Author Topic: Madison riots (Read 1906 times)

Maverick · « **Reply #75 on:** November 09, 2002, 09:09:29 PM »

Spook,

You chose to answer my post with inane comments totally outside of the scope of the discussion. I can only conclude you do so because you have no cogent response of value. Hint taken and the discussion is ended for you and I.

BTW we do consider it punishment when property is removed by the state from an individual absent any criminal action on the part of the individual. Confiscation under penalty of criminal prosecution is punishment here.

Kieran · « **Reply #76 on:** November 09, 2002, 09:17:30 PM »

Quote

Responsibilty for Dog ownership is not really all that different to responsible Gun ownership. Both have simple basic rules you follow to ensure as much safety as possible.

Does this mean we should ban dog ownership? I mean, if the big flap by non-Americans is that Americans have guns, and if dog ownership is about like gun ownership, how could we ever allow dogs? That was kinda my point all along.

The difference between dogs and guns is dogs can't be locked in a safe, gun chest, or holstered under your armpit. I never heard of a gun getting jealous and digging a baby out of a crib for an early afternoon snack. Believe me when I tell you I'd rather you packed a shotgun in the house, heck, even a fully automatic assault rifle, than for you to have a Rottweiler in the yard next door.

Kieran · « **Reply #77 on:** November 09, 2002, 09:21:40 PM »

Oh, and before you respond, I've been bitten by numerous dogs- I was a paper boy. Shephards, Rotts, Pitt Bulls... they all tend to bite with little provocation. Mind you, I am not afraid of dogs, always had 'em, but some breeds are not safe around kids.

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #78 on:** November 09, 2002, 10:00:10 PM »

Boys boys boys.

Lets all accept one thing about each other that I think we all will agree with.

We shall never convince the other that we are right and we shall continue in our errant ways (including the cowardly ones for those of us who that applies) forever more long after this thread has been vanquished by the Internet gods.

Mav. It wasnt that I was ignoring you or not giving your post the attention it deserves. It was simply to heavy and laden with Constitutional rhetoric for me at that time of day. I accept your points within it and acknowledge its importance to your countrymen. And the moment I thought of the Roman bit, well, the romantic in me induced an opportunistic moment to utilise its services

Also, we are not talking "Property" here likes its an armchair or a set of DVD's. We are talking Firearms. (possession thereof). I understand all to well, the legalities of property ownership and the claim of right, which is slung alongside it. The debate is, whether or not, American Citizens need or should have possession of Firearms in every household, despite their constitutional right to do so. Lets leave the Constitution aside. I understand that within it you have the right. I am arguing do you really need it.

Laz. Ive no idea who John Lott is, but im sure I wouldnt like what he has to say if its supporting your side of the debate. I doubt id last before I had cracked the spine of the book. NRA Prez or something?

Perhaps you are right Laz in that it is a Cultural thing. But even when this country (mine) was at the height of Gun ownership, Common Sense tells us, that keeping a firearm in the loaded condition when not in use was foolhardy.

I dont have to explain the risks, your intelligent enough and as you state, have enough firearms "nouse" to be aware of them already. No amount of self defense excuses warrants those risks for anyone not specifically targetted as a threat by another. I cant imagine a nice guy like you having any enemies.

Kieran. Nice try at an analogy my friend, but it doesnt come close.
Dogs are not the vicious killers you would have us believe unless they are bred that way, live in the wild or are placed in a position where that is an option available to them as defence.

Domestic Dogs are a passive animal generally speaking with exceptions as you point out. You mention some breeds are not meant for kids, this is true. And we can safely state, that NO Gun is safe or them either.

Guns are made, built, manafactured and used for 1 purpose only. To kill. They dont (except if your Laz's gun) lay at your feet while you watch the TV at night. They are not a companion in good times and bad (again exception Laz's gun) and nor do they hump your leg in excited pleasure upon your arrival home...(exception..Laz's Gun)

So you may keep a dog at home if you wish and even allow him to keep his teeth in at night. Your safe. Stop delivering junk mail on your route and the owners will stop setting their dogs onto you

J_A_B · « **Reply #79 on:** November 09, 2002, 10:49:20 PM »

"The debate is, whether or not, American Citizens need or should have possession of Firearms in every household"

Spook, take this with an open mind, and really think it over--

You are suffering from a culture clash here. That one sentence highlights the difference between our systems of government. Unlike in your country, in the USA what you propose to debate is irrevelant. It is NOT irrevelant in your country which is why I assume you say it.

Let me put it this way:

In your country, you can't own a weapon unless you have a reason to own one--the government deciding what are good reasons and what aren't, with the best interests of society in mind. The well-being of society in general is of utmost importance, with the government doing its best to that end.

In America, you decide for yourself whether you need a weapon or not. It is up to each individual to make this decision for himself. Individual freedom is MORE important than the well-being of society as a whole.

"Freedom" in the American sense is much more individual than "freedom" in the British/Commonwealth/European sense.

So yes, I think it stands to reason that the USA will have a somewhat higher crime rate than your country will....as we do make it easier for the criminals. Having more freedom to behave as you wish also means having greater freedom to MIS-behave. This is part of what Americans call the "Price of Freedom". We as a nation are willing to put up with the slightly higher crime (and it really is just a slight difference in real terms) for increased personal freedom.

Think it over. Neither my country nor yours is necessarily right or wrong, they just have different priorities.

J_A_B

Leslie · « **Reply #80 on:** November 09, 2002, 11:12:03 PM »

Spook, you must have been a Roman Centurian in a past life.

Les

-tronski- · « **Reply #81 on:** November 09, 2002, 11:43:56 PM »

Sounds about right to me J_A_B

Tronsky

Leslie · « **Reply #82 on:** November 10, 2002, 12:45:22 AM »

Very well written J_A_B. That sums up my feelings too. I'm a Southern boy, and I get riled when them Brits and Aussies call me a Yank...and now they tryin to get our guns away from us. We better watch out for that lot. Who knows, they may be tryin another go at finishing up business from the Revolutionary Period.

You know, the only reason the British didn't win that war, was because they decided not to pursue it furthur than they did. I believe if they had concentrated on us, we would have lost. And I've always admired the Brits and Aussies for their guts.

The South has always had a tradition in firearms, going back to the earliest settlements in the 17th Century. The tradition is time honored, and accounts for why Southerners were so easy to train for war...especially shooting skills. A 10 year old could hit a squirrel with a muzzleloader back in those days. That's what they did all the time.

These traditional shooting skills served the United States well during WWI and II...ground, sea, and air. Imo, it would be contrary to our national defense, to allow these skills to be lost. Someone who already knows how to shoot, saves on training expenses in the military.

I agree that some people should not have guns, but then again, some people should. I don't need one right now, but what if I decided to go hunting to get out of the house for awhile and breathe some fresh air...walk in the woods with a rifle and hunt deer. What's so wrong with that? Might do me some good in fact. Being able to do that is the definition of freedom; it's quickly becoming the sport of kings though, as far as the expense involved.

Imo, disarmament in our country is untenable, where the South is a factor. It would precipitate another civil war. The folks living here would not comply with weapon confiscation. It would be out of the question.

Spook:)

Les

Maverick · « **Reply #83 on:** November 10, 2002, 10:52:19 AM »

The old saw, or argument based on need is not the one to use when talking about a capitalistic society. The "need" argument is best based onm a socialistic or communistic society. After all if ownership, excuse me possession, of an item is based upon need then it must be the same for all.

Take for example the following situations.

No one "NEEDS" to have a vehicle larger than say a Yugo or a small mini pickup. Actually only a tradesman or agricultural producer "NEEDS" to have a pickup.

No one "NEEDS" to have a computer more capable than a P3 or an AMD 500 Mhz machine. These can play most games adequately and certainly will handle the chores for school etc wtihout any problems.

No one "NEEDS" to have a house larger than say 1000 Sq feet. That will give them a room or two for sleeping, bathing and food prep and consumption. If you have a larger family well.....

No one "NEEDS" to have more than one or two children anyhow.

No one "NEEDS" to have an internet conection faster than 33.3BPS as that is perfectly adequate for e-mail and "chat".

Get the point? A "needs" based argument is not valid in a society with choices. All of these would have to be enforced by a "paternalistic" government that the people "NEED" to tell them how to live and what they should have.

Kieran · « **Reply #84 on:** November 10, 2002, 11:12:53 AM »

Spook-

Did I say dogs are viscious killers? Did I say all dogs are viscious killers? How is it everything I say gets turned to the extreme?

You have related you made the choice to own a dog instead of a gun (actually, not really a choice, given where you live). I pointed out in some ways dogs are not even as safe as guns. I was even breed-specific in what I said, so I can't see how you extrapolate I ever spoke of all dogs.

I will say this- if you have a dog big enough and aggressive enough to be a threat to intruders, it is big enough and aggressive enough to be a threat to your kids. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Now we have a beagle, and the dog will let us know when people enter the yard, but if the intruder actually gets close to the dog he will be greeted by tail wagging and overtures for attention. This will hardly deter the intruder from continuing if said intruder is determined to get in. One thing though... the dog will make enough noise to alert me so I can have the gun ready, which is the real threat to the intruder... and the thought I just might have a gun will be enough to send most intruders away once the element of surprise is gone.

Thrawn · « **Reply #85 on:** November 10, 2002, 11:43:24 AM »

Spook, don't bother man. You are making a really good attempt here but, they just don't want to listen. They are doing their best to ignore or misinterpret what you are saying.

If the Americans want their guns, then so be it. Let them have their guns, and let them kill themselves and each other.

Kieran · « **Reply #86 on:** November 10, 2002, 02:30:55 PM »

Quote

If the Americans want their guns, then so be it. Let them have their guns, and let them kill themselves and each other.

Funny thing, the last census indicated a growth in our population. Anyway, make a noble attempt to explain why the gun issue is so important to those not affected by it. You, Beetle, Spook- none of you have made that connection.

Does America want to join the club of the enlightened badly enough to submit to socialistic programs such as voluntary gun recall? Apparently not. It wouldn't matter anyway, 'cause Europe and Canada is going to look down their noses at us anyway. So we'll just have to satisfy ourselves by excerising our somewhat heathen desires to own weapons.

Thrawn · « **Reply #87 on:** November 10, 2002, 03:53:55 PM »

Let me rephrase. It appears to me that Americans maintaining their second amendment right is more important to them than whatever deaths may come from the proliferation of firearms in thier country.

I don't look down on the US because of this discision, it's just different then the one made in some other countries.

Kieran · « **Reply #88 on:** November 10, 2002, 04:17:55 PM »

Let me explain further what I mean... what is the drinking age in Germany? France? Younger than ours, I bet... now I personally believe that drinking is a big problem (an alcoholic father will do that to you), I don't begrudge those countries their right to decide for themselves. It doesn't affect me in the least, I just chalk it up to societal differences and let it go. I might say "glad we don't have that here", but why stress beyond that?

Beetle has spent a lot of BBS ink discussing our gun ownership. You could say he wanted to know why it was necessary, but... I think people have pretty much explained it. Add to that he's lived here, and what is left to say?

Germans like their beer, the French eat snails, and 1.5 billion Chinese all get their hair cut like Moe. It just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

J_A_B · « **Reply #89 on:** November 10, 2002, 07:55:32 PM »

"It appears to me that Americans maintaining their second amendment right is more important to them than whatever deaths may come from the proliferation of firearms in thier country. "

Yes, that is correct. And it will stay that way until the population of the US at large decides otherwise.

Neither country is right or wrong. The truth is crime in both the USA and in the Commonwealth is very low so neither system seems to be too problematic.

J_A_B