Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I see both sides on that. OT1H, their lives should have equivalence. OTOH, what makes the congresswoman special is her function in society. An attack on her is also an attack on that function. And ultimately that function is vital. Though you may not think so, I have a feeling.

Well said...

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It has all the relevance in the world as I pointed out above. Believing you can make an argument from a state of ignorance is irrational.

It is not under my pillow. That would be rather dangerous and stupid. It is in a bag next to the bed. As far as the locked up rifles go, they are impractical for defending my bedroom against assailants. There are also neighbors to consider and rifle rounds can go through people and walls. That is why the revolver stays loaded and within reach. That said, there are loaded magazines in the safe and given a minute warning can be made use of if need be.

Handguns are quite useful for self defense. Particularly indoors. How do you feel about them being available for purchase, but very expensive? Think it would encourage people to monitor (i.e.secure) their weapons or no?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You may not have that long. I suppose if the law comes over and says "come out with your hands up" you have a chance to get your weapons. A burglar will not give you that chance. And the law will have you outgunned, and probably dead. Meanwhile your loaded revolver is probably also illegal for you to have in that position. If not, it is very likely more of a danger to you and your family and friends than to any unlikely burglar. Get a dog, or move to a friendly neighborhood like mine. By keeping a gun, you are contributing to the violence of our society. You know better.

Are there laws requiring the securing of firearms? If so are they infractions or misdemeanors?

The bolded part is one hella leap of logic.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

It was pretty much dismissed out of hand as liberal claptrap. Warren Buffet is a major stockholder in the newspaper's parent company. He's a liberal anti-gun nut, right?

Not to my knowledge. He doesn't seem to care about much beyond money and adoration. F****er also owns much of my local paper. They do a PR puff piece on him once a week in the "Warren Watch" section.*vomits*

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-yawn-

"America" isn't a thing, and doesn't do things (nor is 'your military', for that matter). Many American people have done many things at any particular period of time. Some of them good, some of them not. Certainly some people engaged in both good things at some times and bad things at other times.

The fiction that there is an "America" as a meaningful moral actor, distinct from the people who acted under its banner, is absolutely no different from the fiction that there is (was?) an "Enron" as a meaningful moral actor, distinct from the people who acted in its name. That is, it serves only to insulate privileged wrongdoers from the consequences of their actions.

In this case your vice would seem a virtue. Clear thinking is a pleasure to be exposed to....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We know that Alan Greenspan was, according to the author I heard interviewed on the radio. NOt a slavish devotee, but still highly influenced by her. But he finally renounced a lot of his views in 2008. He learned his lesson; America did not.

Easy to say you've reformed when you've retired ,made your mint and face no consequences. Besides talk is cheap, as we are all ably demonstrating.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Respect it by killing it, I guess. No thanks, I'll be a snob instead.

Everyone listen up! There will be no more death in nature. For death is wrong!

Oh, and Eric's a snob.

oops...hijacked a thread...lo siento amigos

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Respect it by killing it, I guess. No thanks, I'll be a snob instead.

We have removed or severely limited all of the natural predators for deer in most parts of the country. They are a highly fertile species. If they aren't hunted they will become rapidly overpopulated and susceptible to disease, overgraze their food sources, and cause a lot of car wrecks.

The alternative is repopulating predators in close proximity to human residential areas, leading to children, dogs, cats and other domesticated animals being eaten by wolves and mountain lions.

I know which option environmentalists choose, but thankfully most of us aren't that crazy.

Originally Posted by jadams

Wow, this was great. Even if it's half true, it's amazing. I always thought Rands views stemmed from her familys experiences during Russian revolutionary period. Never knew about her obsession with this killer.

Now I know everyone on this forum likes to be real serious, but I can't resist the gossip. Of course Rand had many well documented lovers and many devoted followers. One was Alan Greenspan whom it is said was her lover for a time in the 50's when he was 20 years her junior. When I saw him testifying about our economic collapse and his contributions to it, he seemed sincerely befuddled and said something about how he never believed something like this could happen, that something "must have been wrong with his belief system". He said he sincerely believed that the free market would solve all our problems.

At the time I though he and the rest of Wall Street were caught in some sort of shared psychotic disorder (when a stronger disturbed personality with delusions forms an intense relationship with a weaker personality and that person begins to demonstrate the same delusions). Then I thought it was some kind of group think. Put if indeed he did have a highly charged relationship with a sociopathic personally and he became an acolyte, it it explains his stunned shock.

Just like a sociopath can kill a lot of people, a sociopath with a sick idea can infect a lot of people. I wonder if Milton Friedman was one of her set.

The important thing to understand about Greenspan is that he was engaged in CYA when he made those statements. Because the alternative explanation is that he screwed up by keeping interest rates too low for too long. Which happens to be the truth.

More to the point here though, we have yet another sign that the 3T is over. Whereas the left was able to get away with this kind of wanton slander and blood libel during the 90s, nobody is buying it now. In fact, people are getting a very clear lesson about who it actually is that has been poisoning the public discourse with divisive rhetoric.

The left is imploding, all of this is backfiring on them, and they don't even realize it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

We have removed or severely limited all of the natural predators for deer in most parts of the country. They are a highly fertile species. If they aren't hunted they will become rapidly overpopulated and susceptible to disease, overgraze their food sources, and cause a lot of car wrecks.

The alternative is repopulating predators in close proximity to human residential areas, leading to children, dogs, cats and other domesticated animals being eaten by wolves and mountain lions.

I know which option environmentalists choose, but thankfully most of us aren't that crazy.

No attacking straw men, now.

There are a fair number of environmentalists, especially at the local level, that are heavily in favor of increased deer hunting.

As someone who most definitely places environmental issues on a higher priority than most people, I can tell you that I completely agree that humans need to fill part of the niche of being predators to deer. Frankly, the deer damage the environment themselves because they destroy native plant life while ignoring endangered species.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I disagree; I think this is inconsistent. If someone with a knife can go crazy and hack up a family, someone with a gun can do the same, and the gun makes it easier. And it happens frequently, because too many people have guns.

In 1992 Oregon was having a problem with car-jackers and then the must issue permit system was put in place. It must be said that the opposition was claiming that the murder rate would sky rocket. In the first six months three car-jackers got dead and another got permanently disabled. The rest of the car-jackers got the message and now it doesn't happen quite so often. Indeed the violent crime rate decreased greatly.

The sort of person that commits a violent crime is simply a predator. Predators only understand force.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I take your point about the bear. How about hikers taking stun guns? I would wager most people who run into bears and lions don't get hurt. But it is possible.

Stun guns are useless in dealing with a bear or a cougar for that matter. The one time there is a problem you will be really glad you have a firearm. I prefer the .44 Magnum in the woods simply because it is easy to carry and can stop a black bear. If I get lost then I can take a deer to keep me fed. I would prefer something with less recoil but in the woods it really is the best choice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hunting seems to me irrational. Why should we should keep such dangerous toys around? Americans don't seem to be very creative in finding ways to amuse themselves. What's wrong with sports, or playing music, or even watching TV? To those who hunt, I say, find other amusements. Don't kill things.

Firearms are not toys but rather a tool. Like any tool it can be used for good or evil. Hunting is a useful survival skill and some like a challenge and it is a challenge. I know people that hunt with the bow or black power simply because it is a challenge.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But if you don't want to follow my advice, go ahead and do what you want. I can't stop you. I just wish you would stop resisting people in NY and CA from trying to get pistols off our streets, by supporting the NRA. I don't mean you specifically, Amy.

The framers of the Constitution believed that self-defence was a natural right of all people. The Militia Acts of 1792 specified that all men were to be armed with a musket and specified its type. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 for more details. The founders also felt that a small standing army was preferable after their experience with the British.

After reading what they wrote and much consideration of all that happened in the last two centuries that they were right.

Gun control is death for the Democrats in the battleground states.

They should keep their mouths shut, and let the right hang themselves rhetorically by trying to pass Jared Loughner off as the new John Hinckley.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

If you don't like hypothetical scenarios, then I suspect that a simple Google search will net you more self defense stories than you can read in a day.

Why don't you try proving it?

Originally Posted by James50

More people than you might think are obsessed with this problem. I see you do not share that particular anxiety, but for those who have it, simply telling them that its "hypothetical" would make them think you were other-worldly. I am always surprised at the number of people (many of whom women) who would never leave the house with a pistol in their purse. Try to take away these guns and you will create a generation of scofflaws.

BTW - I have one gun that my dad gave me I keep for sentimental reasons. I have no ammunition and have not discharged it in 30 years or more. I threw away the ammunition when my daughter became increasingly erratic 15 years ago. Like you, I choose to dismiss the 10 minute problem, but unlike you, people who have it do not bother me.

James50

James, we had an exchange some time back in which you got quite offended because I suggested that the voters are not always right. This strikes me as a related issue. I do not doubt that millions of people have convinced themselves that they must have a gun to deal with a situation that is statistically extremely unlikely. And I know that that they have as much political power as any group in the nation, and that I can't do anything about it. But that doesn't make it rational.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Yes, I get it. It is a guy thing. Well, unless you are Sarah Palin. Guys just like guns. I have two sons. The will pick up anything, a stick, a lego, whatever and turn it into a gun. I've figure it's just part of their DNA.

My husband has similar theories to your brother-in-law about guns, the draft and gangs in the inter-cities. He said, when he had wars and the draft, we just drafted them and sent them to war. Now we don't do that, so they these young men are just shooting each other up in the streets.

And before there were guns little boys pretended to play with swords, bows, axes, and spears. We are hunters by nature.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Heynow. The west coast consists of more than just california. And the pac NW is full of hunters. Coast range deer are tastier than the inland crap anyway... better forage out here.

---

PS.

Grow up, Zar.

Nazis? Seriously?

DOH, I meant no offense, Justin!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

We have removed or severely limited all of the natural predators for deer in most parts of the country. They are a highly fertile species. If they aren't hunted they will become rapidly overpopulated and susceptible to disease, overgraze their food sources, and cause a lot of car wrecks.

The alternative is repopulating predators in close proximity to human residential areas, leading to children, dogs, cats and other domesticated animals being eaten by wolves and mountain lions.

I know which option environmentalists choose, but thankfully most of us aren't that crazy.

A lot of us hunters are also environmentalists. Go read up on what the organization Ducks Unlimited has done to protect wetlands, especially the "Prairie Pothole" wetlands in my area (we call them sloughs, pronounced "sloo").

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think something is profoundly amiss in a society in which people claim they need to own semi-automatic weapons to protect their lives and, if need be, their rights against the federal government and government in general.

I remember around 1996, the Gingrich Congress was trying to repeal the semiautomatic weapons ban. Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY) argued that his wife was home alone four days a week and needed protection. Somehow I don't think she needed a semiautomatic.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why not? That's the kind that I would get.

I agree... why not? A Glock is a semiautomatic, and that's what I have.

Or, E&M, are you saying women can't handle guns?

Getting back on topic, Limbaugh is spouting blatant lies about Lougher "Having the Democrats' full support".

And Palin charges critics with 'blood libel'

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, we had an exchange some time back in which you got quite offended

I don't ever remember your offending me. I am sorry if I gave that impression.

Some of what you say sounds something like - "we need a better class of citizen.", which may be true, but we have the people we have. There is no practical way to disarm the population at this point even if we wanted to, and I don't want to.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A large dog can overpower any person. It really is above us 'mere' humans in the food chain. All that separates it from big cats, bears, hyenas, and crocodilians, or for that matter the wolf, is that it is more predictable.

Dogs are powerful, agile, cunning, stealthy, and swift. If it has affection for you, then all of those traits become harmless. But if it fears what some intruder might do to loved ones, every one of those traits becomes a weapon. A knockdown by a dog puts one at the mercy of the perfect wrestler -- one that also bites and scratches.

Dogs have good night vision (unlike ours)and keen scent and hearing. They can read people and they usually figure out who is up to no good. Most crooks have fear of detection by a human, but a dog? A large one can disrupt some serious attacks and impose the primal fear of meeting the worst possible end -- becoming prey. Dogs aren;t man-eaters? They can be very convincing.

If one gets hit from behind by a large animal that makes a leap at 30 mph, then one just might not get to execute the rest of the nefarious plan. But even at that, "Woof! Woof!" is usually adequate warning to abandon a criminal action.

At 6'+, I'm a fairly large doggie...

Every kid on my street knows Scruffy, peering out from the windows.

Originally Posted by Xer H

I agree... why not? A Glock is a semiautomatic, and that's what I have.

Or, E&M, are you saying women can't handle guns?

Women handle guns as readily as men now in military service, and have done so for some time.

I like my M1911. I'm a traditionalist.