BoatBanter.com - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/26/05 5:20 PM:

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/26/05 2:44 AM:

KMAN wrote:
in article
,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM:

KMAN wrote:
...snip ...

... snip ...

Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or
anything
like that?

Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative?

A nice head of cauliflower would have been preferable.

Well thar you go, thats why I thought Kerry would suit you just
fine!!!!

That's actually funny, Tinkerntom! The first time you have made me
laugh
with you instead of at you.

...snip...

yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year.
As
they
have for decades.

And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban
autos?

On no, Tinkerntom, that's a typical gun nut argument. I'm afraid
such
an
argument puts you firmly in the nut category, unless you can
figure
out why
it is a silly argument that can only be promoted by the type of
guy
who
dreams of the day he is attacked by a faceless mob and he gets to
unleash
his arsenal of assault weapons in defense of 'merica.

Well that is not my dream for 'merica, and I personally, gun or no
gun,
prefer to avoid faceless mobs as much as possible. Although I do
like
to drive my auto, and do so every day, whereas my gun may only be
taken
out once ayear to be cleaned and oiled, and it has not been fired
recently for many years. Usually I have found it much easier to
drive
away from a faceless mob than to fight toe to toe, when I see the
whites of their eyes!

Do you ever get to the point in a direct fashion, Tinkerntom, or did
you
have some sort of messed up English teacher that forced you to babble
incoherently at the launch of every piece of writing?

Me babble? I've been listening to you and rick too long!

I believe that last was a sorta quote from General Andrew Jackson,
from
the battle of New Orleans, when he and a ragtag army fought and won
a
battle over the invading professional army of Great Britain after
the
war of 1812 had actually ended. The British equivalent of an
"assault
weapon" were volleys of fire by lines of soldiers, that would then
advance a few steps. Lots of people could be killed at one time if
they
had their heads up, and it was a very intimidating tactic used by
the
professionals who had practiced it. However, the ragtag militia did
not
know they were suppose to be intimidated, so they just kept thir
heads
down, and waited until they could see the whites of the eye of the
advancing troops. Then they shot their eyes out with their muzzle
loading single shot squirrel guns. They had been practicing
shooting
squirrels for a long time, and they killed alot of those British
boys,
with very few losses themselves.

That's interesting, because didn't y'all get yer asses kicked in
1812?

http://tinyurl.com/6h6rr

I think there was a lot of ass kickin going on during the war, judging
from this link. However in the battle of New Orleans, I think the Brits
got the worst of it, which is what I was specifically referring to. And
the Brits had signed a peace treaty with this upstart country that
probably set the stage for the next hundred years of us tending to our
national interest and not worring about international affairs with
Europe.

Now I grant that was in 1812, but the right to bear arms certainly
worked under those circumstances, so that the Union survived, and
the
British learned not to try that again. Matter of fact it seems that
we
have become pretty good friend since then. And have been willing to
use
our firearms to defend them as well. So I would say that firearms
have
their place, and more often are used for good, than for bad, though
30,000 a year is sad, and I would certainly hope that number could
be
reduced, whether they are homicide, suicide, or accidental. But
even if
guns are taken away from everyone, accidents will still happen,
homicides and suicides the same, so I don't see the gun as the
problem.

Tinkerntom, I have no idea (even though I've read what you wrote) how
it is
you think the War of 1812 has any relevance to the need for assault
weapons
in 2005. I am not sure if you are a gun nut, or just a nut, or some
combination of the two. And I don't suppose I'll ever figure it out,
given
that you seem totally incapable of dealing in a direct fashion with
any
question that is posed.

If I may try to explain, I brought up the 1812 equivalency of assault
weapon, the volley of fire. No specific target was sighted on, just
fire the muskets at once. Sort of like spraying bullets from a modern
"assault weapon". The tactic dates back to midevil times when volleys
of arrows were fired. The tactic is still relevant, and assault weapons
are still needed on the battlefield.

The
term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if
they
use
it to demonize all firearms

If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to
create
the
special category of assault weapons.

So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types
of
firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with
scope,
30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12
shotgun?
or a Weatherby Mark IV .460?

How does this question follow from what I just said? Wait, don't
answer
that, it's easier and more timely to move on without trying to
figure
out
why your mind jumps around that way, or why it is you seem
incapable
of
absorbing a point and instead prefer to leave a subject just when
you
are on
the verge of being forced to think.

So, to your question.

I don't like any guns, Tinkerntom. Not one of them. Just not a
fan.

I knew you were smart enough to see through my question, to
understand
how my question followed your last statement. All the above weapons
were originally used and developed for military purposes, but have
come
to find a very comfortable place in the private sector.

Whoopdeedoo.

The BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle, originally made in Belgium (not
an
American original, those Belgiums were real war mongers at one
time),
was used first in WW1 as a rapid fire assault weapon, and was a
weapon
of choice of American soldiers returning home after the war. Fired
a
large caliber bullet that combined with the rapid fire, caused
massive
wounds. However when switched to semi-auto, it was found to be a
superb
deer and elk hunting rifle that would provide clean kills from a
reasonable distance.

Winchester 30-30, was an American original, designed during the
close
of the Civil War, to provide rapid fire of multiple projectiles,
without having to reload. Was one of the deciding factors in the
turning tide against the South that led them to realize the war was
lost. Returning soldiers to the north, brought the weapon home, and
war
has not been the same since. Was also used in the Indian wars to
suppress the uprising. Now is still favorite saddle gun for
ranchers
and farmers (and native Americans), and many pickups have one in
the
rack, for the vermin and varmints that would ruin the harvest. Many
more deer have been shot, and family fed, by this firearm than
maybe by
any other.

Model 12 Winchester shotgun, not necessarily developed originally
for
military use, since shot guns had been around for a long time, but
I
have seen some in pictures of our soldiers in Iraq. Still a
favorite
military weapon of our soldiers for close quarter fighting. A blast
from a shotgun can open a locked door, or penetrate openings in
body
armour, literally knocking a person down. I had a Model 12 I used
for
trap shooting, and with the smooth action, and consistent pattern,
made
a great duck or pheasant gun.

Weatherby .460, originally an elephant gun, for safaris, was a
great
sniper rifle, that could be shot accurately over very long
distance.
The current 50 caliber sniper rifles are based on the caliper.
Weatherby was made in Germany, very high quality, suberb fit and
finish, and prized when captured by allied soldiers. Brought back
to
States and used as presentation weapon, and superb choice still for
very large game.

None of these would qualify as assault weapon by your definition,
but
have been used very effectively as military weapons. So your
objection
is not just assault weapon according to your definition, but all
firearms. You acknowledge that you can not get all firearms away
from
the gun nuts (your defintion), but you can get assault weapons. Can
we
expect you to expand the definition of assault weapons now to
include
the above list? and then maybe you can understand why the gun nuts
resist any definition by you that would limit access to any and all
firearms, as you say it is just a start

I'm aware of all these arguments Tinkerntom, they are just as lame as
the
ones about making cars and swimming pools illegal.

You say they are lame, but we learn what your true intent is!

Tinkerntom, reasonable people - and that includes a lot of people who
want
to own guns - could agree that nobody needs an Uzi or Tek-9 or a
Norinco SKS
or an AR-15 (or knockoffs of those weapons) to hunt deer. Reasonable
people
could agree on that. In fact, reasonable people can agree that
there's no
need for any semi-automatic weapons at all for non-military purposes.

I agree these automatic weapons are not needed to hunt deer, so I guess
I am reasonable! However that is not the same thing to say they are
not needed. Also the only criteria for owning a firearm is not need.
Apart from illegal use by gangs and drug dealers, some collect them
just for the collectors value. Personally I have no desire for an auto
fire weapon, on the other hand, a semi-auto has some advantages even in
hunting, so I guess I am unreasonable, since you have now expanded the
definition of assault weapons, which I suspected you were up to all
along!

But I
realize the total eradication of guns is not happening. To me it
would be
reasonable that no gun could fire more than one bullet at a time,
but
that's
probably not happening, so I figure it's most logical to start
with
weapons
that are most obviously of little use save for the spraying of a
lot
of
ammunition in a short period of time. Most of those weapons fit
nicely into
what most people understand as the category of "assault weapons."

which infact actually demonstates their
underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the
function,
limit, and value of particular weapons.

So it is your underlying ideology, and not just assault weapons.

If "I don't want to see anyone killed" is an ideology, they yes,
that's my
ideology. Please note that this differs from advocating for the
elimination
of police and military. Gun nuts tend to get confused about this.

But then I don't want to see anyone killed either, so I guess we are on
the same page after all, and I am reasonable again! And you say all
guns should be able to only fire single shot, which is why I follow
with the agreement that the military and police should all be like the
old "red coats". But if we are going to do that, why stop at that, why
not issue them "noodles". You do know what "noodles" are?

And it
is totally logical that our armies be marching around like the old
"red
coats" with single shot muzzles loading muskets. Of course when you
think of that, you have to think of the millions killed by the same
muskets on the field of Waterloo, and other military expeditions
prior
to modern weapons.

Actually, I think all armies should just be issued "noodles" that
they
can bash away on each other till one side gets tired and goes home.
That way noone dies, and there is not all that blood to clean up.
Plus
think of the benefit of all those crack dealers getting assault
noodles
to protect their turf. It would change the whole drug culture in
the
world. They would just be a whole lot nicer as neighbors, and when
one
of their clients break into your house to steal stuff to support
their
habit, you could defend your house and family with a noodle. Makes
total sense. I'm sure we can sell it to the military, crack
dealers,
and home owers of the world.

Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples
homes,
confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a
typical
target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more
problems
with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason
for
liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know
how
to
handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt

Of course if all we had was noodles, the FBI would be out of a job,
and
that might be good as well.

Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not.

Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm?

Because you seem extremely unstable and a lot of your thinking is
quite
nutty.

I have
never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun
team
in
highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a
competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even
accidentally,
or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I
have
always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have
taught
other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of
my
students. So what was your point?

That I find you to be a bit of a scary person, and a scary person
with a gun
is always worse than a scary person without a gun.

Well you can come out from under your bed now, or closet, where
ever
you hide from scary people

I don't hide. I find gun nuts actually spend more time living in fear
than
those who embrace life.

I too embrace life, and feel no fear or need to march around with my
gun at the ready. In fact as I pointed out before, my fire arm of
choice is a black powder rifle, single shot muzzle loader. Not really
what would be needed to fight an invading army these days. So maybe I
am resonable after all.

I will go out and buy my noodle today, and
the world will be a safer place, and not so scary for people like
you.
Of course you are going to have to do your part and get all those
scary
Canadians to trade in their guns for a noodle, so I will feel safe
as
well.

That because I get on this forum and
present an opposing view point to what you advocate that I should
not
have a firearm.

No. See above.

Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution?

You are sounding nutty again.

I'm sounding nutty? You should hear yourself!

That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an
opposing
view point to you is the main criteria for determining our
exercise
of
our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our
Constitution than any gun nut! TnT

Wow, I didn't expect this wild tangent, but nuttiness can be fun,
so
I'll go
with it.

Being a danger to the constitution can be a good think Tinkerntom.
I
would
like to think that had I been there back in the day, I would have
loudly
advocated that a black person not be constitutionally valued as
less
than a
white person.

Now who is getting nutty. Lucky for us you were not there, or we
would
probably not have the right to bear arms either, and there would
still
be slaves!

Not following you here Tinkerntom.

Those who fought slavery often times did so with their own firearms!

The consitution is just a document slapped together by some dudes
a
long
time ago, Tinkerntom, and it has been changed in many ways many
times,
because the world has changed, and attitudes have changed. Well,
for
some.

By the way were their ever slaves in Canada or Great Britain?

Geezus Tinkerntom, do you have to be the perfect stereotype of an
American
who doesn't know any History beyond the US border?

Slavery in Canada was pretty much over by the 1790s although not
formally
ended until the 1830s.

Seems to
me there was a time when the colonies extended beyond the 13, to
India
and Africa, where there were plenty of white masters. It took us
awhile
to get thing right, but I don't recall slapping my slave around
recently.

Right, because things have CHANGED Tinkerntom. Do you see?!?

Definitely some things have changed, some have not!

Back then, there was slavery. In the context of those times, you
can't be
too hard on the framers for not eliminating slavery, after all, it
was a way
of life for a big chunk of the country.

Back then, there wasn't a massive armed forces that could kick the
**** out
of any nation on the planet three times over. So it was important
that just
about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who could see straight have a musket
in the
barn ready to go in the event that the country came under attack.

Times have changed, Tinkerntom.

I agree, that is why we have the National Guard, but that does not
change the right to bear arms. Beyond the Constitution, but in support
of the ideology of the Constitution, most States have what is called a
"Make my day Law" which holds us harmless for shooting an intruder. I
don't expect the national guard to protect me from the burgular or
rapist attacking my wife. But be assured, the police can ask him all
the questions they would like after I get through with him. Don't know
that he will be able to answer any of them!

Matter of fact, I recall that they were set free based on the
principles set forth in that sublime document that went far beyond
the
prevailing thoughts of the day.

It was mostly about economics, Tinkerntom. Changes in the global
economy and
the differing economies of the northern and southern states.

And that is why Canada no longer had slaves either at an earlier time,
not any particular superior enlightened ideology of man. It is just the
Canadian economy had less need for field hands.

That it took awhile for practice to
catch up with the ideology, is a testament to our willingness to
change. A document that was hardly slapped together by some dudes a
long time ago. Your disrespect, of us and the things we cherish,
only
demonstrate your shallow, intemperate, churlishness.

You misunderstand me. Those old dudes did a pretty good job. And in
fact I
wish they were still around today, because sure as ****, they'd be
freaking
out at the idea that gun nuts were using their fine work as
justification
for drug dealers being able to purchase assault weapons and fire them
on
other citizens, all in the name of constitutional rights.

They would probably be freaking out about alot of things, but that does
not change what they understood. The Constution does not give us these
rights, as much as acknowledge that we already have them, and assure us
they will not be ammended without specific cause and major support of
the people.

They may even be surprised that Heroine and Cocaine are illegal, since
their use was common place at the time, and now we put the dealers in
prison. But I would not expect to see these legalize either. We
understand now that the use of drugs destroys the social fiber of a
people, which is part of the problem in the Detroit drug ghettoes where
a majority of your referenced killings and abuse of firearms occur.

You are not a danger to the Constitution, as long as we exercise
our
right to bear arms, as I am sure you are aware of, and as intended
by
the framers! TnT

The constitution is just a piece of paper.

For us the Constitution is not just a piece of paper, and hence a big
sourse of suspicion of those who think it is! We are taught to cherish
it, and respect it, by capitalizing the name, which you apparently are
unable or unwilling to do. But then you are Canadian, I don't know
whether we should expect you to understand such things, since I don't
know the words to O' Canada either.

The 30000 people that die each year are real. And the framers never
intended
any such thing. I'm quite sure they'd be sick about it.

As most reasonable people are, though the suggested solutions vary. TnT