Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
Timothy C. May wrote:
I wonder when and how raids in the U.S. moved from the "Come out with your hands up" verbal announcement (for the cases that needed more than a knock on the door) to this blast-in-the-doors approach, where the raiders are dressed in "tactical black" and are wearing black Nomex hoods and carrying MP-5s and blast any "perp" who looks at them cross-eyed?
If people decide that they are going to permit widespread ownership of guns then these tactics are inevitable. They are rare in the UK because gun ownership is relatively rare. I find this type of talk typical wishy washy libertarian twaddle. There are dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like living in a country where the police are armed to the teeth then move to the UK where there are very few armed police. Of course you will find that the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. If you want to own guns then you should accept the fact that you risk having your head blown off in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. Just as the car has introduced the risk of being killed in a trafic accident the gun has introduced new risks. If society dosen't like the risks then it can opt to ban the technology. If you want to own a gun because you have some kind of personality problem and you need to prop up your ego then Phill
Hallan-bakar: On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Hallam-Baker wrote:
dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the
The most dangerous person is the world is a an armed law enforcement officer. The least dangerous person is that same law enforcement officer, dead. The _only_ difference between a gang of thugs, and a government, is that the latter admit to being thugs, whilst the former deny that. They both operate on the same prinicple -- steal from others, and kill those that oppose them.
only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like
Governments are the agencies _most_ likely to abuse one's freedom. << Take Northern Ireland, as an example of what happens, when a government tries to pacify a region, by prohibiting everything. >>
living in a country where the police are armed to the teeth then move to the UK where there are very few armed police. Of course you will find that
Note in passing that the British Army is more than perfectly willing to massacre the civilian population, it purportedly protects. Of course, that is in their capacity as an occupation force, as part of their pacification procedures.
the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff.
Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course. Where weapons are just another thing to carry around, and used to kill those who don't respect human rights --- like the British and American governments, for starters. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com
the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff.
Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
Oh my ... you aren't serious, are you? I suspect you might be baiting ... but ... If you can trust a six-year-old with an Uzi, I assume that you believe the six-year-old can "properly" judge what is a threat and what isn't? Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say, another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone? Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers? You might have had a different childhood, but when I (and most of my friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun, avoiding stuff we don't like (like homework), attracting females (or males, as the case may be), attracting attention in general, avoiding being one-upped (in conversation or in sports or otherwise) but always on-upping someone else, ... Oh ... and ice cream ... but that was mostly me ... most of my friends wanted candy. No where in this list of high priority items is respect for human life, peace and brotherhood among mankind, end world hunger, etc ... There are very good historical reasons why 18 and 21 are reasonable (though sometimes conservative) guesses at the age of maturity, responsibility and consent. If you are not killing someone else because they (may) have an Uzi, I think, sooner or later, you will figure out a way to kill him before he can pull it out. This means that a group of 1000 KKK members will kill a group of 10 blacks due to overwhelming force. One principle in the Constitution (which I personally respect very much) is that a majority should not force its views on a minority. Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs), and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself. I will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved) if I ever found him with a gun. By the way, would you let a 6 year old drive? or fly? (Assuming that they are physical capable and trained to do such.) Ern
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
I was 17 when Uncle Shithead handed me my first M-16, and I wasn't the youngest person in my company.
No where in this list of high priority items is respect for human life,
I'm in my late 20's, and respect for human life is lower than ever.
Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs), and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself. I will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved) if I ever found him with a gun.
Yes, those guns are evil things. Evil I tell you, constantly shooting people for no reason, going off half-cocked and whooping it up all by their polished oiled ol selves. Isn't it funny how otherwise rational people can ascribe intentions and moral alignement (ie. good/evil) to an inert chunk of steel?
By the way, would you let a 6 year old drive? or fly? (Assuming that they are physical capable and trained to do such.)
I was driving tractors(small ones) and motorcycles long before I turned 16. My father started teaching me to drive a car (thru asking questions &etc.) when I was about 12, and put me behind the wheel of a van when I was 15 (in a controled situation away from traffic). He also taught me the basics of gun saftey, and made sure that I took those classes that were available to me in the areas of gun saftey and marksmanship. Then again for all his faults my father is a relatively rational human being about most things. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs), and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself. I will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved) if I ever found him with a gun.
Yes, those guns are evil things. Evil I tell you, constantly shooting people for no reason, going off half-cocked and whooping it up all by their polished oiled ol selves.
Hmm. Sarcasm? Cannot definitively say, but I'll guess it is.
Isn't it funny how otherwise rational people can ascribe intentions and moral alignement (ie. good/evil) to an inert chunk of steel?
Assuming you are accusing me of such, you should probably point out specifically where I said such a thing. (If I did, it would be bad grammar or some such, and I would certainly retract it.)
He also taught me the basics of gun saftey, and made sure that I took those classes that were available to me in the areas of gun saftey and marksmanship.
You might be missing the mark too, but I thought the subject was giving a gun to every child who enters school, not YOURs or SOME EXPERT 6 YEAR OLD's special case. Yes, if every child was truly an exemplary God-fearing Christian, I would probably have fewer objections to giving every child a gun. After all, they would NEVER use it in a fit of rage or jealousy or any such sins ... Right? Death is permanent. A child is prone to accidents. Maybe those of you who are just too "special" and "talented" don't need such paternalistic frameworks, but I know my child cannot tell right from wrong, good from bad. He will get better over time. But I don't want another child to pay for my son's less than full maturity by getting shot. Ern
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs), matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself. I will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved) if I ever found him with a gun. Yes, those guns are evil things. Evil I tell you, constantly shooting people for no reason, going off half-cocked and whooping it up all by their polished oiled ol selves. Hmm. Sarcasm? Cannot definitively say, but I'll guess it is.
Only a little bit.
Isn't it funny how otherwise rational people can ascribe intentions and moral alignement (ie. good/evil) to an inert chunk of steel?
Assuming you are accusing me of such, you should probably point out specifically where I said such a thing. (If I did, it would be bad grammar or some such, and I would certainly retract it.)
Not accusing you specifically, only really mentioning it in passing. If I was accusing you of it, I would have said so.
He also taught me the basics of gun saftey, and made sure that I took those classes that were available to me in the areas of gun saftey and marksmanship.
You might be missing the mark too, but I thought the subject was giving a gun to every child who enters school, not YOURs or SOME EXPERT 6 YEAR OLD's special case.
I was no expert, and I am (IMO) still a lousy marksman. I just don't have the money to practice _at all_ so I don't keep my guns here in Chicago.
Yes, if every child was truly an exemplary God-fearing Christian, I would probably have fewer objections to giving every child a gun. After all, they would NEVER use it in a fit of rage or jealousy or any such sins ... Right?
Hmmm... Sarcasm? I _really_ can't tell.
Death is permanent. A child is prone to accidents. Maybe those of you who are just too "special" and "talented" don't need such paternalistic frameworks, but I know my child cannot tell right from wrong, good from bad. He will get better over time. But I
Are you telling me that I give your kid more credit than you? There is a difference between knowing and caring.
don't want another child to pay for my son's less than full maturity by getting shot.
There is a difference between teaching a 6 year old proper gun saftey and letting the kid carry. If it was you, you said that you were going to let your kid have a gun until he was old enough te get it himself. How do you expect him/her to know how to use it if you don't teach them? Would you give a kid the keys to a car at 16 if they have never been taught how to drive? Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff.
Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
Oh my ... you aren't serious, are you?
I suspect you might be baiting ... but ...
If you can trust a six-year-old with an Uzi, I assume that you believe the six-year-old can "properly" judge what is a threat and what isn't? Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say, another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?
Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday. Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close supervision. Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us really chafes. bd
Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday. Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close supervision.
The question was not whether you might let your little girl operate a gun. The question was whether you might let her carry it as part of her standard equipment. Would you let her go to school with it loaded or with ammo within easy reach? I mean, what's the point of carrying a gun without bullets? Ern
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday. Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close supervision.
The question was not whether you might let your little girl operate a gun. The question was whether you might let her carry it as part of her standard equipment. Would you let her go to school with it loaded or with ammo within easy reach? I mean, what's the point of carrying a gun without bullets?
My daughter often carries her gun to school, complete with large quantities of high-velocity long-rifle cartridges. She's homeschooled and marksmanship is one of her extracurricular activities. bd p.s. In two years of homeschooling, she has advanced 6 grade levels on the state-mandated achievement tests.
Ern
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
I suspect you might be baiting ... but ...
If you can trust a six-year-old with an Uzi, I assume that you believe the six-year-old can "properly" judge what is a threat and what isn't? Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say, another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?
Works for me. Throughout most of the history of the US, children have routinely been intrusted with deadly weapons--rifles, pistols and shotguns. I got my first real gun when I was seven or eight. (Before that, I had a BB gun as long as I can remember.) I gave my daugher one when she was nine or ten. I know of one FOUR YEAR OLD whose parents gave her a gun. (I have no doubt she would use it far more judiciously than your average cop.) For two hundred years Americans have been able to buy small guns made especially for children. I've seen them and they were beautiful little guns. Nowadays, the gun manufacturers has eschewed them--probably for PR reasons.
Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
Hell no! Let them or their parents buy them.
You might have had a different childhood, but when I (and most of my friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun,
Ditto, bro. And guns are great fun. That's why Thomas Jefferson opined that giving a young man a gun would do far more to build his character then engaging in sports. (I agree.) Next time you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, let me know and I'll take you shooting. Looks like you need some character building. :-)
This means that a group of 1000 KKK members will kill a group of 10 blacks due to overwhelming force.
Again, history shows you to be wrong. Gun control started in the antibellum South as a means to disarm the newly freed blacks. When the Black Muslims bought a Southern plantation in the '60s they were harassed--until they armed themselves with AR-15s. After that, no more problems. Finally, I know a lawyer who was a Freedom Rider in the '60s. Whenever they were confronted with threats of force, they shot back. Presto, off into the woods shrank the cowardly Klansmen. Other--unarmed--civil rights workers ended up being encorporated into dams and land fills.
One principle in the Constitution (which I personally respect very much) is that a majority should not force its views on a minority.
Me too. That's what we gun owners are fighting to preserve.
Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs), and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself. I will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved) if I ever found him with a gun.
Unfortunately, the first you might know of it is when he comes across a gun and ends up shooting himself or someone else because of the gun ignorance to which you have condemned him. Good luck. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernest. On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
in a country where everybody << including six year olds >> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course. Oh my ... you aren't serious, are you?
Deadly.
Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say, another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?
I can only assume that #1: You've never lived where both long arms, and side arms were a part of normal casual dress attire. #2: You have no comprehension of non-wasp culture norms.
Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
I'd expect them to buy the guns, but yes.
friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun, avoiding stuff we don't like (like homework), attracting females (or
Lot like mine. Thing was, without the FN's, or the Uzi's there wouldn't have been a childhood to grow out of.
By the way, would you let a 6 year old drive? or fly? (Assuming that they are physical capable and trained to do such.)
Yes. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com AOL coasters are unique, and colourful. Collect the entire set.
Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say, another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?
I can only assume that #1: You've never lived where both long arms, and side arms were a part of normal casual dress attire. #2: You have no comprehension of non-wasp culture norms.
Before you make some irresponsible accusations, please investigate the facts. I grew up in both Western-style and backward country Taiwan. Neither required side arms, and we did fine. Neither are what you might consider "wasp". And I certainly would not want your own childhood distortions to become the social norm. I am sure they killed and lynched many Asians "in the good ol' days". I'm not for those days. The point is, you would not give a gun to someone with mental disorders. Right? (If you would, then we might as well just stop the conversation here.) The reason you would not is because there is a "significant" chance that this person would not respect basic social values like life, liberty, etc ... If I remember correctly, there were MANY times when, if I had a weapon capable of killing someone near invisibly (say a poison dart), I just might have used it. Of course, as an adult I would live to regret having the ability and resources to following through on a fit of childhood rage. When your BIG goal is to get to 16.5 so you can a learner's permit, you just don't have a well-balanced view of the world yet. In addition, when you don't have a family, when you don't have buy-in of ANY SORT into your community, when you have ZERO future (as in the lives of some inner city kids), you simply do not care about these other concepts like brotherhood and community. I have always argued that those who have vesting in a community will work harder to make that community great. The same principle applies to companies where the employees get profit sharing or own significant stock. If you HAVE to care because it would benefit you to care, YOU WILL. If you don't have to care, YOU WON'T. A 6 (or 12 or 18) year old, simply does not have to care. I can bribe my 2 year old with one simple thing: Sweets. He is vested in his immediate futures in cookies and ice cream. Beyond that, he has nothing vested whatsoever (mostly because he just isn't aware of anything serious yet). As a stereotypical geek at 12, at 18, at 24 and now at 30, I am still not completely sure I am mature enough that I would trust my own judgements with a gun. And I have had the fortune of a reasonably good, well-educated, upper-middle-class life. I would hate to see what would have happened if I grew up in a gheto. Ern
At 5:31 AM -0700 7/20/96, Brad Dolan wrote:
My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday. Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close supervision.
Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us really chafes.
Though it is well known that I am in favor of gun control regulations, I have to support Brad Dolan here. There is a huge and traditional gun culture in rural American, particularly in the midwest. The way most Jewish kids get Bar Mitzvahed at 13 as a rite of passage into adulthood, or the way most kids get their learner's permit to drive as such a symbol is the way many midwestern kids get their first gun. David
Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us really chafes.
Though it is well known that I am in favor of gun control regulations, I have to support Brad Dolan here. There is a huge and traditional gun culture in rural American, particularly in the midwest. The way most Jewish
Or the way many blacks were lynched (physically and socially) in the South. Or the way many asians were segregated. Or the way many ethnic groups fought each other in inner cities. These are cultural relics of the good ol' days I simply can do without. Ern
At 5:14 PM -0700 7/22/96, Ernest Hua wrote:
Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us really chafes.
Though it is well known that I am in favor of gun control regulations, I have to support Brad Dolan here. There is a huge and traditional gun culture in rural American, particularly in the midwest. The way most Jewish
Or the way many blacks were lynched (physically and socially) in the South. Or the way many asians were segregated. Or the way many ethnic groups fought each other in inner cities.
These are cultural relics of the good ol' days I simply can do without.
Ern
I find myself in the very peculiar and unfamiliar position of defending the gun crowd--I fail to see how (speaking generally) a midwestern rural teen's having a hunting rifle affects someone in urban America. Any integrity with respect to civil liberties extends to the rights of those with whom you disagree. Otherwise it's self-indulgence wrapped in fancy-looking clothes. David
participants (8)
-
Brad Dolan -
David Sternlight -
Ernest Hua -
Ernest Hua -
Hallam-Baker -
Jonathon Blake -
Sandy Sandfort -
snow