Here is a Libertarian point of view of yet another fine example of the competence with firearms by the supposed forces of law and order.

There are two things that come to mind after this second incident. First, I am forced to revise my abysmal opinion of the minions of the state rather sharply downward, a feat I previously though impossible. Second is that they really want Dorner dead since they don't even bother to identify the target first. At this point it seems Dorner is causing less collateral damage than the duly constituted authorities.

Guns don't kill people. Second graders with grenades kill people:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/se...d-tell-1.93402

Bought from a gun show, of course. FREEEEDOM!

Of course, Dog-troll failed to read past the headline to see that the "grenade" was a replica, nonexplosive paperweight. So very fucking scary, those replicas. Why, hundreds of imaginary people might have been fake-killed!

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Guns don't kill people. Second graders with grenades kill people:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/se...d-tell-1.93402

Bought from a gun show, of course. FREEEEDOM!

You apparently missed the most important part of the story.

The bomb squad confirmed what Bay Elementary School officials suspected — the grenade wasn’t live, according to Wendy Ammons with the Walton County Sheriff’s Office.
“The grenade had a huge hole in the bottom of it,” said Carlene Anderson, Walton County superintendent. “

You people do actually read these stories before you post them don't you?

Oh well. Allow me to provide you with a few more anecdotes to (not) read.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Science enthusiasts such as copperfield appear not to remember that anecdotal evidence is not proof.

An anecdote is not proof. Once you start getting anecdotes you start to get a better idea. When you hit thousands of anecdotes then one can begin to reach clarity on how things really are.

Your level of belief Eric on the other hand generally only requires an anecdote or two and perhaps not even that much.

"They deserve a vote!"

http://youtu.be/ktUXNePqxio

"The most passionate moment in any state of the union speech," observers say. The most applauded and memorable part of his speech. Will it offset the noise from people like Copperfield, Kepi, The Rani, Ragnarok, Justin, Galen and the rest of the folks here who make this out to be a libertarian and culture-wars issue? IT IS NOT. It is a public safety issue, pure and simple. It will be up to the people to mobilize behind our president on this critical issue, and get something done. The victims of the gun makers, the victims of the gun apologists like those here, and the victims of the NRA, deserve a vote. Bravo Mr. President!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"The most passionate moment in any state of the union speech," observers say. The most applauded and memorable part of his speech. Will it offset the noise from people like Copperfield, Kepi, The Rani, Ragnarok, Justin, Galen and the rest of the folks here who make this out to be a libertarian and culture-wars issue? IT IS NOT. It is a public safety issue, pure and simple. It will be up to the people to mobilize behind our president on this critical issue, and get something done. The victims of the gun makers, the victims of the gun apologists like those here, and the victims of the NRA, deserve a vote. Bravo Mr. President!

Considering how gun sales have increased dramatically since Obama started his victim disarmament push which suggests his proposals don't enjoy the support you think they should. It is about the most basic right of all, the right to defend yourself.

What the president proposes on guns is quite limited, timid and reasonable, yet is described as a "heavy lift," which shows just how out of touch many Americans are with what it needs to do in this age; thanks to obtuse folks like Galen who stubbornly protect the gun nuttery.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What the president proposes on guns is quite limited, timid and reasonable, yet is described as a "heavy lift," which shows just how out of touch many Americans are with what it needs to do in this age; thanks to obtuse folks like Galen who stubbornly protect the gun nuttery.

This coming from the idiot that suggested that the Second Amendment was put in place to support slavery.

In an era where the president maintains a kill list that includes American citizens, a power previously only claimed by dictators in totalitarian countries, you want to trust the government. This alone shows how completely out of touch with reality you are. Come to think of it, you support Obama so that must make it acceptable.

There is nothing reasonable about giving up the slightest part of a fundamental right like that of self-defense.

Originally Posted by Galen

This coming from the idiot that suggested that the Second Amendment was put in place to support slavery.

A source was found. The language of the Second Amendment is consistent with the right of a "free people" to keep its slaves in line. It was written to sound as if it defended the State militias that had more benign purposes.

People who find sources are not idiots.

In an era where the president maintains a kill list that includes American citizens, a power previously only claimed by dictators in totalitarian countries, you want to trust the government. This alone shows how completely out of touch with reality you are. Come to think of it, you support Obama so that must make it acceptable.

Any American citizen consorting with al-Qaeda is a traitor. Traitors get the worst treatment that their countries can deliver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanao_Inouye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Amery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_%C4%8Curda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Casement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hermann_Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ferdonnet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling

I was going to add some American broadcaster from Hitlerland during WWII whom the Soviets caught and who subsequently disappeared before the US government could ask for him. His propaganda was also anti-Soviet, so you can just imagine what the Soviet authorities did to him.

Living or not, this person who has apparently fit this description

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

was more dangerous alive than valuable as an example. Participating in an enemy armed forces, committing atrocities on behalf of the other side, plotting the ruin of a nation's economy in wartime, or delivering treasonable broadcasts would all seem to fit the definition of treason.

There is nothing reasonable about giving up the slightest part of a fundamental right like that of self-defense.

You do not have the right to keep a tiger as a 'guard dog'.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A source was found. The language of the Second Amendment is consistent with the right of a "free people" to keep its slaves in line. It was written to sound as if it defended the State militias that had more benign purposes.

It was a stupid source that ignored the antecedents in English culture that went back to the middle ages and predated the colonies and slavery by several centuries.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

People who find sources are not idiots.

People who choose stupid sources that ignore basic history such as the origins of the right to keep and bear arms are idiots. Ignoring what governments have done to their own unarmed populations is the ultimate in idiocy. The body counts due to government action have been several orders of magnitude higher than anything any number of random lunatics managed over the same time period. At this point the only defense Eric the Obtuse has is to say that it can't happen here.

Back when Nixon was president I have no doubt that both you and Eric the Obtuse were complaining about Nixon tapping a few phone and covering up a break in by his operatives. Yet you are strangely silent when the current occupant of the White House is running, for all practical purposes, a death squad. I can only conclude that you find it perfectly acceptable for the President to act as judge, jury and executioner when the president is your guy. Treason and its penalty is defined in the Constitution but nowhere does it specify that the usual rights to due process are to be denied and nowhere does it allow for what amounts to a death squad. The closest thing it does allow for is letters of marque and reprisal which a power specifically given to Congress not the President.

Given the current behavior of recent Presidents, saying that it can't happen here is also a supreme act of idiocy consistent with the willful ignorance that I have come to expect from Eric the Obtuse and his fellow travelers.

Originally Posted by Galen

It was a stupid source that ignored the antecedents in English culture that went back to the middle ages and predated the colonies and slavery by several centuries.

Actually, the argument was quite sound, especially in showing the original proposed language and how it was changed. The original language referring to the need for a free NATION to maintain a militia, rather than a free STATE. Also, if the antecedents really went back to English culture, not just in recognizable similarities but in actual motivation, it should have been primarily bloody-minded New Englanders insisting on it rather than authoritarian Southerners. The source of support for the 2A and the way the wording was changed are pretty strong evidence.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, the argument was quite sound, especially in showing the original proposed language and how it was changed. The original language referring to the need for a free NATION to maintain a militia, rather than a free STATE. Also, if the antecedents really went back to English culture, not just in recognizable similarities but in actual motivation, it should have been primarily bloody-minded New Englanders insisting on it rather than authoritarian Southerners. The source of support for the 2A and the way the wording was changed are pretty strong evidence.

Only if you ignore the fact that the Constitution was to be a confederation of independent nations, rather than a consolidated government. The whole point of the Federalist Papers was to convince people that they weren't creating an all-powerful consolidated government. The Bill of Rights is a direct consequence of demands made by Virginia in order to secure their ratification of the Constitution. The resulting amendments to the Constitution, which Virginia had a huge influence on and were in many cases patterned after similar rights in their state constitution, do not strike me as the result of totalitarian impulses. Totalitarian states do not typically allow freedom of speech is but on example of this.

Yes, they were guilty of slavery but then so were the northern states, so by that measure the New England states were equally totalitarian. This does not change the fact that the whole point of the revolution and the Constitution was to preserve the traditional rights of Englishmen. The slaves were never considered Englishmen and so those rights did not apply to them, an artificial distinction to be sure. This does not alter the fact that it was a denial of the right to keep an bear arms that made enslaving the black population possible.

That argument is as idiotic as any Eric the Obtuse has ever come up with. I notice that like him you are ignoring the rather large body counts that governments have racked up against their own unarmed populations.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"They deserve a vote!"

http://youtu.be/ktUXNePqxio

"The most passionate moment in any state of the union speech," observers say. The most applauded and memorable part of his speech. Will it offset the noise from people like Copperfield, Kepi, The Rani, Ragnarok, Justin, Galen and the rest of the folks here who make this out to be a libertarian and culture-wars issue? IT IS NOT. It is a public safety issue, pure and simple. It will be up to the people to mobilize behind our president on this critical issue, and get something done. The victims of the gun makers, the victims of the gun apologists like those here, and the victims of the NRA, deserve a vote. Bravo Mr. President!

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02...new-world-war/

Looks more to me like 2 cases of constitutional amnesia. The hell with the 2nd and 4th amendment. Way to go Eric! How many more amendments should we nuke just for the sake of convenience or misguided conscience guilt pain relief? After all, nuking the constitution is for all our safety and for the children. Papa bureaucrat is here to help.

Originally Posted by Galen

Only if you ignore the fact that the Constitution was to be a confederation of independent nations, rather than a consolidated government.

Well, that's actually not a fact. The Constitution as proposed eliminated any claim to sovereignty by the states. The powers reserved to the federal government included precisely those that are crucial to sovereignty: coining money, conducting foreign policy, making war. Also, and this was a big point raised by the anti-federalists, the language of the Preamble implies an intention to create a national government from the get-go, in that the Constitution is authorized by "We, the People" rather than by "We, the States."

Have you read any of the anti-federalist arguments? Some of them were kind of silly, but many of them were spot on. A lot of people with libertarian inclinations have read the Federalist Papers, but those need to be put in their proper context as propaganda aimed at refuting the anti-federalist attacks on the Constitution so as to help promote ratification. In many cases, although certainly not all or even most, those arguments by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison are disingenuous.

The whole point of the Federalist Papers was to convince people that they weren't creating an all-powerful consolidated government.

I realize that, but the attempt wasn't entirely honest. While I wouldn't characterize the U.S. government as "all-powerful," the language of the Constitution makes it pretty damned close. Many of the worries of the anti-federalists were well taken and history has proven them right.

The Bill of Rights is a direct consequence of demands made by Virginia in order to secure their ratification of the Constitution. The resulting amendments to the Constitution, which Virginia had a huge influence on and were in many cases patterned after similar rights in their state constitution, do not strike me as the result of totalitarian impulses.

I didn't say "totalitarian," I said "authoritarian." The South had, and at least as of the 1970s which was the last time I lived there, still did have a highly authoritarian culture. I imagine, although I can't prove this, that it arose out of slavery, since you must have something like a police state in order to keep large numbers of slaves in order.

Yes, they were guilty of slavery but then so were the northern states, so by that measure the New England states were equally totalitarian.

Only if they were "equally" dependent on slavery, which they weren't. Also, by that time in many cases you're wrong. The first government under the Constitution took office in 1789. Slavery was abolished in:

Vermont 1777
Pennsylvania 1780
Massachusetts 1783
New Hampshire 1783
Connecticut 1784
Rhode Island 1784
The United States Congress under the Articles of Confederation outlawed slavery in the NW Territories in 1787

And not long after the Constitution was ratified, showing that the movements to do this were active and growing before that:

New York 1799
New Jersey 1804
U.S. ban on importation of slaves 1807

By the time the Civil War broke out, most of the states that remained in the Union had abolished slavery, and as you can see, a lot of them did so before the Constitution even took effect.

This does not change the fact that the whole point of the revolution and the Constitution was to preserve the traditional rights of Englishmen.

Hmm. One might reasonably doubt this, in view of the fact that all of the legitimate complaints of the colonists were addressed and conceded by Sir William Howe in his attempt to reach a negotiated peace early in the war. The Revolution was driven mostly by rich planters and merchants, not by ordinary people. What they wanted was to get British colonial policy out of the way of their making more money.

The fact is, Britain was about as far from being a tyranny as any nation in Europe got at the time, and the American colonists were if anything better off than residents of the home islands.

This does not alter the fact that it was a denial of the right to keep an bear arms that made enslaving the black population possible.

Are you familiar with the armed slave uprisings that occurred from time to time in the 19th century? Obviously the denial of that right wasn't altogether successful. In some areas it wasn't even attempted; slaves had hunting guns to let them find their own food (in part, to stretch out the rations from the plantation). Anyway, you're right to the extent that the right to keep and bear arms envisioned in the 2nd Amendment wasn't extended to slaves. But that's kind of the point. The states maintained their own militias, and where slavery was strong the main purpose of those militias was to prevent slave revolts.

There's actually quite a bit in the original Constitution (pre-BOR) about the militia, notably as one of the powers delegated to Congress. One of the concerns about the document is that it gave excessive central control of the militia to the federal government. True, the States were allowed to appoint the officers, but Congress was authorized with training, disciplining, and especially arming the militia. Congress could in theory deprive a state of the power to defend itself by denying the militia arms. The 2A was meant to redress that potential problem. Also, if you look at the actions denied to the states, you find that no state is allowed to "engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Put those together and you find a centralization of the military even though it was envisioned as a militia system.

It is also a fact that the main use of the militia in the South in peacetime was to keep the slaves in line. Further, it's a fact that even by then, the national rift over slavery was already pretty wide. With most of the North having abolished slavery, the idea that a coalition of Northerners might act under the Constitution to disarm the Southern militias and make slavery untenable was not mere paranoia. By protecting a right to keep and bear arms in the context of a state militia, the 2A made any such action unconstitutional.

I notice that like him you are ignoring the rather large body counts that governments have racked up against their own unarmed populations.

Yeah, well, I'm also ignoring the weather over Kuala Lumpur last Friday, and anything else that's completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion, even when invoked to push hot buttons and drop everyone's IQ points as much as possible.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02...new-world-war/

Looks more to me like 2 cases of constitutional amnesia. The hell with the 2nd and 4th amendment. Way to go Eric! How many more amendments should we nuke just for the sake of convenience or misguided conscience guilt pain relief? After all, nuking the constitution is for all our safety and for the children. Papa bureaucrat is here to help.

Nice try papa, but public safety is a bit more than guilt pain relief (well actually, guilt pain relief has nothing to do with it, nor does convenience, but who's counting?) And speaking of counting, where did you get the 4th amendment? And since I'm supporting Obama's proposals, and he's not for repeal of the 2nd, you can't count that either. Sorry papa rags, you struck out. Your perception of the gun issue is on the same level as your perception of you know who.

Originally Posted by Galen

It was a stupid source that ignored the antecedents in English culture that went back to the middle ages and predated the colonies and slavery by several centuries.

I forgot to recall some of the really-stupid sources. A website that suggests that the Holocaust is a hoax would be a 'stupid' source. Objective reality is not to be denied.

That said, slave-holding interests made sophisticated arguments on behalf of a nasty order of subjection. They knew enough to use code-words. They could even define slavery as a form of freedom and beneficence toward people incompetent to take care of themselves.

People who choose stupid sources that ignore basic history such as the origins of the right to keep and bear arms are idiots. Ignoring what governments have done to their own unarmed populations is the ultimate in idiocy. The body counts due to government action have been several orders of magnitude higher than anything any number of random lunatics managed over the same time period. At this point the only defense Eric the Obtuse has is to say that it can't happen here.

I have read Rummel's site on democide -- and the cause is not so much that there are no weapons but instead that some people have the weapons and others are stripped of every possible defense. The Jews of Hitlerland were always unarmed, but:

1. They had no right to access to the powerful media. The best retort to antisemitic bilge is to show such stuff as contrary to Jewish teachings. But Jews were denied access to radio and newspapers as contributors. Thus such bilge as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and of course the publications of the vile Julius Streicher could not be contested.

2. Jews were economically ruined at every turn and regulated in their behavior so that their options eventually became either suicidal resistance or a hope that if they complied adequately they would get to outlast the regime. Escape was possible only for those Jews who had huge assets turning them over to their tormentors. By 1942 they could be herded around like livestock.

3. The Germans were kept from knowing about the ultimate fate of the Jews. The Hitler regime had already started to snuff out the lives of the disabled, feeble-minded, and insane only to find that the Christian churches exposed and condemned such killings. Hitler knew that he could not get away with mass-killings in Germany itself. So he got the Jews out of the view of most Germans -- in occupied Poland, where the Poles could do nothing to stop the killing because they were threatened. "See that chimney? If you tell anyone about what that acrid smoke is, we will do to you what we do to the Jews who become that smoke!"

4. Nazi Germany, above all else, was no democracy. The Nazis allowed no political opposition of any kind. Although the Hitler government began as a coalition of Nazis and traditional conservatives, Hitler slowly squeezed out his partners until he had only his men in full charge (the process being completed only in 1938). Blind obedience was expected. Nazi Germany had no semblance of free speech, freedom of the press, or academic freedom. Defendants in criminal cases endured the presumption of guilt, and trials usually resulted in long prison terms (effectively death sentences if they involved hard labor). People were forbidden to listen to foreign broadcasts. Books that offended Nazi sensibilities were removed from libraries and destroyed. Police agencies could do anything to anyone. The appellate process completely disappeared. Although people could own property they could lose it at any moment if the State chose to confiscate it. But at that Germany had relatively lenient laws on firearm possession so long as one was not a pariah. Death sentences were common for any act of political insubordination.

Back when Nixon was president I have no doubt that both you and Eric the Obtuse were complaining about Nixon tapping a few phone and covering up a break in by his operatives. Yet you are strangely silent when the current occupant of the White House is running, for all practical purposes, a death squad. I can only conclude that you find it perfectly acceptable for the President to act as judge, jury and executioner when the president is your guy. Treason and its penalty is defined in the Constitution but nowhere does it specify that the usual rights to due process are to be denied and nowhere does it allow for what amounts to a death squad. The closest thing it does allow for is letters of marque and reprisal which a power specifically given to Congress not the President.

Nixon is irrelevant to this. America is at war with people who intend to cause mass death to Americans, and anyone connected to groups so dedicated, irrespective of citizenship, faces the worst. In a perfect world, Osama bin Laden would have been arrested and brought to New York City for trial... but that of course was not going to happen. As for Awlaki and Gadahn -- they made some horrible choices.

Given the current behavior of recent Presidents, saying that it can't happen here is also a supreme act of idiocy consistent with the willful ignorance that I have come to expect from Eric the Obtuse and his fellow travelers.

I was much more scared with Dubya as President.

Ask yourself this, Galen -- if we quit discussing concealed-carry (which really does deter violent crime), then do you have a problem with background checks with fewer loopholes? A ban on assault weapons and massacre clips?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I was much more scared with Dubya as President.

Like I said. As long as its your guy doing these kinds of things, you find it perfectly acceptable.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Ask yourself this, Galen -- if we quit discussing concealed-carry (which really does deter violent crime), then do you have a problem with background checks with fewer loopholes? A ban on assault weapons and massacre clips?

The proposed new check seem to me more aimed at creating a backdoor form of registration which as I have pointed out before will lead to confiscation. It will also do nothing to stop the real criminals from obtaining firearms anymore than the last forty years of the War on Drugs has stopped anyone from obtaining what they want.

As for the large capacity magazines since people are already using 3-D printing to manufacture them it should be obvious that this ban will be equally pointless. Now that we have what appears to be a massive act of civil disobedience underway in New York, the state has a choice of trying to imprison all of these people or doing what Canada ultimately did and give up.

Banning the rifles will also be equally pointless soon for much the same reason. You are assuming that they will be given up which given what is happening in New York is an over-optimistic assumption.

The rifles and magazines you dislike are quite useful for self-defense as the Korean store owners found out in 1992. Come to think of it handguns with greater than ten rounds turned out to be really useful. The LAPD simply ran away as I recall where the business owners who weren't looted or burned out were the ones that were shooting the rioters which is clearly an act of self-defense.

Then there is the small matter of government sanctioned violence. As a practical matter police are rarely punished in any meaningful manner, so calling them for any reason is probably not a good idea.

Your attitude about the kill list reminds me so much of the Cold Warriors of the GI Generation I encountered when I was young. It is odd how so many Boomers have become what they hated so long ago.

Originally Posted by Galen

The proposed new check seem to me more aimed at creating a backdoor form of registration which as I have pointed out before will lead to confiscation. It will also do nothing to stop the real criminals from obtaining firearms anymore than the last forty years of the War on Drugs has stopped anyone from obtaining what they want.

If anything it is more a registration of persons who try to get weapons but are prohibited from owning them. Offenders have no presumption of any right of privacy.

As for the large capacity magazines since people are already using 3-D printing to manufacture them it should be obvious that this ban will be equally pointless. Now that we have what appears to be a massive act of civil disobedience underway in New York, the state has a choice of trying to imprison all of these people or doing what Canada ultimately did and give up.

Who in good conscience could supply the plans for such massacre clips? Someone who does would get civil liability for such a clip used in a horrible crime. Know well that legal settlements for one massacre could easily dwarf any profits from an entity that offers the plans.

Banning the rifles will also be equally pointless soon for much the same reason. You are assuming that they will be given up which given what is happening in New York is an over-optimistic assumption.

Slippery slope argument. Really, the Second Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with an Amendment that includes a non-discrimination clause, a prohibition against transferring firearms across state lines contrary to the laws of the state, and the prohibition of an outright ban on a general outlawry of firearms. If there is or was any question of whether the Amendment was intended to protect slavery then any language to that effect must be repudiated.

The rifles and magazines you dislike are quite useful for self-defense as the Korean store owners found out in 1992. Come to think of it handguns with greater than ten rounds turned out to be really useful. The LAPD simply ran away as I recall where the business owners who weren't looted or burned out were the ones that were shooting the rioters which is clearly an act of self-defense.

This is two decades later. Race riots are rare -- but gang wars are frequent and deadly.

Then there is the small matter of government sanctioned violence. As a practical matter police are rarely punished in any meaningful manner, so calling them for any reason is probably not a good idea.

Your attitude about the kill list reminds me so much of the Cold Warriors of the GI Generation I encountered when I was young. It is odd how so many Boomers have become what they hated so long ago.

Generation gap? I had none except on culture. Why did GIs have to listen to such awful music, the so-called "easy-listening" schlock?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Who in good conscience could supply the plans for such massacre clips? Someone who does would get civil liability for such a clip used in a horrible crime. Know well that legal settlements for one massacre could easily dwarf any profits from an entity that offers the plans.

*Raises hand*

I would be more than happy to supply plans to produce 30 round AR-15 magazines (I don't know these "massacre clips" of which you speak) using 3D printers. Your whole notion of "profiting" from the venture however displays that you don't have the slightest fucking clue as to the purposes of 3D printing. No surprise there as you older folks often lack the ability to grasp new concepts. No, any schematics I might have along those lines would be disseminated free of charge, the same way I receive them. You see there is this thing called the internet and (I know this is some wild shit man) this internet allows people to share data freely and anonymously. Good luck applying your silly civil liability laws to everyone with the capability to produce their own widgets and wares.

Welcome to the 21st century bro. I'm sure it's a terrifying experience for the obsolete.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Welcome to the 21st century bro. I'm sure it's a terrifying experience for the obsolete.

Guns, war and violence are obsolete. Those who believe in them are old fashioned and dangerous.

(well, except for those under law and government, of course. That's democratic and progressive government )

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

(well, except for those under law and government, of course. That's democratic and progressive government )

And so long as there are people on earth who believe this very thing, guns, war and violence will never be obsolete.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Guns, war and violence are obsolete. Those who believe in them are old fashioned and dangerous.

(well, except for those under law and government, of course. That's democratic and progressive government )

For an older dude, you sure come across as a person who is still very young and idealistic and very niave.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Guns, war and violence are obsolete. Those who believe in them are old fashioned and dangerous.

(well, except for those under law and government, of course. That's democratic and progressive government )

Humans are of the predatory animal type. Perhaps Eric can cast woo-woo to exorcise that evolutionary inner demon.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

For an older dude, you sure come across as a person who is still very young and idealistic and very niave.

Eric the Obtuse is a particularly clueless example of the Boomer idealism that was very common when I was a child. Truth is that while most of them grew out of this new age nonsense after a fashion, they never quite lost the oblivious megalomania of which Eric the Obtuse is such an extreme example. Imagine large numbers of them trying to bend the world to their will and it is quite easy to see how they managed to fuck everything up so thoroughly.