Ariz. House approves concealed weapons bill

[cory777]

Source: AP

By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Thu Apr 8, 7:52 pm ET

PHOENIX – The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

The legislation, approved by the House 36-19 without discussion, would make it legal for most U.S. citizens 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required. Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the measure, said last week that he added changes requested by Gov. Jan Brewer's office, an indication that she is likely to sign it. The governor can sign or veto the measure, or allow it to become law without action.

If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons. Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states — Illinois and Wisconsin — prohibit them altogether.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_us/us_concealed_weapons_arizona

[rwheeler31]

1. Yuck

More dead kids.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toots]

10. Thank god we are a nation with no bloodshed from gunfire..

Thank God.....

[slackmaster]

16. Are you people capable of staying on a logical thread when the subject involves firearms?

:crazy:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

118. Perhaps the problem comes with "liberal exceptionalism..."

wherein some liberals have concluded that their morals are more moral than others' morals, thereby allowing just any kind of barroom logic and attack; I mean, it HAS to be different from the practices of Rove, Bachmann and Palin. It HAS to be.

[defendandprotect]

18. Yes, the gun-woundings are all fantasy . . . but we pay $38,000 for each one ... or more!!

[Pavulon]

23. Drug WAR, wars involve people getting shot

thats why countries with relaxed drug laws and firearm access dont have the issues we do.

[spin]

35. The drug war failed years ago. Banning and prohibiting never works ...

but we never learn.

Many here on DU want to ban or prohibit firearms. Why they believe that it would work makes me wonder.

[defendandprotect]

45. Drugs are quite different from guns --

and as far as I know, those here want "gun control" --

It's the GOP/NRA position that Dems want to "ban or outlaw guns" --

Re guns, I think your adage is correct -- "but we never learn" --

Drugs do not represent violence, except when involved with the Drug War --

Guns are violent --

I think you also have to be in a coma to also notice the chill put upon democracy

and debate with T-baggers coming out with guns/rifles, etal.

Guns do not foster democracy nor debate -- they foster violence.

And too often within the gun owner's own family!

[Pavulon]

50. Lets be truthful. 50% or more gun deaths are suicide. Thats mental health

care, not a 72 hour hold. That could be prevented. Drug law drives crime. That is why places like switzerland have minimal crime rates. No desperate people.

Now I assume you actually live here in the US and know this stuff. Drug laws impact minorities and the impoverished, not people who can see golf courses or water their homes. I own a gun and have no motivation to kill you. If you back into my car at the mall, I dont care, because I have insurance and can buy another one. Short of you trying to kill me, I have no reason to shoot you. Simple and logical.

If I want your car for crack, well that is a great reason shoot you dead. If I want your corner to sell crack, another reason to shoot you. You are now a victim of the drug war.

Guns arent violent, they are inert. It takes a person to make them violent. Lets stop bulshitting and look at root cause.

Bamboozle time is over, gun control is no longer a valid option.

[spin]

66. In some cases they do promote violence in the owner's family ...

However in my family the fact that my daughter had access to a firearm and the skill and ability to use it might have saved her life.

An intruder was breaking into our home by forcing a sliding glass door open. A burglar alarm was sounding and there was a very gentle 60 pound black Lab inside. She walked into the kitchen and confronted the individual. He stated that he intended to rape her.

She pointed a large caliber .45acp revolver at him and he ran. At the time she was 17 or 18 years old and had been shooting on a regular basis for nine years.

Also my mother while walking home at night from a bus stop in Pennsylvania had a man attempt to attack her. She fired two .22 caliber rounds from a S&W Ladysmith revolver over his head and he ran. This incident occurred in the 1920s.

You will find it impossible to convince me that firearms are a bad thing.

I will agree that firearms are not for everybody. If an individual tends to abuse alcohol or other substances, has an anger management problem, suffers from extreme mental problems or lives in a volatile relationship with a significant other then firearms are an extremely dangerous items to own.

You have to know yourself, your weaknesses, faults and the weaknesses and faults of those you live with.

Some members of the Tea Party worry me as the level of rhetoric has risen to a high level in our country. People fail to understand that our country has always had hot political debate and that what we see today is not unusual and can be sorted out through our system of elections. Poorly regulated capitalism has led to our current economic situation and the fault can be laid at the feet of both major political parties. Our politicians are bought and owned by big corporations.

Currently the Republicans are accusing Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress of being Socialists. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all socialist programs that have benefited our country. Both capitalism and socialism have good points and bad. Obama and the Democrats finally passed the first step to reforming heathcare. I was hoping for more, but it's better than what we had.

Time will sort out the problems we face without bloodshed. I feel we will survive and be stronger in the long run.


And drugs do represent violence in our country today because of our drug war. Just as when prohibition occurred in the 1920s and violence erupted across our country between gangs that smuggled illegal alcohol, our country is facing wars between drug gangs fighting for turf. The solution is to legalize many currently illegal drugs and take the profit motive out of the drug trade. Continuing on our same path of fighting this war on drugs may well turn our country into north Mexico.

Guns are not violent as they are just inanimate objects. They are tools that can be used for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

Rather than ban or attempt to confiscate firearms which will fail as all bans and prohibitions do, we need to focus on taking firearms from the people who do or will abuse the right to own them. Many truly sensible laws are on the books, such as the NICS background check. We can improve these laws and we can concentrate on imprisoning the violent criminals who shouldn't own firearms but do.

[defendandprotect]

70. Obviously, we need to concentrate more on male rapists and their violence ....

So you're reciting a story from the 1920's to valid what's going on today!

Here's another story -- Sen. Stupak used to side with the GOP/NRA on fighting gun control.

Later his teenaged son committed suicide with a family gun. After that he supported

gun control.


No "inanimate gun" has ever gone off unintentionally, I guess --

Oops! One just off in Walmart's -- !!

[Pavulon]

74. That is as accidental as a rape.

oops my junk just ended up raping someone. My bad. That is negligence and a crime. The rest of the people around may spot you that bullshit but I dont. There are no accidents.

[spin]

80. Had my mother been assaulted and killed ...

I wouldn't be here today nor would my daughter. If you look at in that light you might see why I think the story is a valid explanation for my feelings on firearms.

Modern firearms do not go off unintentionally. I can't see how anybody could believe that. There are such things as accidental discharges when someone does something foolish with a firearm. The gun bears no responsibility, it's the fault of the person handling it.

You mention the AD that happened in Walmart.

During the officer's investigation, witnesses said Walters entered the store carrying a semi automatic pistol in a holster.

According to witnesses, Walters continually "messed" with the gun while it was in the holster. He would reportedly holster and un-holster the gun, which made the other customers and employees nervous.

As Walters stood at the electronics counter talking to the clerk, he pulled the gun out of the holster and thumbed through some nearby magazines, Peoples said.

***snip***

Walters reportedly approached the checkout lane and while standing at the end of the counter, he pulled the gun out of his holster again.

Upon pulling the gun out of the holster, a magazine dislodged and fell on the floor.

Peoples said Walters picked up the magazine, placed it back into the gun, manipulating the gun as if loading the weapon.

While he was doing this the gun discharged and sent shots into the ceiling.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/westvalley/elmirage/story/shooting-Wal-Mart/OjROJQTSL0OJno6kY2W8uQ.cspx

It's no surprise the gun fired as an absolute fool was playing with it. Guns are not toys.

Sn Stupack's son's suicide is tragic as are all suicides, but there are many ways to commit suicide. Teenage children often consider suicide and as a parent, hopefully you will see the signs that the child is going trough emotional turmoil. Help is available.

As I said in a post above guns are not for everybody, you have to know the weaknesses of yourself and those in your household. With teenage children, it's best to secure your firearms in a safe.

[defendandprotect]

81. You're holding that 1920's America was same as today's America . . . ???

We had a long secure period in between WITHOUT GUNS ...

Again, let's look at male violence in crime and rape against women --

and deal with THAT issue honestly . . .

Oh, "guns aren't for everyone"? Well, WTH, has the GOPs/NRA been trying to do

except put a gun in every hand? And presumably you support them?

Yes -- you can probably prick yourself to death with a pin!

But Stupak's son found a gun a handy way to do it -- and then STUPAK CHANGED HIS

SUPPORT AND WENT WITH GUN CONTROL!!



PS: So "guns don't go off unintentionally" . . . ?? Did you read the report of the

gun going off in Walmart's? Yes... human error can also make a gun go off "unintentionally"!!!

Wake up!!

[pipoman]

86. Silly logic aside,

do you always add the possessive to a proper noun when it isn't needed? Walmart's?

Oh and while we're at it, about this 13,000 year old clovis point found near a fire pit with charred animal remains??? Isn't common agreement on the bronze age around 5,500 years ago at the earliest??

[defendandprotect]

90. Somewhere in the Bronze Age . . . .

patriarchy and its violence took over -- as my comments state clearly!



PS: But glad to see you shine at grammar!!

If it's Warmarts -- i.e., plural, then what I said should be Walmarts' . . .

If it's singular -- i.e., Walmart, then it should be Walmart's . . .

that is, on their property . . . the possessive.

[pipoman]

95. What about the clovis culture (13,000 BP),

or the dalton culture (10,000 BP) for that matter? And that is only 2 North American cultures. Both are absolutely, provably meat eaters. Not trying to beat a dead horse, just trying to figure out how your belief differs from, say, the fundies who think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (which is just as provably false).

[defendandprotect]

113. First of all, keep in mind we have history of the world written by males...

and from any angle you can see that they have been duplicitious --

even fairly recently in trying to suggest that certain native peoples were

cannibals.

And, I would suggest in stopping the calendar and restarting it, making history more

difficult to track -- and trying to cement in everyone's mind patriarchal conquest.

Also keep in mind that there are problems with the timelines -- "fluidicity system" --

Is the Bronze Age 1880-1490 -- or is it 3,000 to 900 BC

Is it something else?

What of the Golden Age --

Or the Silver Age --

Are we saying that there were no individual males who were killing animals and eating them during

those times?

Or are we saying that we are trying to identify a total turning over of the concept of

living in harmony with animal-life?

What of the dark ages -- what about the collapse of civilizations --

Presumably male violence began something like 50,000 years ago -- maybe more.

Was it immediately completely totally successful? No --

Humans presumably lived 375,000 years ago . . . what of those other 325,000 years?

Are we hybrids?

I haven't devoted a lot of time to looking at any of this -- so that would be somewhere in

my future. It does happen, however, that I am rereading some old journals which have info on

this and sometime in the next two weeks I can probably contribute something more on it.

I don't think it's "beating a dead horse." I do think however that it is time consuming to

find good information.

Meanwhile, I presume we can agree that the Old Testament introduces "meat eating" by

Cain -- or was it Abel? And you see that the new patriarchal god of violence cherishes this

offering vs his brother's offering of fruit/vegetables.

Everything in the Old Testament/Genesis is, of course, turned upside down.

Men give birth -- ah, not quite. Actually, The Creator created Adam and Lilith equally.

But Lilith was uppity because she understood she was Adam's equal. So she was out and Eve

was in. But, that's not sufficient for patriarchy, it must demean and demonize Lilith.

You have to really dig to find out the truth of Lilith, btw -- to expose the lies about her.

Just as you I'm sure recognize the lies about Mary Magdalene.

If The Garden of Eden is The Bronze Age -- then that's further evidence of "animal-eating"

beginning there -- AND . . .

you can understand also the shock this would be -- in every way.

Violence is shocking. And it is not natural.

Though in order for patriarchy to continue to succeed we must all think it is!


http://www.larp.com/hoplite/bronze.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001198.html

Presumably also the "dark ages" would give a clue to this --

as well as the periods of "cultural decline" -- collapse of great Mycenaean culture 1200 BC.



If you notice the front page of DU right now, there's a question of when "Hell" was created --

it was created in the patriarchal mind and added to the Bible, of course.

An afterthought, evidently. But, whether we look at that period or this one, we can identify the

need for patriarchy to create "fear."

HELL is the invention of patriarchy -- in its own image - consistent with patriarchy's own

confusion and fears/paranoia.

The Old Religion based on nature had no hell.


I've frequently thought of starting some threads on some of this info -- but there's so much

of it, it's difficult to narrow down. But it is all interesting.


And it's a truly spiritual question --

If you ever feel "spirit of place," you have to realize that it was once ALL spirit of place

and that has been taken from us. Not only has violence brought us to a point of pollution

of the planet which threatens humanity -- it has stolen all of nature from us --

and thereby distorted and interrupted our overwhelming spiritual connection with nature.

[pipoman]

116. Wow

OK, I appreciate your seeking of some sort of spiritual truth. I believe the obvious pitfall of spirituality is a belief system which defies scientific fact. This, I believe, is the problem with a belief system which proclaims "Greek myth records that it was not until the Bronze Age, almost within human memory, that man defied the Matriarchs and learned to eat meat.", unless of coarse this means that the believer is acknowledging this as myth and not truth.

Is the Bronze Age 1880-1490 -- or is it 3,000 to 900 BC

It really wouldn't matter as there is massive proof of meat eating, pre dating either, by thousands of years.

I hope to see your threads on this in the future.

I am, again, not an anti-spiritualist, I simply have a hard time not weighing these ideals against known time lines.

[defendandprotect]

134. "Belief is the end, not the beginning of all wisdom" --

I agree with you --

I am not talking about organized spirituality -- nor anything to do with religion.

I am talking about "spirit of place" -- the spirit of nature ...

And, no it isn't the seeking of some kind of "spiritual truth," it is rather mourning the

loss of nature which so enriches our lives in every way.


"Greek myth records that it was not until the Bronze Age, almost within human memory, that man defied the Matriarchs and learned to eat meat.", unless of coarse this means that the believer is acknowledging this as myth and not truth.

Is the Bronze Age 1880-1490 -- or is it 3,000 to 900 BC

What this means is -- if you read something of the questions of these timelines -- is that we

cannot be certain of the timelines.

It really wouldn't matter as there is massive proof of meat eating, pre dating either, by thousands of years.

And, again, the switch to patriarchy/violence/animal eating would not have necessarily been

one fell swoop. Patriarchy's violence succeeded progressively.

And is still ongoing.

Again, look to the Bible and the story of Genesis and reverse what you are reading.

Patriarchy turned the world upside down.



I hope to see your threads on this in the future.

Thank you -- There are many threads I'd like to start but I'm starting a class next week

and will be thinking about that -- art.

[oneshooter]

157. even fairly recently in trying to suggest that certain native peoples were

The Karancawas on the Gulf Coast were known to be cannibals.
This was written about by both the Spanish and the American settlers.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[tburnsten]

168. Violence is not natural?

Clearly you've never seen the Discovery Channel have you?

There is a reason we have bicuspids.

It is to help us eat meat. Incisors also aid in eating this type of food.

I'm sorry but only a complete ritard could ever honestly think that humans have not been meat-eaters for our entire existence. Barring certain tiny groups that did not for whatever reason. Usually for religious reasons or because they were subjugated by another culture.

[GreenStormCloud]

231. Might I suggest that you study science instead of myth?

Evidence of humans eating meat appears in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

[tburnsten]

232. But Nat. Geo is just a tool of the Patriarchy doncha know.

[GreenStormCloud]

233. Gasp. You're right. All 33 of the original founders were men.

Proof indeed that they founded the society to push male dominance on the world.

[SteveM]

121. Sounds like you got an "anti-male" agenda. And a grammar agenda.

But to the substance, how do you explain the millions of women who have taken up firearms? Are they taking reasonable and constructive steps to thwart the threat of rape? Do you wish to disarm them?

[defendandprotect]

135. And what is . . .

"patriarchy" in your mind?

An affirmative-action program for women?

It's amazing that so many males continue to think that patriarchy does something for them

other than making them fodder for wars and subservient, as well!

What patriarchy generally does is teach violence -- especially to males -- and most especially

vs women.


But to the substance, how do you explain the millions of women who have taken up firearms? Are they taking reasonable and constructive steps to thwart the threat of rape? Do you wish to disarm them?


How do you explain the hundreds of million of women who have not taken up firearms?

How do you explain the women in the military who are armed and who have been raped? 2,700 of them!

Maybe they should be armed while they sleep?

Try asking yourself why men rape -- you might then get somewhere in your thinking!

[cowman]

137. All I see here

is your hatred for men.
#1. Guns are not instruments of violence they are tools, I've had a CHL for many years now and my gun has never jumped out of the holster and started shooting on it's own.
#2. Your continued use of the term NRA/GOP is just ridiculous, there are millions of Dems that own and carry guns.
#3. Women rape also, granted not as many times as men, but it does happen.
#4. Don't label all men as rapists, you lose any credibility doing that, the vast majority of men are not rapists. I've been married to the same woman for 32 years and have never laid a hand on her in anger or any other woman.
#5. You really need to seek professional help for this visceral hatred for men.

[defendandprotect]

142. Patriarchy and organized patriarchal religions ...

are systems based in fear and hatred for women --

Evidently, it's impossible for you to see that?

Wow!

Guns are now and will always be instruments of violence -- they serve no other

purpose but violence.

Who is it who doesn't believe that the GOP/NRA are one?

Yes, and there are millions of Dems who now support right wing/blue dog, corporate values

a la DLC --

And there are many Americans who have learned the hard way that guns in the home bring tragedy.


#3. Women rape also, granted not as many times as men, but it does happen.

You're countering the horrific statistics of males raping women -- and males using rape as

a tool of war in every war -- and males gang-raping women by suggesting that females rape men.

Too funny, if not so pitiful.

No one labels "all men rapists" -- nor has anyone said that --

however, males do rape. Come to terms with that reality. Stop ignoring it.


What we need "professional" help for is male violence --

300 years of physics and what males came up with was an atomic bomb/weapon!

[cowman]

151. Wow

I actually feel sorry for you, how do you live with all that hatred? Sooner or later it will burn you up inside. Once again, guns are not instuments of violence, the person holding the gun would be the instument of violence, Just because I own and carry guns doesn't mean my gun is an instument of violence or make me a violent person.

[defendandprotect]

155. Recognizing the harm of patriarchy and its systems . . ..

does not equate in any way to hatred nor to the brutal and cruel exploitations of patriarchy

or organized patriarchal religion -- nor the violence those systems have visted upon humanity

and the planet since their inception.


If you can't see that guns are an instrument of violence, I doubt you understand what

violence is!

[tburnsten]

170. Not all violence is created equal

The most common form of violence inflicted with firearms in this country is on the innocent victim known as "paper", with tin cans and fired shotgun hulls bringing up a close second.

Sometimes they are used to inflict violence on animals that taste delicious, and are occasionally used to intimate the warning that no violence will be tolerated towards the user or other innocent individuals. Once in a long while that type of situation requires the user to shoot another person, but it is extremely rare compared to the number of times a firearm must be deployed to foil an attack.

[defendandprotect]

177. I can only respond to you by saying ....

the weakest minds are the first to be persuaded to violence --

And, you're on "ignore" -- simply to avoid any further waste of my time reading anything

you might post.

Thanks for the warning!

[tburnsten]

184. Thanks for adding me to the club

I'm sure I'm in fine company.

Seems to me that the weakest minds stick their heads in the sand and pretend that something they are afraid of or don't approve of doesn't exist.

[paulsby]

190. the NRA =/= the GOP

they can and do support PRO RKBA dems, just as they oppose anti-RKBA repubs

far more dems historically have supported RKBA, so they naturally have supported more repubs

[PavePusher]

209. Oops, I think you missed a "not" in there somewhere... n/t

[paulsby]

210. yes. my bad. editing period expired though nt

[SteveM]

139. You really have not dealt with the issues you raise...

"It's amazing that so many males continue to think that patriarch does something for them." Since you have not really defined what patriarchy is (other than "teaching violence -- especially to males -- and most especially vs. women, with no arguments or examples as to how this is accomplished). Frankly, I and most men don't really think much about "patriarchy." Maybe is so "amazing" is most men are wondering when they will be laid off, or where the next job (if any) is coming from. I'm sure you have an explanation for this condition, and I'll wait to hear it.

You still have not dealt with the millions of women who have taken up firearms.

I would point out that while women constitute maybe 30% of the total number of civilians who have access to firearms, this number is the fastest-growing demographic in the community of gun-owners. This demographic is also reflected in the number of women who hunt -- a small portion of all gun-owners -- with numbers going from approximately 3% to over 10% of hunters in the last 20 years.

The military (an authoritarian institution characterized by little liberty and no privacy) does not give women much of a leg up on attacks: in most situations, soldiers are not readily-armed, unless on missions and in combat zones. The shootings at Fort Hood were "easy" as everyone in the rooms where Major Naydal (sp) was shooting was unarmed; the army had to wait for the police to intervene -- one of which was a woman.

I don't rape. Most men I know don't rape. Do you rape? If you don't, then how would you be able to judge "getting somewhere in your thinking," and what good would come of it?

[defendandprotect]

143. When a male says that he needs a definition of "patriarchy" ...

it's obvious that what he wants to do is game-play and ignore --

It is obvious, however, that we discuss these issues too infrequently here -- no surprise

because there is always so much currently going on that it is sometimes difficult to deal

with the actual patriarchal framework we all live under.

And if you are "laid off" will it be women or a female system that will be tossing you?

And when males have been called to war, has it been a female system which has made those demands?

Was capitalism and its exploitation of humanity designed by women?

Capitalism is the invention of the Vatican when Feudalism became insufficient to run its Papal

States.


You still have not dealt with the millions of women who have taken up firearms.

You deal with the hundreds of millions who haven't take up firearms!

Are women induced by fear of males and rape to take up guns? What a shock!

Is there some question in your mind that fear-based reasoning will create a demand for violence?

Women in the services have been gang-raped by their own male team-members -

Try dealing with that --

Presumably you're aware of society and that we together identify problems and seek solutions --

PROBLEM . . . MALE VIOLENCE . . . what are the solutions?

PROBLEM . . . MALES RAPING WOMEN . . . what are the solutions?

Taking something personally, as we see here so often, is just another avenue for game-playing

and denial.

This isn't about you or your fellow poster -- it's about society and what patriarchy has wrought

in its violence and degradation of females.

[PavePusher]

144. And what do your perceived issues have to do with concealed weapons in Arizona?

Please, take this angst elsewhere. And get some counciling.

[defendandprotect]

146. The connection is . . .

violence breeding violence --

And, the Arizona "concealed weapons" law has nothing to do with "angst" . . . ??

:rofl:

This is all GOP/NRA fear based -- fear monger -- and it always works --

[pipoman]

150. actually, in fairness,

I called her out on her sig line, sort of pulling her off topic. She was kind enough to answer my questions, not to completion for me, but I'll save my remaining questions for a future on topic thread.

[cowman]

152. there you go again

with the males and rape, most woman take up guns because they want to defend themselves against all crime, not just rape

[defendandprotect]

156. And who commits most of the crime on this planet?

[slackmaster]

214. You people do

:nuke:

[SteveM]

160. If "patriarchy" has its roots in the Catholic church, then it has poor prospects...

No game-playing, here. You use the term, you define the term. Whatever "patriarchy" exists seems to suit any number of women in this society. Hillary Clinton has no problem continuing wars in the mid-East, and is no more or less effective than a man in thwarting rape anywhere in the world.

I really don't think you have a solution to rape, yet you demand that somehow, somewhere men are supposed to come up with a solution or genuflect in some ritual of acknowledgment. What would be the purpose in that? Has anything come of demanding of men they stop these problems? I've seen some school programs, sage-on-stage speakers and changes in the law, but your "solution" strikes me as more self-satisfied moral posturing than programmatic societal actions. Can it be that like men, you have no better idea as to how to solve this problem? I don't blame you for that. But I'm just a 60+ year-old-man facing -$800 a yr. SS payments and no (as yet) health insurance; no one listens to me unless I buy them a happy-hour beer. I don't take much personally anymore.

Try your hand at a solution. It sounds like you want revolution against the current system. It's been fitfully tried before, and no doubt will be tried again.

_____

"Are women induced by fear of males and rape to take up guns? What a shock!

Is there some question in your mind that fear-based reasoning will create a demand for violence?"

I am struck by the term "fear-based." Since I do not treat "fear" as a bad thing, but instead as a healthy point of departure for taking reasonable actions to reduce the fear, I am not sure if you are saying that these women with guns have made a poor decision or not. I think they have made a reasonably good decision. Since most women come to a knowledge of firearms while adults (18 - 34 yrs of age, I believe), I presume they are quite as capable as a man to make adult decisions without experiencing to much "inducement" or fear. I do not see your point about how "fear-based reasoning creates a demand for violence." The object is to thwart violence to women by men, and if violence is required (usually it isn't), then so be it. I don't see the "demand" connection.

Do you oppose women arming themselves to thwart "male violence" and "male rape?"

BTW, most men do not own guns, either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

165. Forget it, I've had more lucid conversations with a guy who took ca. 1k hits of acid.

Surprisingly, the guy ran a successful plumbing business and was quite smart, he just had Ozzie Osbourne-like aphasia.

It would seem some people just can't differentiate between 'belief' and 'fact'.

[SteveM]

182. Lucid conversations are supposed to be 2-way. Thanks for the time. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

186. My bad. I was not referring to you.

I apologize for that misdirected response

[SteveM]

201. No problema. Have a wonderful day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

161. I'm still waiting to hear how exactly Vermont is in the iron grip of patriarchy...

If you're going to threadjack, at least a little connection to the OP would be nice.

[tburnsten]

169. That's 2700 horrific incidents

But statistically not a very large number at all. Military rape is much less common than civilian rape, and is dealt with swiftly and harshly.

You see, a civilian committing a rape has lots of rights, where a Servicemember committing rape will be locked up in Fort Leavenworth or the stockade on post while everything gets sorted out, including the sentence to be served at Leavenworth and the dishonorable discharge which results in the individual never having a chance at a career in the future.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Simply repeating something ad nauseum doesn't make it any more truthful

You're holding that 1920's America was same as today's America . . . ???
Posted by defendandprotect
We had a long secure period in between WITHOUT GUNS ...

When was the United States without guns between the 1920's and now?

Again, let's look at male violence in crime and rape against women --

and deal with THAT issue honestly . . .

Agreed. While we're waiting for the world to change, the individual woman can often best protect herself with a firearm.
The government is under no obligation to protect anyone, you know.

Oh, "guns aren't for everyone"? Well, WTH, has the GOPs/NRA been trying to do

except put a gun in every hand? And presumably you support them?

Again, the "arm everyone" canard. And again without any evidence.

Even you can't point out any harm that permitless concealed carry has caused in Vermont, so you fall
back on vague conspiracy theory.

[defendandprotect]

92. Guns are an instrument of violence . . .

Nothing changes that fact --

This GOP/NRA "arm everyone" concept is new --

Certainly after the Wild West, America has dropped the gun philosophy --

until the right wing came to understand that in order to keep patriarchy in

play, they would have to resume violence.



Simply repeating something ad nauseum doesn't make it any more truthful

Again, the "arm everyone" canard. And again without any evidence.

A good time to take your own advice!!


Vermont isn't Washington, DC or NYC --

Nor has there been sufficient time to see what will actually happen with all of these

guns across America. T-baggers and their insanities, however, are giving us a good glimpse

of what is to come!


Let's try changing male behavior from its ready violence to more civilized behavior --

starting with violence and rape against women. Now male gang rapes!

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. "Nor has there been sufficient time to see what will actually happen"

I'd say 37+ years or so is plenty of time. Courtesy of DUer X_Digger:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=308209&mesg_id=309022

That last graphic at the link shows a steady drop in the firearms accident rates since the early 20th Century

Feel free to studiously ignore the improvement in the crime and murder rates. Your 'colleague' on that thread certainly has.

[defendandprotect]

97. First, that poster evidently is on my "ignore" list . . .

"Accident rates" . . . ???

Why any accidents?

Crime and murder rates? You mean you're all armed and there are still murders and crimes!

Wow!



You should do something about your basic paranoia --

Your 'colleague' on that thread certainly has.

Don't judge everyone else by the way you behave --

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. But his *links* aren't on your ignore list, are they?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm








BTW, you threw yet another canard in there:

Crime and murder rates? You mean you're all armed and there are still murders and crimes!

Concealed weapons carriers aren't auxiliary police, and shouldn't be expected to be. They arm themselves for their
own protection, as the government has no legal obligation to protect anyone not in its custody.

Someone else put it rather better than I could:

We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheros.
We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

[defendandprotect]

104. Then how come police enforcement is still for gun control?

Meanwhile, you think someone is on "ignore" and the links are going to have value?

[cowman]

106. Are you serious?

For gun control? Ask any street cop and they will tell you they support law abiding citizens right to carry concealed, the only ones who are against it are the cop-o-crats, that is the political cops like chief of police and sheriffs, how do I know this? Because my daughter is a Las Vegas Metro Police Officer and her and every street cop I have talked to support concealed carry. Your assertations are just ridiculous

[defendandprotect]

114. Okay, try it this way: If citizens are armed, police officers have less risk and less work to do-!

[SteveM]

124. You should see what the sheriffs of counties in NY and Texas are saying:

"arm yourself."

If you have data concerning the rate of law enforcement officer deaths over time, then let's see it.

Quit putting people on ignore; I have never done that because they may actually come up with a good morsel for "debate."

[defendandprotect]

131. We have seen those comments here --

and the message is that citizens are responsible for the violence against them --

and that the state has no responsibility for crime.

Interesting way to make crime more common and acceptable.

Let's deal with the underlying causes of crime -- capitalism, for one --

and the poverty its created which breeds crime.

Let's deal with male violence which is reflected in every corner of the world --

and in rape of women.



As for "ignore" -- I only put people on ignore after I have given them every opportunity

to debate honestly.

[SteveM]

136. Logical fallacy with this:

"We have seen those comments here and the message is that citizens are responsible for the violence against them" -- No, that is NOT the message, only your twist on it. The "responsibility" for violence lies with the criminal/thug. Citizens are responsible for their self-protection, not the violence others perpetrate upon them.

The state's LEOs are responsible for investigating crimes, presenting evidence for possible prosecution, and apprehending criminals. The LEOs are NOT responsible for crimes committed, nor are they responsible for protecting you against those crimes, though some effort is made.

"Interesting way to make crime more common and acceptable." I don't know what you mean here as crimes are not acceptable to me or any reasonable person. And crimes over the last 15 years have been going down and are, hence, less "common."

Crime always feeds on poverty; "we have seen those comments here" as well. If you wish to deal with male violence and "rape of women," capitalism and such, then do so. What is your argument? What do you propose? How would you accomplish your goals?

I don't regulate my "ignore" switch based on honest debate. Anyone who makes a lousy argument gets to see my wrathful comeback!

[defendandprotect]

145. The message is that citizens have to RESPOND themselves to the violence against them . . .

and that the state has no RESONDING to do --

now, substitute the word "responsible" for that and you will see that we are

saying the same thing.

That is, the state has no immediate responsibility for crime nor protection of the citizen!

Nonetheless, the state protects property . . . not life.

When the state says that it has no responsibility for protecting against assaults on

citizens then they make crime an issue for and responsibility of the citizen.

When the state fails to take up issues of homelessness and poverty and male rape of women

BEFORE they happen, in preventing those crimes -- they can then be looked at as part of life

rather than as something preventable.

More "common and acceptable."

100,000 people a year die in our hospitals from negligence and malpractice --

and many more from other hospital-created problems.

Do you take a gun when you go to your hospital?

How about corporate crime? How much does it cost you every day that corporations have

control of our government and its agencies?

Will a gun cure those crimes?

Will more violence cure the violence of wars?

No -- poverty creates crime.

If "I" wish to deal with male violence -- no . . . society needs to deal with male violence.

And the first step is in acknowledging male violence.

And same with rape --

As you can see many here are waking up to the injustice of our system of capitalism.

Unfortunately, too often having suffered greatly because of it -- but nonetheless we are all

waking up.

Take your gun to capitalism, perhaps, to rid us of it? Don't think so --

Change begins with society recognizing problems and responding.

Not by ignoring them.




Ah, yes, it must be "wrathful" . . . too bad a gun doesn't work in an internet debate, eh?!!

When people lie in a debate, they are then put on ignore --

Rather, we are here to make more logical arguments to lousey debate!





















----------------

and the message is that citizens are responsible for the violence against them --

and that the state has no responsibility for crime.

Interesting way to make crime more common and acceptable.

Let's deal with the underlying causes of crime -- capitalism, for one --

and the poverty its created which breeds crime.

Let's deal with male violence which is reflected in every corner of the world --

and in rape of women.

[SteveM]

159. Again. . .

If you take a case to court, arguing that an LEO failed to protect you by not responding to a 9-1-1 in 2 minutes, 2 hours, 2 days, or not at all, the case will be thrown out. That most LEOs try to protect people from crime is laudable, but they are not charged with that duty and never have been charged with that duty. Sure cops protect private property -- when they are on the scene. Any dipshit radical can fire-bomb a warehouse, however, and the cops would be no more able to protect that property than they would be able to protect you -- unless they were on the scene. And that is the crux: for LEO to "protect" people (you can define who is worthy of protection, if you wish), we would need a police state. And even those don't work out too well.

You seem to think that guns should be used against some sort of "capitalist" crime. If a "capitalist" came through my door at night in an attempt to attack me, I would most likely shoot his/her ass. I would also shoot a loud-moth lefty, bent on proving a point that he/she can do me in. You have trouble delineating between self-defense and any sort of crime. Crimes occur all over the place, all the time. Does that mean that a "gun rights" advocate is charged with solving these crimes? As a citizen, he/she should work to reduce the crimes, but to stop them in action? That is foolhardy, and in any case would not constitute a self-defense action.

You further seem to think a firearm is a talisman, a cure-all for all manner of social ills. This is a complete construct you have stapled together! A gun is for self-defense, and even here it carries no warranty. If you want to fight a revolution against men and capitalism, then do so, but I suggest you arm yourself.

[cowman]

140. Armed law abiding citizens

are not LEO's and are not required to investigate crimes nor develope evidence for prosecution, we are responsible for our own protection and quite frankly I have a CHL because I know from talking to my daughter and many other street cops that if I get into a bad situation that by the time they arrive they would be drawing a chalk line and doing an investigation. Once again most street cops support law abiding citizens being able to carry concealed or open and believe me, their work load would not diminish.

[defendandprotect]

147. No, they're just required to have guns to protect themselves . . .

from whom?

From male violence --

From other males with guns --

From rapists --

Wouldn't it be novel if our police and society dealt with those actual problems BEFORE

they happened?

[Katya Mullethov]

206. Castrate 75% of 'em at birth ?

I'm thinkin' you'd prefer that be retroactive .......and public !

[paulsby]

193. as a street cop myself and a firearms instructor

with 20+ yrs experience, i concur

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. If you've got more accurate information about crime rates, please produce it.

Complaining about the links because of the person who provided them is called "the genetic fallacy".

[defendandprotect]

115. Call it what you wish, but the individual is on "ignore" . . .

for being disingenuous --

Meanwhile, I don't think that violence of the gun will do anything more than breed

more violence of the gun, especially with the Drug War still on!

Bye --

[friendly_iconoclast]

153. So you *don't* have any better information, do you?

Figures.

[defendandprotect]

176. Haven't looked for any other information -- it's a ridiculous argument ....

It's like saying, hey look, we've had atomic bombs for 60 years and no one has

dropped one on us yet!

Weapons are the male response to their inordinate fears --

300 years of physics and what do men invent? The atomic bomb!

[friendly_iconoclast]

187. Now we've got "blood guilt" to go with the religious misandry? Charming...

You have the right to your religious beliefs, but like any other religion, you do not have the right to demand it
become public policy.


And to haul this thread somewhat back to the subject, I will quote another DUer, Euromutt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=309401&mesg_id=309829

...So to some extent, "society is to blame" for failing to provide mechanisms to assist these people before they put themselves in a situation in which somebody gets injured or killed. And I do believe that, by the same token, society as a whole bears a certain amount of culpability for failing to creating factors that contribute to young males becoming violent criminals; we can blame gangs, but in doing so, we overlook why joining a gang is an attractive proposition to the kids they recruit in the first place.

But the failures of society as a whole do not justify requiring the individual citizen like you or me to be a sacrificial lamb to atone for society's sins, especially since society as a whole has absolutely zero intention of performing penance. If the guy who threatens or inflicts lethal force on me is caught, society isn't going to say "we've failed you, allow us to rehabilitate you"; it's going to lock him up for as long as possible, and then relegate him to second-class citizenship once it lets him loose again. The bottom line is that, when I'm the one being threatened with lethal force, it's not my duty to agonize what brought the guy to this point; at that time, in that place, it is my right to defend myself against the threat the guy poses to me.

Sentiments I heartily agree with.

[defendandprotect]

207. Amazing that you see hatred in women pointing to male-supremacist patriachy ...

and its organized patriarchal religions -- but you can't acknowledge patriarchy's war on women!

That's pretty deep denial --

Maybe you would like to explain to us your idea of the value of male-supremacy in America?


Re this . . .

And to haul this thread somewhat back to the subject, I will quote another DUer, Euromutt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Did you by any chance read it?



...So to some extent, "society is to blame" for failing to provide mechanisms to assist these people before they put themselves in a situation in which somebody gets injured or killed. And I do believe that, by the same token, society as a whole bears a certain amount of culpability for failing to creating factors that contribute to young males becoming violent criminals; we can blame gangs, but in doing so, we overlook why joining a gang is an attractive proposition to the kids they recruit in the first place.

Are you saying organized patriarchal religion is a "gang" --

or are you seeing the military as a "gang" -- cause they're both sure teaching one heck

of a lot of violence to males!

"Society" is based in male-supremacy/patriarchy which has been imposed upon humanity by male

violence. "Society" is not responsible for these patriarchal systems and concepts -- patriarchy

is. Young males are violent because patriarchy/male-supremacy encourages them to be violent.

How would patriarchy oppress others or continue to hold power without violence?

How would the military create murderers without teaching young males violence?

What has organized patriarchal religion ever taught but the works of a violent "god" - ?

Patriarchy and male violence are mirror images of one another.



But the failures of society as a whole do not justify requiring the individual citizen like you or me to be a sacrificial lamb to atone for society's sins, especially since society as a whole has absolutely zero intention of performing penance. If the guy who threatens or inflicts lethal force on me is caught, society isn't going to say "we've failed you, allow us to rehabilitate you"; it's going to lock him up for as long as possible, and then relegate him to second-class citizenship once it lets him loose again. The bottom line is that, when I'm the one being threatened with lethal force, it's not my duty to agonize what brought the guy to this point; at that time, in that place, it is my right to defend myself against the threat the guy poses to me.

"Society" has not failed -- patriarchy has succeeded in creating violence in society and making

males violent. And the longer patriarchy/male-supremacy continues on the more violent it will

become.


Again -- violence breeds violence.

[Euromutt]

215. As the person who wrote some of the stuff under discussion, I feel I have to respond

Are you saying organized patriarchal religion is a "gang" -- or are you seeing the military as a "gang" -- cause they're both sure teaching one heck of a lot of violence to males!

Speaking as an atheist, I'll concur that certain organized religions encourage violence, but they don't teach their adherents how to effectively inflict it. They pick up the "how" from other sources.

The minimum age for joining the armed forces is 17 (with the recruit's parents' permission), which is well above the typical recruiting age for gangs.

So I'm afraid your red herrings are just that: irrelevancies introduced into the discussion.

"Society" is based in male-supremacy/patriarchy which has been imposed upon humanity by male violence. <...> Young males are violent because patriarchy/male-supremacy encourages them to be violent. <..> "Society" has not failed -- patriarchy has succeeded in creating violence in society and making males violent.

So let me get this straight: males are inherently non-violent, but are encouraged to become violent by the "patriarchy," which gained its power over humanity in general by male violence, even though males are only violent because the "patriarchy" encourages them to be.

Strikes me that you've painted yourself into the same corner as anyone--such as Creationists--who attempts to field any variation of the Aristotelian "unmoved mover" hypothesis. The argument there is that every effect in the universe must have a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause, an "unmoved mover," an "uncreated Creator" (read: God). Problem is that to posit the "uncreated Creator," you have to (surreptitiously) ditch your initial premise, to wit that every effect must have a cause. If the Creator can exist without a meta-Creator to create the Creator, why shouldn't the universe exist without a Creator to create the universe?

Similarly, if the "patriarchy" made males violent, how did the males (presumably) who make up the "patriarchy" become violent in the first place? Conversely, if the founding members of the "patriarchy" were supposedly able to spontaneously develop the concept of interpersonal violence, then why is it inconceivable that nobody else would have, independently of the "patriarchy"?

How does it even begin to make sense that Homo sapiens had to develop violence--both intraspecies and inter-species--by artificial means, when the world is filled with other species that are perfectly capable of both? Whoever said that humans are the only species to make war on its own kind was willfully ignorant of what transpires among other species. Predator preys upon prey, ant nests war with each other, wolf packs fight each other over territory (when they're not hunting deer, elk or moose), male chimpanzees or gorillas from one troop will slaughter the males from rival troops (when they're not hunting colobus and bushbabies), examples abound. Unless you want to suggest that the very existence of carnivorous predators is a fabrication disseminated by the "patriarchy," in which case I have a few dozen wolves I'd like you to meet at the sanctuary where I volunteer.

And if you think the female of the species is naturally incapable of violence, try getting between a female grizzly and her cubs some time.

And ultimately, in the history of interpersonal conflict, the only thing that has proven effective in countering violent aggression is countervailing force. Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Saddam Hussein, Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, none of them were amenable to the question "why can't we all just get along?" What it took to defeat them was violence, and plenty of it; specifically, more than they could field themselves. Pacifism inherently requires willingness to hand over control of the world to those people who do renounce violence as a means to get, and keep, what they want; it means capitulating to evil for fear of soiling your own hands. Pacifism is the ultimate act of moral cowardice; it is intellectually, morally and ethically the most dishonest position a human being is capable of holding.

[X_Digger]

216. That's why deflectandproject has me on ignore..

.. providing (in Jane Goodall's own words, mind you) proof of warring / murdering / raping greater ape tribes.

Can't have any refutation of the 'war / murder / rape is a product of male humans only!' schtick.

[friendly_iconoclast]

218. Jane Goodall is an agent of the patriarchy, dontcha know?

And Stanley Kubrick actually made those peaceful, vegan chimpanzees kill monkeys and murder each other, then filmed it. The evidence is right in front of you- just look at the opening sequence of "2001" and the brainwashing bit in"A Clockwork Orange"! :sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

219. Jane Goodall has been bringing us a message about animal-life based

on respect for that life -- something quite different from patriarchy's exploitation

of animals.

There is no species on the planet which is warring on half the species as patriarchy has done.

The only connection I can make to my post is that you think males are chimps and ergo

naturally violent?

[tburnsten]

222. Jane Goodall understood that she couldn't keep adult chimpanzees

Because they would maim and kill her, just like they do to any other human they interact with eventually.

She respected those creatures, respected them for what they were, instead of inventing some romanticized version of them that have only become wild, violent animals because of bad male human's patriarchy.

Go peddle your church somewhere else, I believe there is a religion subforum for this kind of nonsense.

[defendandprotect]

223. Being an atheist doesn't preclude recognizing religious history . . .

Speaking as an atheist, I'll concur that certain organized religions encourage violence, but they don't teach their adherents how to effectively inflict it. They pick up the "how" from other sources.

"Wife beating at the Church's instigation had become so popular by the 15th Century that

even a priest was moved to protest!" -- Bernardino of Siena 1427


US Army training jingle --

"This is my rifle -- (slaps rifle) --

This is my gun -- (slaps crotch) --

One is for killing, the other for fun."


"The language of war is the language of genocide, misogynist obscenities are used to train

fighters and intensify feelings of violence. War provides men with a context to act out

their hatred of women and to embody their ancient warrior myths. War is rape."

"It is no accident that patriarchy relates history as the history of war --that is precisely

their history."



Again, in a society based in patriarchy, violence is taught very early -- take a spin around

the TV channels. And, disrespect for females deeply embedded. Males' greatest fears are based

on being thought feminine. "Men judge everything they say and everything they do by whether it

will make them look weak" --


Patriarchal society is surrounding us -- it doesn't begin at 17 any more than Church waits

until a child is 17 to begin to indoctrinate them.

The minimum age for joining the armed forces is 17 (with the recruit's parents' permission), which is well above the typical recruiting age for gangs.

So I'm afraid your red herrings are just that: irrelevancies introduced into the discussion.

History is NOT a "red herring" as much as you might like to deny that history.


"Society" is based in male-supremacy/patriarchy which has been imposed upon humanity by male violence. <...> Young males are violent because patriarchy/male-supremacy encourages them to be violent. <..> "Society" has not failed -- patriarchy has succeeded in creating violence in society and making males violent.

So let me get this straight: males are inherently non-violent, but are encouraged to become violent by the "patriarchy," which gained its power over humanity in general by male violence, even though males are only violent because the "patriarchy" encourages them to be.

Let's ask an honest question here -- you don't have to give me the answer -- answer it quietly

to yourself . . . "How many males would be serving in Afghanistan or Iraq now if they could

simply walk away from it?"

Additionally, if you truly want to understand the concept of males as non-violent I'd recommend

Howard Zinn's videos and writings. Men are made violent in society -- just as they are made

violent in the military -- by patriarchal intimidation and violence.


Are you asking me here how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld became the people they are --

Are they personally violent? We've heard rumors of W beating Laura --

Similarly, if the "patriarchy" made males violent, how did the males (presumably) who make up the "patriarchy" become violent in the first place? Conversely, if the founding members of the "patriarchy" were supposedly able to spontaneously develop the concept of interpersonal violence, then why is it inconceivable that nobody else would have, independently of the "patriarchy"?

Can Rumsfeld be considered violent if he merely sits behind a desk plotting painful deaths

for others? How about Cheney -- if he's not a physically violent man -- is he therefore not

violent? Many consider members of that administration "sociopaths."


My impression of violence has always been that it's based on self-hatred -- perhaps it begins

with fear and then self-hatred?


Here's another way to look at it --

"The loveless crave power because they lack both love and self--"

"The human self defines itself and grows through love and work -- all psychology before

and after Freud boils down to that."



How does it even begin to make sense that Homo sapiens had to develop violence--both intraspecies and inter-species--by artificial means, when the world is filled with other species that are perfectly capable of both? Whoever said that humans are the only species to make war on its own kind was willfully ignorant of what transpires among other species. Predator preys upon prey, ant nests war with each other, wolf packs fight each other over territory (when they're not hunting deer, elk or moose), male chimpanzees or gorillas from one troop will slaughter the males from rival troops (when they're not hunting colobus and bushbabies), examples abound. Unless you want to suggest that the very existence of carnivorous predators is a fabrication disseminated by the "patriarchy," in which case I have a few dozen wolves I'd like you to meet at the sanctuary where I volunteer.

And if you think the female of the species is naturally incapable of violence, try getting between a female grizzly and her cubs some time.


Humans -- man and womb-man lived in peace -- even the Bibble tells you that --

Earth was The Garden of Eden until the world was turned upside down by patriarchy.

Other species do not declare war upon half of their species. Think about that -- !

Look at the turning of the world upside down in the Bibble -- which was written to cement

patriarchy . . .

Adam gives birth to Eve?

And, what happened to Lilith? Lilith was uppity --

she knew she had been created equally with Adam. She was cut loose and Eve brought in.

And Lilith was demonized as patriarchy has so often done with female they want to disappear,

even if their only choice is to demean them.


"In another garbled version of an older Sumerian account where the goddess accepted Cain's gift

and punished Abel's bloodlust with death* -- and the mark of Cain may have been originally a

sign of the goddess' favor, bespeaking her approval of the older frugivorous agricultural race

over the new meat-eating gangs represented by Abel.

So -- in the Bibbical account of Abel's offering of meat --

"The first-lings of the flock and the fat thereof" --

and rejecting Cain's offering of the "fruits of the ground" . . .

the new Male God was announcing his law -- that henceforth harmony

among men and beasts was out, and killing and violence were in."


Nor is a human being a grizzly bear!

What you are repeating are stories of nature you have been told which encourage you to be

frightened of animal-life -- perhaps even greatly fear it, rather than respecting it as part

of nature.

Women, btw, have been conducting a non-violent revolution against patriarchy for probably more

than 50,000 years -- since the inception of male violence. Nor are women grizzly bears.

Females will of course seek to protect their children. Why not?



And ultimately, in the history of interpersonal conflict, the only thing that has proven effective in countering violent aggression is countervailing force. Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Saddam Hussein, Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, none of them were amenable to the question "why can't we all just get along?" What it took to defeat them was violence, and plenty of it; specifically, more than they could field themselves. Pacifism inherently requires willingness to hand over control of the world to those people who do renounce violence as a means to get, and keep, what they want; it means capitulating to evil for fear of soiling your own hands. Pacifism is the ultimate act of moral cowardice; it is intellectually, morally and ethically the most dishonest position a human being is capable of holding.

I'd again recommend Howard Zinn to you -- you have been taught to value violence and believe

that it is the only way. Hitler would not have arisen had it not been for treasonous behavior

of wealthy Americans who worked to re-arm Germany -- to finance Hitler and his wars.

Nor would fascism have risen so completely had we faced it in Spain with Franco.

Saddam Hussein was a creature of the US/CIA's creation -- just as so much else that is evil in

the world has been the doing of our corrupt government.

Also keep in mind that Hitler had the violent example of the RCC and its Crusades and oppression

of Jews and forced conversions to emulate --

Here's Hitler's only comments on that --

"Well, what do you really object to in my treatment of the Jews?
I have certainly been consistent -
I am doing what the Catholic Church has already done for fifteen centuries --
The difference between the Church and me
is that I am finishing the job."

---Adolph Hitler -- "Confronting anti-Semitism"






NOTE --

* Before you suggest that the goddess was violent or teaching violence for the killing of
Abel, keep in mind that males have rewritten history to suit their need for violence --
and to vilify women, not only in regard to the goddess, but re Lilith --
and in the degrading of Mary Magdalene -- to name just a few instances of reversals of truth.
In other words, we have no way to know that the goddess Eve actually had Abel slain.




-----------------


And here's someone else on the violence of the Bibble --

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel

and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than

half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the work of

a demon than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to

corrupt and brutalize Mankind, and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest

everything that is cruel."

-- Thomas Paine


-----------


Maybe you want to rethink this and restate it?

Strikes me that you've painted yourself into the same corner as anyone--such as Creationists--what attempts to field any variation of the Aristotelian "unmoved mover" hypothesis. The argument there is that every effect in the universe must have a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause, an "unmoved mover," an "uncreated Creator" (read: God). Problem is that to posit the "uncreated Creator," you have to (surreptitiously) ditch your initial premise, to wit that every effect must have a cause. If the Creator can exist without a meta-Creator to create the Creator, why shouldn't the universe exist without a Creator to create the universe?

[tburnsten]

224. Who the fuck are you quoting?

Or are you just making it all up on your own?


I've got to run, but I'll hop on and systematically obliterate your... no polite words can describe the nature of your "arguments".

[Euromutt]

235. A bit of Googling turned up this

http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv5-5.html

It's cribbed straight from there. I'm fairly certain a number of my brain cells committed suicide while I was trying to read that stuff.

[tburnsten]

237. That page looks like it was written by a schizophrenic

during a particularly bad episode.

Oh well, in academia if you can convince a few people a year to take your batshit crazy ramblings seriously you've got a career.

[defendandprotect]

238. Of course, women wouldn't understand male-supremacy if Mary Daly

hadn't informed us of it --!!

Or Mary Wollstonecraft - or her daughter, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley --

I'm sure African-Americans weren't aware of their oppression until the Communists

pointed it out to them!

:eyes:

You can't abide to even read the article you pulled up, yet begin to debate or

respond to it!

[Euromutt]

234. You haven't answered my fundamental question

I'm not particularly interested in getting bogged down in all the extraneous clutter in your post; I just want to focus on what I consider to be the crux of your thesis, and the contradictions therein.

You assert that males are inherently non-violent and that "Earth was The Garden of Eden until the world was turned upside down by patriarchy." But if males are inherently non-violent, why would they overturn the apple cart in the first place? Pointing at Cheney and Rumsfeld isn't an answer; in your scenario, they are both the products of thousands of years of patriarchy. What was the reason for patriarchy to come into being in the first place? Why would there be fear and/or self-hatred in Paradise?

And may I add that citing the Bible (I don't know what you're trying to achieve by misspelling it; the name comes from βιβλος, Greek for "book") as evidence of anything to an atheist is a rather pointless exercise. The contents of the Bible are at best historical fiction, in the sense of heavily embellished dramatizations of historical persons and/or events; other parts, including the books of Genesis through to at least Deuteronomy are fabricated out of whole cloth. I don't consider a bunch of Bronze Age goatherds' mythology to be an adequate guide to moral behavior.

What you are repeating are stories of nature you have been told which encourage you to be frightened of animal-life -- perhaps even greatly fear it, rather than respecting it as part of nature.

Don't be so bloody presumptuous. I'm well aware of the fact animals will typically attack humans in one of two situations: either it's because they (mistakenly) perceive you as food, or they perceive you as a threat that they can't run away from. And both situations are very rare, but they can, and do, happen.

<...> you have been taught to value violence and believe that it is the only way.

Again, don't be so bloody presumptuous. I believe violence (or "force" to use the more polite term) is the last resort, only to be used after all other avenues--appeals to reason, compassion, decency, etc.--have failed. However, I will not discard it as an option, even if it the option of last resort. As do you, given that you state that:

Females will of course seek to protect their children. Why not?

Speaking as a father, I might point out that it's hardly unheard of fore males to seek protect their children as well.

Look, it's not that I deny that many human cultures, going back millennia, have been patriarchal in nature, including our own. What I have a problem buying is this notion of yours that violence is somehow an artificial creation, cooked up by some patriarchy-as-ultimate-overarching-conspiracy, that disrupted a mythical Paradise for no readily apparent reason.

Maybe you want to rethink this and restate it?

You have given me absolutely no reason to do either.

[defendandprotect]

239. Why did males turn to violence . . . ???

Well, what does it tell you in the Bible which pinpoints that time when patriarchy took

over?

What is Genesis telling you of the overturning of the Garden of Eden?

Was it all really about a "snake" and an "apple" or was it about animal-eating/killing?

What was Adam's unhappiness? That Lilith might be his EQUAL! And, how did the patriarchs

solve that problem for Adam and his ego? By letting Adam CREATE EVE . . . thru his rib.

And, contrary to all reality and contrary to all prior myth!

If you're still not getting it -- see Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" --

You can also try Mary Daly on "Womb Envy" --

And many others who cite this as the underlying cause of patriarchy's war on nature --

and women -- i.e., see Mel Brooks on the subject of Frankenstein --!!






234. You haven't answered my fundamental question
I'm not particularly interested in getting bogged down in all the extraneous clutter in your post; I just want to focus on what I consider to be the crux of your thesis, and the contradictions therein.


There are also other reasons which may have in some part of the world triggered male

violence -- had there been famine? Some say that somewhere from behind Turkey violent

males came into peaceful communities. There's more on that idea. But that's all for now.


Again, re the overall non-violent nature of males and humanity, I would recommend Howard Zinn.
Lots of terrific stuff on that from him. And, I think what he has studied and written on it
is conclusive. HOWEVER, keep in mind that people can be made violent. The military is an
excellent example of that.


You assert that males are inherently non-violent and that "Earth was The Garden of Eden until the world was turned upside down by patriarchy." But if males are inherently non-violent, why would they overturn the apple cart in the first place? Pointing at Cheney and Rumsfeld isn't an answer; in your scenario, they are both the products of thousands of years of patriarchy. What was the reason for patriarchy to come into being in the first place? Why would there be fear and/or self-hatred in Paradise?

The Bible places the overturning in the Garden of Eden which is the Golden Age, evidenty.
Supposedly the Bible was written to CEMENT patriarchy -- they hadn't been totally successful up
to that time in establishing patriarchy. I'm sure you've noted that there's a ton of anti-female
propaganda in the Bible -- Old Testiment has a rather nasty "One all male god" -- as well!
Why couldn't males tell us what might create male violence? They might have a better guess at it?
If you notice, male violence in our society is barely acknowledged!
What do you think made George W, Rumsfeld, and Cheney sociopaths? Or do you disagree they were?

Also keep in mind that this violence occurred over tens of thousands of years -- and certainly the
female goddesses were prime targets. Took a long time to establish male-supremacist --
one all male god religion!

And may I add that citing the Bible (I don't know what you're trying to achieve by misspelling it; the name comes from βιβλος, Greek for "book") as evidence of anything to an atheist is a rather pointless exercise. The contents of the Bible are at best historical fiction, in the sense of heavily embellished dramatizations of historical persons and/or events; other parts, including the books of Genesis through to at least Deuteronomy are fabricated out of whole cloth. I don't consider a bunch of Bronze Age goatherds' mythology to be an adequate guide to moral behavior.

I'm also an atheist -- recovering Catholic here --
I say Bibble, because it's a play on "Babble" -- However, you will note that I also often use
the appropriate "Bible."
Books replaced oral history -- If I recall correctly one of the first admonitions re the Bible
was that it not be changed -- and then they immediately changed it. They had to. They had to
reverse all female history of goddesses and female notables/models. In turning the world upside
down, they had to rewrite the entire history.

Unfortunately, as long as Organized patriarchal religion is with us -- and people abide by it
still -- and use Bibles -- we have to acknowledge them. And, in some part even the counter-
myths of the Bible tell a story we can decode. Certainly, it is of some significance that one
of the first things the Bible does is reverse childbirth -- making Adam the giver of life!
Think about that.


What you are repeating are stories of nature you have been told which encourage you to be frightened of animal-life -- perhaps even greatly fear it, rather than respecting it as part of nature.

Don't be so bloody presumptuous. I'm well aware of the fact animals will typically attack humans in one of two situations: either it's because they (mistakenly) perceive you as food, or they perceive you as a threat that they can't run away from. And both situations are very rare, but they can, and do, happen.

The underlying war on animal-life -- the eating of the "enemy" so to speak - begins in the mind
of man. Animals are our brothers and sisters on the planet. Where does the original license
to exploit animals come from but organized patriarchal religion -- Bible?

The rejection of Cain's gift -- and this is a reversed story, as well.

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are the license given to exploit nature,
natural resources, animal-life -- and even other human beings according to various myths of
inferiority!

See: Papal Bulls on this re Native Americans and Africans enslaved here --
"Enslave them or kill them!"

This is "Divine Right" granted by the one-male god --


<...> you have been taught to value violence and believe that it is the only way.

Again, don't be so bloody presumptuous. I believe violence (or "force" to use the more polite term) is the last resort, only to be used after all other avenues--appeals to reason, compassion, decency, etc.--have failed. However, I will not discard it as an option, even if it the option of last resort. As do you, given that you state that:

Females will of course seek to protect their children. Why not?

Speaking as a father, I might point out that it's hardly unheard of fore males to seek protect their children as well.

You offered the example of the grissly bear -- I agree, when threatened people will try to
protect their children. Whether that means clubbing someone attacking or stealing a loaf of bread!
I promise I would always steal bread to feed my child, if necessary.

But something much more happens when there is an organized effort to make citizens frightened --
then . . . wars happen . . . citizens begin to arm themselves.
How did the lies of 9/11 and Iraq take us to war -- think about that.
If an American had knocked down a few buildings in Iran, would we expect an 8 year war on ALL
Americans -- total bombing of every citizen? It's totally out of balance with reality.

Look at the right wing attempt to create a violent America, from the Drug War to promoting guns.
It is purposeful. Cheney made it very clear that the right seeks to create our reality. And,
that isn't anything new!

How many guns has the NRA sold since this campaign to frighten America began?

How many Democrats have been targeted by the GOP/NRA since the campaign began?

How many liberal/progressive issues have been buried because of that successful fear mongering?


Look, it's not that I deny that many human cultures, going back millennia, have been patriarchal in nature, including our own. What I have a problem buying is this notion of yours that violence is somehow an artificial creation, cooked up by some patriarchy-as-ultimate-overarching-conspiracy, that disrupted a mythical Paradise for no readily apparent reason.

Again, I can only encourage you to tap into Howard Zinn --
And, in repeating that this is somehow a notion of "mine" you seem to be trying to deflect
its message. It is by no means a notion of "mine." It is the rational belief of many.

Also keep in mind that the age old question remains ...
"How are the many controlled by the few?"
The answer to that remains violence and intimidation -- oppression.
The few/elites have a desire to control the many -- why?
I can only guess --
But whether we look at what is happening right now, or the distant past, their objective
has always been the same!

And we are still in the same gene pool which gave us genocide and slavery!


PS: I'll have to go see what OP I'm even posting on right now --

trust you'll catch this reply since I think it's late.

[friendly_iconoclast]

217. You are a religious fundamentalist, and "patriarchy" is your version of "Satan".

You have Recieved The Truth, and anybody who disagrees is either in denial or working for "the Other"

Instead of John Calvin or Tim LaHaye, you have Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler.

Instead of Satan out to get souls, you have "the patriarchy" out to oppress women.

Fine, you don't like guns. That's you right. But your arguments in this thread is as theocratically based as that of any Taliban or Christian Reconstructionist, and just as unacceptable in modern society.

[defendandprotect]

220. I see . . . I'm to blame for patriarchy's oppression of women ---

[tburnsten]

221. Once again showing what a fundy you are...

[tburnsten]

240. Awww, don't feel bad

We aren't blaming you for being oppressed,

Oh great now all I can picture when I see you handle is "Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed!"

[Katya Mullethov]

189. Until the y unleash them all at once

Nuclear weapons will pale in comparison to the damage wrought by " It's for the children" .

[paulsby]

192. police POLTICIANS are not all cops. IACP does not represent line cops

any more than GM's CEO represents an assembly line worker

more generally, management =/= labor

ESPECIALLY when management is a bunch of politicians (iow political appointees)

again, fail

[SteveM]

123. Ah, the paranoia canard...

Please keep in mind that in the game of parlor psychology, that broaching a mental condition first, and using it as a moral bludgeon on another, is often called "projection." Or, to put it another way, "He/she who first smelt it dealt it."

Oh, so THAT'S why you don't use much in the way of data. You "ignore" it.

Continuing problems: "You mean you're all armed and there are still murders and crimes!(?)" First of all, most Americans are NOT armed, and second, murders and crimes are on the decline. You acknowledge this last phenomenon, don't you? Well, how 'bout the first?

[defendandprotect]

132. Try reading more slowly . . .

the poster your are interceding for was suggesting that I was working with a partner

here.

Get a grip!

[SteveM]

138. Ah, you didn't use "paranoia," nor do you push "ignore."

I could have sworn you did/do.

[defendandprotect]

148. Again . . .

when anyone verges off into actual misrepresentation . . .

they're on "ignore."

[jazzhound]

96. Guns aren't ONLY instruments of violence however, and screaming the same

inane tripe over and over again doesn't change the facts. The overall effect of guns in American culture should fairly be described as a "null" effect -- since they are used *at least as frequently* to protect their owners as they are to inflict violence.

[defendandprotect]

98. And you're bragging about all of that -- !!!

:evilgrin:


:eyes:


:rofl:

[jazzhound]

112. Bragging? What kind of assinine response is that?!

Why would I be bragging about the fact that the violent crime rate in this country compels citizens to protect themselves with the most effective tool at their disposal?

It's certainly not a personal accomplishment of mine. Your statement makes no sense, but why should anyone by surprised by that?

[defendandprotect]

133. You feel "compelled" obviously . . .

others perhaps understand what creates crime ...

And that would be our system of capitalism which creates poverty and breeds crime.

The overall effect of guns in American culture should fairly be described as a "null" effect -- since they are used *at least as frequently* to protect their owners as they are to inflict violence.

A "null" effect -- ??

We need to have the GOP/NRA and gun owners take full responsibility for any harm done with

their guns -- insurance.

[SteveM]

122. If "male gang rapes" and patriarchy are so vile, why disarm in the face of them? nt

[Katya Mullethov]

166. Religious freedom

It ain't like they're playing with snakes or something .

[paulsby]

191. there was no "wild west"

that's a media created myth

nor do the NRA/GOP or PRO RKBA dems for that matter advocate "arming everybody'

that's a common lie amongst anti-gunners

it's about choice

RKBA is not about arming everybody any more than being pro-choice is about encouraging every woman to go out and get pregnant so they can abort it

logic fail

[beevul]

205. The hits just keep coming.

"Certainly after the Wild West, America has dropped the gun philosophy"

Right...thats why up to 1934 one could buy machine guns in hardware stores without background checks or waiting periods.


And not just machine guns. Grenades, bazookas, and most things that people in this day and age would call "weapons of war".


Then in 1934 came the national firearms act, which was crucial to pass, because after the wild west, america dropped the "gun philosophy".


:rofl:

[spin]

91. My post was to explain why I support gun ownership ...

I'm so old it turned into a history lesson.

Modern guns do not go off unintentionally. There was a fool with a gun in Walmart. While the firearm was in the holster it was safe. He removed it and played with it. Firearms are NOT toys. The gun is not at fault.

During the officer's investigation, witnesses said Walters entered the store carrying a semi automatic pistol in a holster.

According to witnesses, Walters continually "messed" with the gun while it was in the holster. He would reportedly holster and un-holster the gun, which made the other customers and employees nervous.

As Walters stood at the electronics counter talking to the clerk, he pulled the gun out of the holster and thumbed through some nearby magazines, Peoples said.

The clerk said she was afraid that she was about to be robbed. She notified the store manager of the situation after Walters left the counter.

Walters reportedly approached the checkout lane and while standing at the end of the counter, he pulled the gun out of his holster again.

When he pulled the gun out of the holster, a magazine dislodged and fell on the floor.

Peoples said Walters picked up the magazine, placed it back into the gun, manipulating the gun as if loading the weapon.

While he was doing this the gun discharged and sent shots into the ceiling.

Walters was arrested and booked on six counts of endangerment, disorderly conduct and discharging a weapon within the city limits.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/westvalley/elmirage/story/shooting-Wal-Mart/OjROJQTSL0OJno6kY2W8uQ.cspx

[defendandprotect]

99. And, it would help if you read my reply to that post . . .

As with everything else, humans are error-prone --

certainly not infallible -- far from it --

and when guns and humans mix, accidents happen --

UNINTENTIONALLY!!

[spin]

110. True, on re-reading you post, you did say that. (n/t)

[tburnsten]

167. The guy in Walmart was a jackass who wouldn't stop playing with a loaded weapon

And fired a round off when doing so.

The gun did not go off unintentionally, he fired a round into the ceiling. He may not have wanted to, but by his actions that was the very predictable outcome. And the gun didn't "go off", it discharged because he pulled the trigger while being an asshat.

[paulsby]

194. and as soon as he started pulling the gun out of holster and playing with it

as he reportedly did several times, he was committing a crime (at least in my jurisdiction)

you don't "play" with a loaded firearm, and CErTAINLY not in a public place/crowded store where members of the public would justifiably be alarmed.

[tburnsten]

196. I'm with you.

The place to fiddle with a gun is at home, unloaded, or at a shop, unloaded, or at your buddy who just bought its house, unloaded, or at a show, unloaded.

[beevul]

204. Uh what?

"You're holding that 1920's America was same as today's America . . . ???"

"We had a long secure period in between WITHOUT GUNS ..."


You can not be serious.


Ever heard of a tommy-gun?

Ever heard of the national firearms act of 1934?


Ever research before you rant?


But...go ahead...knock yourself out and show everyone the "long secure period in between(1920 and today) WITHOUT GUNS"


We'll wait right here.

[SteveM]

120. Some here play the fall-guy to a "T" when it comes to Teabaggers...

What "controls" do you propose? Which ones have been shown to work? (Please note the CDC studies on "gun interventionist strategies.")

Guns are not violent. The user of guns may be violent; though even here, the vast majority are NOT violent.

Do you really feel a "chill put upon democracy and debate" because of teabaggers and their guns? I don't feel any such thing. There are some in this forum who play the fall-guy to a "T" when it comes to the T-baggers. They're picking at you because they know you get scared. Don't let 'em pick at you. Write a letter-to-the-editor, show up at a rally and tell what for, start your own demonstration. If they prevent you from doing that, then liberals/progressives are a wimpy, sorry lot. This is not a bully culture, though it damned well may be a BULLIED culture. Sheesh.

Please explain how guns "foster violence...and too often within the gun owner's own family!" The National Safety Council reports that childhood deaths due to firearms have been on a steady and significant decline since the mid-1990s, even as the number of firearms in civilian hands has risen by more than 100,000,000. Do you have other data?

[proteus_lives]

27. Gun-woundings?

?

[defendandprotect]

46. You've never heard that our hospitals treat gun shot woundings?

Amazing!

Last I heard $38,000 per shooting -- but that's a very old figure.

We all pay for that violence -- within society and financially --

And, as a gun-advocate I'm sure you're aware that there has been an effort to

try to get the gun industry to pay for these costs which their product creates!

[Pavulon]

52. My wife treats them at a hospital in NC They are almost ALL

poor black kids shooting each other for drug disputes. All bullshit. People who commit suicide with guns dont hit the ER. Well not after they are dead. Never heard her mention a shooting from a wealthy neighborhood in chapel hill.

We also pay for illegal immigrants with no health care.

Lets try to get the people shooting other people to pay, how about that. Novel idea, people actually take responsibility for what they do.

Maybe the breweries should pay DWI victims? Yea?

[jazzhound]

93. As long as you're talking about costs, at least have the integrity

to recognize the costs saved through the many defensive gun uses that occur every day in the country. The "humanity" of the anti-gun crowd would resonate with more authenticity if they showed an ounce of humanity for crime victims who choose to successfully defend themselves --- in most cases without having to fire a shot.

But of course defensive gun uses are a myth, right? :eyes:

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

103. The 2nd amendment has an opening clause . . . militia "well-regulated" ...

which means that even if you had a right to guns, they would be "regulated" by government.

You don't have to be a "manhater" to see male violence --

What many males desperately need is some therapy for violence --

and guns are one of the purest instruments of violence!

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

149. Whatever the alleged "right" .... it is stipulated it must be "well-regulated" . . .!!

And, again, male violence is being discussed in general --

and any "personal" take on this issue is simply a means of trying to game-play.

But . . . evidently, patriarchy doesn't have a "problem with women" . . . !!

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

163. The "well regulated" applies to the militia, not to "the Right of the People". n/t

[defendandprotect]

175. "Well-regulated" applies to whatever the right is . . .

if it is about guns or arms, then they must also be "well-regulated" --

[Euromutt]

179. Grammar's not your strong suit, is it?

In English, as in most Germanic languages, an adjective has to directly precede the noun to which it pertains. If the adjective is way off somewhere in another clause of the sentence, it almost certainly doesn't pertain to that particular noun. In the Second Amendment, "well regulated" pertains to the militia; it does not pertain to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Only by the most tortuous and tendentious interpretation could you even claim it does.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum, the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment does not provide a justification for the existence of the RKBA; rather, it expresses why it is against the state's interest to infringe upon that right. It is in the interest of the state to have available, in the event of emergency, a recruiting pool of private citizens who already know how to handle a firearm, therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clear?

[defendandprotect]

180. So you want a militia without guns and arms . . . ??? Is that it?

Or you just want the militia's uniforms, perhaps, to be "regulated" --

The opening clause is there because it pertains to the entire concept of the Amendment --

which is . . . "A well-regulated militia."

And, presumably, people who "already know how to handle AK47's and tanks and other 'arms'" --

This is an antique which should be retired --


Our Founders had no concept of modern day weapons - they only understood the need for a

militia to serve the state's needs and that it should be "well-regulated" by government.

[tburnsten]

185. A double barreled shotgun or rifle is considered "well-regulated"

when both barrels shoot to the same point of aim. That is the same meaning of the word "regulated" that our founding fathers were using when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

[Euromutt]

200. If you examine the Militia Act of 1792...

...which, you will note, was passed one year after the Second Amendment was ratified, citizens who were mustered into the enrolled (i.e. conscripted) militia were expected to provide their own, privately owned, weapons and equipment.

The Second Amendment is not about establishing a militia. That notion is simply absurd on its face, given that every other amendment in the Bill of Rights is about placing restrictions on the power the government has over its citizens. If the Second Amendment were only about establishing a militia, why would it speak of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

Again, the prefatory clause simply provides a reason why it is actually against the government's interest to restrict private ownership of firearms.

Our Founders had no concept of modern day weapons <...>

Maybe not in specific detail, but the Framers knew that firearms technology had advanced significantly in the preceding 400 years, from hand cannon through matchlocks and wheel-locks to flintlocks, and they were almost certainly smart enough to predict that firearms technology was going to continue to develop. At the time, the Austrian army had had the Girandoni air rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle) in service for over ten years, which had an ammunition capacity of twenty shots.

[defendandprotect]

208. Read the 2nd amendment without the opening clause and then explain to me

WHY the clause is there --

If the issue was "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" . . . there would be

NO OPENING CLAUSE!

And, as much as the GOP/NRA would like to ignore that opening clause, it cannot be ignored.

It has a purpose. It sets the stage.


AND, most of the following is a great argument against your own argument. . . !!


If you examine the Militia Act of 1792...

...which, you will note, was passed one year after the Second Amendment was ratified, citizens who were mustered into the enrolled (i.e. conscripted) militia were expected to provide their own, privately owned, weapons and equipment.

And that pretty much makes clear what the purpose of permitting "the people to keep and bear

arms was all about"!!

also . ..

This makes some sense, but not in your favor . . .

Again, the prefatory clause simply provides a reason why it is actually against the government's interest to restrict private ownership of firearms.

What you are saying simply makes clear that the government does have an "interest" in private

ownership of firearms -- but that for the sake of a militia, private ownership was to be

encouraged.


Our Founders had no concept of modern day weapons <...>

Maybe not in specific detail, but the Framers knew that firearms technology had advanced significantly in the preceding 400 years, from hand cannon through matchlocks and wheel-locks to flintlocks, and they were almost certainly smart enough to predict that firearms technology was going to continue to develop. At the time, the Austrian army had had the Girandoni air rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle ) in service for over ten years, which had an ammunition capacity of twenty shots.

Right -- the Founders could forsee missiles and AK47's . . . and atomic weapons!

And "Star Wars" --!!

The Founders didn't want a standing army because they feared the warprofiteers --

That was another reason why they put their faith in Militias --

[Euromutt]

211. I have now told you TWICE why the prefatory clause is there

It is there to make it clear that prohibition on infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not only a limitation on the government's power, but that it is additionally in the government's interest not to infringe on that right.

Okay, since the states practically stopped bothering with the enrolled militia after the War of 1812, that particular interest has waned to a large extent (though not completely, since under the Dick Act of 1903, every resident male from 17 to 45 is in the unorganized militia, and thus subject to potentially being called to arms in the event of an emergency). But that still leaves the aforementioned limitation on the government's power; if we scratch the "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," we're still left with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Right -- the Founders could forsee missiles and AK47's . . . and atomic weapons!

Note that that's explicitly not what I said; I said that the Framers should have been able to foresee that weapons technology would continue to evolve beyond its state in 1791.

[defendandprotect]

212. You can repeat that nonsense ad infinitum . . . and it is still meaningless in

the face of the opening clause --

If the intent was anything but a militia, then they would have simply said --

"No restrictions on citizens' right to keep and bear arms."

And, here again, not only does it say they can have guns -- it says "bear arms."

That's another contradiction of guns for personal use --

It again signifies a Militia --


And, again, what you make clear is that all that would have been necessary is . . .

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


And that the opening clause is placed there to modify and limit this intent --

[PavePusher]

225. Should we bow before your Omniscient-ness...

or may we merely tug our fore-lock as we encounter your aura?

[defendandprotect]

226. If you can bow . . .

before the GOPs/NRA, you can probably bow before anything --

The gun is a weapon and a symbol of violence and the product of violent thinking --

[PavePusher]

227. Violence in self-defense...

is not always a bad thing.

[defendandprotect]

228. Right ... someone might spit on you -- !!!

[PavePusher]

229. What ever are you so frantic about about? n/t

[defendandprotect]

230. You didn't read the article about the shooting?

[tburnsten]

171. No it doesn't

It means they will be in good working order, of a reasonably common design (such as the AR-15 platform anti-gun individuals hate so much) that is suitable for martial uses.

[one-eyed fat man]

178. oh hell, not another one.....

Tra-la, tra-la, tra-la............cue the faeries and unicorns..................

IF women ruled the world, there would be no wars, none of that nasty testosterone. If men need therapy, you could stand a little reality.

Don't believe me, just ask Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi or Maggie Thatcher!

(We won't even mention, Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine)

If you do the tiniest bit of research, you will find that the mutilation of battlefield dead was almost exclusively the province of women. There are no brutalities to rival a woman's! It was Karl Otto Koch's wife, Ilse, who became notorious as 'Die Hexe von Buchenwald' for her cruelty and brutality. Yes she was the infamous "Bitch of Buchenwald" that had naked prisoners lined up outside the "showers" looking for interesting tattoos to have made into lampshades.

"Jedem das Seine"

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

--from 'Young British Soldier'

[defendandprotect]

181. In a patriarchy, do you seriously think that women who are anti-war will come to power?

Patriarchy is a system of violence in place --

and patriarchy is a "bird with one wing."

Let's look at what patriarchy has done in their ignorance to bring the planet and

humanity close to extinction!

Patriarchy/Organized Patriarchal Religion and their system of capitalism are based on

exploitation . . .

of nature, natural resources, animal-life -- and even other human beings according to

various myths of inferiority.

The result is near total pollution and destruction of our environment --

and yet patriarchy continues to increase its options for violence in perpetual wars.


As for the soldier's comments --

Native Americans were scalping the "discovers" --

"The fraudulent story of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators during ... " --

And we were invaded and made helpless by 19 hijackers while NARAD was AWOL! --

[one-eyed fat man]

188. Matriarchy unmasked.

The best argument for matriarchal based societies is that there is rarely any doubt as to who the mother is. Until very recently, paternity was a faith based determination. The argument could be made that current laws encourage false-paternity claims. To receive federal funds on child-support orders, states must name the fathers of the children on assistance. Since there is no federal requirement for DNA testing for paternity, there is no state requirement.

In 2002, former California Gov. Gray Davis admitted that $40 million in federal funds could be jeopardized by widespread paternity challenges.

For this reason, and immense political pressure from the National Organization of Women, who argued that passing the act would harm children who might lose support payments,in 2002 Davis vetoed the California Paternity Justice Act, (AB 2240), which would have vacated judgments against falsely named "fathers." Women who knowingly signed false declarations of paternity would have been liable for criminal prosecution.

How many falsely named "fathers" could this decision affect?

A study by the American Association of Blood Banks found that "the overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2 percent for accredited labs."

Which only shows how deceitful women have been for centuries! Momma's baby and daddy's maybe" upset by science. So your aggrieved womynhood claim that all of human ills were non-existent when only womyn lived in their idyllic vegan, unicorn riding pre-history do not impress me as credible, likely or believable.

[paulsby]

195. not to mention that women DO have testosterone

not that i attribute violence/evil for a second to testosterone

[jazzhound]

158. "If you're concerned about crime, understand that poverty breeds crime"

Duh! Thats what we've been saying all along. Guns aren't the problem ---- social ills are the problem. Thanks for making our case for us.

And w/regard to the NRA taking care of bills ---- how 'bout the Brady Bunch pick up the tab for all of the people murdered because they were (criminally) convinced that they were incapable of defending themselves?

[paulsby]

197. poverty in and of itself does not breed crime

lots of quite poor nations have relatively low crime rates.

lots fo quite poor neighborhoods have had low crime rates.

historically, for example, first generation japanese immigrants were very poor and VERY law abiding

[defendandprotect]

213. Let's be clear that the elites are our criminals . . . . . and that their crimes are

the most costly and damaging for our nation ---

However, poverty does breed crime --

and, that does not mean that EVERY citizen who is impoverished will turn

to crime.

[SteveM]

119. And you suggest what kind of prohibition/control shown to work? nt

[SteveM]

117. Any supporting data? How 'bout the Nat'l Safety Council? nt

[poverlay]

2. Hate my lawmakers. They suck so very very much. We need our Janet back. She was all that was

standing between us and the deep dark pit of ignorant fundy idiocy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. OMG, you Zonies will now be just like....Vermonters

Lighten up, Francis. Not too many gunfights in the streets of Brattleboro...

[poverlay]

13. Does Vermont have similar laws? And did you just call me Francis???

[X_Digger]

17. Yes, Vermont doesn't require a permit to carry concealed.

Vermont does provide a process by which people can get a permit (useful for reciprocity with other states.)

[PavePusher]

54. To the best of my knowledge Vermont has no permit process whatsoever.

I am a legal resident of the state, even though temporarily stationed in Arizona.

This makes it neccesary for Vermonters to get a non-resident permit from other states if they want to have any reciprocity. Fortunately I have family in Utah (got my Utah non-res), Arizona graciously treats military personnel as residents for issue of their CWP (got it) and New Hampshire has a fairly simple non-res process (got that one too).

[X_Digger]

72. I'll have to complain to my brother-in-law..

He's an ex-Vermonter who told me they had one for reciprocity purposes! That's what I get for not looking it up myself.

[PavePusher]

79. It might be a very-well kept secret, but I haven't heard of it.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.... today..... :evilgrin:

[tburnsten]

173. Might be confused with Alaska, which does fit that description

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Yes, and yes. However, I do promise not to call you Shirley.

Nice, progressive-friendly Vermont, the land of artisanal cheeses, does not require permits for concealed handgun carriage.

Somehow, they have avoided firefights in front of the capital building in Montpelier and gang wars on the lakefront in Burlington.

[paulsby]

198. clearly, then artisinal cheese prevents violence

i mean, duh

[friendly_iconoclast]

202. Nah, it's all those Phish bootlegs.

It's like, obvious, man!

[paulsby]

203. careful man, there is a beverage here nt

[Euromutt]

61. "Lighten up, Francis" is a movie reference

Specifically, from Stripes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083131/)

PSYCHO: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
LEON: Ooooooh.
PSYCHO: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.
SGT HULKA: Lighten up, Francis.

And yes, Vermont allows concealed carry without any licensing requirement. If you can legally possess a firearm, you can carry it concealed.

[PavePusher]

63. Must be the "blood in the streets"....

that makes our leaves turn such pretty colors in the autumn, yes?

[Katya Mullethov]

236. It's the iron

It took many generations of accumulation though , it isnt an overnight thing .

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tburnsten]

172. Yes they do

Now lighten up Francis.

[SteveM]

125. "They're coming to take you away, ha-ha; they're coming to take you...

away, ho-ho, he-he, ha-ha....to the Funny Farm!"

Bullies wouldn't be so nearly effective if the bullied would quit playing the role.

[earcandle]

5. Wait a fucking minute. The house has 435 members. How can 55 members pass a law like this?

[Angleae]

6. Arizona state house. Total 60 members.

Another 30 in their senate.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orbitalman]

7. This shit just keeps cropping up...

Here comes the Wild West back again. What? History merely repeating itself?

[pipoman]

8. Actually when every one of the 45 states

which allow law abiding people to carry a defensive firearm people have said, "Wild West back again", all panicked and out of breath, yet the mantra has not yet played out. When will people learn to quit listening to Scary "the Sky Is Falling' Brady's silly predictions?

[Toots]

9. Every single fucking day there are people killed by guns

Every single fucking day...And you want more guns??????

[pipoman]

11. Every day people are killed with

knives, and bats, and cars, and sticks, and hands, and feet, and vases, and.....

Every single day there are more guns yet there has been steady decrease in violent crime for the last 30 years, and 40 year low rates of gun shot accidents...I will be happy to post CDC and FBI stats to back this up if you like.

What I want is violent criminals to be locked up or permanently removed from our otherwise civil society. I want mental health accessible to all. The more guns = more crime mantra is a demonstrable lie.

[slackmaster]

15. That's just not logical

This change in AZ law has nothing to do with "more guns".

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Every single fucking day there are fewer people killed by guns

While gun ownership has skyrocketed.

[spin]

36. More guns does not equal more crime ...

the number of firearms in our country has increased dramatically since 1973, but the violent crime rate has fallen.



I don't claim that more guns = less crime as there are many factors at play. However study the chart and the big drop in crime started in the 1993 time frame. Interestingly enough that was the same time frame that "shall issue" concealed carry laws were passed in many states.

The Indiana Sportsmen’s Council, assisted by the NRA-ILA, passed a mandatory issuance law in 1980, then had to sue the state police and other agencies and elected officials into compliance.

A trend started, with CHL laws passed in Indiana in 1980, Maine and North Dakota in 1985, and South Dakota in 1986.

1987-88: Florida, the Media Storm
The national media ignored these until 1987, when Marion Hammer tackled Florida. Anti-gun folks were horrified. Obviously concealed carry would turn Florida into another Dodge City. Blood would flow in the street. Fender-benders would turn into firefights.

The fight was tough, but the Unified Sportsmen of Florida succeeded. The dire Predictions? A year later the president of the police chiefs association, who had opposed the bill, was asked if he had kept track of all the problems the law caused. "There aren't any," he said.

1989 to 1998: CHL Sweeps the U.S.
That opened the way. CHLs swept through Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 1989; Idaho and Mississippi in 1990; Montana in 1991; and Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in 1994. Then came 1995, with Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and Virginia. In 1996 Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina passed CHL laws, and West Virginia passed it again, their state supreme court having struck down the first one. Alaska, in 1998, had to override a governor's veto to remove restrictions from their law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=308659&mesg_id=308676

[PavePusher]

57. The homicide rates are... wait for it... falling.

Got anything besides profanity and spittle?

[Euromutt]

65. Killed *with* guns, not *by* guns, and at least 80% of the shooters possessed the gun illegally

Firearms don't kill people by themselves; somebody has to point the gun at the victim and pull the trigger. And in at least 80% of homicides, that person is someone with a prior felony conviction, who is already legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. In much of the remaining cases, the person is someone who is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, or would be if his status as such had been established by a court.

This law will not make it easier for anyone to acquire a firearm, nor will it make it legal to carry a firearm for anyone who would not meet the requirements for a concealed carry permit (and that latter category includes the overwhelming majority of murderers).

[SteveM]

126. Please check the crime rates over the last 15 years...

and get back to us. Personally, I don't care if others want to buy "more guns." I may wish to (a .22 for inexpensive target practice); I already have enough rifles and shotguns, and a revolver for personal protection.

We don't have the capacity to ban the stuff which is responsible for killings (many, many of which are accomplished by items other than guns). If you have a suggestion, let's hear it.

[tburnsten]

174. You understand that this legislation has no impact on the number of guns right?

They do exist after all.

[defendandprotect]

19. GOP/NRA has been working on this for decades . . . violence kills democracy . . .

it's one way for the elites to overcome it -- if their other methods somehow

fail!

When we look at the T-baggers and their threats, you can see the environment

created when people are puffed up and confidence that violence and aggression

can succeed. And when people actually believe thadt violence and aggression

can solve human problems!

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. The same laws sure killed democracy in Vermont, didn't they?

Just look at Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean. Obvious agents of the dreaded GOP/NRA!

Of course, you also think Cro-Magnons were vegans so we need to consider the source...

[pipoman]

37. I have asked this poster

to explain this:




A 13,000 year old clovis point. All I have heard is crickets..

[one-eyed fat man]

183. That's because before men evolved

there were only hairy-legged womyn living freely, in harmony with the plants, impregnating each other with turkey basters. Then those evil, smelly, cave men came along to subjugate them, force them to cook the animals they killed and pollute the planet. Hell, that makes 'intelligent design' look downright enlightened!

:crazy:

[SteveM]

127. Are you really so afraid of the "GOP/NRA" that you would disarm in front of them? nt

[Pavulon]

24. My god, look at vermont, its worse than newark or camden NJ, oh wait

guns illegal in newark. still a murdering shithole. Vermont, not so much.

[Mother Smuckers]

40. The 'wild west' you apparently have in mind existed only as faulty memories of Hollywood writers.

Contrary to the romantic stories, gunfights at the OK Corral or elsewhere were no more prevalent than they are today.

[PavePusher]

55. Got statistical evidence to support your emotional (and fiction-based) assertion? n/t

[lonestarnot]

12. Too many nutballs all in one place.

[PavePusher]

58. Painting a whole state with one wide brush...

How very enlightened of you.

[SteveM]

128. The other "nutballs" are in Vermont; huge crime rate in that right-wing hell-hole. nt

[slackmaster]

14. Good. One less thing to worry about when I travel in the Zone.

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

20. What might that be? Other people with guns?

[slackmaster]

21. No, it means I have the choice of carrying open or concealed

Under the current law, you can carry openly but the gun has to be loaded or you face a possible misdemeanor charge. I can't carry concealed because I am a California resident and can't get an Arizona concealed weapons permit.

With the new law, I'll be able to carry concealed without fear.

[defendandprotect]

22. What do you fear . . . ? Other people with guns . . . ???

[Pavulon]

25. i fear bitey ants and spiders that can jump, especially those furry bastards

however that has nothing to do with carrying a concealed weapon.

[slackmaster]

26. I fear all the bad drivers on the road causing collisions, injury, and death

How about you?

[defendandprotect]

47. You planning to shoot lousey drivers?

[slackmaster]

67. No, of course not. What a silly question.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

82. ... based on your silly post . . .

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[proteus_lives]

30. Why are you so afraid of people exercising their rights?

[defendandprotect]

48. What right? There's an opening clause .... or do you want tanks and atomic bombs, as well?

Meanwhile, even if the Founders intended everyone in 2010 to have a gun . . .

the states would still have the right to regulate them.

"A well-REGULATED militia" ....

And, we can see the effect the gun-toting GOP/NRA idiots are having on democracy/

debate as the Morans move into the political arena and town halls with the guns/rifles!!

We've been there -- we gave it up --

[PavePusher]

59. "There's an opening clause..."

You are....

MASSIVE FACEPALM.

[defendandprotect]

69. You're denying there is an "opening clause" . . . ????

Pitiful ...

[proteus_lives]

75. Still trying to make that turd float?

No wonder the anti-rights crowd continues to lose ground.

[armueller2001]

87. Just for historical accuracy's sake...

"Well regulated" during the founder's time did not mean controlled or restricted as it does today. It meant well functioning, i.e. a clock that runs reliably is well regulated.

The "militia" includes the organized militia (national guard) and the unorganized militia (all males between the age of 17 and 45). I own firearms, train with them to keep my skills sharp, and maintain my firearms in a functioning condition, therefore I am well regulated. I'm a member of the well regulated militia by definition.

[HALO141]

141. Just curious... Who are the Morans? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. I fear people who persistently misrepresent history trying to reorder society.

Sadly, we can see that this behavior isn't confined to teabaggers...

[defendandprotect]

49. You're unhappy with your fellow-gun-toters . . . the T-baggers . . . ? Why?

Aren't they a tremendous advertisement for how well guns/rifles work in town square

debate? Anyone feel intimidated? Nah!

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. I'm afraid that some of them might be those vegan Cro-Magnons...

And come after me with a Clovis point knife, thinking I was a stand of cattails. They just love the roots, y'know...

[defendandprotect]

68. I think your story begins and ends with "I'm afraid . . . " ---

[SteveM]

129. Why do you live in fear?....

You have conveniently defined an "enemy" based on his/her possession of guns, and excused yourself for hating them.

If you are that worried about the threat of gun-toters, why do you wish for others to disarm in front of them? (You do realize, of course, that prohibition will not work and you would only be disarming yourself in front of the object of your hatred?)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. Clowns, Zombies, and Velociraptors. Nothing a good .45acp couldn't handle.

[ManiacJoe]

38. I'll give you the clowns and zombies,

but my money would be on the 'raptor.
:evilgrin:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. REAL life velociraptors only stood about 3ft tall and weighed 30lbs.

And while they were pack hunters... they were not nearly as smart as pop culture indicates.
A 45 would fuck a velociprator up. It'd probably be alot like capping a young ostrich.
KEEP IN MIND!!! --> Don't let the dimunitive size fool you.
It only means your fortification needs to tighten any "holes" up even better. :scared:



Now, if we're talking "Jurassic Park" raptors... time to get the machine guns.
Although, I do keep a double barrel 12ga in my trunk just in case. Too bad they hunt in packs of 3+.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Utahraptor

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. get(Desert_Eagle)... load == point_five_oh... /raptor (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

43. You kill it, you have to clean it, cook it and eat it.

Wonder if it tastes like chicken?

[jazzhound]

109. LMAO!

Glad I didn't have beverage in my mouth as I read your post!!! :-)

[benEzra]

199. Undoubtedly. :-)

Wonder if it tastes like chicken?

Welllll, chickens are basically a dino variant, ergo small dinos would've tasted like chicken...although they probably taste like chicken jerky seasoned with limestone, now...

Check this out...major threadjack alert...


Wing/hand bones of Deinonychus (dromaeosaurid dinosaur) and Archaeopteryx (archetypical bird). Chickens have lost the sickle claw on the foot, and the hand bones are fused in adults, but physiologically chickens and extinct dinos are likely as similar as two arbitrarily selected mammals would be. Which, I suppose, means that T. rex would have tasted like a fourteen thousand pound chicken...

BTW, the "velociraptors" of Jurassic Park were pretty much Deinonychus (about the right size, methinks). It appears Michael Crichton got the two confused when he wrote the book.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. About that time I would want a Ma Deuce with a full belt. N/T

[ManiacJoe]

56. I am thinking something with a bit more distant reach.

Like maybe an AC-130.

[PavePusher]

60. Mossberg pump n/t

[defendandprotect]

51. I see . . .

you hallucinate -- !!

[Pavulon]

53. No, dont mess around with zombies.

you have the slow romero zombies and now those fast bastards. Zombie movies do give to much credit to the pump shotgun. Bulky heavy ammo.

Zombies are actually a great use of the 556 nato round. headshot..

[krispos42]

162. .22LR to the head.

No fuss, no muss, lots of lead bouncing around inside the cranial cavity. Get yourself a 10/22 with a 50-round magazine and go to town.

I know a .22LR fired from a rifle will punch clean through a steel drum at point-blank range. Penetration of a zombie skull at 50 yards shouldn't be a problem. Death by the swiss-cheese effect. :-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Some people hallucinate vegan Neaderthals, others zombies.

Best to be prepared for any eventualities...

[defendandprotect]

83. You're prepared with all of them . . .

hallucinate away --

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

78. Nope

I fear people like you who would attempt to restrict my 2nd Amend right

[tucsonlib]

71. I Got My Permit The Old Fashioned Way

I coughed up a few bucks; took a rudimentary course which touched on basic technology, safety procedures and laws pertaining to firearms; allowed the powers-that-be to enter my name into their computers just in case I was on a list of "Known Sociopaths", "Dangerous Psychotics" or "Habitual Deadly-Weapons-Wielding Assault Enthusiasts"; and demonstrated that I could hit a paper target at 20 feet causing minimal collateral damage while resisting any temptation to hold my pistol at a 90 degree angle.

It all struck me as quite reasonable. I didn't feel my rights were being trampled. It was a public safety issue and another notch on my bona fides as a responsible citizen (he typed between tokes on his concealed bong).

So now any gang-banging, Palin-worshiping, violence-prone, mentally challenged husband-beater can legally carry a concealed weapon. Why doesn't that make me feel safer? Why can't I bring myself to applaud this as a victory for liberty and freedom?

But really, it's not the bill that I find troubling. It's the Arizona legislature itself, and those lawmakers who waste time and taxpayer dollars on hot-button, cultural, "moral" issues while their state crumbles down around them. In addition to approving this bill, Arizona is also planning to sue over HCR, further restrict a woman's right to choose and deny health care coverage to thousands of needy families. Meanwhile, our state parks are closing due to lack of funding and our educational system is a joke. But they can always find a few extra bucks for fence-building or anything else that promises to "secure the border". After all, "THEY" are the cause of all our financial woes. Along with the liberals. And the commies. And the fascists. And that socialist Obama.....

http://www.bandersnatch.com/bajaz.htm


:banghead:

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Just be happy your stopped-clock legislature did *one thing* right

At least you realize that the law itself is not problematic...

[SteveM]

130. Arizona wastes time on "hot-button, cultural, "moral" issues because...

the gun-control "movement" made the Second Amendment into these things long before the GOP learned to capitalize on the issue. That is why it is so self-destructive for the Democratic Party to CONTINUE calling for "assault weapons bans" and other anti-gun measures. Do Democrats really loathe holding power?

I guarantee you that gun-rights groups will play this issue out to the thinnest of attenuated vapors as long as Democrats keep playing whack-a-mole where we are the moles. And all the worthy issues you cite must WAIT for gun-control Democrats to give it up. Do you think they will?

[krispos42]

164. Well, maybe the concealed-carry bill burned up enough time to stop something else from passing.

There's always hope, I guess...

[aikoaiko]

73. California next!!!!!

Mwahahahahaahahahaha!

[jazzhound]

105. Hope you're right! n/t

[slackmaster]

88. Is blood running in the arroyos yet?

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

154. Whether it is or not is unimportant to the more religiously oriented gun controllers

It feels like a bad thing to them, so they're against it. Like the Brady grades, it's more important to recite the litany than to observe what your church is doing.