Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I thought that was bleeding obvious, unless you have a large canon in front of your head.

While my Webster's Third does give canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people "One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or "A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...

And the precedent set by the acknowledgement (it isn't a granting -- read the text and you'll see that the right to keep and bear arms inheres in one's condition as a human being is assumed) that free humans should have killing tools at their private disposal, that private persons should be equipped comparably to the best armies of the time, is a very strong one.

It's all the stronger in that this is the one known remedy to genocides; the state is no bulwark against this kind of mass crime as it takes the state to enable it -- one state may punish another for having done it, but that's too late to prevent it or cure it. No state has successfully impeded a genocide in another state.

If you oppose death penalties, presumably by deeming them too likely to be wrongful, you'd oppose death as a penalty for being in an unpopular group, too. Thereby, you'd be interested in the known means of preventing that.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

While my Webster's Third does give canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people "One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or "A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...

If you play Pachabel's Canon loud enough and long enough, it's really pretty effective, although I really prefer Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance for really deadly boring action.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by wolf

If you play Pachabel's Canon loud enough and long enough, it's really pretty effective, although I really prefer Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance for really deadly boring action.

[Hippikos]

How broad is the right of the 2nd Amendment ( "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.")? 1791 Muskets? Or rocket launchers? Or somewhere between?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
They then wrote the "Bill of Rights" to spell out the protections of the people from the government. They were written as amendments 1 through 10, so they would never be separated from the Constitution.... so the government couldn't just cast them aside.

Very good, that's the first half of the equation. The second half entails the inalienable rights, predominantly LIFE, from which the concept of proportionality extends to protect the citizenry. The reasonable man principle is applied to determine what weapons may be owned by individuals to protect their own lives. The reasonable man's perspective being established through the Legislature and Judiciary with Executive branch enforcement. It is a continuing process just as is the Constitution a living document.

We have Armed Forces, National Guard, and Police organizations at many levels which negate the need for Joe Citizen to maintain private ownership of WMD and many other weapons of war. The government; however, does NOT provide personal bodyguards for each and every one of its citizens (to negate the need for personal arms of any sort) and probably never will as it would create an invasion of privacy situation [prohibited by the Constitution]. Even if privacy concerns were not a factor, would anyone else assigned to protect your life do so with the same dedication you have to saving your own life? Society has both collective personal security tasks and individual personal security tasks. Joe Citizen is still responsible for taking care of himself in his everyday walk of life. Those who choose not to do so have that right; but, they do not have the right to impose that choice on anyone else and it can't be done through due process without first rescinding other parts of the Constitution which would change the fabric of this nation.

At this point in our cultural and technological development, firearms are still the great equalizer between weak and strong, old and young, poor and rich ... etc. Many other forms of equalization (i.e. justice) are reactive in nature rather than proactive thus diminishing the individual's right to life. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and those who would deprive all citizens of the right to bear arms in any form are the weakest links in our society AT THIS TIME. Perhaps someday, we will become culturally and technologically advanced enough that individually owned weapons will not be necessary to secure our persons. Until then, ALL are invited to read the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations with particular attention to Article 3. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."; also, Article 30. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Because so few here get the big picture and so few here are men or women of vision, I generally don't get involved in these tunnel vision discussions. The timing was right to make an exception. Now I'm going back to Nothingland: as I've said before "I'm only here for the entertainment".

Aren't I a stinker?! :p

[Hippikos]

Thank you NoBoxes for taking the time to decline from Nowhere and share you immense wisdom with us mortals.

If you're still around:

If this great equalizer (Lott?) works so well in the US, do you think it would work also in Europe? Would we have even less crime? Would every woman, homeless person need to buy a concealed gun in order to defend himself against the (very slim) chance being harassed?

Are for instance Iran and NKorea allowed to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves?

[Hippikos]

A man who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

A statewide manhunt ensued.

The gunman was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit him 68 times. Asked why they shot him 68 times, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel...:

“That's all the bullets we had.”

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

A man who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida...

Hardly plausible that seven shots were fired *after* the close range headshot. The headshot was probably coupe de grace last shot to make sure the deputy would not be able to identify the shooter. Not what is ordinarily meant by "an execution", but it makes better news copy.

Human emotion can be a funny thing; I suspect the cops emptied their guns into this guy because he shot the dog. Somehow that was seen as more venial than shooting the cop.

[Trilby]

[QUOTE/Hippikos]A man who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

A statewide manhunt ensued.

The gunman was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit him 68 times. Asked why they shot him 68 times, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel...:

“That's all the bullets we had.”[quote]

That's a pretty cool story.

[Undertoad]

Guns do work to curb government power B. Whatever law they pass still requires an agent of the government to enforce it. That means somebody is put in mortal danger. That in turn explains why the IRS does almost all its business via the US Mail.

I brought up alcohol prohibition earlier, "revenuers" who got their ass shot full of buckshot and the backyard distillers who would load up without fear, were part of the equation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Guns do work to curb government power B. Whatever law they pass still requires an agent of the government to enforce it. That means somebody is put in mortal danger. That in turn explains why the IRS does almost all its business via the US Mail.

I brought up alcohol prohibition earlier, "revenuers" who got their ass shot full of buckshot and the backyard distillers who would load up without fear, were part of the equation.

Those days are long gone, wounded knee, Ruby ridge, Waco.
If you run afoul of one of their laws, most likely your contact will be with a local police officer. If he leaves with a load of buckshot in his ass, they will come down on you in biblical proportion. You will not win.
They have the power to send an "army" without even going outside the County for help.
If your buddy joins you, a State will join them.
If two buddies join you, the Federal Government will join them.

No, staying on top of the politicians is the only shot at preventing onerous laws making your life miserable.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Those days are long gone, wounded knee, Ruby ridge, Waco.

Not necessarily.

Like at the ballot box, a few isolated individuals don't mean much, but collectively, the more the merrier...so to speak. Especially when the boys in blue have a lot of shared values with the general population.

Thats a scary Apache photo you have there. Two words: posse commitatus.

[yesman065]

Well written Bruce - as usual, much better than I did in about 20 attempts.

[Hippikos]

While my Webster's Third does give canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people "One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or "A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...

Well UG, I'm deeply sorry for my spelling faults, English not being my native tongue I'm afraid that can happen. Of course I can response in Dutch, Deutsch or Francais, but I'm afraid you won't be able to follow that, so excuse my past, present and future grammar and syntax errors. Maybe you want me to add a disclaimer the next time?

If you play Pachabel's Canon loud enough and long enough, it's really pretty effective, although I really prefer Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance for really deadly boring action.

Crying Wolf again?

[yesman065]

Regarding spelling and grammatical mistakes, I have some type of web spellcheck at home, but not at work, so they do seem to slip through when I'm on there - no biggie. I got your point.