I'm as guilty as anyone about getting us off topic, but I'm actually interested in what Refman and others have to say about the White House opposing the gun fingerprints one day and then doing a 180 the next. Any thoughts?
Here's the link w/ the Washington Times article on the BS data that mav3434 quoted: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/underfire.html Sorry mav, find another link. Oh, & did you know that since the UK banned handguns, crime there has skyrocketed? Yes, I'll find you that too, but in the meantime here's another interesting article about gun ownership & crime rates: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html
rimrocker...it's possible they overreacted originally...and then realized that science would kill this method of testing anyway if repeatedly firing a gun changes the "fingerprint" of a gun anyway. if that's the case...as i hear it is...it seems to really reduce the effectiveness of this...
The Atlantic is hardly a bastion of baseless left wing propoganda. If mav3434 missed the retraction, he can hardly be blamed for it. Likewise, Refman can hardly be blamed for the occasional (or even regular) hyperbole that comes from discussing passionately held beliefs. It's a shame people get so offended, even when discussing controversial topics. I do it myself sometimes (both getting offended and offending others, due to strong beliefs), but I really don't do it any more than the average hangout poster, and still you'd think I owed the board a RM95 apology thread. For example, Refman's not talking to me anymore ever since I said that it would be cynical for him to continue supporting Bush after Bush had displayed behavior he'd found reprehensible when displayed by Democrats. That's all it took. It's that easy. And we were pretty good BBS buddies. But this isn't about me. It's about the tiresome way virtually every single one of these threads ends. Someone finally calls someone else an ******* and everyone else acts like they never heard such an awful word in their lives. It's funny. People are scandalized by the word *******, but they don't mind at all that 95% of Nomar's posts don't say anything but poop. Oh, and also: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Same for cars. They are deadly weapons and so we have a national car "registry." No reason we shouldn't have the same for guns. As of today, Bush has asked his people to explore the option.
It's a PR move...plain and simple. The fact is that anybody with a barrel and a Dremel tool can totally change the markings that a barrell leaves on a bullet, thus making the bullet look like it came out of a totally different model of gun. Besides that...even for the same gun barrells aren't the same...and neither are bullets. So if you replace the barrell on your gun (which is recommended every so often as gun maintenance) and you fire UMCs instead of Winchesters...the markings will be different. In short...this is a bogus "scientific" method. It will serve as nothing more than a fancy gun registry.
Well, I only stated that I had remembered READING the article, not that it was absolutely true. In truth, the article looks more like a disagreement between groups of scholars on each side of the issue. But if that Washington Times article is accurate, and all of the rest of the stuff you said was right, I fully admit my error for giving the impression that it was true and consider myself duly chastized.
Uh, its a fictional story. These are not necessarily FACTS since none of it had happened when he wrote the piece. However, it does stand as an answer to the question 'Can anyone even think of a scenario in which the military would take over.' You nitpicking begs the question at hand. Uh, he wrote the article in '92 so those would seem to be relevant numbers. And there is nothing to say that a prolonged economic downturn would not cause the 'resilient' American populace to seek other solutions besides a corrupt bureacracy. Simply not true. Certainly the military is not happy about reallocating their own resources to clean up hazardous sites, but much of the technology and expertise we have in such areas comes directly from DOD research. And it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that the military could be put in charge of the efforts in the future as a centralized authority that the 'people BELIEVE' is more competant that the status quo regimes. What planet are you living on? A you saying that capitalism is solving our environmental problems? But again, none of your objections nor your catchy rhetoric has anything to do with the argument at hand. We were asked if there was a scenario by which the military would take control in the US. I have provided one. An extensive one at that. Much more so than we usually post on the bbs. We can now feel free to progress beyond the US will never have martial law part of this discussion and move about the cabin freely.
Yep. The Atlantic publishes works by scholars from across the political spectrum and simply cannot be categorized on a left-right wing basis. It regularly accepts contributions by PJ O Rourke, Richard Posner, e.g., among others who nobody would accuse of being left wing.
No, what I was trying to say is that environmental cleanup is such a big business with EPA or companies fronting the money for the work that it's in no danger of being taken over by DOD. Cleanup companies have a good thing going and have EPA wired, so they would lobby hard to make sure they can keep feeding at their favorite money teat. OK, at the risk of being verbally impaled by the other posters, how about a realistic scenario? By the way, here's a literary device used to make a point (and provide a little levity) I found at gunguys.com: TO: National Rifle Association Members FROM: Mike Magnum, Owner of the Gun Guys Gun Shop and Liquor Emporium RE: NRA Membership is Gun Registration by the Government Many of us Gun Guys foam at the mouth when someone mentions registering gun owners, knowing that such a law could only be the work of Satanists, U.N. supporters, and anyone who listens to music by people named Pink, Jewel or Sting. But the other night, after a rousing militia meeting at my gun shop and liquor emporium, a couple of us were shooting the shi'ite over the coming showdown with the forces of evil when our personal lives were ripped open and spilled on the floor, not unlike the 4000 scattered shell casings surrounding the M-60 machine gun we keep out back. Our militia lieutenant, "Colt .45" (his nom de guerre, as they say in frog land), left us speechless when he revealed that he was no longer a member of the NRA. Colt's words shot through my heart like a steel-pointed bullet through a local yokel's body-armor covered chest cavity. Hell, the idea of not being a member of the NRA nearly caused me to drop a box of blasting caps on the floor and a load in my . . . well, let's just say it was a traumatic experience. "M-16," our treasurer (I've never figured out why he calls himself that, since he exclusively buys AK-47s), took Colt to task, telling him that "NRA non-membership is un-American" and not being a member meant you could never cover your truck bumper with "Chuck Heston for President" stickers, count on your fellow gunslingers when the jack-booted thugs come a-knockin, or go to our local NRA First Tuesday Second Amendment Potluck. Colt fired back, explaining that being a member of the NRA was the SAME THING as being a registered gun owner. "Hey, clowns," he said, "think about all the personal info you sent to get that fancy "I'm a member of the NRA" sticker for your window. When the black government helicopters show up, it'll be your doors they knock down, not mine. And it's not just the bumperstickers that'll give you away." He then rattled off a list of all the info the NRA has collected from us over the years -- full name, date of birth, home address, phone numbers, credit card numbers, email addresses, our favorite Heston flick (I'm partial to Omega Man). The revelation cleared my head and I realized that the NRA would have an easier time finding me then the mothers of my five kids. Damn if "Colt" wasn't onto something. He painted a pretty dark picture: The NRA headquarters is just outside of Washington; the NRA bosses said they'd be working out of the Oval Office if Bush got elected; our very own Johnnie Boy Ashcroft is slumming for the DOJ; Congress wouldn't even have to pass a law to peek at the data; and the FBI could get their grimy hands on the NRA membership list faster than I can yell, "Don't shoot, my colostomy bag is full." It boiled down to this horrible fact: NRA membership IS being a registered gun owner. Given that you all read GunGuys.com, I thought that I'd like to pass along Colt's mighty fine point of observation. After my rude awakening, I dropped my NRA membership like a hot shell casing from a smoking Kalashnikov. I'd advise you all to do the same if you don't want the United States government knocking on your door and taking away your Wayne-given rights. We owe a debt of gratitude to Colt. In honor of his fine deeds, next weekend we plan on plugging a few rounds into a refrigerator at the local shooting range/dump and then roasting hotdogs over a fire made from our NRA membership cards! You do what you want, but don't come whining to me when you're staring into the wrong end of a government-issue CAR-15 and wondering how they got your name. Thanks Colt! - Mike
What!?!??!!? It is illegal to have a gun in Canada, save rifles for hunting, and there are all kinds of restrictions even on that.
People's perception of the problem can change quickly. There is nothing the cleanup lobby can do if that happens. If you're point was true (and you could say the same thing about EVERY lobby) then nothing would ever change. That's not the way it works. We are not on the verge of a coup as far as I know so there is little doubt you would find any scenario 'unrealistic.' Especially since there is a 45,000 word published work that you dismiss over two minor points of the thesis. The conditions under which the normal governing bodies in this country are seen as legitimate can change quickly. One body that is viewed by the public as organized and professional is the military. There is also trust between the military and our civilian population. It is not unrealistic, although it may not be probable, to believe that the civilian population could turn to the military for leadership. It has happened throughout history in a variety of different kinds of countries. Personally I think it is unlikely but to say the possibility does not exist is folly.
MacBeth, that doesn't really tell us anything. It's illegal to have drugs in the US. It's not legal for ANYONE to have a gun in the US, but that hasn't stopped people (kids, for example) from getting them.
My source is CNN. A discussion about gun violence included the statement that Canadian households (which I assume mean hunters and sportsmen) have nearly the same rate of gun ownership as American households. I trust the information I received, but I would be happy to see statistics proving me wrong (or right).
I really dislike this argument. We don't have an inalienable right to drive, but we do have an inalienable right to defend ourselves and our homes. The analogy of cars and guns does not work.
Unfortunately t4651965, no one can prove you either right or wrong because no one really knows how many guns are in Canada. Their gun registration system is one of the biggest jokes in the world. Why? Because it's resulted in one of the biggest showings of civil disobedience in the world. It's estimated that as high as more than 70% of Canada's guns have not been registered because gun owning voters think the law is complete and utter bull****. Here's a nice non-partisan view of what a farce Canada's gun laws are. http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/48/index.html About the only good thing I can say about a plan like this is that it creates a bunch of jobs out of thin air. Still, the majority of them will be low skilled jobs. I'd rather see that money go to the defense budget. At least then, more higher skilled jobs will be created.
Interesting story. I will admit that the prospect of a general having full control of the worlds most powerful military is a temptation and threat that shouldn’t be too casually overlooked. The second half of this goes farther than I could see happening, but the first part is not an unreasonable scenario. In a Canadian context the suggestion that the military could take over the governing of the country would be comically ridiculous. This is in large part due to the fact that our military, even on a per capita basis, is a mere shadow of yours, but it’s also due to the fact that most of us believe in our democracy. In a situation where the military had the power to be at least a theoretical alternative, I think the key would be to make sure that the functioning of the democracy didn’t become so generally unpopular that the military could be viewed as an attractive option. As the piece suggested, I think a good warning sign is to check how many people still feel invested in the democratic process. Since roughly half of the electorate in the US currently don’t vote, it may well be that there is a significant percentage of Americans who no longer believe in your democratic system. Any thoughts on what the root causes of the low voter turnout are? I would suggest, however, that the solution is not to ensure these disaffected masses are well armed, but rather to restore faith in the democracy, perhaps make it more representative and responsive to the will of the people. Strict election spending limits, (making running for office a realistic option for middle class people), and a strong third party option are a couple of suggestions that come to my mind.
In 1997 the US has over 3 times as many guns per capita. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl See also the other thread in this forum on gun control, as there were some other good links on this too. I really dislike this argument. It takes a very narrow and selective view on what the constitution says, and means. Does the “right to bear arms” mean that everybody has the right to own rocket launchers and hand grenades? Does it mean that any person, child or convict or psychotic individual or whomever, has the right to buy and bear arms? Obviously not, because, as most people would say, these scenarios would pose too much of a threat to society. The very same logic could be used to restrict handguns, for example, since they are the guns most used in committing crimes. Even worse, however, is the assumption that the constitution supersedes the will of the people. Constitutions are written to server people. And they are written in historical contexts that change. They are written, therefore, with the understanding that they will be amended when the majority of the people want a change. In this case I don’t think the constitution would be an impediment to stricter gun control laws, but even in a situation where is was and impediment to a new law that a significant majority of the public was in favour of, the constitution should be changed to fit the will of the people, not the will of the people changed to serve the constitution. This is quite misleading. The new gun registration law is quite unpopular, especially with rural people an hunters, but this is because it is a bad law, not because gun control is generally unpopular. On the contrary, gun control is generally very popular and it is because it is so popular that the government thought it could make some political hay off it by proposing this new gun registration policy. Unfortunately, as with many acts of political opportunism, the law wasn’t well thought out and people began to figure this out. Here’s some stats on the popularity of gun laws in general. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/Gallup-2.2001.PDF I didn’t read the Fraser Institute article. They are a far right wing group, very American in style, that are typically more about hype than substance and are generally not worth reading. They are well funded but they don’t speak for very many Canadians.
A very good friend of mine was mugged at knifepoint. He told the mugger he was going to take out his wallet...when he reached into his jacket he pulled out his gun instead. The mugger...very predictably...ran like hell. There are many legitimate, defensive uses of guns. I'm not in favor of taking defense away from the people.
