Should Guns Trump Free Speech?

[Mech_Engineer]

I wonder if there's a study which compares statistical probabilities of being victims of violent crime for "normal" citizens (non-carrying and concealed carrying) vs. open carry people? A difference (or non-difference) would at least help put the concealed vs. open carry argument to bed...

 

[Jasongreat]

One question that has been brought up a few times in this thread, by certain people, is that why would one carry a weapon in the open if it was not to intimidate. Imo, the reason one chooses to carry their gun in the open is that to carry it concealed requires one to get the governments approval. An easy fix to this problem is to allow all those who are capable to carry, in the open or concealed. There would be no need to carry on your hip if you could carry concealed. As long as it take the permission of the government to conceal the gun you have a right to carry, there will be those who choose to carry openly instead of going through the process of getting permission of the government to carry it concealed. If it requires govenrment approval is it still a right, or is it a priviledge? The next part of the question is, does carrying a weapon infringe on the right to free speech? According to the 1st ammendment, free speech is only reduced if the congress does so. The text of the first ammendment is, congress shall make no law respecting, not that if one feels intimidated. If we carry the intimidation part forward, how about if one feels that they can't get a job because one feels the buisiness won't hire a certain color of person? Would one have to atleast apply and be denied, before they can file suit for racial discrimination? Or is the feeling they will be discriminated against enough? Only when guns are the topic will anyone ever argue that there need be no proof, only speculation.

 

[JaredJames]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

Now, earlier on I tried to move away from just guns and make it about intimidation in general. It isn't just guns. Any intimidation can impede your right to speak freely.

This reduced this particular debate to, not whether or not intimidation can infringe on freedom of speech (because it can and I think we all agree on that), but whether or not open-carry can cause intimidation in the first place. This where we're currently stuck so far as the OP goes.

 

[Jasongreat]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

Now, earlier on I tried to move away from just guns and make it about intimidation in general. It isn't just guns. Any intimidation can impede your right to speak freely.

This reduced this particular debate to, not whether or not intimidation can infringe on freedom of speech (because it can and I think we all agree on that), but whether or not open-carry can cause intimidation in the first place. This where we're currently stuck so far as the OP goes.

The gun carriers are not saying if you say something I disagree with I will shoot you, you are assuming they are saying that by wearing a gun, as far as I can tell from your posts thus far, there need be no other factor than that they are wearing a gun. Although you don't seem as nervous if one has a concealed weapon.

It has been pointed out by a few others, intimidation is not a case an impediment of your right to free speech. If you refuse to speak your mind to your college professor because he/she might fail you, is that a case of impeding your free speech? One always has to censor their own speech, it is only an example of infringement on your speech if someone says I will shoot/hurt you if you talk, not if you think they will shoot/hurt you if you speak your mind. Assumption has no place in law.

I agree, the gun carriers are not saying that. I have no problem with people carrying a gun. It doesn't scare me, it doesn't intimidate me. The most it might do is to get me to ask why they chose the gun they did, how often they go shooting, or something of that sort. Where I am from, if I was nervous about every gun I saw, I would have to go get a prescription for zanax. I was raised with guns, all my friends own guns, most every home has a gun or two or ten in it. Guns have been part of my life since a very youg age, there is no need to fear guns other than to treat each one as if it is loaded.

 

[DanP]

Your content is so lacking that you're reduced to a critique of my form...in GD... in an ABSURD thread. I've said it before. sometimes it's good to stick to your primary area of expertise.

Let it go, mech_engineer provided more substance to this thread than you did so far. At least he posted a study. You are all bull.

 

[DanP]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

Actually, you dont. You just provoke me to break your arm before speaking. Maybe that's a form of free speech as well, breaking an arm :P

 

[JaredJames]

Actually, you dont. You just provoke me to break your arm before speaking. Maybe that's a form of free speech as well, breaking an arm :P

On that basis though, neither can the government infringe your right to free speech.

They ban public speaking on the subject of, let's say, aircraft. If you do you go to prison.

It doesn't stop you speaking about aircraft in public, it just gives you a punishment if you do. Which is no different to me saying "speak about aircraft and I'll break your arm".

It's a deterrent to try to prevent you doing something by telling you there will be adverse effects if you do. The law wouldn't suddenly stop you being able to do it, it just makes it difficult / detrimental for you to.

The only way to actually stop someone speaking freely would be to literally gag someone.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar, I've stayed out of this and read every post between you and Mech_Eng... you know we often function as a solid team and I trust our respect is mutual...

...but...

... I really think you're not doing your argument any justice. The excepts that Mech_Eng has been sharing from the FBI report are NOT trivial. They indicate two significant trends among criminals: 1) avoidance of civilians with firearms, and 2) a tendency to avoid open carry practices.

It would be in your argument's best interest to find a counter to these two points. Perhaps you could find a similar study by a different law enforcement agency that indicates the opposite?

Are there any number of studies that I could find which would be convincing? Personally, I'm not impressed with the methodology of the FBI study, which relies largely on the testimony, honesty, and hindsight of armed criminals.

The best I COULD offer would be a study showing the risks of carrying openly vs. concealed, and I'm not sure that such exists. Why should I find a flawed study to refute a flawed study? By their own admission, most imprisoned criminals are innocent... there seems to be a selection bias as to when we believe people.

Mech: No, I'm arguing, as you can see from previous pages where you and DanP are not present, that carrying concealed in my view, is the wiser choice. You made a claim that depends on the ability to predict a given crime, OR the honesty of criminals... I'll pass. Until very recently carrying concealed (as Jason alludes to) was actually the "hot button" issue, not openly. Police wanted to know who had a gun, but as others have pointed out... having a gun doesn't make you a criminal.

Oh, and my FIRST reaction to this thread was a little more detailed: I pointed out that an artificial argument was being constructed between two synergistic legal rights. Mugaliens made a similar point before he wisely left the thread, and I foolishly stayed to be treated to the quality intellectual displays of some of this forum's finest members, when those displays stray from their narrow expertise.

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually, you dont. You just provoke me to break your arm before speaking. Maybe that's a form of free speech as well, breaking an arm :P

Your response to someone saying, "speak freely and I'll break your arm," isn't to get the law, or to say, "wow, why bother talking to YOU?!" and walking away... it's to break THEIR arm.

That explains a lot about how and why you post.

 

[nismaratwork]

I wonder if there's a study which compares statistical probabilities of being victims of violent crime for "normal" citizens (non-carrying and concealed carrying) vs. open carry people? A difference (or non-difference) would at least help put the concealed vs. open carry argument to bed...

If it exists, and you find it... I will sincerely apologize for anything you WANT, regardless of the conclusions of the study. ANYTHING to end what has to be one of the least purposeful arguments I've been a part of.

<SNIP>This hurts both sides of the argument, so that leaves us with... my FBI study (and a few others if you want), a few anecdotal articles, and your opinon. Joy.

YES! Which is why I leave it at my opinion instead of making this a "war of the flawed and semi-relevant studies". I keep saying, it's my opinion, I'm not claiming it's more than an opinion, and it's GD! I really don't believe that there are decent studies out there with the information needed to settle this argument. On one hand you have Gun-Control lunatics who think that guns sneak out in the middle of the night to murder toddlers. On the other you have the NRA, which is still fuming that everyone doesn't understand how CRUCIAL it is that they own at least a howitzer.

You and Drankin swooped in during the midst of DanP doing his nihilistic thing, and apparently MISSED the portion of the program during which these arguments were made, left alone, THEN misrepresented or mocked, and re-opened. You started an argument for reasons that still elude me, and told me that I was passing my opinion as fact, even though I call it opnion.

Yeah, that's going to start a reasonable chat... what the hell did you expect? You have ONE study that is more of a survey, I have my opinion (along with everyone else in this thread I might add), and AFAIK this claim made that open carry = deterrence is...

NOT FALSIFIABLE. Hell, even if you could PROVE that you, Mech_Engineer carrying your sig across your chest surrounded by neon... does that mean you averted a crime? Are you SURE you didn't just shift the target of that crime to a different person or store? Maybe that's enough for you, but when I think of a discussion here based on endless studies that conflict by orders of magnitude (2.5 million vs. 100,000... do those numbers mean anything to you? They should, they refer to the 2 major studies in this area... neither of which are generally accepted by the very LOUD "sides" in this debate.

Actual gun owners do what people have been saying throughout this thread:

They don't carry openly in communities where it might be trouble for them. Maybe the argument you could make is that, in a society where we can call 911 for sighting a gun (it's not abuse of the service, but reporting a someone bigger than you IS) in a legal setting... maybe open displays of guns actually hurt the gun owner in the 1st amendment?

My point there?... It's a RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. If you lack the judgment and training to safely own, display, and use a firearm... don't. It's a right, not a requirement.

P.S. Flex: If I didn't make it clear, I do respect you.

 

[nismaratwork]

On that basis though, neither can the government infringe your right to free speech.

They ban public speaking on the subject of, let's say, aircraft. If you do you go to prison.

It doesn't stop you speaking about aircraft in public, it just gives you a punishment if you do. Which is no different to me saying "speak about aircraft and I'll break your arm".

It's a deterrent to try to prevent you doing something by telling you there will be adverse effects if you do. The law wouldn't suddenly stop you being able to do it, it just makes it difficult / detrimental for you to.

The only way to actually stop someone speaking freely would be to literally gag someone.

Actually, a careful injection of a few relatively harmless agents into the throat or larynx will achieve the same end, and if they try to write... ion-channel blockers!

Or killing them I guess, but then you can't see them trying to form words.

 

[IMP]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

The point you make here is actually the very reason why carrying preserves your right to free speech. Would he attempt to break your bones if you were armed? Not likely.

I believe that carrying makes everyone equal. A 95lb grandma and a 250 line backer are on a much more equal footing if both are armed.

 

[JaredJames]

The point you make here is actually the very reason why carrying preserves your right to free speech. Would he attempt to break your bones if you were armed? Not likely.

Replace "break your arm" with "have a gun to your head" and reconsider your response.

I believe that carrying makes everyone equal. A 95lb grandma and a 250 line backer are on a much more equal footing if both are armed.

Only if they are both equally trained / capable with the weapon. There are far more factors at play than simply carrying.

 

[nismaratwork]

Replace "break your arm" with "have a gun to your head" and reconsider your response.


Only if they are both equally trained / capable with the weapon. There are far more factors at play than simply carrying.

I'd add, I'm pretty sure my practiced hand is steadier on a .45 or .357 sig than nana's are.

Guns aren't magic in ANY sense, and that includes as means of self defense. You make some good points oh cat-avatared one.

 

[IMP]

The point I was trying to make is that if everyone is armed, everyone is far more equal. When no one is armed, the strong automatically have a huge advantage over the weak. That puts us back in the dark ages in my opinion.

 

[JaredJames]

The point I was trying to make is that if everyone is armed, everyone is far more equal. When no one is armed, the strong automatically have a huge advantage over the weak. That puts us back in the dark ages in my opinion.

No, when everyone is armed the well trained and more able have the advantage and the less trained and less able are disadvantaged.

It doesn't matter what we do, guns or not, there will always be inequality.

 

[IMP]

No, when everyone is armed the well trained and more able have the advantage and the less trained and less able are disadvantaged.

It doesn't matter what we do, guns or not, there will always be inequality.

Ah, but that inequality is by choice, not be genetics. If everyone is armed, everyone is on a much more equal footing. If no one is armed, the strong dominate the weak.

 

[JaredJames]

Ah, but that inequality is by choice, not be genetics. If everyone is armed, everyone is on a much more equal footing. If no one is armed, the strong dominate the weak.

By choice? In what way is it by choice?

I didn't realize illness and other factors (your granny for example, frail, weak etc) where optional.

Some people simply aren't capable, no matter how hard they try.

Genetics do play a part.

It isn't just about choosing to train or not to train. There are a whole host of factors (much the same as you not choosing to be tall / short) that you have no control over and simply prevent equality.

 

[nismaratwork]

The point I was trying to make is that if everyone is armed, everyone is far more equal. When no one is armed, the strong automatically have a huge advantage over the weak. That puts us back in the dark ages in my opinion.

Jared is correct, and frankly what does this have to do with the dark ages? Part of the reason there is greater gun control now than say, in the old west, is that there is a far more functional central authority and police force.

btw... just... logically speaking... if everyone suddenly had a gun on their person, you haven't made them equal, you've just escalated matters and changed who has what kind of advantage. You're proposing a way of scrambling the way that law enforcement is handled, in the expectation of... what? Less crime?

I'm sorry, but in an armed world, the marksman (especially with a good rifle) is king. That is not a good place to be; as discussed previously if you live in a country where 'everyone' has a Kalashnikov... you're in trouble. The guns didn't cause the conflicts, but universal openly carried arms is a symptom of something that is so far from the US standard of living that it's laughable. We shouldn't expect to see those kind of 'sores' on the body of lady liberty, if you catch my drift.

Remember... guns are just another subset within the larger set "Tool"... you don't fix or destroy a society by flooding it with weapons, or depriving them of weapons. We're supposed to have guns to form militias, and we did... they're called cops! We still have the right to bear arms, and do, because unless a cop can teleport to my location, it's still practical. There's a lot of "gun philosophy" about defending liberty, but in terms of the law and the reality of modern weapons and war, guns are about SD/HD/Sport/Hunting/Social-Target-Shooting.

edit: ... Oh, and Collecting. I mean REAL collecting too, not just stockpiling for the rapture.

 

[DanP]

That is not a good place to be; as discussed previously if you live in a country where 'everyone' has a Kalashnikov... you're in trouble. The guns didn't cause the conflicts, but universal openly carried arms is a symptom of something that is so far from the US standard of living that it's laughable. We shouldn't expect to see those kind of 'sores' on the body of lady liberty, if you catch my drift.

You mean, Swiss ppl are in trouble ? Ah no, because they have SIGs instead of AKMs. Maybe this is why they have one of the highest living standards on the planet.

I wonder if the fat chick in background is so scared of this man that she can't express her right to buy conserved vegetables, or speak, for that matter. But by the looks of it, she doesn't appear to care at all, for all she seem to care that man could carry a guitar and look more fearsome :P

 

[nismaratwork]

By choice? In what way is it by choice?

I didn't realize illness and other factors (your granny for example, frail, weak etc) where optional.

Some people simply aren't capable, no matter how hard they try.

Genetics do play a part.

It isn't just about choosing to train or not to train. There are a whole host of factors (much the same as you not choosing to be tall / short) that you have no control over and simply prevent equality.

Yeah... just what I want... EVERY old person toting a pistol... even the ones who can't see over the steering wheel or are legally blind! :rofl:

I'd add, every person isn't an equal killer; you're not going to find someone in a crowd as crazy and "dedicated" as a guy like Loughner. People keep forgetting to mention that someone WAS carrying at the time... but it was all too fast.

Maybe the issue isn't guns... maybe the issue is TRAINING. Give everyone a course in common behavioral profiling... maybe then we can work out way to giving them all guns.

For now, I'll stick with people needing an LTC, or FID.

 

[IMP]

To the OP who said: "Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed? I believe that I would be intimidated, so censoring my self-expression..."

I believe that both you and "the person" are back on equal footing if both of you are armed.

 

[JaredJames]

To the OP who said: "Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed? I believe that I would be intimidated, so censoring my self-expression..."

I believe that both you and "the person" are back on equal footing if both of you are armed.

Assuming you could draw quicker than them of course.

I suppose if you didn't know their draw speed you could assume you were quicker.

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean, Swiss ppl are in trouble ? Ah no, because they have SIGs instead of AKMs.

Wow.. out of all that, and you still try to reach for the "Swiss Myth"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Read the actual laws... they're quite strict. Your SIG rifle is down-converted to even US
civilian standard semi-auto, and unless you're in the militia, you're not carrying it.

Not exactly granny-with-a-gun either...

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.

[edit] Conditions for getting a Carrying PermitThere are three conditions:

fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.[citation needed]

[edit] Transporting gunsGuns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows.[8]

AND...

Conditions under the 1999 Gun ActTo purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit or from countries on the ban list must ask for a special permit.

After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit (so-called "free arms"). Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.
Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker.
Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.Changes due to the Schengen treatyThe rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

Unlawful possession of guns will be punished

Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit: this is, from a Swiss point of view, a radical restriction that is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.

Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.

Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.

Only one weapon may be purchased per weapon acquisition permit: Presumably, this will dry out the market for relatively cheap used guns, including popular collector's items such as Swiss army revolvers from the late 19th/early 20th century.

Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market
through this registration requirement.

While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.

Buying ammunition

Ready ammunition of the Swiss Army. Every soldier equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed box, to be opened only upon alert. The ammunition was to be loaded into the rifle magazine for use by the militiaman should any need arise while he was en route to join his unit. Any use other than this, or even unsealing, was strictly forbidden. This practice was stopped in 2007 due to safety concerns.[citation needed]The government subsidizes the production of military ammunition and then sells the ammunition at cost. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. Registration consists of entering your name in a log at the time of sale. No serial numbers are present on the individual cartridges of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but according to David Kopel "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed."[3] Ammunition for long gun hunting is not subsidized by the government and is not subject to any sales control. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as custom handgun ammunition) is registered at the time of sale.[9]

So enough about Switzerland... they're a tiny country with compulsory service, and frankl6y the fact that they need to maintain it in such a fashion IS a sign of military weakness. It's not social upheaval, but it's not exactly the lifestyle you get in the US where service is optional.

In other words... cut the crap.

 

[DanP]

Wow.. out of all that, and you still try to reach for the "Swiss Myth"...
[

Every able bodied male is in the militia till discharge age, amigo

So cut the crap.

 

[DanP]

So enough about Switzerland... they're a tiny country with compulsory service, and frankl6y the fact that they need to maintain it in such a fashion IS a sign of military weakness. It's not social upheaval, but it's not exactly the lifestyle you get in the US where service is optional.

Ah, now judging the swiss Army how weak it is ? The truth is, that's a country with a higher living standard than US, and enough weapons to cause Armageddon, should they want it. None cares of anyone who carry SIGs
in plain sight. Assault riffles, you know ? They have balls.

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean, Swiss ppl are in trouble ? Ah no, because they have SIGs instead of AKMs. Maybe this is why they have one of the highest living standards on the planet.
I wonder if the fat chick in background is so scared of this man that she can't express her right to buy conserved vegetables, or speak, for that matter. But by the looks of it, she doesn't appear to care at all, for all she seem to care that man could carry a guitar and look more fearsome :P

Because by Swiss law she knows he's going to or from his MILITIA service. The USA equivalent would be National Guard, and if you see then with rifles, they're uniformed. See "cut the crap". You pick on tiny details in an argument you've professed not to care about or have any "side" on. What part of what you're doing, and did yesterday, is constructive to this thread? Are you sure you're not just flaming with a bit of an effete spin?edit: to respond to your spam since I typed this...

Ah, now judging the swiss Army how week it is ?

Compared to the USA... yes.

and...

Every able bodied male is in the militia till discharge age, amigo

So cut the crap.

Hi, we're talking about the USA, where able-bodied men can do whatever they want... or think they do. Now, you should also read those laws... we're talking about civilians carrying. You're using this Swiss-Myth strawman for... what? 'Educación Superior Abierta y a Distancia'

edit:

OK... your post 201 is now far larger, and really makes a totally different point. SO... response #2:

Ah, now judging the swiss Army how weak it is ? The truth is, that's a country with a higher living standard than US, and enough weapons to cause Armageddon, should they want it. None cares of anyone who carry SIGs
in plain sight. Assault riffles, you know ? They have balls.

OH, so it's about balls... got it. As long as we're sticking to the issues, and not just derailing this thread for personal reasons... good. Your new version of this post is arguably funnier than the original!

 

[DanP]

Because by Swiss law she knows he's going to or from his MILITIA service. '

Cut the crap. Since just about every able bodied male is in militia, it really doesn't matter.
Just about everyone has a SIG till 30something. Statistically, I doubt that there are more psychopaths in 1000 between age of 18 and 30 Americans than in 1000 Swiss militiaman. They should be scared but they are not. Balls :P
They don't care. They are not phased by assault rifles.

Your whole argument with weapons in plain sight and standard of living is luft.

 

[nismaratwork]

Cut the crap. Since just about every able bodied male is in militia, it really doesn't matter.
Just about everyone has a SIG till 30something. Statistically, I doubt that there are more psychopaths in 1000 between age of 18 and 30 Americans than in 1000 Swiss militiaman. They should be scared but they are not. Balls :P
They don't care. They are not phased by assault rifles.

Your whole argument with weapons in plain sight and standard of living is luft.

re: bold: :rofl:

I have nothing more to say to you on this site.

 

[DanP]

r

I have nothing more to say to you on this site.

That's the moment I was praying for. Thank you God!

 

[IMP]

Civility please, EVO is going to lock this thread otherwise. Plus, it adds to the argument that if we can't be civil to each other then how can we be trusted to be armed at all times.

 

[nismaratwork]

Civility please, EVO is going to lock this thread otherwise. Plus, it adds to the argument that if we can't be civil to each other then how can we be trusted to be armed at all times.

Evo should lock this thread; if patterns hold, after Dan pays his nihilistic little visit, it's Drankin, then Mech_Engineer's turn.

Given that this thread is the "Seinfeld" of gun-threads, why not? I stand by the points I made at the outset: the 1st and 2nd amendments are not VERSUS each other, but it's also foolish to think there isn't a balance to be struck. In fact, as Mugaliens pointed out, those two rights work to protect one another in principle.

Jared feels that there is a conflict, and I think his point deserves some thought. Instead, like rigid children, everyone is just bringing out set-piece arguments, and just failing to actually address the content of either argument.

After all, how can you have a civil discourse with a person or people who don't want the same thing?

 

[DanP]

Evo should lock this thread; if patterns hold, after Dan pays his nihilistic little visit, it's Drankin, then Mech_Engineer's turn.

Sue us :P