Intrusions on privacy in America.

[RoeBear]

It's a clip from an 'Ask Marilyn' column in the Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine Section, dated July 28, 2002. The column is written by Marilyn Vos Savant.

Q: I had a discussion with someone recently about the ever-increasing intrusions on privacy in America. My argument was that Americans are constitutionally entitled to privacy. His argument was that if you have nothing to hide, the intrusions shouldn't bother you. What is your opinion?

A:Intrusions by whom, and for what purpose? I think that his argument is weak. It would justify the public release of just about anything: your credit-card purchases, your telephone records, your medical conditions and more. The ability to invade privacy implies ownership, and that's why most of us detest it so much. One of the first signs of a child's growing maturity and feeling of independence is his or her desire for privacy. This is not an effort to hide; it is an expression of human dignity.
----------

Seems to relate quite well to gun rights.

[MrSandman]

1. Seems to relate quite well to all rights.

Despite the protestations heard, gunowners appear to be one of the most vocally oppositional to Patriot and the expansion of the powers of the AG.

[MrBenchley]

2. Now how the hell does anyone get "gun rights" out of that?

Unless one is so severely obsessed that one has periodic LaTourette-type spasms...

"....your credit-card purchases, your telephone records, your medical condi.....ACK!! GUNS!!!"

Soemtimes you guys remind me of Mr. Dick in David Copperfield....

[OpSomBlood]

3. Because owning a gun doesn't make a person suspicious.

If a person owns guns privately, safely and legally, there is no reason for the government to keep tabs on them.

[MrBenchley]

4. Yeah, surrrrrrre....

Get back to me when Ms. vos Savant advises that cars ought not to be registered and drivers licensed....

[OpSomBlood]

5. I'm not opposed to licensure.

I would be in favor of state licensure to buy and own a firearm that includes a thorough background check and extensive safety training. But registration simply isn't an option as far as I'm concerned.

[RoeBear]

6. Shouldn't someone mention...

...apples and oranges here? CO? Iverglas? No?

Oh well.

Myself, if someone wants to own guns they shoud be able to expect a fair amount of privacy to go along with that. If they want to be able to carry concealed in public then they should be willing to get licensed.

[mosin]

32. concealed carry licensing

Myself, if someone wants to own guns they shoud be able to expect a fair amount of privacy to go along with that. If they want to be able to carry concealed in public then they should be willing to get licensed.

I don't lose any sleep over shall-issue concealed carry licensing requirements, as long as the hurdles to get a license aren't created so as to exclude those of modest means from qualifying.

As an example, Texas's concealed handgun license costs $140. Even if you prove indigence, it costs $70. Plus there's the cost of state-mandated training. The costs are there to raise revenue for the state and to reduce the number of permits issued. The costs are not there to address any public safety concerns.

PA and NH are better examples. They cost $19 or $20. Licenses are issued promptly after background checks are completed. The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

[iverglas]

39. aha

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

Then I was right! They are required to paint their firearms dayglo orange and carry them over their head on a pole.

Uh ... can someone explain to me how a cop can even tell whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm, let alone whether s/he is a "good guy" <sic>? And how, as a corollary, when a cop sees someone un-conceal his/her concealed firearm, the cop knows that s/he has a licence to carry it??

.

[OpSomBlood]

40. It could be that CCW holders aren't criminals.

And therefore don't engage in activities that draw the police's attention.

I can't speak for anyone else, but all three CCW courses I've attended very specifically covered how to let a police officer know you are carrying.

It seems to me that the anti-gunners are fighting straw men when it comes to concealed-carry. Crime and reckless behavior by permit holders simply isn't a significant issue.

[iverglas]

44. now, y'all go ahead and try again

Here's the statement I was replying to:

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."


Here are my question:

can someone explain to me how a cop can even tell whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm, let alone whether s/he is a "good guy" <sic>? And how, as a corollary, when a cop sees someone un-conceal his/her concealed firearm, the cop knows that s/he has a licence to carry it??


And here is your, uh, response:

It could be that CCW holders aren't criminals.

Okey dokey. And the question was: how can a cop know whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm? How can a cop know that someone who un-conceals a firearm is licenced to carry it?

And therefore don't engage in activities that draw the police's attention.

Okay, that's irrelevant.

I can't speak for anyone else, but all three CCW courses I've attended very specifically covered how to let a police officer know you are carrying.

Uh hun. And the question was: how can a cop know whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm? How can a cop know that someone who un-conceals a firearm is licenced to carry it?

But let's get back to the original problem, 'k?

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

How can a cop "easily tell" anyone from anyone else at all based on the issuance of a licence, at least where the licence is not tattooed on the forehead of its holder?

How does a cop tell someone with a licence to carry a concealed firearm from someone without a licence to carry a concealed firearm? Since the latter might be of more interest, does the cop wait for the person to announce "I am carrying a concealed firearm without a licence to do so?"

The corollary this time: why does a cop need to know this anyhow? The cop's concern is surely how someone is using a firearm, not whether s/he has a licence to carry it around.

In other words: what earthly sense did the statement I was responding to make??

.

[OpSomBlood]

56. If a CCW holder doesn't point a gun at a cop in a threatening manner...

...then the cop will not be threatened by it.

[iverglas]

57. and if you could answer my question

I'm sure you would.

.

[OpSomBlood]

59. I guess I have to be more verbose.

How can a cop "easily tell" anyone from anyone else at all based on the issuance of a licence, at least where the licence is not tattooed on the forehead of its holder?

People who receive concealed-carry licenses don't engage in the type of behaviors that are of concern to police officers. They don't randomly pull out their guns, they don't point them at cops.

If there is a situation where a police officer needs to search a licensed person carrying a gun, that person merely explains the situation and tells the officer exactly where on their person the gun is located.

The fact of the matter is that by law, "concealment" means "impossible to tell by looking." The police don't need to know who is carrying if there isn't a specific reason for them to know. If the person carrying is obeying the law and their weapon is concealed, then there's no controversy.

How does a cop tell someone with a licence to carry a concealed firearm from someone without a licence to carry a concealed firearm? Since the latter might be of more interest, does the cop wait for the person to announce "I am carrying a concealed firearm without a licence to do so?"

The corollary this time: why does a cop need to know this anyhow? The cop's concern is surely how someone is using a firearm, not whether s/he has a licence to carry it around.

Well, I'm not sure if this is a continuation of the first question, but you pretty much answered it. If a gun is properly concealed, there is no way to know if someone is carrying. If fact, the law states that a gun must be concealed from plain view. So licensed persons who completely conceal their gun (even from police) are actually in full compliance of the law.

[iverglas]

63. nope, didn't help

The original statement (which I misattributed to RoeBear):

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

My questions:

Uh ... can someone explain to me how a cop can even tell whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm, let alone whether s/he is a "good guy" <sic>? And how, as a corollary, when a cop sees someone un-conceal his/her concealed firearm, the cop knows that s/he has a licence to carry it??

Your answer

<blah>
<yada yada>
<yak yak yak>
If a gun is properly concealed, there is no way to know if someone is carrying.

And there we have it. You properly rejected my question as being loaded with the implied false premise that "a cop can tell whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm". Theoretically, at least, a cop CAN'T tell whether someone is carrying a concealed firearm.

Of course you neglected to address the actual point, which was that there is no way in hell that a cop can tell whether a person who IS carrying a concealed firearm HAS A LICENCE TO DO SO.

So the original statement --

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

-- is a nonsense. And, it certainly seems to me, a complete misrepresentation of the reason for requiring that anyone who wishes to carry a concealed firearm in public have a licence to do so.

We agreed?

Quite obviously, the licensing scheme is simply a way of administering exemptions to the general rule that concealed weapons may not be carried in public. Those exemptions are granted purely for the (alleged) benefit of the people who receive them, and the licensing scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with any benefit to the cops, the general public, or anyone else.

And that's what all this polkaing and jiving around my question has illustrated quite nicely.

.

[OpSomBlood]

64. Beat that straw man.

There is not a significant amount of inappropriate gun use by people who have concealed-carry licenses. So none of this discussion has any relevance to reality.

[iverglas]

66. go tell it to the mosin

There is not a significant amount of inappropriate gun use by people who have concealed-carry licenses. So none of this discussion has any relevance to reality.

Mosin is the one who said

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

... and of course hasn't returned to elaborate on or defend that claim.

I don't know what you might be talking about, I'm sure, but *I* was talking about what mosin said. Maybe you can find mosin someplace and make inquiries and set him/her straight, if need be, if you're this concerned about stray fish in the discussion.

.

[mosin]

81. "the mosin"

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

... and of course hasn't returned to elaborate on or defend that claim.

I don't know what you might be talking about, I'm sure, but *I* was talking about what mosin said. Maybe you can find mosin someplace and make inquiries and set him/her straight, if need be, if you're this concerned about stray fish in the discussion.

I was clearly talking about what I view as a reasonable justification for requiring a concealed-carry license. And for what it's worth, it's the most common justification offered to me by police officers. They understand that regardless of the law, the "bad guys" will carry a concealed weapon anyway. A CHL allows them to know whether a citizen they encounter carrying a firearm is a "good guy." Under a Vermont or Alaska style law, any non-prohibited possessor may legally carry concealed without need of a license. A cop in those states encountering a citizen with a concealed handgun doesn't initially know the citizen's background.

[iverglas]

85. uh, you did get it, right?

Go tell it to the mosin,
over the hills and e-v'ry-whe-ere ...

I mean, it *is* Friday afternoon, and I did deliver the job due yesterday, and accomplish nothing at all on the job due in the middle of March, and make the mistake of answering the phone when the person looking for the other job due yesterday that I thought was due today and hadn't started anyhow called ... and none of them can live without me, so I'm all right, jackos.

I was clearly talking about what I view as a reasonable justification for requiring a concealed-carry license.

Damn, I just wish I could tell when people are stating opinions and when they're stating "facts". This

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

just didn't look like an opinion to me.

And for what it's worth, it's the most common justification offered to me by police officers.

Well, if we were all much worried about how easily cops can tell whether people with guns are entitled to be carting them around, that would be a point. Since they still can't tell this without asking a computer or doing some other such operation, I'm still not seeing a point.

Well, except that, hey -- it's pretty much the one I made:

Quite obviously, the licensing scheme is simply a way of administering exemptions to the general rule that concealed weapons may not be carried in public.

Those exemptions are granted purely for the (alleged) benefit of the people who receive them, and the licensing scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with any benefit to the cops, the general public, or anyone else.

The cops still start from the position that someone carrying a concealed weapon has to be investigated to make sure s/he is doing it legally, since the rule is that it is illegal to do so, and the exception is that a person with a licence may do so. The person with the licence won't get charged. I'm still not seeing any benefit to the cops in this process.

So it is purely the people who want to be exempt from the general rule the rule who benefit from the licences in question. And who create make-work, and undoubtedly anxiety, for cops if the cops ever encounter them & their firearm. Regardless of how the cops are made aware of someone's possession of a firearm, they just don't know whether the person has permission to carry it until they make official inquiries.

And, amazingly enough, the fact that a person has permission to carry it just isn't an iron-clad guarantee that s/he isn't going use it against a cop or anybody else.

Just think of all those drunk drivers with licences ...

.

[el_gato]

86. you bring up the car analogy, and way more people die from cars

Those evil nasty car drivers.
I don't know if you should be allowed to drive
a car since you might go kill somebody with it.

[mosin]

88. someone's not getting it

The cops still start from the position that someone carrying a concealed weapon has to be investigated to make sure s/he is doing it legally, since the rule is that it is illegal to do so, and the exception is that a person with a licence may do so. The person with the licence won't get charged. I'm still not seeing any benefit to the cops in this process.

You're mentally comparing a sitution in which concealed carry is completely illegal to one in which it is illegal except with a license. I'm starting from the assumption that carrying a concealed weapon is legal and stating a justification for requiring a license. In moving from a Vermont to a New Hampshire law, that is essentially the benefit. Just take a look at the debates earlier this year in the NH legislature. The Senate passed a bill repealing the general prohibition on concealed carry. The House ultimately rejected the bill after law enforcement complained that they benefited from the pre-screening of the licensees. That was my original point, that I have no real objection to a NH/PA-type law versus a VT-type law. (And since NH and PA require no training, pre-screening is the only benefit.)

And, amazingly enough, the fact that a person has permission to carry it just isn't an iron-clad guarantee that s/he isn't going use it against a cop or anybody else.

There are no guarantees in life. But how many times has it actually happened that the holder of a CHL threatened or fire upon a cop with a firearm? Practically speaking, it's one of those things that simply doesn't happen.

[MrBenchley]

67. In other words...

These idiotic laws benefit only gun industry profits, give neurotics with Chuck Norris-type fantasies dangerous toys to play with, and operate to the detriment of the general public's safety and law enforcement.

[TX-RAT]

76. What they're not saying

There is no way to determine the difference between a licensed or unlicensed individual. If a individual is determined to be carring a weapon whether or not they have a license, s/he will most likely be detained are arrested for unlicensed carry or failure to carry according to law. In the latter they would be arrested and license suspended. If a officer suspects you are carrying a weapon and it turns out you are, your in trouble.

[MrBenchley]

78. Would you agree there's no way

an even marginally competent officer notices that someone is carrying a pistol and says to himself "Oh, look, it must be one of those licensed good guys!"

[TX-RAT]

80. Yes sir i would.

[MrBenchley]

84. It seems like no pro-gun argument is too absurd

sometimes...

[mosin]

82. "competent officers"

In Ohio, if the pistol is unconcealed, there's no need to have a license, so there is no justification for investigating the citizen.

So, yes, in that case, the proper reaction is, "Oh, look there's a doughnut shop right behind that legally-armed citizen!"

[MrBenchley]

83. Don't forget to wipe...

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[mosin]

52. Keep your <sic> to yourself

Under most circumstances a cop will never notice that an honest citizen is carrying a concealed firearm. When a cop does encounter a "good guy" on a routine matter, there are any number of circumstances that could lead to the cop detecting a concealed firearm. Just use your imagination. In those cases, many cops appreciate having CHL's as a "good guy" certificate.

In many states, including Ohio, there is no license needed to carry an unconcealed firearm. Some of my shooting buddies started openly carrying regularly last fall as part of the lobbying effort to pass a concealed carry law here. I joined in one of the group marches, but I never tried it solo. I could just imagine all the BMWaG! calls pouring in.

[iverglas]

54. first my poop, now my sick

Is there no end to the things that you people want to compel me to keep to myself?? Liberty, I say, or death from exploding unreleased bodily substances!


Under most circumstances a cop will never notice that an honest citizen is carrying a concealed firearm.

Why this fixation on "honesty"? Is it true, then, that someone who has cheated on his/her income taxes, or at poker, or on a math exam, is not eligible to own firearms in the US??

Under most circumstances a cop will never notice that an honest citizen is carrying a concealed firearm.

And the damned hilarious thing is that under most circumstances, neither a cop nor anyone else will ever notice that violent mentally ill person or a career criminal out on parole is carrying a concealed firearm, either.

So maybe somebody could tell me, if you'll pardon my asking again, what conceivable point was being made by the person who said:

The licenses are nothing more than a pre-screening tool, so that cops who encounter citizens carrying firearms can easily tell the "good guys."

even if it were remotely true.

.

[MrBenchley]

55. It sure does seem

that the entire case FOR handing out pistol permits is based on nothing but near-lunatic fantasy...

Does anybody REALLY think that any cops anywhere say to themselves,"Aha! That guy has a bulge in his jacket where a shoulder holster would be. He must be one of the good guys!"

Even more to the point, is there anybody who REALLY believes he can find someone else stump-stupid enough to buy that idiotic crap?

[MrSandman]

9. Fine, apply the same rules as cars...

Including reciprocity.

One can't have it both ways

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

7. funny how

... the people who have challenged laws like Texas's anti-"sodomy" statutes weren't claiming to be entitled to engage in the sexual activity of their choice at the church of their choice. Or the mall, or Macdonald's, or while strolling in the park.

(But hey, surely "privacy" would cover pooping in the park? What could be more private than the choice of where to poop?? "Your credit-card purchases, your telephone recods, your medical condi ... ACK!! POOP!!!" Forgive me, I just had to say it first.)

No ... few people would claim to understand "privacy" as entitling them to do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. But there will undoubtedly be some who claim to "understand" it that way.

.

[OpSomBlood]

8. You are entitled to privacy if your actions don't harm others.

It seems that you think that the potential for harm is enough to infringe on privacy.

If that's the case, then everyone in possession of freaky pornography should be suspected of being a sex offender and everyone in possession of beer should be suspected of being a wife beater.

[iverglas]

my dear boy

It seems that you think that the potential for harm is enough to infringe on privacy.

I'm actually not the only one to think this, of course; many more authoritative than I happen to think it. But that aside ...

There is no more potential for harm from my pooping in the park than from your toting a firearm around. If you don't put your foot where I'm pooping, there is just no problem at all. Just like if I don't walk where your bullet goes.

And if I happen to poop on your shoe, why, you have all the remedies the law provides. Charge me for pooping on your shoe, but just don't try to make laws telling me I can't poop in the park when I'm not pooping on your shoe.

And as long as you don't walk where I've pooped, you'll be fine. Just as I'll be fine if I don't walk where you decide to shoot.

You might tote your firearm, and I might poop in the park, and no one might ever know. If I poop discretely and someone wanders into it, not my fault; I was just exercising my right to privacy. Just like it isn't your fault if you fire your firearm in "self-defence" and shoot a kid a block away. So we don't need laws against toting firearms in public, or pooping in the park. We only need laws to punish people who fire their firearms at someone illegally, or poop their poop on someone illegally, right?

Anything else would be an utterly horrific invasion of privacy.

Hey, at least it's unlikely that YOU'LL BE DEAD if you wander where I poop -- or even if I poop on your shoe, eh?

.

[MrBenchley]

18. You know, concealed pooping can cut down on crime...

If people THINK that they might step in it if they wander into the park, they'll stay out of the park where they might get robbed or worse...

[el_gato]

26. Ah, the old anti-freedom, anti-privacy, let's bend over for fascism crowd

Yeah, give up your privacy.
Who cares about human dignity.

Talk about twisted arguements to justify the ever shrinking
freedom in this country.

You types will have all the time in the world
to sit around and bash freedom when you are sitting
in a concentration camp.

Bashing privacy, how low can you slavery apologists get?

[MrBenchley]

48. It's squat down for freedom!

Don't forget to wipe!

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

51. Don't forget to wipe!

Why would you want to alienate voters who poop in the park, gato?

[MrBenchley]

10. Pooping in the Park

You craven slaves of the Queen in Canada don't realize how soft and effete Muricans have become because the PC crowd won't let us poop in the park anymore. Imagine how outraged the Founding Fathers could be if they wiped their Founding Bottoms on toilet paper instead of a pine cone! That's why we need our guns guns guns guns guns guns!!!

[OpSomBlood]

11. Pooping in the park infringes on other people.

Pooping in the privacy of a toilet does not.

Shooting random people with my rifle infringes on other people. Keeping a rifle safely stored in my closet does not.

Nice analogy, it works well here.

[MrBenchley]

12. Pooping in the Park is a private act

It only infringes on random people if they step in it or trip and fall face-first in it.

Why should innocent park-poopers be punished for the actions of a few irresponsible people? And what laws will prevent pooping in the park?

Don't let facts get in your way.

[OpSomBlood]

13. I'm not going to waste time or bandwidth debating defecation habits.

Why don't you try sticking to the topic for a radical change?

[MrBenchley]

15. You've obviously never pooped in the park

or else you'd realize how many swell people do it. It's only because the anti-park-poop press and a few chronic hypocrites and embezzling adulterers condemn it that you fall in line. If only you weren't so narrow-minded and thought for yourself instead of listening to the BIG LIE about poop in the park.

Would you rather kids not know what to do when they have to poop in the park? Or do you want to keep Tommy Turd out of the public schools just because of your absurd anti-park-poop agenda?

It could cost us this election. When we need every vote we can get, do you really want to alienate people who poop in the park?

[el_gato]

27. Do you spend alot of time playing with your poopoo in the park benchy

sometimes I really wonder about you
and your fasicination with feces

[iverglas]

34. It's mine! It's mine!

Do you spend alot of time playing with your poopoo in the park benchy
sometimes I really wonder about you
and your fasicination with feces


It was MY fascination with feces. C'mon, follow the ... uh, droppings.

What else is a permanently premenstrual alcoholic to do but talk poop, eh? Where's old Gern when I need him?

.

[iverglas]

14. Pooping in the park **potentially** infringes on other people

(I've never "infringed on" another person, or seen it done, but what the heck.)

Surely you don't think that the potential for harm is enough to infringe on privacy.

Heavens to betsy.

.

[MrBenchley]

16. Tommy Turd says "Kids! Wipe and cover!"

Some people would clearly punish innocent poopers instead of the culprits who maliciously step in it.

[OpSomBlood]

17. Since shitting in the park is such a pressing issue...

You two should start a new thread. Maybe even start a "Shitting in the Park" forum where you can giggle with glee over how clever you think you are.

That way, we can discuss privacy issues without your irrelevant and unfunny interruptions.

[iverglas]

19. harrumph

Well ... harrumph.

Quoting Ken Barlow, in yesterday's episode of Coronation Street, when he is first informed that his son Peter is a bigamist and Peter attempts to skulk out the door of the Rovers' Return before Ken has started with him. An authoritative source when it comes to harumphable matters, Ken Barlow.

.

[OpSomBlood]

20. I'll take your word for it.

Canadian pop culture references aren't my forte.

[iverglas]

22. yeah

Canadian pop culture references aren't my forte.

I imagine that would be especially true when the reference was to British pop culture.

What I'd meant to add, so I'll do so now, was -- damn, how could Peter Barlow tolerate such an invasion of his privacy? Surely whom he marries, and when, is his own business.

But then, he's just a slave to the Queen ...

.

[MrBenchley]

21. Don't YOU get annoyed

when somebody tries to hijack a discussion of privacy matters to work in a completely unrelated subject...like their gun fetish?

[slackmaster]

23. You're saying RoeBear hijacked his own thread?

Typical BenchleyLogic(TM).

:dunce:

[iverglas]

25. not so's I could see

I saw RoeBear hijacking someone else's words about something else entirely, to advance his own agenda.

But then, I wasn't actually surprised.

.

[MrBenchley]

30. What's mildly amusing...

...is that in googling "Marilyn vos Savant" and "gun," I found an attempt at a letter-writing campaign among the trigger-happy dimwits of America, because for some mysterious reason she failed to mention that more guns in school might cut down on school shootings.

However, since I suppose she ignores missives scrawled in crayon on old paper bags, she has thus far resisted that particular bit of right wing "jenius."

[iverglas]

24. whew

I thought for a minute that when you said Don't YOU get annoyed you were trying to tell me what to do. Sounded like an invasion of my privacy, to me. Fortunately, I then read what you had actually written, thereby avoiding any, um, potential misunderstanding.

.

[el_gato]

28. only the insane can equate public defecation with private home behaviour

but hey I guess you freedom-haters will do anything to further the cause of slavery.

[iverglas]

33. and only the *________* ...

only the insane can equate public defecation with private home behaviour

... would assert that I said anything at all about "private home behaviour". (But hey, let me congratulate you on your elegant spelling of "behaviour". Perhaps I'm having subliminal effect.)

But then I'm never surprised at what the *_______* will do in the constant and valiant effort to persuade someone (who??) that someone else has said/thinks something that s/he has never said/thought.

I mean ... was I WRONG to assume that this "privacy" business, as it allegedly pertains to firearms, has something to do with carting them around IN PUBLIC? That being the issue that *I* was addressing, and all.

I just don't think so.

.

[el_gato]

35. Hey it's your gang Iver

I really don't understand the fecal fetish.

[OpSomBlood]

38. Poop, jerking off to gun porn, big gun/small penis...

These are the points constantly brought up by the side that claims superior intellectual maturity on this issue.

[MrBenchley]

41. What I find doubly hilarious, Iverglas

is that you probably remember as well as I which side of this debate ("only the insane") not so long ago introduced to this forum outdoor elimination of waste as a virile robust virtue of the sort our Founding Fathers had, which is now lost in today's sissified PC Murica and which can only be recovered by AWK!! POOP IN THE PARK GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!!!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

46. Gee, op...

Next ask me if I care....

[OpSomBlood]

58. I know you don't care what anyone thinks.

That's why there's a grand total of three people on this board who agree with your rants with any regularity.

[MrBenchley]

60. Don't be bitter, op...

You still got a "superb" bunch of "enthusiasts" like town, roe, slack, gato and fat slob on YOUR side...and welcome to them.

And yes, I only care about what decent, honest people think. Always have...and never have given two craps for what the sort of people who pimp for the NRA care. If you don't love it, you know where you can put it...and how forcefully you can put it there.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

62. Tee hee hee....

You're welcome to them. But you're known by the company you keep.

[OpSomBlood]

65. You keep company with liars and hypocrites...

...and last time I checked, none of us have much of anything to do with the NRA.

[MrBenchley]

68. Sez you...

But you've more than amply proved your "worth."

So I'll stick with my side.

[OpSomBlood]

70. Disdain from you is a compliment.

I want to be hated by people who are wrong.

[MrBenchley]

72. And yet on the other thread...

you're asking for a show of hands from the peoiple who are wrong.

As for being hated by anyone, you'd have to matter for that to happen. I've had your number since you posted from the stentorian.

[OpSomBlood]

73. What do you do for a living, besides post here?

I'd venture to say I "matter" a hell of a lot more than you do.

[MrBenchley]

74. Too TOO funny...

Nice to see how much concern you actually have for "privacy"...

[OpSomBlood]

75. If I don't matter, then my concern should be of no concern to you.

And seeing as how you are unwilling to tell anyone what you do for a living (it is rather obvious, though, by your 17,000 posts), it seems that you aren't really much of an authority to tell someone else whether or not they "matter" to the rest of society.

Me, I'm an electrical engineer. I just started pursuing my MBA. I own my own business. And I'm not even close to the age of 30 yet.

So let the rest of society judge whether or not I matter.

[MrBenchley]

77. Did you notice me rushing to answer?

However, you did demonstrate how genuine your "concern for privacy" is--in spades.

"It seems that you aren't really much of an authority to tell someone else whether or not they "matter""
I let you do that for me...and you did.

Don't forget to wipe.

[FeebMaster]

69. I'm so honest, I told the gun grabbers how to completely

ban guns in the United States. Good thing all they care about is the AWB.

[OpSomBlood]

71. I presented a compromise to get tough on "assault weapon" crime...

Like I said, they just want to be right. They don't want to solve problems.

[el_gato]

43. ah, benchy trying to distance himself from his poop obsession now

looks like that turd has come back to bite you on the ass! LOL!

Next time you want to engage in a disgusting fetish, do it in private.
That's why, in a free country, the right to privacy exists.

But hey, I guess you ought to get used to public embarrassment
since you don't believe in privacy.

[iverglas]

45. what? what? what's this I hear??

Next time you want to engage in a disgusting fetish, do it in private.
That's why, in a free country, the right to privacy exists.

Heavens to betsy.

Imagine how easily THAT turd could turn around and bite someone in the ass.

In two ways, eh?


1. Next time you want to engage in a disgusting fetish, do it in private.

-- If I may quote RoeBear: "Seems to relate quite well to gun rights."

Next time you want to play with guns, do it in private, eh?


2. That's why, in a free country, the right to privacy exists.

-- "Seems to relate quite well to gun rights." Id.

You mean, in a free country, there are REASONS for rights, and people's exercise of them may be restricted based on those reasons?? Like, I could say: the reason for the "right to keep and bear arms" is ______, and insist that y'all exercise that right in a manner in keeping with that reason??

.

[MrBenchley]

47. Jeepers

it sure is a good thing that there aren't between 80,000 and 115,000 people in the US victimized by poop in the park every year, isn't there?

[el_gato]

50. Hey, you're the one opposed to the right to privacy

And you and your gang are also the ones who want to invade that privacy.
Of course U.S. laws are really not any of your business.

[iverglas]

53. well hey, you're the *___________*

Now, you just go ahead and fill in that blank with your own favourite word for someone who knowingly makes false statements, 'k?

And watch out you don't get pooped on when you're at the mall.

I'd be willing to bet that there's a much higher probability of you getting poop on you when you're out wandering around that there is of your getting shot, right?

So let's hear it for mandatory minimum sentences for people who let their animals poop in public.

After all, it ain't the seriousness or triviality of the harm that occurs when the risk materializes that matters, or the necessity or utter pointlessness of the behaviour that results in it ... it's the highness/lowness of the risk of it materializing. (Viz. those car & doctor "analogy" things.) I've got that right, don't I?

.

[MrBenchley]

79. To further amuse you...

Guess which side is now demanding to know what someone does for a living, speaking of "concern for privacy"?

[MrBenchley]

31. (snicker)

As you know, there is no more grievous sin than being authoritarian in even the slightest way...as that goof from the Daily Show said last night "Could there be anything more terrifying than a room full of people without guns?"

[el_gato]

36. I know you are terrified Benchy

you come on here everyday expressing how terrified of the world you are
when you are not talking about feces that is.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 12:17:08PM EDT, Friday, May 14, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
2 days,
11 hours,
42 minutes, and
52 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[beevul]

89. Poop

My forecast for this thread this afternoon is partly to mostly poopy, with scattered appleshowers and orangestorms throughout out the evening hours.


Some random (really cherry picked, I assure you) thoughts on the thread...


Does one "poop" in the park to defend themselves?
(I CAN see this is perhaps remotely possible if encountering danger after a night of heavy eating at white castle - Can you say "WMD"?Would that constitute a McFeebs Law violation, since it refers to poop?)

Is pooping in a park really a good thing to compare to carrying a concealed weapon? Would carrying a functional and loaded "concealed asshole" be a better parallel to carrying a concealed weapon in that context?


If it is indeed true that your known by the company you keep, what does that say for some of the anti-gunners? The ones who constantly parrot the "machine gun myth", and the ones who can't be bothered to correct them? When will we see anti-gunners "tell it to the Examiner" and "tell it to the CSGV?"? When will we see anti-gunners towing the same load they have been asking pro-gunners to tow lately? You know, start showing up on anti-gun boards and correcting the factual errors, and pointing them out to other anti-gunners, telling them what a pantload it is that they don't understand the difference between assault weapons and machine guns - Instead of "you know all you need to know about guns" either spoken/typed directly, or through silence.

When will the crowd that regularly asks if an employer is aware of an employees "personal weapons ownership" stop leaning on the privacy crutch?

Is a strawman made of poop a "straw man" or a "poop man"?
(turd-man, crap-man, dung-man, feces-man, fecal-fella...etc. etc. etc...)

Enquiring minds want to know. :evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

90. I'll answer one of your questions, beev...

"If it is indeed true that your known by the company you keep, what does that say for some of the anti-gunners?
It says we're in damn good company...


Especially compared to the bullets for brains crowd.

Don't forget to wipe.

[beevul]

91. Tell it to...

the CSGV and The Examiner.

Go tell THEM they "know all they need to know" about guns.

[Wickerman]

92. Locking, this thread has gone all to

shit.