On personal liberties

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On personal liberties

The irony is, Cleopatra is anti-gun and favors the control and/or complete ban of guns, but here she is saying we need to RESIST police state policies and stand up for our rights. Let me guess Cleo, we need to RESIST and stand up for our rights (but only the ones you agree with). Sorry if I am skeptical.

Come-on Tony you can do better than that!!!!

 

[MoeFaux]

I'd say there is a doubt about that, because in that case also the terrorists could have been carrying guns on the planes. I (or anyone else) can't say for certain what would have happened then. It might be that passangers would have shot the terrorists. Or it might be that the terrorists having an element of surprise could have intimidated everyone to stay put.

Think of what weapons you and your friends may own.
Do you own a pocketknife? Maybe one of your female friends owns some mace or even a stun gun. Someone you know probably owns a gun.
I often cary a knife. Most folks have SOMETHING on them. Maybe not everyone packs heat, but a lot of people have a cherised swiss army knife.
Now, if you were allowing to just take what you usually had on you onto a plane, there would be a lot of mace, a lot of pocket knives, several stun guns, and yes, some guns.
If a terrorist were to decide to hijack a plane, they would first have to look at EVERY person on the flight. See that old granny over there? Boy, she looks fierce with those knitting needles. The big girl with the short hair and no make-up looks like she hates men, maybe she's got the stun gun. What about that biker looking guy with the big grey beard and leather jacket in the POW & MIA hat? He might have a gun.
A terrorist would have to look at every person and decide who is thier threat. And the second he whips a gun out, that old granny takes out her pearl handled revolver and shoots him.

The situation now is, when a terrorist decides to hijack a plane, there's NOTHING stopping him.

 

[Cleopatra]

Cleo, when someone says that they need a gun to protect their freedom, they're usually saying that figuratively. Tony (I'm assuming here, I haven't seen the original statement by him) isn't going to go shooting people who infringe on his personal liberties.

Tony and others have been lecturing us for weeks about this issue and they were deadly serious. We are talking about endless lectures in which he pointed to us that the Founding Fathers gave you this right in order to protect the citizens from the politicans that would attempt to abuse citizens' freedoms.

MoeFaux, keep your gun and your rights. Relax, none will take your gun!!! Once you have a gun your problems are resolved.I am the last person that will spoil the pleasure you find in playing the cop

I think that the Founding Fathers would want you to use your gun to protect the man who wrote fiction about child molestation.They would be proud of you if you did.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On personal liberties

Come-on Tony you can do better than that!!!!

Nice dodge.

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On personal liberties

Nice dodge.

I am sorry Tony, for one more time your theories collapsed.

If you suggested that you are pro-guns because you are afraid of rapists as Moe Faux did, I wouldn't be that harsh but when you insist that you need the guns to protect your political freedom then you must enjoy the party

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On personal liberties

I am sorry Tony, for one more time your theories collapsed.

You havent even addressed what I said. You continue to dodge.

If you suggested that you are pro-guns because you are afraid of rapists as Moe Faux did, I wouldn't be that harsh but when you insist that you need the guns to protect your political freedom then you must enjoy the party


Im "pro-gun" for both reasons stated.

 

[LW]

Do you own a pocketknife?

Yup. And I carry one with me almost always. I also sometimes carry my set of twin-knives (one 12 cm and one 18 cm blade in a combined sheath) in my backbag.

However, if someone came and threatened me with a gun I definitely would not try to use the knives for my self-protection. The guy with the gun could shoot me dead several times over before I got a knife ready.

Maybe one of your female friends owns some mace or even a stun gun.

Probably not as they are not particularly legal here (I don't know the details of legislation).

Someone you know probably owns a gun.

The only cases that I know for certain are two hunting rifles. One friend of my brother had once a licence to carry a handgun but I don't know if he still has it (or if he ever had a gun, I'm certain only of the licence).

If a terrorist were to decide to hijack a plane, they would first have to look at EVERY person on the flight.

No. They would have to disperse over the plane, and then by common signal draw their guns at the sime time and shout: "The next person who moves dies!" and then kill the next person who moves.

After this all bets are off.

In general, people don't want to make overtly self-destructive moves. It is not easy to make an offensive move when it may result in immediate death. Luckily, I've never been in a situation where I would have had to make the decision. I don't know whether I would be brave enough to risk my life if inaction seemed to offer better changes to survive.

Remember that the 9/11 attacks were the first case when hijackers deliberately crashed the planes. Before that hijackers generally flew to some airport, issued demands to authorities, were surrounded by police and special forces, and gave up after several hours (or days) of negotiations. Or alternatively special forces stormed the plane killing hijackers. In both cases inaction was a survival strategy that probably offered better changes than trying to resist the hijackers.

I reiterate, we can't know what would have happened in those planes if there had been guns aboard. It is possible that the passangers would have resisted, true, but it is also possible that they wouldn't. If the terrorists had managed to gain control of the situation they could have closed all windows of the plane so that no passanger would have known that they were flying low over New York heading towards WTC.

 

[Suddenly]

Think of what weapons you and your friends may own.
Do you own a pocketknife? Maybe one of your female friends owns some mace or even a stun gun. Someone you know probably owns a gun.
I often cary a knife. Most folks have SOMETHING on them. Maybe not everyone packs heat, but a lot of people have a cherised swiss army knife.
Now, if you were allowing to just take what you usually had on you onto a plane, there would be a lot of mace, a lot of pocket knives, several stun guns, and yes, some guns.
If a terrorist were to decide to hijack a plane, they would first have to look at EVERY person on the flight. See that old granny over there? Boy, she looks fierce with those knitting needles. The big girl with the short hair and no make-up looks like she hates men, maybe she's got the stun gun. What about that biker looking guy with the big grey beard and leather jacket in the POW & MIA hat? He might have a gun.
A terrorist would have to look at every person and decide who is thier threat. And the second he whips a gun out, that old granny takes out her pearl handled revolver and shoots him.

The situation now is, when a terrorist decides to hijack a plane, there's NOTHING stopping him.

But if the passengers have guns, so will the hijacker, unless he's an idiot. Seven or eight guys suddenly jump up and shoot a few passengers for effect. Then they order everyone to put their hands in the air and shoot anyone that doesn't. They then disarm the passengers and take care of the captain and crew. Maybe they then shoot the passengers anyway. Odds are they can easily take control of the plane due to firepower and suprise. By the time the passengers realize they should shoot they are either dead or at a disadvantage.

Now if nobody had a gun the passengers could possibly rise up en masse and attack the hijackers....

Not to mention the possiblity of just putting a single person on an airliner who starts shooting out windows at altitude....


I would agree that guns being common would put a damper on property crime, but I'd bet that there is an increase in violent crime and murder. A criminal has two options if he thinks a victim has a gun, either pass on the victim or remove the threat (shoot first or blunt object to the head). If the criminal is about to go into withdrawl or has a loan shark threatening his family, guess which he will pick?

 

[MoeFaux]

Yup. And I carry one with me almost always. I also sometimes carry my set of twin-knives (one 12 cm and one 18 cm blade in a combined sheath) in my backbag.

However, if someone came and threatened me with a gun I definitely would not try to use the knives for my self-protection. The guy with the gun could shoot me dead several times over before I got a knife ready.
.

That's probably wise. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
My point, however, was that no one would know who was carrying what.

There's a lot of people who would fight to the death, I being one of them. Even the folks with NO WEAPONS on one of the planes fought back. Imagine what strength one could have fighting agains terrorists with even a stun gun? People will always fight back. Have you even watched an ant fight for it's life? It always keeps trying to get away, even if it's adversary is someone he has no chance against. Some folks just don't sit around waiting to die.

 

[MoeFaux]

Re: Re: On personal liberties

I'm on your side, MoeFaux, just wanted to correct an inaccuracy

Thanks for the correction, I'm glad someone was paying attention.

 

[bignickel]

When anti-biotics are outlawed, only criminals will be healthy.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

OK, one more.

When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."

 

[LW]

Even the folks with NO WEAPONS on one of the planes fought back.

After they heard that they would die in any case if they couldn't stop terrorists.

People will always fight back.

I would suggest you to read some military history before stating that as a certainty. The cases where a military force fights to the last man are vastly outnumbered by the cases where they either flee (risking death while incapable of fighting back) or surrender (even if the other side is known for mistreating prisoners).

 

[shanek]

Your guns give you the ILLUSION of security. Like a nuclear deterrent, they are useless if you ever have to use them against the authorities. Where do you think your freedom would be ten minutes later? Laying on the ground dead along with you.

"[T]he arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men rather than to live slaves." —Thomas Jefferson and John Dickenson, Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775

 

[Sundog]

"[T]he arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men rather than to live slaves." —Thomas Jefferson and John Dickenson, Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone please explain to me why it isn't simpler and just a BIT more practical to simply vote the b*st*rds out of office?

 

[shanek]

But if the passengers have guns, so will the hijacker, unless he's an idiot. Seven or eight guys suddenly jump up and shoot a few passengers for effect. Then they order everyone to put their hands in the air and shoot anyone that doesn't. They then disarm the passengers and take care of the captain and crew. Maybe they then shoot the passengers anyway. Odds are they can easily take control of the plane due to firepower and suprise. By the time the passengers realize they should shoot they are either dead or at a disadvantage.

Why was this never the case before 1973, when anyone who wanted to could bring a gun onboard a plane?

Not to mention the possiblity of just putting a single person on an airliner who starts shooting out windows at altitude....

Yes, because we all know it works exactly like it does in the movies...

Educate yourself.

 

[shanek]

After they heard that they would die in any case if they couldn't stop terrorists.

And after the preceding inaction which only resulted after being told by the authorities that doing nothing was the best course of action in a hijacking.

 

[shanek]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone please explain to me why it isn't simpler and just a BIT more practical to simply vote the b*st*rds out of office?

Because you have to wait four years to do that. Besides, it's not effective if they decide to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution.

Three stages, remember: Ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. You resort to the cartridge box after the ballot and jury boxes fail you.

 

[Grammatron]

Your guns give you the ILLUSION of security. Like a nuclear deterrent, they are useless if you ever have to use them against the authorities. Where do you think your freedom would be ten minutes later? Laying on the ground dead along with you.

A person is a fool if they think a gun will leave them completely safe. However, you can't be more wrong if you label a gun an " ILLUSION of security." Let me ask you, is a door illusion of security, is a lock? You do nothing to protect your property because any effort is an illusion to you?

No one will ever be 100% safe, but you can get really close to 100% if you take some logical steps.

 

[Cleopatra]

Three stages, remember: Ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. You resort to the cartridge box after the ballot and jury boxes fail you.

So, the ballot and the jury boxes haven't failed you so far.... If you resort to the catridge box after the ballot and the jury boxes that is called Junda.

 

[Sundog]

A person is a fool if they think a gun will leave them completely safe. However, you can't be more wrong if you label a gun an " ILLUSION of security." Let me ask you, is a door illusion of security, is a lock? You do nothing to protect your property because any effort is an illusion to you?

No one will ever be 100% safe, but you can get really close to 100% if you take some logical steps.

Let's separate the home-intrusion, shoot-burgler scenario from the Gestapo-stormtrooper scenario. If you have guns to protect yourself from an overreaching government, you will achieve exactly the same end result by "protecting" yourself with poisoned koolaid.