# Security Analyst anti-gun?



## Cruentus (May 30, 2005)

Get this:

O.K., I may be letting the cat out of the bag a little with my job, so please don't ask questions like "where do you work," etc., as I would like to keep that off the board.

But I will say without giving too much away that I am the regional operations manager for a security company. We have some fairly large corporate and federal clients, and we are on the homeland security tier. We do both asset and principle protection (I usually do/will do the principle protection work myself). I am in charge of hiring, firing, training, and making sure each site and client is secured appropriately.

Essentially because of my job, I am armed most of the time.

When I work in the office, I am in a suit, and I have my pistol holstered inside the waistband. It is usually visable without my jacket, and I don't wear my jacket in the office in the summer months.

Even though the only position higher then me is the 2 owners, I essentially man the desk in the front to both protect the front as well as get the majority of my work done. I have other offices with doors that I use for training and interviews, but the rest of the time I man the front.

I have a customer service rep. (as I jokingly call her which pisses her off) who works for us also, out of my branch office. She is technically a security analyst, but she doesn't do much of that. She mostly has the inflated title, and she does client communication. She has the credentials for analyst work in terms of her education background, but none of the street smarts. But she is good at what she does when it comes to client communication and so forth.

Anyways, this chick is about 26 or 27 years old with 2 MBA's. respectable, except when you consider that she has been (and still is) on her parents dime, and this is like her 1st real job ever. She has been a school girl for over 20 years. Did I mention no street smarts?

I am maning the front and working, and she was by my area and she says this while taking notice of my gun:

"I don't like guns..."  

I reply: "That's cool.... guns aren't for everyone..."

her: "No...I am anti gun, I don't think that you should be armed."

Me: "(laughing) good luck with that!" (keep in mind that we employ armed guards)

Her: "I am serious...guns are violent!"

well....I'll get to part 2 later tonight. A security analyst who is anti-gun? Whats up with that!

When I get to part 2, you'all will laugh your *** off!

 :supcool: 
Paul


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 30, 2005)

There are plenty of people working the self-defense, martial arts, and security fields who are irrationally anti-gun.  There are plenty of "martial" artists who dislike, fear, or otherwise oppose firearms ownership by private citizens.  The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them;  they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study _self-defense_ while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective _means_ of self-defense.


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 30, 2005)

I think you are right about the need for the firearm But I have worked with many security officials that don't like guns. I feel in the trained hands of a professional a gun is a Powerful tool and gan do goos thing for safty. In your field You carry not to impress but to defend and only use when everything else fails. Keep up Keeping us safe. With or Without your side arm.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 30, 2005)

BruceCalkins said:
			
		

> I think you are right about the need for the firearm But I have worked with many security officials that don't like guns. I feel in the trained hands of a professional a gun is a Powerful tool and gan do goos thing for safty. In your field You carry not to impress but to defend and only use when everything else fails. Keep up Keeping us safe. With or Without your side arm.


I have to agree. I worked as a security guard for one brief late spring/early summer. The father of a friend had a partnership in a Security company (now closed-bankrupted). There were a lot of festivals going on that particular year. In that particular point of time, I was living in the area of New Orleans (Louisiana-noted for finding a way or subject to throw a party). (Worse, doing one of my details, my girlfriend -now wife, came by to go to lunch, she forced/coexed me to pose silly with my guard uniform. I look rather young and silly in that pic.)

Anyway, you had to be over 21 and get a special license/permit to have a side arm.

Since I was a temp, I didnt want a license/permit (Which I should have went for, it was free and easy to get. In such a case, also easy to renew once had.). Many guards with that company were "old-timers", or those working for years as a SG. Two, out of dozens, did not have a side arm. I had asked (at different time intervals)-why. Their response, both disliked guns. Both were anti-gun liberals. Imagine that, SG people not wearing a side arm. However, in the SG field, there are some positions that do not require to have one.

So someone in a security field that doesnt like guns is synoymous with a person/assistant in a Dentistry office who cant stand the site of blood. Which the latter I know of one also.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> There are plenty of "martial" artists who dislike, fear, or otherwise oppose firearms ownership by private citizens. The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them; they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study _self-defense_ while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective _means_ of self-defense.


 There are limits to everything.  I don't think Private citizens should be allowed to drive tanks, and carry machine guns & frag gernades.  I don't think Artilery or mortar is appropriate for a home security set up regardless of whether you can afford it.

 I also don't think that private citizens whould be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence.  Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different.  But carrying a weapon in public?  Just asking for trouble IMO.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 30, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> There are limits to everything. I don't think Private citizens should be allowed to drive tanks, and carry machine guns & frag gernades. I don't think Artilery or mortar is appropriate for a home security set up regardless of whether you can afford it.
> 
> I also don't think that private citizens whould *(is this should?)* be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence. Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different. But carrying a weapon in public? Just asking for trouble IMO.


Yeah, kinda brings up that county in Florida (I think) that had citizens carrying their guns around.

There was a reason why there is no longer the Wild West.

Besides, let the bad guys (wolves) carry theirs around without regard for gun laws anyway. Let the wolves have the fangs and the rabbits of society remain helpless.


----------



## Cruentus (May 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> There are limits to everything.  I don't think Private citizens should be allowed to drive tanks, and carry machine guns & frag gernades.  I don't think Artilery or mortar is appropriate for a home security set up regardless of whether you can afford it.



Dude...no one is saying that. The fact of the matter is this: the only thing that can equalize a firearm wielding assailant with reliability that we have available to us is a firearm. 2 people with bombs on their chests won't equalize each other out; they'll just blow each other up. There is potential to stop someone with a "frag grenade" if you shot him before he can use it. But, generally speaking criminals aren't getting a hold of heavy artillary where one would need heavy artillary to equalize, so that isn't even logical. 

Because the only thing today that reliably equalizes a firearm wielding assailant is another firearm, then if you are not in support of the rights of the private citizen to carry, then you are not in support of the private citizens right to self-defense.



> I also don't think that private citizens whould be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence.  Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different.  But carrying a weapon in public?  Just asking for trouble IMO.



I would say that not allowing a citizen to carry in "public" is asking for more trouble then not. If a bad guy is going to rob the store or bank your in, or do something to you and your family, he is going to do so regardless of the gun laws.

I carry in public all of the time, on or off the job.

If I was a witness to a crime and an innocent person was hurt or killed, and I could have done something "if only I hadn't left my firearm in the car or at home"...well I don't know if I could forgive myself. That would haunt me for the rest of my life.


----------



## Cruentus (May 31, 2005)

BruceCalkins said:
			
		

> I think you are right about the need for the firearm But I have worked with many security officials that don't like guns. I feel in the trained hands of a professional a gun is a Powerful tool and gan do goos thing for safty. In your field You carry not to impress but to defend and only use when everything else fails. Keep up Keeping us safe. With or Without your side arm.



I have a lot of employees who are anti-gun. They are at unarmed sites that are painfully simple to guard, and that is just fine. When you are dealing with site protection, you have a lot of guards who don't carry. Many sites actually require you to NOT carry at the post. Most of this work is not glamerous or even interesting. They are basically only a walking 9-11 call.

Anyone who is serious into the security profession and wants to do more then just sitting in a guard shack or bouncing under table at a bar, however, needs to be armed. I just don't see any way around it, nor do I see how anyone serious into the profession could be anti-gun.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (May 31, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> There are plenty of people working the self-defense, martial arts, and security fields who are irrationally anti-gun.  There are plenty of "martial" artists who dislike, fear, or otherwise oppose firearms ownership by private citizens.  The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them;  they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study _self-defense_ while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective _means_ of self-defense.



And as much as I know this....I still can't believe it when I see it!


----------



## Andrew Green (May 31, 2005)

Well, arguing this is kinda pointless and no one is going to change there mind.  From one side the others seems irrational, but it goes in both directions.  Neither is likely to change their mind.

 The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.  

 In fact thats the way all us martial artists up here in Canada train, and we don't get shoot by armed bad guys very often


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Because the only thing today that reliably equalizes a firearm wielding assailant is another firearm, then if you are not in support of the rights of the private citizen to carry, then you are not in support of the private citizens right to self-defense.
> 
> I would say that not allowing a citizen to carry in "public" is asking for more trouble then not. If a bad guy is going to rob the store or bank your in, or do something to you and your family, he is going to do so regardless of the gun laws.
> 
> ...


This brings me to my sarcastic remark;
Let the bad guys (wolves) carry theirs around without regard for gun laws anyway. Let the wolves have the fangs and the rabbits of society remain helpless.

I wont be a rabbit nor a wolf. I'll be the prepared human.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, arguing this is kinda pointless and no one is going to change there mind. From one side the others seems irrational, but it goes in both directions. Neither is likely to change their mind.
> 
> The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.
> 
> In fact thats the way all us martial artists up here in Canada train, and we don't get shoot by armed bad guys very often


And that is why you can take your position.

Thus yours or anyone's in opposition, only matter to the situation and environment.


----------



## Cruentus (May 31, 2005)

Part II

So we left off where she said guns are violent.

Me: That doesn't even make sense. A gun is an innatimate object, and can't have a trait like "violent."

Her: But only violent people carry guns...

Me: How can you say that? Do you think that every guard we employ or every cop on the street is a violent person?

Her: No...but they have a capacity for violence.

Me: They have a capacity to use force...there is a different between being able to use force to stop violence, and being a violent person.

Her: Well....I just don't think that you should have a gun in the office.

Me: Yea...and when one of our many death threatners decides to come in here and collect on the threat, then who do you think is going to stop them? (side note: we average around 2 death threats a month - from disgruntled ex-employees to people who we have "busted" for one thing or another)

Her: That is what the police are for...

Me: The police can't be everywhere, and are usually called to a scene after things have already gone from bad to worse. The police will not be able to stop someone from barging in here and shooting up the place. That is why I am armed and why I am at the front desk here instead of in an office with my door shut.

Her: Well, you know 85% of people shot were carrying guns themselves?

Me: Good...then you should take comfort in knowing that if someone decides to come in here with a gun, then they'll shoot at me first. Besides that, I would have to actually see where that statistic came from:

Her: (rattles of some source)

Me: That's great, but I actually have to SEE it. As you should know from your extensive education background, where from and how stats are taken are about as important as the statistic itself. But that's mote...what I don't understand is how you can consider yourself a security analyst when your anti-gun. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But...if you want to debate this some other time when I am not trying to get work done, I'd be happy to oblidge."

Her: O.K....we'll debate. And remember, you always bring your sources to a debate.

Me: Actually, I would like you to bring every statistic you have. I, on the other hand, will bring nothing, and I will still beat you in the arguement. This is because the arguement boils down to very basic logic that no statistic can provide.

 Well...I guess part II was sort of anti-climactic. However, it still amazes me that she can be anti gun and consider herself a security analyst. How can you assess a site and make a recommendation if you are morally opposed to an intricate part of what is needed to secure many sites? The whole thing just blows my mind...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (May 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, arguing this is kinda pointless and no one is going to change there mind.  From one side the others seems irrational, but it goes in both directions.  Neither is likely to change their mind.
> 
> The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.
> 
> In fact thats the way all us martial artists up here in Canada train, and we don't get shoot by armed bad guys very often



I am not claiming that you can't study martial arts and be against guns. I am saying that if one claims to be in support of an individuals right of self-defense, then one runs into a logical dilemma if they are against the right to carry.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

Very intresting.

Perhaps someone should "fire" her for being incapable of her job.

I bet if she was under "gun fire", she would be screaming at you to shoot back.

Then you can tell her to wave her stats at them.

I hate the statement-"guns kill people"....


----------



## KenpoTex (May 31, 2005)

Paul, these stories would crack me up if they weren't so pathetic.  I've been the guy that was stuck at sites where SG's weren't allowed to be armed (we weren't even supposed to carry pocket-knives...yeah right).

Thankfully the owner of the company I work for now came right out and told me that I can carry anything I want as long as it's legal...how refreshing. I get so sick and ********** tired of hearing people whine about how violent and awful guns are.

----------------------------------------
On the issue of weapons, specifically firearms, and self-defense; I agree that to separate the two is irrational at best.  Once again, weapons don't kill people, people kill people.  Whether they do it with their bare hands, a kitchen knife, or a .45 is really not relevant.  

In saying that you support the right to defend yourself, but that you don't think people should own guns is to deprive them of the most effective weapon around.  Yeah, I know, guns aren't a talisman that will solve all your problems.  However, given the choice between having to fight with empty-hands, a knife or impact weapon, or a firearm; I'm going to pick the firearm just about every time.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I also don't think that private citizens whould be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence. Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different. But carrying a weapon in public? Just asking for trouble IMO.





			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.



Andrew, in your "art/rank" line you listed MMA and Weapons.  I'm curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs regarding firearms with your choice to train in systems that teach the use of weapons.  I'll admit that I enjoy training with MA weapons (Bo, Nunchaku, sticks, tonfas, etc.) but they are nowhere near as effective as a firearm would be.  However, at the time when all of these weapons were actually in use, they were all the people had.  If I could go back to 15th or 16th Cen. Okinawa and hand some guy a .45, I'll bet the "chucks" would get tossed pretty quick in favor of a more effective weapon.  

The point I'm trying to make (in my own roundabout way) is that in MA's, we train with weapons that were the best weapons available to the culture in question.  Why wouldn't we apply that same logic to today's weapons and use the best ones that are available?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

_The point I'm trying to make (in my own roundabout way) is that in MA's, we train with weapons that were the best weapons available to the culture in question. Why wouldn't we apply that same logic to today's weapons and use the best ones that are available?_Thata because these weapons didnt kill


----------



## Jerry (May 31, 2005)

Answering more than one poster... sorry.



> The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them; they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study _self-defense_ while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective _means_ of self-defense.


 I disagree. You cannot ignore the reality of firearms, nor ignore that you are reducing your ability by excluding yourself the option... but you can still oppose them.



> Yeah, kinda brings up that county in Florida (I think) that had citizens carrying their guns around.


 There's Kennesaw GA that dropped crime against persons 80%+ by instituting a manditory gun ownership law.



> Because the only thing today that reliably equalizes a firearm wielding assailant is another firearm, then if you are not in support of the rights of the private citizen to carry, then you are not in support of the private citizens right to self-defense.


 Actually, I'm going to have to agree with the original principle, though not the original line. It's a "line in the sand" where we make exclusions. If I am to believe the millitary, a beared assault rifle is preferrable to a concealed handgun for personal protection; and yet we don't allow those, nor would I choose to carry one.



> If I was a witness to a crime and an innocent person was hurt or killed, and I could have done something "if only I hadn't left my firearm in the car or at home"...well I don't know if I could forgive myself. That would haunt me for the rest of my life.


 But how far do you take it? What about the guy you could have gotten harmlessly with a tazer but you didn't have one, only your firearm? What about the person you could have rescued if only you'd brought your rope spool from home?

Don't get me wrong, if there were something I often carried it then didn't have when someone needed, no matter what that thing was, I would feel bad and remorseful; but that's not a good "why firearms must neccessairily be OK" reason.



> Anyone who is serious into the security profession and wants to do more then just sitting in a guard shack or bouncing under table at a bar, however, needs to be armed. I just don't see any way around it, nor do I see how anyone serious into the profession could be anti-gun.


 I don't see how any *successful* one could be... though I'm not sure on what *grounds* a combatant would be anti-firearm (unless he was anti-violence in general).



> I am saying that if one claims to be in support of an individuals right of self-defense, then one runs into a logical dilemma if they are against the right to carry.


 I don't see how placing a limit represents a logical delemmia. 

(to head off the almost inevitable ad-hominym, I'm a happy gun-owner with a carry concealed permit in the state of Florida. I'm not opposed to firearms, and support the right to carry... I simply don't see it as a foregone conclusion).


----------



## Andrew Green (May 31, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Andrew, in your "art/rank" line you listed MMA and Weapons. I'm curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs regarding firearms with your choice to train in systems that teach the use of weapons.


 I also like shooting 

 But I don't carry any sort of weapon ever...  unless of course I am going to go somewhere and train with it.  See no reason too.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

Why train in martial arts then..do some running, lifting for exercise. Training for fighting promotes violence... [/sarcasm]


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

You never "need" a gun until you NEED a gun.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You never "need" a gun until you NEED a gun.


 Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.  

 But there is that downward spiral...  The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...

 Guns aren't a big problem up here.  Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine.  So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between.  LEaving us with little or no need to carry one.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

Regardless of the impression, not many of us "carry" them on a regular basis here either. However we are free (currently) citizens with the right to own one unless there is a good reason otherwise. Most of the street crime done with firearms are with illegally owned ones, not between legal owners.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 31, 2005)

Don't worry, we don't think all Americans carry guns all the time 

 Except in Texas and LA


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

Guns made America Great!


----------



## Knarfan (May 31, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Part II
> 
> So we left off where she said guns are violent.
> 
> ...


Paul,
I don't think that she will ever see your point . Your argument is based on a reality that she will never understand . Her's is based on a victims mantality . What you are showing her is ugly & to real for her to handle . You see things clearly that other people can't understand because of the way that they have been conditioned . Thats why your the boss . She probably likes the job because she feels like she is helping people stay safe . Unfortunatly she has a naive understanding of the world . I don't think she can rationalize the differance between you & the bad guy . No matter what , if you are involved with serious security issues , you have to be ready at all times for the worst case sinario . I don't care what your view is on firearms is . People like to complicate the issue with their point of view . Witch is fine , but don't give all of these BS stats. You hit the nail on the head . You don't need stats to win this argument . That goes for people responding on this thread . If you walk around without any type of weapon for worst case sinario situation & say well I'm just fine . where I come from the stats say blah blah blah ! Well thats fine , but thats really a fantasy . How can you put limits on reality ? there are no limits . Thats what reality is , a possible limitless chain of events that you really only have minimum control over . So why not be prepared ? especially if you are in a position of high security ! If you have a strong argument it will stand on it's merits of logic & reality . IMO Paul is dealing with reality , in the most logical way . BTW , I don't own a firearm & to be honest , I don't know if I will ever carry a firearm . I will get one soon for more home protection . I do not work in the security field , but if I did I would prefer to carry a firearm . I do however have alot of weapons training & I never leave home without them . Thats my reality . I hate statistics . That is why I don't want to become one !


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

Yeah boils down to mind-set and beliefs


----------



## Knarfan (May 31, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Yeah boils down to mind-set and beliefs


I personally am not a hard core gun guy , but I can't overlook reality . To be a leader you have to make your decitions based on your knowledge & expertise . So if I have security questions I would ask a security expert . That to me just seems logical . I guess it's like you said & mix of mind-set & beliefs . They may not be exactly the same , but you really are trying to find the best answer to  complicated questions . In this case it would be , what do I have to do to keep people as safe as possible ? The best answer may not always match your fundimental beliefs . IE firearms carry , but thats not the question .


----------



## Knarfan (May 31, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.
> 
> But there is that downward spiral... The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...
> 
> Guns aren't a big problem up here. Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine. So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between. LEaving us with little or no need to carry one.


You present a good argument . Has this always been the case up there ? I understand what you are saying about not having to worry about civillian carry . It does seem like a better way to carry on life , but do you think that a country like the USA could ever change that much ? Wouldn't it be kinda difficult & unrealistic for this country ? We are already so far the other way . A change like that would probably never take place for one reason because of political interest . I think the situation we have here could be tweeked , but not changed to the extent which exist there . So we have a totally differant set of circumstances to deal with . What are we to do about TEXAS & LA LOL ?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

It is about culture and social order.


----------



## bignick (May 31, 2005)

I've often thought about getting a concealed carry permit here in Minnesota, but my current situation prevents it.  As a student living on campus 9 months of the year, where weapons are banned.  I have to arm myself with less conspicous means.  I've got a couple of escrima sticks.  One usually above my visor in my car and the other usually in my room, I also usually carry an expandable baton or at least a mini-mag flashlight as a kubotan.  

But for what I have to deal with, walking around looking pissed off is usually enough to make trouble stear clear.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 1, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.
> 
> *But there is that downward spiral...  The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...*
> Guns aren't a big problem up here.  Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine.  So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between.  Leaving us with little or no need to carry one.


What you seem to be saying is that "the more guns there are, the more violence there is going to be."  I don't think this is necessarily the case.  Someone brought up the Kennesaw, Georgia situation.  This town is a great example of the fallacy of the "more guns=more crime/violence" theory.  If requiring the head of [almost] every household to own a gun causes more crime, why did the violent crime rate drop 80% by the next year and remain there? --note, it's been 23 years since that law went into effect--
Once again, it's not the tool that causes the behavior, it's the person using it.  A normal person, when picking up a gun, is not going to be suddenly infused with homicidal urges.  If guns cause violence then why is England having so many problems with violent crime, to the point that there is talk of banning pointed kitchen knives?  obviously there is a deeper issue than the specific tool used to do the deed.

Yeah, It'd be great if society was so civilized and peaceful that there was no need to own/carry weapons for self-defense or to prevent violation of one's rights.  However, until that time comes (yeah right) I think it's naive to think that taking away the most effective means for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves will reduce crime.  On the contrary, when criminals know that their victims are unarmed they can operate with impunity.  On a side note...the thing that really ticks me off when people start talking about banning guns to reduce crime is that they fail to consider that such laws will only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens.  The criminals already break laws, does anyone actually expect them to adhere to these?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> What you seem to be saying is that "the more guns there are, the more violence there is going to be."


 Nope, I said more guns = even more guns.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Well...then if that isnt implying more violence, then whats so wrong with that?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Personal preference and trust, I'd rather live in a place where no one feels the need to carry a weapon.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Personal preference and trust, I'd rather live in a place where no one feels the need to carry a weapon.



Me too. And, I support someones right to choose not to carry a weapon as much as I support the right to carry. This means, Andrew, that I support your decision to choose to not carry a weapon, and I am not going to make a personal attack on someone just because of their personal choice.

There is nothing wrong with choosing not to carry. But, to want to force everyone to comply with your beliefs in not carrying and to support making protection illegal by outlawing the only thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal is faciest. It is faciest in every sense.

Paul


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> But, to want to force everyone to comply with your beliefs in not carrying and to support making protection illegal by outlawing the only thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal is faciest. It is faciest in every sense.


 So... Canada is Fascist?

 If the majority of the people don't want guns to be allowed, and the elected officials vote not to allow them, isn't that how democracy works?

 The right to carry a firearm or lack of that right is not restricted to any political ideology.  It is simply a matter of what the people, and gov't decide is dangerous to the public and should be controlled.

 I know it is a personal freedom, but personal freedoms can conflict with public interest and things have to go one way or another.

 Guns are dangerous, so they are restricted.

 One of many personal freedoms that have been removed to protect the public.

 How about wandering around naked?  Isn't that a personal freedom?  And I can't see anyone getting hurt by it.

 Or smoking pot, doesn't harm anyone but possibly yourself, it is illegal too.

 Restrictions on travel?

 Drinking in public?

 Having relations with farm animals?  

 Prostitution?  

 Gay marriage?

 All of which are individual freedoms that government has stripped people of, but none of them are really dangerous to anyone.  Should all of these, and many others, be allowed as well?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Your Constitution doesnt protect the ownership of them either. Ours does. Its the 2nd one too so our founders found the issue quite important....


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Your Constitution doesnt protect the ownership of them either. Ours does. Its the 2nd one too so our founders found the issue quite important....


 Yup, that they did.

 But the question is, is it still important?

 Given the state of the country at that time, and the fear of British troops showing up to reclaim it that would have been important... for national security 

 But the individual freedom argument just doesn't work for me, too many other things are stripped away that the same people usually arguing for the guns argue against.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

> But the question is, is it still important?


It wasnt about fighting off the English....its about maintaining a nation of free people.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=339544&postcount=27


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 1, 2005)

Your security analyst doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality. I don't honestly believe they should have that job.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=339544&postcount=27


 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

 And that was basically the reason as I understand it.

 The British controlled America with a standing army.  The American people armed themselves and fought back as an organized militia.  Not wanting history to repeat itself they decided that a militia was a better solution then a standing army, that way the people would remain "free" and be able to destroy any standing army that tried to take shape.

 Now, does that logic still apply? The US has the most powerful standing army in the world.  No number of citizens with guns is going to put up a good fight against a modern army.  And there is no organized militia, just individuals with guns.

 The standing army DOES rule in a sense.  "National Security" is being used as a cover to take more and more control away from the people and into the government.

 So the question is, are those reasons valid today?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Read all of them...



> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))


It was never about fear of "invasion". So if the people are ever going to be capable of defending their rights, they need the right to be armed...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

> No number of citizens with guns is going to put up a good fight against a modern army. And there is no organized militia, just individuals with guns.


Tell that to the Russians....

"Just individuals with guns"? What is the first thing you need to form a militia?


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Read all of them...
> 
> It was never about fear of "invasion".


 Not entirely, but it was there.  Those tend to hint that it was a fear of their own government doing the same thing the British one did.  They where smart folks those founding fathers of yours


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

If the majority of people thought it was "enough" we would change it.....


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If the majority of people thought it was "enough" we would change it.....


 I think at this point anyone trying to organize a militia to take control back from the government would be labeled a "terrorist" and not last long enough to get a sizzable force organized...

 The people have been "disarmed", they just don't know it yet


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Our politicians pander so much to the public interest for their re-election that I doubt that revolution will ever be necessary in the foreseeable future. We do get what we ask for in this country. Try to take away our cars, television, beer and guns though and see what happens.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Public or corporate?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Since we depend on corporations for everything from jobs to our toys (and some even own them)..does it make a difference? Everybody hates corporations until the one they work for threatens to close down or the product they love leaves the market.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2005)

Andrew,

No, Canada is not fascist. I would actually commend Canada for not getting as caught up in the corporate fascism that we have been proponents of here in the U.S..

However, when you are willing to take away the rights of the individual for the "better good of the nation" or for some sort of collective good, then that is an element of fascism. Individuals should have the right to do whatever they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anothers rights. You can't say "I have the right to be in a public place were no one has a gun on them." Individual rights do not work that way. You do have the individual right to not be shot at in a public place, or not have a gun displayed in a threatning manner in a public place, however, other laws and penalties can protect you from these violations.

Then, you are dealing with the rights to defend oneself and innocents from Bad Guys, as well as ones one government or invading nation. To take away that right via gun control is fascist.

I don't think that Canada is fascist. I don't think that the U.S. is fascist either. But I do think that both countries have elements of fascism in the system that need to be combated.

Paul


----------



## Jerry (Jun 1, 2005)

> There is nothing wrong with choosing not to carry. But, to want to force everyone to comply with your beliefs in not carrying and to support making protection illegal by outlawing the only thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal is faciest. It is faciest in every sense.


 I've no desire for a symantic argument, but I can find nothing in the definition of fascist (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascist) that would indicate a weapons ban by congress would fit.



> Your Constitution doesnt protect the ownership of them either. Ours does. Its the 2nd one too so our founders found the issue quite important....


 I don't agree here either. The second ammendment never clarifies what "arms" are, nor that access should be universal. We must look at the rest of the ammendment to answer those questions.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ​We see that the stated purpose of to maintian the security of a free state (nation). We could make an argument that this should allow private posession of the weapons of war (ranging from pistols to long-range missiles), or we can try to rationalize what would be appropriate for that purpose. Interestingly, this would seem to favor assault rifles over most any other type of weapon, as they are the most prevelent / useful of the millitairy firearms. In saying that "guns must be allowed, but nuclear bombs can be proscribed", we must realize that we are drawing an arbitrary boundry (a "line in the sand"), and cease to simply appeal to "the constitution says so". (BTW some of the quotes in your link are self-conflicting, unless you advocate that no law shoudl stop prisoners, felons, the insane, or children from having guns).


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 1, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> However, when you are willing to take away the rights of the individual for the "better good of the nation" or for some sort of collective good, then that is an element of fascism. Individuals should have the right to do whatever they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anothers rights. You can't say "I have the right to be in a public place were no one has a gun on them." Individual rights do not work that way. You do have the individual right to not be shot at in a public place, or not have a gun displayed in a threatning manner in a public place, however, other laws and penalties can protect you from these violations.
> Paul


How true. The situation is this. Guns are a part of Amercian culture. Good and bad. So in order to maintain good, we need them against the bad.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" 

-George Washington


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
> 
> -George Washington


Bloody Yanks-they're firearm crazy!


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 1, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> How true. The situation is this. Guns are a part of Amercian culture. Good and bad. So in order to maintain good, we need them against the bad.


Well put Martial Man !


----------



## elder999 (Jun 1, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> I don't agree here either. The second ammendment never clarifies what "arms" are, nor that access should be universal. We must look at the rest of the ammendment to answer those questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Crap,crap,crap.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, "the militia" consisted of all free and able men.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." 
-Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -Patrick Henry

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good ... " -George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense." - John Adams


As far as "Constitutional interpretation" goes:

Thomas Jefferson:
*"On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves *
*back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."* (June 12 1823, Letter to 
William Johnson) 

And, of course, the various Supreme Court decisions, as well as Justice Department analyses that make it pretty clear that the 2nd Amendment applies to all.

A 1982 Senate Historical Study of the 2d Amendment concluded that the 2d Amendment means everyone is supposed to be able to have guns....end of story.

http://hematite.com/dragon/senaterpt.html


The Surpreme Court, our ultimate arbiters on Constitutional matters, has consistently come down on just this side of all 2d Amendment cases in all of its history.

The Bill Of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are considered to be a collection of rights guaranteed to the people on which the government cannot intrude. The court has ruled that it sees the words the people in the bill of rights referring to all of the people of the United States and that it is the same "people" referred to in the First (free speech, worship, press) as in the Fourth (searches, warrants) and Fifth (speedy trial, self-incrimination) as in the Second (right to arms). 

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government may not require a license to exercise a right. For example, the government may not require people to have a license to practice free speech, or to attend a church. Likewise the government may not require record keeping of those who practice a right or those who participate. Like the post-civil war era poll tax levied on blacks to prevent them from voting, the government may not require the people to pay any fees or taxes to exercise a right. This does not mean that any right is free from regulation or fees however. But the basic right must be unfettered. Claiming the government can't make you pay for a FCC license for a radio or TV station won't work, simply because the Court will remind you that you can retreat to a soap box or print up leaflets (or Web Pages!) and still exercise your right to free speech.

You do not have a right to own a car, or to drive one. There is no constitutional guarantee for you to own or possess an automobile, truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle or even a skateboard. If any of these products were deemed to be illegal you would have no constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (except, perhaps, that of due-process before you must give up your vehicle). 
 

(of course, you're quite right about the definition of "arms." We all should be allowed machine guns-*I want my Thompson!*):supcool:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2005)

Jerry...

#1. As I already explained: Part of what fascism entails is exalting the "nation" or "collective good" over individual rights. Not allowing people the individual right to own or carry for any sort of collective good or betterment of the "community" or "state" or "nation" is fascist....no matter how good it sounds or how it is spun.

#2. 





> You cannot ignore the reality of firearms, nor ignore that you are reducing your ability by excluding yourself the option... but you can still oppose them.



If one advocates taking away the right to carry a firearm, then one is advocating taking away the only effective means of self-defense against a firearm, and therefore one faces a logical dilemma if claiming to be "pro self-defense" while being an advocate for gun control. One can personally choose to not carry a gun, but the above reality cannot be ignored if one considers himself logical.

And that is the point that Phil and myself were trying to make.

#3. You have made reference to the "line in the sand" with which what we should be permitted to carry and own. I have trouble myself at times figuring out where that line should be. I think that the line of what we should be permitted to carry lies with what will equalize a criminal, considering what we could reasonably expect a criminal to carry. A large portion of crimes are committed with firearms. The only thing that can equalize a gun wielding assailent at this time is our firearm. 

Now, could we carry, say, a rocket launcher? No. Why is that over the "line in the sand?" For one. a rocket launcher is not needed to equalize a weapon wielding criminal unless it was reasonable to assume that we were going to be invaded by armored cars. Since it is not reasonable to assume that a rocket launcher would be needed or even applicable in stopping a weapon wielding criminal, then this would not be included in what we should be allowed to carry.

Pretty much if one takes every instance to where the line should be drawn and applies this logic, one will get a pretty clear picture of what should be permitted in public and what shouldn't.

#4. You made reference to this, so let me explain: You may think it is unreasonable to put it on myself that if something happened causing injury or death and I wasn't able to stop it because I left my gun at home. But, considering that I am trained with a firearm and that I am in a profession at the moment where I am expected to protect others, I don't think this is unreasonable. If something were to happened, I would want to know that I did everything I could to protect the good people around me, my family, and myself. Leaving my firearm at home because it doesn't go with my outfit, or I just forgot it that day is not doing everything I could, in my opinion.

#5.  





> I don't see how any *successful* one could be... though I'm not sure on what *grounds* a combatant would be anti-firearm (unless he was anti-violence in general).



I just wanted to point this out, because this seems like one logic trap that I believe people fall into, especially those who do oppose guns. Being "anti-violent" is not a good reason to oppose guns, because guns are not violent. Inanimate objects cannot have personal characteristics as such. And, there are plenty of people who don't carry a gun who beat their wives, or do other such violent acts. And...there are plenty of people who oppose violence (like myself) who carry a gun every day.

"Violence" and "gun carry" are exclusive of each other.

Paul


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> #1. As I already explained: Part of what fascism entails is exalting the "nation" or "collective good" over individual rights.


 Ok...

 So, not allowing public nudity... even public sex, drug use, Public drunkeness, Drinking and driving, speeding, mating with farm animals, etc. Is all also fascist behaviour?

 Some of those are illegal for moral reasons...  Does the government have any right to dictate morals?  I'd say that is a bigger issue then allowing you to carry a gun..

 Some are for public safety, and that is where guns fall under.  

 Things don't break down nice and neatly into fascist, communist, socialist, capitalist, etc.

 Balancing the good of the community with the good of the individuals is the job of any government, regardless of what grouping you assign it too.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

I think the line is fine where it currently is.....


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2005)

Andrew...

In my opinion, governments should only serve one function: Protection. However, protection spans over a lot of ground.

Governments are there to keep us safe via the services provided (court system, police and fire dept., military, etc.). In some cases, such as with health care and wage slavery, I feel that our U.S. government is falling short here.

They are to protect our individual rights. In some cases, all governments fall short of this as well.

You have to understand the nature of individual rights before you make a ridicules statement like "What about public sex acts...is that fascist?"

Individual rights only go as far as not infringing on the rights of others, or endangering others.

So, drunkeness, or even drug use (for example), if done in private should not be illegal. But, if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk or high, then you are endangering others. The arguement behind making drugs illegal is that drug use leads to other behaviors that are infringements on others rights and safety. I don't fully agree with the arguement, but that is what currently justifies making harmful drugs illegal.

People have the rights to be in public without forecably being exposed to behavior that is generally considered indecent or offensive. This is why things like public nudity, or public disturbance for that matter, is illegal.

The rights to carry a gun in public does not fall into the category of infringing on the rights of others. If I am trained and comply with firearm safety standards (and the permit or LE credentials are there to prove this) and I am not displaying my firearm in a threatning manner, then I am not infringing on anyones rights or jeoprodizing the safety of others. Actually, it is statistically, logically, and anecdotally proven that by having the rights to carry and doing so, I actually am helping to increase the safety of others by being a deterent to crime if it occurs in my pressance.

Paul


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 1, 2005)

> Some of those are illegal for moral reasons... Does the government have any right to dictate morals? I'd say that is a bigger issue then allowing you to carry a gun..
> 
> Some are for public safety, and that is where guns fall under.


 Here, it would need to be demonstrated that there is a corresponding reduction in violent crime with the restriction of firearms.  Is this the case?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think the line is fine where it currently is.....



For the most part I agree, but I would tweak some of the rules.

One thing I would like to see is looser requirements for a fedaral carry license. I just don't feel that one should lose their rights to self-defense because they crossed state lines. 

I also don't agree with the "you can't carry in a bar or tavern" rule that many states have. I think that you shouldn't be allowed to carry if your blood alcahol content is over a legal limit, like with driving a car, rather then limiting it to what establishment you are in.

So, there are parts that I would like to see tweaked in general, but that is just my personal feelings on that...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Here, it would need to be demonstrated that there is a corresponding reduction in violent crime with the restriction of firearms.  Is this the case?



No...and in fact the opposite has been proven a number of times.

And, as to whether the government should dictate morality that Andrew brought up....I would say that no, that should NEVER be the role of government any more then dictating religion or beliefs.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 1, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> People have the rights to be in public without forecably being exposed to behavior that is generally considered indecent or offensive. This is why things like public nudity, or public disturbance for that matter, is illegal.


 So a chicken and the egg thing.  Was it indecent or offensive and then made illegal, or made illegal and then determined to be indecent or offensive?

 Go to some Middle East countries and a woman showing her face is indecent and offensive.  So I assume you would argue that a law againt that is just?

 In countries where carrying a gun in public is not legal chances are there will be a good many people that would find it offensive if someone was carrying one.



> Actually, it is statistically, logically, and anecdotally proven that by having the rights to carry and doing so, I actually am helping to increase the safety of others by being a deterent to crime if it occurs in my pressance.


 It can also be logically, statistically and anecdotally proven that guns increase violence and accidental deaths.  One of the wonders of Statistics is that you can proove just about anything if you look in the right places.

 Guns are a cultural thing in the US.  The rest of us do just fine without them, and most of us feel no reason at all to allow them.  We also have no problem training in martial arts and fitting the two together.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 2, 2005)

First of all, no it cannot be logically or statistically proven that allowing private citizens to carry increases violence; and if you disagree, then prove logically and statistally. You will find this a lost cause.

As to your arguement that it is "offensive" to some that one might carry a gun...your reaching to carry an analogy over that doesn't apply at all to gun control, and everyone knows it.

Lastly, I think that it is great that other people do fine without carrying a firearm. Yet, the fact still remains that having that choice and being forced into that choice is the difference between freedom and fascism.

Paul


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 2, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Of course, you're quite right about the definition of "arms." We all should be allowed machine guns-*I want my Thompson!*):supcool:


I have mine!
Really-

Why not-the bad guys get and use their illegally.

So when they officials come to take theirs aways, they will allow me to keep mine. Thats the right I want-to be armed as the bad guys and legal


----------



## Jerry (Jun 2, 2005)

Tulisan,

1. I appriciate your position, but that's not in the definition of the word fascist.

2. I still cannot agree... though we risk getting into a bunch of "what-ifs" ranging from a very close-range encounter with one opponent where a tazer would be as effective as a firearm for personal defense, to a guy trying to snipe you where the fact that we don't allow you to drive APCs is taking away your best defense.

To make a potentially horrible analogy: a firearm is a 5-year-old's best defense against most everything. Would handing them out in school be productive or counter-productive?

3. This is the crux of what I'm discussing. I believe you and I draw the line at a similar point... the woman you are discussing draws it somewhere else. It's not that she is limitiing and you are not, it's that you two have put the cut-off points in different spots.

4. Obviously, if you've niglected a tool of your job, while on you job, and that had negative consequences; then the guilt is justified. I've not meant to imply it would be un-understandable in any case.

5. Perhaps poor wording on my part. "Pacifist" comes to mind. Nor did I mean to imply that people who disavowed or didn't carry firearms were pacifists. I meerely stated that pacifisim (an unwillingness to hurt others, even at cost to yourself) would be a valid ground on which to be opposed to carrying a firearm, while still being concerned about other aspects and methods of self-defense. 

I don't think they are inclusive or exclusive. 

Jerry


----------



## Jerry (Jun 2, 2005)

> In my opinion, governments should only serve one function: Protection. However, protection spans over a lot of ground.


 Sounds almost exactly like the beginning of a rant I've given more than one person. You and I agree, it sounds, on the purpose of civil authority.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 2, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> First of all, no it cannot be logically or statistically proven that allowing private citizens to carry increases violence; and if you disagree, then prove logically and statistally. You will find this a lost cause.


 Look outside the US for studies.  



> As to your arguement that it is "offensive" to some that one might carry a gun...your reaching to carry an analogy over that doesn't apply at all to gun control, and everyone knows it.


 In the US, and to you no it doesn't.  But opinions on gun control in the US are rather "unique".



> Lastly, I think that it is great that other people do fine without carrying a firearm. Yet, the fact still remains that having that choice and being forced into that choice is the difference between freedom and fascism.


 And I think that is trying to associate something (gun control) with something that is considered "evil" (fascism) in order to make the first thing also look evil.

 Gun control is pretty standard in modern countries, with the exception of the US.  Many of which go a good deal further left on that spectrum then the US, and Fascism is a extreme right stand point.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 2, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Look outside the US for studies.
> 
> 
> In the US, and to you no it doesn't. But opinions on gun control in the US are rather "unique".
> ...


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 2, 2005)

Wow...thread drift.

Paul, just enjoy the free entertainment that will come with weeks of tormenting her.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 2, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Wow...thread drift.
> 
> :idunno: :mp5::whip:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 3, 2005)

Jerry:

You are incorrect about my assessment not encompassing the definition of fascism. From YOUR source, read the bold:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) *that exalts nation and often race above the individual * and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

If the government is going to take away someones rights to self-defense via gun control for the collective good, especially due to an anti-gun ideology, that is putting "the nation" above the individual. It is inherently fascist.

Now, although marriam-webster is a a great source, obviously it is not going to get in depth as to what fascism really is. But, one can see how even in its most simplistic definition, taking away the rights of the individual due to an ideology of the masses is encompassed by the definition.

But, if one looks deeper into the nature of fascism vs. the democratic-republic that the U.S. is supposed to be, beyond the simplistic definitions, one would find that a major component of what the U.S. was founded on is protection of the minority over the majority, and the protection of individual rights from the masses. And, one would find that a major component of fascism is the stripping of individual rights for some sort of "collective good".

That's all for now!   

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 3, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Wow...thread drift.
> 
> Paul, just enjoy the free entertainment that will come with weeks of tormenting her.



Oh...I am. And...I can't wait until she trys to have this debate with me!! :rofl:


----------



## Jerry (Jun 3, 2005)

> a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual *and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition*.


 Firstly, the conjunctive "and" makes both a requirement. Secondly, I don't believe gun control qualifies as exalting a nation above an individual.

Firstly, you are arbitrarily assuming what "right" is. "Gun ownership" is only a right because someone said it is, and driving is not a right because the preverbial someone hasn't said so. Removing someone's right to own a handgun, drive on a road, sell crack to their neighbor, walk on whose-ever property they please, or exclude people from walking on their property could be put in the same post. 

The government is not headed by a dictitorial leader, there is no severe socal or economic regimentation inhereint in gun control, and there is no supression of the opposition (your assistant was not planning on rounding up and executing the NRA was she?). This is, therefore, not facist in any sense of the word. You are merely using prejudicial language and I can't same I'm pleased the negative light that casts on those of us who are pro-firearm.



> But, if one looks deeper into the nature of fascism vs. the democratic-republic that the U.S. is supposed to be, beyond the simplistic definitions, one would find that a major component of what the U.S. was founded on is protection of the minority over the majority, and the protection of individual rights from the masses. And, one would find that a major component of fascism is the stripping of individual rights for some sort of "collective good".


 You mean like "gathering taxes" takes away your right to the produce of your labors, or conscription takes away your liberty, or any of the many other activities I listed above?

You said that the purpose of law was protection... that was what it should serve. Those who are anti-gun believe that the removal of firearms will server the public good and protect people (a case can indeed be made for this, though I find the counter-case more compelling).

Finally, you again use prejudicial language. An elected congress passing anti-firearm legislation is indeed the proper functioning of a democratic-republic. How dare you use such rhetoric as calling it otherwise!

If you want to know what reaks of the beginnings of facisism to me, it's someone taking a simple debate of whether control of a product should be proscribed or not, and covering his side in the American flag, calling anyone with a different view "facist" and himself "democratic". THAT is equivelant to nationalism, and THAT is how actual factism starts!!!


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 3, 2005)

For the sake of time...I am replying by breaking your post up. I hate doing that though...so I apologize in advance...



			
				Jerry said:
			
		

> Firstly, the conjunctive "and" makes both a requirement. Secondly, I don't believe gun control qualifies as exalting a nation above an individual.



You are talking about a political ideology that encompasses MANY things that a simplistic dictionary definition cannot cover. Being an advocate for nationalized gun control or banning is inherently fascist; that doesn't make the person advocating the idea or the government system fascist, just the idea.

That said, we disagree in that I believe gun control is exalting a nation above an individual as I have previously (in other replies) described.



> Firstly, you are arbitrarily assuming what "right" is. "Gun ownership" is only a right because someone said it is, and driving is not a right because the preverbial someone hasn't said so. Removing someone's right to own a handgun, drive on a road, sell crack to their neighbor, walk on whose-ever property they please, or exclude people from walking on their property could be put in the same post.



Considering that I am really coming from a libertarian viewpoint, I believe that people should have the rights to do whatever they please, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or safety of others. Getting behind the wheel of a car is a safety issue, just as carrying a gun is. That is why we have liscensng standards that require training for both. However, to ban gun carry is just as irresponsable and an infringement to our rights as it would be to ban driving because "driving is dangerous."



> The government is not headed by a dictitorial leader, there is no severe socal or economic regimentation inhereint in gun control, and there is no supression of the opposition (your assistant was not planning on rounding up and executing the NRA was she?). This is, therefore, not facist in any sense of the word. You are merely using prejudicial language and I can't same I'm pleased the negative light that casts on those of us who are pro-firearm.



Please....

Don't try to paint a negative picture of me. I have been nothing but civil in this conversation, so don't try to pretend that I am representing gun owners in a negative light. To insinuate that is insulting.

I never said that she was a fascist, or that you are a fascist, or that people who advocate gun control are facsists. I did not call anyone a name, nor was I "prejudicial" towards anyone.

I simply stated that outlawing the right to carry is a fascist idea. It is when you look at the simplistic definition, it is moreso when you look at the ideal in its complexity, and it is when you look at hisorical examples of fascist or nationalist regimes. Most (if not all) have banned weapons as a means to control the populus.



> You mean like "gathering taxes" takes away your right to the produce of your labors, or conscription takes away your liberty, or any of the many other activities I listed above?
> 
> You said that the purpose of law was protection... that was what it should serve. Those who are anti-gun believe that the removal of firearms will server the public good and protect people (a case can indeed be made for this, though I find the counter-case more compelling).
> 
> ...



Well, I am sorry that the whole idea pisses you off. Sometimes, the truth, or losing in a debate pisses people off, yet there is not a whole lot I can do about that. But I say again, I haven't called anyone anything, as I explained previously. You insinuating that I have, and insinuating that I have been somehow prejeduce to others is insulting to me.

As far as gathering taxes are concerned, or doing certian things for the "public good," I am not so libertarian (and this is where I often get into debates with libertarians) where I believe that we shouldn't have taxes or public services or yadayadayada. I realize that as humans we are social beings, and that we don't live in a vacuum. There are some things that we need to do "Collectively" to ensure our rights and safety, and taxes pay for those things.

I don't believe that "gun control" is one of those things. There is no proof, or even compelling arguement that I can see that states that by controlling our right to carry a weapon, we make society safer. If one has a compelling arguement, then I say present it to me instead of getting upset because I called an idea what it is....fascist.

And...as far as "democratic-republic" goes, the U.S. isn't supposed to be just a democratic-republic. We wouldn't need our constitution or our bill of rights if we were to go with whatever the most rich and powerful, or the masses dictates to our elected officials. We are also supposed to be protecting our individual rights, regardless of what the majority thinks.

lastly, as to your last paragraph...come on dude....that's just silly and nonsensicle bantering, and I know you're a way better then that.

Paul

P.S. I am logging off and running my region now until the end of the day....and with a firearm seminar this weekend, I may not be able to reply timely. Just be advised... :asian:


----------



## Jerry (Jun 3, 2005)

> You are talking about a political ideology that encompasses MANY things that a simplistic dictionary definition cannot cover.


 While I can certainly think of terms with more detailed specific meanings than one generally finds in a dictionary, you've given me no reason to accept that your defintion, which you have not enumerated specifically, and which does not fall into the correct meaning of the English word as I've managed to ascertain, should be accepted.

Further, "it's fascist" has no probative value... it's a purely prejudicial remark intended to inflame an emotional response rather than argue a real issue. 



> Considering that I am really coming from a libertarian viewpoint, I believe that people should have the rights to do whatever they please, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or safety of others. Getting behind the wheel of a car is a safety issue, just as carrying a gun is. That is why we have liscensng standards that require training for both. However, to ban gun carry is just as irresponsable and an infringement to our rights as it would be to ban driving because "driving is dangerous."


 One could make the same argument for owing live small-pox bacteria. Just because one person may wish to release it in mass, killing millions, is no reason to deny the public posession of it.

I would say extreme libertarianism, like most other extreme or fundamentalist viewpoints, is inherently both flawed and dangerous. I really like laws which include words like "reasonable". 



> Don't try to paint a negative picture of me. I have been nothing but civil in this conversation, so don't try to pretend that I am representing gun owners in a negative light. To insinuate that is insulting.


 Insinuation would be passive/aggressive. I had/have a beef and stated it directly. There was no insinuation.



> I never said that she was a fascist, or that you are a fascist, or that people who advocate gun control are facsists. I did not call anyone a name, nor was I "prejudicial" towards anyone.


 Speaking of dictionary definitions, you may want to google a few websites on debate and find out what a "prejudicial language fallacy" is. When you tied your argument with words which have no probative value to the topic, and yet carry an emotional weight, you created one. In this specific case, you called gun control both "fascist" and not indicitive of "a democratic-republic". 

These two clames really make no argument over whether a position on firearms control is or is not antithetical to any study of combative arts... which I believe is the topic at hand.



> I simply stated that outlawing the right to carry is a fascist idea. It is when you look at the simplistic definition, it is moreso when you look at the ideal in its complexity, and it is when you look at hisorical examples of fascist or nationalist regimes. Most (if not all) have banned weapons as a means to control the populus.


 If we are discussing weapons, *all* governemnts have denied their populations access to some weapons while allowing others.

Speaking more specifically on firearms, most non-fascist countries have banned or severely restricted the posession of fireams as well, so your implied causal relation is not actually there. I could point to Engliand, Canada, Australia, and a score of other countries and say that firearms bans were republican, but it would be equally false. 

Similarly, the city in Arizona which banned firearms is no more or less fascist than Kennisaw which requires them. California is not more fascist than Florida, and 

Covnersely, Saddam's Iraq had very lax gun laws, the government being known to have actually distributed firearms to civillians... I believe (not sure) that the Taliban was also very pro-gun. 

In short, and though you may not agree, your tying of firearms control to fascism is entirely unwarranted.



> I don't believe that "gun control" is one of those things. There is no proof, or even compelling arguement that I can see that states that by controlling our right to carry a weapon, we make society safer.


 While I believe in some level of firearms control, I'm very much in the "pro-firearms" group. I don't think that there is a compelling argument for stringent firearms restriction in the US. That is not and never has been my point. 



> And...as far as "democratic-republic" goes, the U.S. isn't supposed to be just a democratic-republic. We wouldn't need our constitution or our bill of rights if we were to go with whatever the most rich and powerful, or the masses dictates to our elected officials. We are also supposed to be protecting our individual rights, regardless of what the majority thinks.


 I'm not clear that there is a "supposed to" inherent to the deomcratic-republican system... and which rights we are supposed to be protecting is the central issue of gun-control laws.

*My* point is that being in favor of firearms control is a legetimate position, which can be entierly consistant with security work of many types. I don't think it's the preferred tack, but that's not what the thread was about.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2005)

Where is the line between "control" and infringement on our 2nd amendment rights?


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 3, 2005)

I believe that being in private security work and antigun is a self fulfilling prophesy viewpoint.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 3, 2005)

Jerry -

1. I disagree with you regarding fascism. Whether or not you choose to give it merit, I think it has value to examine the methods of fascist regimes that have existed in the past to learn from the methods and behaviors of these regimes, so we don't turn into one of them.

What is inherent in fascism is the stripping away of rights and civil liberties of the people to support some sort of collective good. 

And this phenom is inherently present in all forms of fascism. Just because one fascist regime uses a weapons ban to control (such as the Nazi's) and another does not (such as the Taliban), is incidental. They all use the method of stripping away individual rights for a "collective good," and that is what we are talking about here.

This is why we have stuff like "the bill of rights." A democratic-republic is not a perfect system, in that the masses or the wealthy/powerful can influence leaders to make decisions that over-ride the rights of the people. We need to have in mind the rights of the individual when we run our democratic-republic, or we run the risk of becoming a fascist system. As we progress, I see more and more of our civil liberties being stripped from us.

Whether you choose to believe so or not, I believe that the rights to carry a firearm is one of those liberties.

Furthermore, no one cannot make the same arguement for owning small pox bacteria, or owning a nuclear weapon, or any such other ridicules example that gun control advocates often try to bring into the arguement.

The reasoning goes back to WHY someone owns a potentially dangerous thing. For firearms, the reasoning goes back to self-defense. The only thing that will equalize a firearm is another firearm, and since criminals have them, it takes away our rights to self-defense if we don't allow the private citizen to have them. Now, if I claimed that I owned a firearm because I wanted to go kill my friend with it, and I Law Enforcement had probable cause that this was true, I could have my firearm taken away, and I could face charges.

Nuclear weapons, or small pox, are not something that can equalize anything for self-defense.

However, people can own small pox. An individual person would have difficulties justifying WHY they would need it to get authorized. However, currently there are corporations which are considered an individual person under case law and the 14th amendment (which is something I actually disagree with, incidentally, but now it stands), and they are authorized to own the material for the purpose of study. 

So, WHY someone owns something, and if that reasoning could be to harm other INDIVIDUALS, comes to play. However, NO ONE IS GOING TO REGISTER THEIR FIREARM, AND GET A CONCEALED PISTOLS LICENSE TO GO CAUSE HARM TO SOMEONE ELSE. If that was their intent, they would simply obtain a pistol illegally, just as most criminals do. This is an important point that many people, for whatever reason, fail to realize.

As to libertarianism, incidentally, I am not an extreme libertarian by any stretch of the means. If we were having a discussion about health care, the environment, or corporate influence on the government, you'd think I was far left from libertarian. I can agree with you that an extremist view usually is a flawed ideology.



> Insinuation would be passive/aggressive. I had/have a beef and stated it directly. There was no insinuation.



Well, then congratulations for being directly insulting.

Yet, I am familiar with "prejudicial language fallacy," however, sadly for you and the position you've put yourself in. I have explained inumerable times how I believe the essence of "gun control" fits in with fascist ideology. You can feel free to disagree, but just because you don't agree, that doesn't mean that I am being illogical. To think so is being guilty of illogic in and of itself.

And...IS "gun control" antithetical to combat arts? Well to ignore the reality of guns in training a world where guns are commonly used to cause violence on others, then I would say yes. To believe that the law abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to carry the one thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal would also create the same dilemma. This has been said over and over now, and you have only been able to "disagree," but you haven't been able to make a compelling arguement.

However, despite this, I am glad that you fall into the "pro-firearm" category that you claim. I just don't understand why, being in the category, you would legitimize the"gun control" position at all. I myself, as I said before, can respect the decision to not carry a gun, and I can respect people not liking guns in general. It is when one feels that they should impose their beliefs on to everyone via gun control that I have the problem. And...I just can't see how it would be legitimate to do this.

Paul


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 3, 2005)

That law doesn't allow them for personal self-defence, but for maintaining a militia in order to prevent a standing army from taking too much control.

 If the reason they are to be allowed is because of that right shouldn't citizens be allowed the types of weapons they would actually need to do this?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That law doesn't allow them for personal self-defence, but for maintaining a militia in order to prevent a standing army from taking too much control.
> 
> If the reason they are to be allowed is because of that right shouldn't citizens be allowed the types of weapons they would actually need to do this?



Although I disagree with your first statement, your second statement is true.

So....it does beg the question, I would say.

Paul


----------



## Brother Grimm (Jun 16, 2005)

Hello eveyone, I don't post often as usually someone has already expressed my feelings. However, something an old friend of mine once told me has stuck with me and seems appropriate to the original post. " If you were able to put a big magnet above the earth , and take away all the guns and knives and such. The strong and evil would stil prey on the weak and good with whatever was available at the time. It is therefore neccesary, that we be as prepared, if not better prepared to defend against such violence."  Also in reference to looking up statistics about gun violence in other countries, I would suggest that one also looks at the numbers on knife violence in those places. In most cases it rivals the gun violence statistics in the U.S.


----------



## kenpochad (Aug 9, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Her: No...but they have a capacity for violence.
> Paul


I heard an interview on the radio where the laid giving the interview said something along these lines . To a us marine he was talking about teching the proper 
ways to use a fire arm to the boy scouts . And the laid said something like your 
giving them all the tools to be a violent crimanil.
The Marine said the the laid well you have all the tools to be a prostitute
But your not one are you 
that was the end of the interview they cut to a commercial and came back with  another guest


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 10, 2005)

kenpochad said:
			
		

> I heard an interview on the radio where the laid giving the interview said something along these lines . To a us marine he was talking about teching the proper
> ways to use a fire arm to the boy scouts . And the laid said something like your
> giving them all the tools to be a violent crimanil.
> The Marine said the the laid well you have all the tools to be a prostitute
> ...


Great story (and argument ) but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be true.
http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm


----------

