VA. Tech-- a PC liberal/rightwing joint venture?

[Trifecta]

All my life I have been anti guns, but hey I am a limmey.

Until I started looking at the bigger picture and came to the conclusion that every US citizen should keep there guns, as the predator is closing in fast. You don't have a militia without em, and you no longer have a constition and the revolutionary gene had been manipulated out of all of us. apathy, TV, newspeak has effectively turned us into drones.

Of course the advice to bury your gun is of no good. If they enact a ban and you are listed as an owner, you will be visitied and the "Oh, yes, urm well, I seem to have lost it" exuse will not wash, cuse sure is eggs is eggs you will be in the gulag quicker than the bee die off.

Imagine how draconian the enforcement of this law will be. And how the black market will benefit the same old crooks.

In the Uk we have had a stream of violent knife attacks on youths (mainly Black people) this followed a number of knife amnestys over the years... seems to me the same thing is happening here with different weaponry. And the black market in guns grows by the day.

catch 22 anyone?

[orz]

Until I started looking at the bigger picture and came to the conclusion that every US citizen should keep there guns, as the predator is closing in fast. You don't have a militia without em,

Yes but I think they've kind of passed the point which guns would help in this respect... It's not like there are currently a load of true millitias ready to protect the people against the government, and clearly such groups aren't going to be formed now.

[yathrib]

A few people here are making some good args I agree with. I'm a little

yathrib (on edit)--

"Guns as a panacea" is a straw man. What is really illogical is the idea that people wearing blue hats have magical moral superiority. Whatever rights they have...I should have.

No, this is the way gun nuts think. I've known a few, and grew up around a whole bunch of 'em. Everything is about them and their guns. Freedom? That means freedom to have lots of guns. Never mind all those other pesky things in the Bill of Rights.

On a related note: Many moons ago I taught a women's self defense course, and the manual I was using made the point that assailants using weapons (not just guns, to be fair) were actually fairly easy to disarm and defeat because everything was about their weapons, and they tended to ignore/fail to protect vulnerable parts of their bodies, etc. Of course I didn't teach the students to attempt that, at least in regard to guns. I told them to make a lot of noise and not cooperate, also a surprisingly effective strategy.

As for the guys in the blue hats, *that's* the signifyin' straw man argument. No one is saying don't defend yourself, certainly not me. I don't even feel that strongly about gun control, although my ideal society would certainly be too gun controlled for gun nuts like you. I guess I have an emotional reaction against the whole macho gun nut mentality.

[rothbardian]

yathrib--

I'm not a gun nut. A 'principle nut' maybe. And I know of no serious, thinking, freedom-loving person who views guns as a so-called panacea so...I don't know what to tell you. I have stuck to my point that there is no justification for one group of people having certain rights (the Blue Hats i.e. law officers) and others to NOT have the same rights of self-defense.

Arguing for something that would result in having my right to self-defense taken away from me is unconscionable. My right to self-defense is not negotiable. Currently, there is a virtual gun ban. There are so many restrictions, there are so few scenarios where we would be allowed to defend ourselves with deadly force...that the net effect is a total gun ban.

You stated at one point-- "No one is saying don't defend yourself, certainly not me." If you really mean that, then I'm not sure what we're even debating. My only point has been that we should all have the right to defend ourselves. Again, I've seen a lot of people setting up all kinds of bogeyman/straw man arguments here...and then having strong disagreement with those straw men.. Meanwhile I have nothing to do with any of it.

If every citizen were routinely allowed to carry self-defense measures with them...AND there weren't the ridiculous restrictions that currently exist as to when you are allowed to use it....those 33 kids would still be alive. Political correctness murdered those kids. Liberals have been the driving force behind this and, I think, need to take the responsibility for that part of it.

Trifecta--

Amen to everything you said. I had read that before...how knife violence has skyrocketed in Great Britain. It's the old saying "...people kill people."

Orz--

You stated "I think they've kind of passed the point which guns would help in this respect". I keep hearing this from people. You have to ask yourself then...why the W. Bush and Tony Blair governments are so intent on taking away everybody's guns. Why has there been such a huge driving force?

At this point, it's not about their concern that there might be a successful guerrilla uprising. These people want everyone to be utterly powerless so that they can maximize control. It's a straw man to say that everyone who insists on their right to self-defense has dreams of a paramilitary coup.

I have been considering gun ownership since coming to the increasing realization that these crazy psychopaths in American government have very serious intentions of subjecting the American people to increasing chaos and mayhem. Hurricane Katrina is an example. Chaos and mayhem are the allies of corrupt, power-hungry totalitarian wannabes. It is their way of gaining increasing control. If VA Tech is a false flag op (which it appears to be) ...then we're looking at the most recent chapter.

erosoplier--

I appreciate your sentiments. You're wishing for a world that does not yet exist. For what it's worth, I believe the world WILL be like that some day...but that's another subject.

I completely agree with you that the world would be better off without guns...keeping in mind though, a "world without guns" is the furthest thing from a panacea. See Trifecta's earlier comments about soaring knife violence. Wars would not cease if there were no guns. (Only 'power monopolies' can sustain wars, by the way.)

You stated-- "I don't want anyone in particular to be the first to give up their guns". Again there is this irony I noted with "yathrib"-- If you really mean that then...I don't quite understand what we are debating. I am arguing against those who have effectively removed my right to self-defense...and the "PC liberal" juggernaut has accomplished precisely that, in America and Great Britain. If you would like to distance yourself from those who have ripped off my freedoms...you are my philosophical ally.

I guess I also don't understand why you dream of ridding the world of guns...and yet quickly concede the 'reality' of power monopolies "for the foreseeable future". It would seem literally impossible to remove the weapons technology from the face of the earth. Once the knowledge exists, it exists.

You CAN, however, disband power monopolies. It might be a long shot. But it has been done, over and over throughout the world, albeit mostly by other power monopolists who then take over. Liberia has had it's power monopolies toppled, over and over. The US was begun in this manner.

If we could get the 9/11 'truth movement to break out into the open (via celebs and other VIPs who courageously step forward) and if we could pull the plug on the false 'truth movements' that are waiting in the shadows in case it DOES break wide open...there is some chance of unraveling the establishment power monopoly.

Of course, this then broaches the gigantic subject of "freedom from all power monopolies"...something libertarians love to talk about. For now I'll say this---we don't need power monopolies. That do no good. Power corrupts etc. I'd rather take my chances with the Hell's Angels coming into my town, than with Bush and Blair and their multi-trillion dollar world-domination military machine.

If the Hell's Angels were lumbering into my town and they knew that I and all of my neighbors were very adequately 'weaponized'...the Hell's Angels would go into another business (maybe Amway?). As the saying goes-- "A gun-toting society is a polite society." Just look at Switzerland.

We don't need power monopolies. The last thing the world needs is a power monopoly. Obama, Clinton, and the whole bunch of them need to go and get a 'real job' and stop with this bizarre presumption of presiding over other people's lives.

[nomo]

If VA Tech is a false flag op (which it appears to be)

Oh man. Are there no incidents in that particular kind of world view that are NOT false flag ops? Does there have to be some deep parapolitical motive behind EVERY major headline? Is it really that impossible to fathom that this tragedy was just an "op" (or whatever the opposite of "false flag" is), in other words, a depressed lonely suicidal individual breaking down and going on a rampage?

[yathrib]

As much as I hate to agree with Rothbardian on anything, I think there's little question that this is a false flag op, or at least a false flag op gone wrong. There is just so much weirdness here.

[Sweejak]

... anti-gun proponents in Australia seem to have this remarkable psychic skill.

http://100777.com/node/185

[professorpan]

Currently, there is a virtual gun ban.

Examples, please? I live in Maryland, USA, and I could drive to a gun store and pay for a gun this very minute. That is a *far* cry from a "gun ban." That's utter hyperbole, at least in most parts of the U.S.

If every citizen were routinely allowed to carry self-defense measures with them...AND there weren't the ridiculous restrictions that currently exist as to when you are allowed to use it....those 33 kids would still be alive. Political correctness murdered those kids. Liberals have been the driving force behind this and, I think, need to take the responsibility for that part of it.

Nonsense. Even in places where people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, few choose to do so. There's no guarantee ANY of those students or teachers would have been packing heat, even if allowed by law to do so. Many of us choose to forgo carrying around a deadly weapon on our persons, even where it's allowable.

why the W. Bush and Tony Blair governments are so intent on taking away everybody's guns. Why has there been such a huge driving force?

More absurd hyperbole. Show me where George W. Bush has shown the intent to "take away everyone's guns." That's utter nonsense.

If VA Tech is a false flag op (which it appears to be) ..

In your mind, perhaps. I see no evidence, only speculation.

And I keep hearing from guns-for-all types that the "liberals" are winning the crusade to take away people's guns. That's bullshit. If anything, the idea that people everywhere should be able to pack concealed heat is getting lots of play in the wake of the VTECH atrocity -- at least as much as the gun-control arguments. Both sides are, as expected, having a field day.

I live in a city (Baltimore) that has roughly 600k residents. Last year, there were over 300 gun-related homicides. Almost all of them were black-on-black murders. Most were drug-trade related. Very few of them, if any, would have been stopped by allowing citizens of the city to carry concealed weapons -- I'm pretty sure there would be *more* deaths if it was considered acceptable to carry around a hidden handgun and more people chose to do so.

The gun lobby and its minions are always crying about liberals taking away their guns -- show me concrete examples of how your rights to own guns are being stripped away. And no, restrictions or licensing is *not* "taking away" your guns.

[IanEye]

No one seems to be coming at this from an angle that is obvious to me.

Let’s say my sister was at that VT campus the day Cho killed all of those kids. Now let’s say that Cho in fact killed my sister and Cho was actually taken alive. As it turns out Cho has [as killers often do] a rationale as to why he needed to kill as many people as he did and if we would only listen to his rationale we might understand him better. Guess what? I have no interest in Cho’s rationale, I only know he has killed a beloved family member of mine and I want to teach him a serious lesson in pain.

Now let’s run through this scenario again Rothbardian, only inject you and your gun into the mix.
You are in the classroom when Mr. Cho bursts in and starts to shoot people and so you get out your gun to “defend yourself”. While you are in the process on “defending yourself” you shoot and kill my sister. Who knows? Maybe you are not as good a shot as you think you are. Or perhaps you are too excited. Who knows? Maybe my sister is using her martial arts skills to defend herself and steps in front of Mr. Cho just as you have squeezed your trigger. Regardless, you have killed my sister and not surprisingly, you have a rationale [as killers often do]. Guess what? I have no interest in your rationale, I only know you have killed a beloved family member of mine and I will teach you a serious lesson in pain.

From the sounds of it, it would be much harder to teach Cho a lesson in pain. What could I do? Kill one of his family members? From his writings it sounds as if Cho had issues with a few of his family members, and if I committed an act of violence on them I might actually be doing him a favor.
Meanwhile, in the latter scenario, you, having killed my sister [and who knows how many others], while in the act of “defending yourself” would be held by the police as a person of interest. The police would certainly want to see if you were part of a broader conspiracy of violent killers. What would I be doing during this time? I’d be really really angry.

Angry at you Rothbardian.

Who knows? Perhaps while I was on your property, digging a hole to hide the remains left over from me dealing with my anger [see how I have a rationale?], I’d stumble on your stash of Gold?

Now, multiply this scenario by every additional gun that would be present at the crime scene in the wonderful world of “freedom” you envision in your head, and we would have the makings of a true cycle of vengeance and violence that would make the Iraqis tremble with envy.

Perhaps my take on this sad tale offends you Rothbardian. If so, I can only offer you the words of the Butthole Surfers as a consolation,

“The funny thing about regret is: it’s better to regret something you have done, than you regret something you haven’t done. And by the way, if you see my sister this weekend, tell her……”

[Sweejak]

I will teach you a serious lesson in pain...
...it would be much harder to teach Cho a lesson in pain.
... a true cycle of vengeance and violence that would make the Iraqis tremble with envy.

Dude, you should not own a gun.

What would you do if a cop shot at Cho and missed and hit your sister?

[rothbardian]

IanEye--

Not sure I follow your analogy. You appear to be saying that for the cause of saving your sister, it is preferable that those 33 people died instead.
In other words...just in case somebody might be injured or killed by the defenders, let us instead allow these 33 individuals to go safely and quietly to their deaths. (?) And by the way...would you like to apply this rationale to the people who wear the magical blue hats (police officers so-called) who magically qualify to apply deadly force in self-defense? If you can get them to sign on to it, then you only have the crazy guy left to convince. Convince him AND the Blue Hats and all the bad people in the world...then get back to me.

Meanwhile if a madman breaks into my home with a gun...I would love to have the (effective) right to defend myself...a right that PC libs (and cons) have taken away, at this point.

Mr. Pan--

There most certainly is a virtual gun ban. The reason being that the government has criminalized 99.9% of any sscenariowhere a citizen would be inclined to use a gun--

If I shoot a gun-toting intruder in my home but he somehow staggers out the front door and collapses in the front yard...I am in great danger of being sent to prison for twenty years (or worse).

If I shoot an intruder in my home in the darkness at 2 in the morning and it turns out he only had a stick in his hand (or something)...I'm in grave danger of being sent to prison for twenty years.

If I were to pull a gun out of my glove compartment and shoot a guy under almost ANY circumstances, no matter how dire (a violent carjacking attempt etc.)...it would an absolute toss of the dice as to whether I would be sent to prison, charged with homicide, or whatever.

Few people (myself included) want to put themselves in that kind of position. You hear of very, VERY few stories where law-abiding citizens took the risk of applying deadly force.

I repeat therefore--there is a virtual gun ban. The restrictions that currently exist as to when a person may use adequate self-defense measures are immoral and ridiculous.

An example of Bush taking away guns--You need only hearken back to Hurricane Katrina--Bush came in there like gangbusters and the very first thing he did was have the military forcibly confiscate lawfully owned guns...just when you would want to keep a gun. I certainly would've wanted that option (at least) in such a context. So, there's the example. It's not "absurd hyperbole". It's a fact.

It may be that both sides of the artificial (my opinion) left/right spectrum are talking up their opposing views. Regardless, it is the PC liberal view that prevails in America. As explained above, PC has effectively taken away my right to self-defense.

And if you don't think the fascists in the White House secretly (at least) desire and work towards a completely disarmed populace then you need to take another and closer look at Hitler.

[IanEye]

I will teach you a serious lesson in pain...
...it would be much harder to teach Cho a lesson in pain.
... a true cycle of vengeance and violence that would make the Iraqis tremble with envy.

Dude, you should not own a gun.

What would you do if a cop shot at Cho and missed and hit your sister?

I don't own a gun, for a whole host of reasons. I also have never killed anybody. But if I ever did, I wouldn't want it to be by accident. In terms of your Cop scenario, I'd be really really angry. Which is a good point, I am not writing this as a personal attack at anyone specific. I am just saying no one should mess with my family, and no rationale will be acceptable to me if you do, regardless of who you are. I don't think I am alone in this feeling and yet it didn't seem to be entering into the VT shooting incident in terms of "more guns = more complexities of vengance".

I don't like the fact that I hold such a vengeful approach towards Life either. But it is a reality as much as Rothbardian's reality is he wants access to guns. Life is full of complex interactions.

[philipacentaur]

"...SATAN
SATAN
SATAN..."

[Sweejak]

But this

I am just saying no one should mess with my family, and no rationale will be acceptable to me if you do, regardless of who you are. I don't think I am alone in this feeling and yet it didn't seem to be entering into the VT shooting incident in terms of "more guns = more complexities of vengance"

is the same rationale that many gun owners use.
I think I do understand what your saying. Your envisioning a free for all saloon gun battle, and frankly, given the general cultural depravity, I don't rule it out. How to ban vengeance? Isn't that like trying to ban evil or terror?

[nomo]

And if you don't think the fascists in the White House secretly (at least) desire and work towards a completely disarmed populace then you need to take another and closer look at Hitler.

Ah, yes, that old sow.

It might be good to remember that the National Socialists took power legally, in a democratic fashion. And that the German populace by and large supported that take-over. It's therefore a crock to suggest that if the German people had been armed, none of that would have happened.

Just as it is a fantasy to suggest that an armed US people would be able to resist the firepower of the government, even *if* they were so inclined.