guy is most likely the bad guy...what about the second one that's behind him? Savior or coconspirator?
Sure, the guy in the uniform is probably a good guy, but there are plenty of examples when that's not the case - be it fake uniforms or unscrupulous security/police.
You know...now that I think about it there's only one single person I can be sure is the good guy. Me. Therefore I should be armed at all times in all places. Then i'm 100% sure a good guy is armed to protect my interests. You all should do the same. It worked in the recent mall shooting even though the media declined to focus on it as it doesn't suit their "neutral" agenda.
Just doing what the NRA suggested for schools (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing the right thing and helping to control military quality guns requires more courage than the NRA has. Asking for the government to get a lot bigger and protect all the children in a nanny state solution is a cowardly way to avoid responsibility.
Re:Mommy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance, yes. Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.
More importantly, though, armed citizens can protect themselves not only against criminals but against corrupt governments on the state and local level. Armed groups played a key role in winning civil rights for African-Americans during the 1960s, both by standing up directly against racist cops and by defending black citizens against violence when the police would not respond.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:4, Insightful)
who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc.
Cops do take their firearms home, mostly since they buy them themselves a majority of the time. Apparently uniforms give you magical powers of gun or something. But I guess armed security is just as good. We should all just be rich and hire an armed entourage to follow us around and that way we can protect ourselves. Oh, you're too poor for that? Too bad. Security is only for us rich people.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Exactly this. If you read the constitution and the words of our forefathers about it one of the fundamental reasons behind gun ownership being a right in the USA is to allow citizens to FORCE the government to listen. It's to ensure the citizens have a voice and a means to ensure that voice is not only heard, but acted on.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a twat. The archetype of what's wrong with America.
The archetype of what's wrong with America is someone who doesn't roll over and give up their rights on demand by some government bureaucrat? There is exactly nothing wrong in what the previous poster said. Government has no rights and they absolutely have no right to know what I, or anyone else, do or do not own.
Who is the twat I would say?
Re:The Sickening Underbelly Of Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA, please. One person said something so vague the police declined to label it an explicit threat.
Roughly one-third of murders in the U.S. are carried out without a firearm. If you think lack of a firearm means that someone cannot make a credible threat to kill you, you are a fool; if you think mere ownership of a firearm means someone is a threat, you are also a fool.
Was the paper within its legal rights? Yes, the info is public. Was it a dick move by the paper? You bet. Should the info be public in the first place? No, it should not be.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
They're significantly more innocent than the violent assholes threatening them.
Re:public records (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would the state require registration of guns?
Slight difference. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between something being "public information" but requiring specific action to discover and a 3rd party collecting that information and publicly publishing it.
I think that the newspaper did that in an attempt to intimidate those people and anyone thinking of getting a similar permit.
Which is where the "irony" part comes in.
Now the newspaper people are the ones intimidated.
Now the newspaper people have turned to OTHER armed people (not the government or police force) for protection from the people they attempted to intimidate in the first place.
It's still stupid on both sides.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the newspaper's right to publish the data they published. It was still a bad thing to do. The first amendment would also protect their right to publish lists of suspected communists or records of purchases of prophylactics and pregnancy tests. The first amendment protects their rights to publish that information. It doesn't make it not a violation of privacy and all around dick move. The second issue, of course, is the existence of the list to begin with. They got the list from the government, which compiled it through fairly straightforward violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, let's turn the USA into an African country where rebels fight each other for power at the expense of the rest of the inhabitants.
Re:Mommy... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, there is no evidence of anyone committing a crime against the scaredy pants editor of the news paper. The reason you don't publish people's personal information is because people will harass you.
The fact that this backfired in the face of little Ms Caryn McBride, should be a stern warning to everyone not to write checks with your mouth your ass can't cash. Now if we can all settle down, and release the newspaper got exactly what it bargined for. It got the exact same harassment they intended for the gun owners. Thats irony.
The bigger problem is that this hyper partisanism where people actively think this sort of harassment is justified when they do it, and not when its someone else.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mommy... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, still not quite right.
How about:
When anyone makes public information easy to read and understand, someone puny feels threatened.
Yeah, that's better.
Any person is puny when harassed by a media entity, whether it be gun owner, a teacher that put herself through school by doing porn, or a celebrity harassed by paparazzi.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said anything about mass shootings? Only you. Mass shootings kill about as many people in this country as terrorism. They are that rare. So attacking people with mental illnesses makes about as much sense as profiling Muslims.
The real gun violence that kills significant amounts of people is due to the War on Drugs, high value property thefts, and domestic violence. All of these are due to easy access to guns and have no relation to mental illness. They are cultural.
I would have hoped that people on Slashdot would be smart enough to realize that if it has been studied and established that the rate of violence by people with mental illnesses or Muslims is no higher than that of the general public, then they shouldn't be ostracized and attacked. Most people are too stupid to realize this, but I would hope those of us here are smart enough to get past the scary news hyperbole and focus on the actual problem. If you want to save lives then you need to minimize the stigma on mental illness, not increase it. And you need to focus on the poor, disenfranchised, but mentally healthy youths who are being gunned down in our streets every day. From their point of view, gun violence is entirely logical. It is how they survive in a society that doesn't give a shit about them.
in this matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mommy... (Score:3, Insightful)
It has the right to tax you
Would you kindly point to us where in the Constitution of the United States (or the Bill of RIghts) that gave the right to the government to levy tax?
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.
Hitler was elected.
Sorry for the Godwin, but this is appropriate.
Tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority. Turkey massacred Armenians. Germans massacred, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other despised minorities. The Chinese and Soviets slaughtered millions of their political opponents.
LK
What about the non-gun-owners? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think for an instant that this list will not be carefully inspected by criminals seeking to minimize occupational hazards, you have another thing coming. Thanks to Sandy Hook, homeowners without guns will not likely be able to purchase guns for some time (many stores are sold out due to sudden demand). Therefore, this list will remain accurate for some time to come.
From a security standpoint, this list is really terrible, and is almost worse for non-gun-owners than for gun-owners, at least in terms of immediate personal security.
Its never about the level of Firepower.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is always about so many of the citizens being pissed enough to be willing to die in protests or go to jail in such large numbers that the Government is no longer sure of the support of large sections of its police, army, administration etc.
Doing that with assault rifles or unarmed like Gandhi is no different. An individual in both cases has to be willing to die, even if the overall fatalities as a group may be less or more.
How many US Citizens with assault rifles have ever protested against the TSA ? Can you even imagine them doing so ? Its probably better to protest unarmed against Governments. As a rule, the Government can't back down from an armed conflict till it has expended all its resources. Its quicker and cleaner, relatively, for hordes of people to protest, go to jail, get hurt, few even killed to make a sufficient impact.
In the end it is only about Numbers. Off course,
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.
That might be the most retarded thing I've read on /.
While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s [wikipedia.org] at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.
And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?
The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.
I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.
I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.
I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.
Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.
So when a 250lb. man without a gun rapes a 110lb. woman without a gun, that's okay to you? That's sounds like a situation where a good guy with a gun would be really damn useful. Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times more likely to successfully fend off a rapist [gunowners.org] than a woman who does not.
And that's according to FBI crime data.
People who want to ban guns in America fit into one of the following categories: would-be tyrants, rapists, murderers, muggers, or the useful idiots who allow the previous groups to be successful.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance, yes. Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.
Additionally, in such a worst case scenario, one must remember that a good portion of our military forces is made up of Army and Air National Guard troops. When push comes to shove, the Feds may find that a large portion of those guns wielded by the citizen soldiers of the various States will be pointed in the other direction instead of at the civilians that they have sworn to protect. Chances are, if civil war broke out here in the U.S. due to the federal government plunging us into a totalitarian dictatorship, even some of the state governors (who are the primary C&Cs for the Army and Air National Guard units in their jurisdictions) could very well throw their support behind their citizen troops instead of casting their lot with the federal forces.
Suffice it to say, a 21st Century civil war here in the U.S. would be one of the most horrific events imaginable. Either that, or all troops, State and Federal, would suddenly remember their oaths to defend the Constitution and the people from all threats foreign and domestic, recognize the tyrants in D.C. as a domestic threat, and resolve the issue with a minimum amount of bloodshed.
Re:Mommy... (Score:4, Insightful)
The archetype of what's wrong with America is someone who doesn't roll over and give up their rights on demand by some government bureaucrat?
No, it's the "conservative" pricks who spend more than the "liberal" pricks, when elected (claiming fiscal conservatism while being fiscally irresponsible). The "pro-freedom" pricks who want to register everyone for things that don't apply to them, but certainly not their favorite fetish. When they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up. When they came for the mentally ill, and I did not speak up. When they came for the gun owners, there will be nobody left to speak out for you. How far will you get against the government if you stand alone with all the guns you could carry?
Re:Mommy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.
That might be the most retarded thing I've read on /.
While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s [wikipedia.org] at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Incorrect most illegal guns are bought at local gun shops, and most aren't illegally imported from overseas, all this is according the the ATF. Restructing the licensure and criteria for lawful sales of firearms, will do the most to restrict the unregulated supplies of guns. Some would argue that even the founding fathers had experience with gun violence, and wanted firearm possession to be solely for the use of a well regulated militia, and not even for two consenting adults who agree to duel each other.
The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.
And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?
The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.
If your willing to use a gun, then your more prone to violence, and more likely to act violently. Gun ownership rates are also positively correlated with crime rates. While you may think that your a sane person, you may end up being the next George Zimmerman instead.
I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.
I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.
I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.
During a traffic accident where a guy thought the other guy was at fault, on the rapid transit train during a feud over a woman, at a natural hotspring as a notion of bravado, at the same exact hot spring by drunk russians carrying rifles and gallons of carlow rossi, an old jewish man who got confronted because he was slandering 'towelheads' and pulled his gun after 'feeling threatened', a bozo neighbor who blocked the road and belligerently tried to lecture me (incorrectly) about right of way with my bike in a single lane double yellow lane, and donned his holstered gun and threatened me after I had his car towed for parking in my old neighbor ladies disabled spot.
all of these people wanted to "protect themeselves" from 'evil', 'crazy', 'dangerous' people, by either advertising that they shouldn't be fucked with, or directly threatening other people.
Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.
So when a 250lb. man without a gun rapes a 110lb. woman without a gun, that's okay to you? That's sounds like a situation where a good guy with a gun would be really damn useful. Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times [gunowners.org]
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in Australia too and although gun violence does happen here, it is the exception rather than the rule. I'd say current system of gun laws is working reasonably well.
Being an island does make importing guns illegally more difficult, which helps.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
How, exactly, does this qualify as 1st Amendment speech?
The 1st doesn't assure people of saying anything they want without repercussions.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere throughout this have I seen the government restrict the press in any which way. I do see, however, a possible legal case for a class action lawsuit, (or maybe even a criminal case ?) to be made against the paper for their actions. Reasonably, the subjects of this 'news' would be at least allowed to "petition the Government for redress of their grievances" due to the fact that the press is a state-established and protected institution in the United States.
What the paper did has more akin with a newspaper in the South during the Civil War publishing a list of "Northern sympathizers". "Oh, we're just reporting the news!" No; no, you weren't: you were publicizing a list which you hoped would serve as a hit list, "outing" them in a politically hostile environment to try to muster public sentiment (aka violence) against them.
Re:Mommy... (Score:2, Insightful)
GP's car analogy was also absolutely wrong from the start.
You do not need a license to drive a car, nor do you need one to do so legally. You need it to drive on public roads. MANY farms have people under 16 driving vehicles all over their farms. It's quite similar with vehicle registration.
The analogy should follow that to wield a gun in public (ex. concealed carry), a license should be required (assuming one believes that all things are equal to a car and that the laws on cars are all spot on). That's also the norm in most places. If anything, this analogy supports concealed carry in more places with well defined and easy to use licensing facilities (ex. NYC).
So again, no, the government has no rights.... well, we can just stop right there :-)
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic, if the US Congress passed a law outlawing any and all forms of speech deemed "too liberal" (as defined by to-be-written FCC guidelines), and the President signed it into law, and the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge to that law, then our government has every right to come to your home and haul you to prison for however long it pleases.
I'm quite happy I don't live in your world. It sounds like Hell.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.
Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why we're picky about the words is because they carry implications. If you say that you have an "assault rifle", someone who's not familiar with the topic will go and look up the definition on Wikipedia, and scream bloody murder because a civilian has a full auto weapon. Indeed, the press and anti-gun legislators love to confuse that issue by talking about "assault weapons", and then quietly shifting to "assault rifles" and describing the carnage that can be unleashed with automatic fire from one...
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.
When you're done with him, could you please provide said lesson to the US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court?
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mommy... (Score:2, Insightful)
The purpose of the government is to preserve its citizens' rights. All rights pale against the right for life, since you can't exercise any of your rights any more once you are dead. Restraining access to lethal weapons for everybody increases the chances for people to live.
Who will survive a gun fight? The person who carries a gun "just in case", or the person who is used to killing people on a whim?
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." With what consequence? That they no longer need to apply lethal force preemptively in order to ensure their survival.
Re:public records (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes it a lot easier to collect them once they're banned. Gives you a sort of checklist.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:2, Insightful)
So Dubya "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" Bush was a liberal then? You live and learn.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Says you. I'm having trouble thinking of anything more hypocritical than declaring that other people shouldn't enjoy the right to defend themselves with guns, while defending yourself with guns.
Maybe you could suggest something - I'm at a loss.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Human beings have rights. Governments have powers that they exercise. When the exercise of the latter interferes with the former, that is the simple definition of tyranny.
Precisely.
This is the radical concept on which the US was founded that sets it apart from every other government on the planet. In fact, the only government built on this principle in 5,000 years.
That is why I blow-off those who say things like "Well, $FOREIGNCOUNTRY/REGION runs things this way, why doesn't the US?". Because the US is based on concepts and principles unique to the US. If there wasn't such a difference in basic principles, there wouldn't have been an American Revolutionary War.
If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone. There will be no place left to flee to. Hell, it's already gotten so bad that now people in the US are looking around vainly trying to find someplace to escape the ever-more-tyrannical US government.
Why is it becoming ever-more tyrannical? Because people have fallen to the notion that the US can be governed successfully based on the principles of other nations' and regions' governments, instead of the principles laid out in the US Constitution and the writings of it's authors. The further the US has strayed, the worse things have gotten, and the worse they will get if this course is not halted and reversed.
Strat
Re:Mommy... (Score:2, Insightful)
"If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone"
You really need to get out more. There are many more countries out there that have done more for freedom than the US has. I can think of plenty of countries I would "flee" to in preference to the US.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)
People have rights. People delegate *powers* to the state. The state does not have rights. Con Law 101, or maybe Con Law 1.
How in blazes did your ignorance get modded +5 informative? Oh.... I guess the mods need to take Con Law 1, too.
It's very interesting how different definitions of political words get used.
"Right" is a particularly tricky one. Despite American Jingoists insistance that the mid-18th century Enlightenment definition is the only possible one, and that anyone using it any other way should shot, it has multiple meanings.
An older definition is that a 'right' is specific to an individual or group of individuals. Medieval rebellions in defense of "rights" were not demanding everyone have the exact same rights, they were demanding the King respect the right of different groups of people to be treated differently. It's a perfectly valid use of the term, but it's also the exact opposite of the pseudo-intelectual definition you just gave. It's even perfectly valid in some American legal contexts. For example, you don't have the right to practice medicine in Ohio unless you get the approval of a group of people who do have that right. The right to sell Star Wars DVDs do not belong to everyone in the entire world equally, they belong to the one guy who has the Copyright.
Since this is all very confusing, with right on one hand meaning something literally anyone can do and on the other hand meaning something only one person (or a handful of people) can do, in common usage "Right" just means legal ability to do something. I have the right to sue your ass because there isn't a Court Order that says otherwise. The Government has the right to tax your ass because you can't get a court order telling them to stop. I have the right to call your ass stupid because the First Amendment says so, not because some 18th Century French Baron thought it was only natural and a generation of thinkers every American reveres agreed.