FW Student Says College Violated His Rights

[beevul]

FW Student Says College Violated His Rights


Brett Poulos said that although he asked permission before last month's demonstration, a Tarrant County College official said empty holsters could not be worn anywhere on campus. Poulos said he was told students could protest only in the "free-speech zone" -- a 12-by-12-foot concrete platform.

"It was really upsetting to me because they wouldn't provide me a reason," said Poulos, 20, of Arlington. "And I've never seen anyone protest there. I've seen people pass out flyers and demonstrate on campus. Mine happens to be a protest over firearms, and I guess he disagreed with it personally."

Juan Garcia, vice president for student development for the two-year college, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that he denied Poulos' request because "from a distance, you can't tell if a holster is empty or not."

Robert L. Shibley, vice president for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said wearing empty holsters is similar to students donning black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, a right that the Supreme Court upheld in 1969.

"It's important because it's a matter of symbolic speech," Shibley said.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/concealed.weapon.handgun.2.731823.html

"from a distance, you can't tell if a holster is empty or not."

What distance would that be? Seems a hokey claim at best, on its face.

Those "free speech zones" seem to come in handy on occasion, for those that don't typically compel protesters to protest in such places, when the speech is something they don't agree with. Maybe they should more properly call them "speech I don't agree with" zones. A play right out of the bush playbook, in any case.

I guess the folks that are always claiming that "gun people care nothing for the constitution except the second amendment" have something to the contrary to think about.

The question is, do those folks side with the college VP in violating the speech rights of the people in question, or do they side with the people whos rights were allegedly violated?

[nichomachus]

1. Remember when the whole country used to be a "free-speech" zone?

That was before the fascist coup of 2000.

[beevul]

2. Yeah. Its terrible how that changed.

Still, its noteworthy, and amazing, that those that would not support such a thing normally, would use it when it became convenient per thier personal biases.

[TPaine7]

4. Sensible, common sense, reasonable gun control

is principle free.

Also logic free, decency free, consistency free, . . . .

[Downtown Hound]

5. How so?

The constitution says "arms" not guns. The only way to really follow that to the letter would be to allow people to have tanks, artillery pieces, anti-tank missiles, and nuclear missiles in their home. If you believe that people should be allowed to have those things then you honestly believe in no gun control. But is you think that their should be restrictions on weapons of great killing power and mass destruction, then you can't say that there's no basis for gun control.

[TPaine7]

7. In this case, it's principle free

because it happily bans speech it doesn't like.

There are very many other reasons, but that is the one I was speaking about in context.


If you send me a video of yourself bearing a tank (a few dozen yards should suffice), I will happily discuss the rest of your post.

[Downtown Hound]

8. Speech? I'm afraid not.

Like it or not, a holster is part of a weapon, and weapons aren't allowed. Save your oppression complexes for the times when people really are being oppressed.

[beevul]

10. Seen any drive by "holsterings" lately have we?

"Like it or not, a holster is part of a weapon, and weapons aren't allowed."

Seen any children killed with a holster, or 7-11 stores held up at "holster-point"?

Advocate NICS checks for holster ownership do you?

Have you amassed volumes of evidence regarding the illegal trade and straw purchases of holsters?


Your statement may go down in history as one of the most ignorant in the history of the gun debate here on DU.

Edited for spelling.

[Downtown Hound]

19. Seen any drive by's using nunchucks lately?

Yet those are illegal also, and you can't bring them to school. God you gun freaks are so self serving. School is a place for learning. Not waving your fucking guns around or their holsters. Get over yourselves already.

[beevul]

26. Nunchucks are weapons. Holsters are not.

You can call us self serving, but at least we can tell the difference between the two.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Downtown Hound]

24. They're teaching me that I have the right to expect a safe campus

Away from you gun freaks and all of your bullshit. Go ahead, come to my campus, wear a confederate flag T-shirt, whine and bitch all you want about how you're so freakin' oppressed because nobody let's you wear you gun holster around all the time. Awww....poor little baby. That kind of thing would not be a good thing at my campus or anybody else's. By all means, protest all you want. You'll see how much you get made fun of here. No one is saying you can't protest or wear your shirts. But leave your guns and anything directly relating to them at home. You are not welcome here if you bring them.

[beevul]

32. The presence of a holster on a college campus...

The presence of a holster on a college campus does not make the campus unsafe.

If you assert otherwise, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

"No one is saying you can't protest or wear your shirts. But leave your guns and anything directly relating to them at home. You are not welcome here if you bring them."

Who exactly are you speaking for when you say that?


On edit: They SHOULD be teaching you youngsters that inserting yourself into a debate without arming yourself with facts first will lead to you getting your ass handed to you in said debate.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Downtown Hound]

48. I don't think guns have any place on college campuses

or their holsters for that matter. If that's being a gun grabber then so be it. I don't think so though.

[beevul]

51. It must be great to have it both ways...

Gun control proponents complain that gun rights proponents only support the second amendment, and then when we have a first amendment issue, we're labeled as freaks by that same group.


It must be nice to have it both ways.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

97. Ooooo! A hit below the forward stack! (nt)

[Name removed]

77. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrCory]

88. Care to Clarify?

"Away from you gun freaks and all of your bullshit. Go ahead, come to my campus, wear a confederate flag T-shirt..."

Are you suggesting gun owners are by default Confederate sympathizers?

[SteveM]

96. Your ad hominem attacks mean your arguments are weak...

Banning of someone's holster to prevent a demonstration is pure subterfuge. If you are old enough, you will remember a fashion craze in the mid-70s where folks (mainly women) wore real ammo bandoliers, fitted at times with dummy cartridges or portions thereof. It was most often seen on campuses. Style statements come and go, but the desire by prohibitionists to censor is with us always.

[Duke Newcombe]

35. "...a holster is part of a weapon"--

I'm not sure that you thought that comment all the way through. Do you really mean this?

Duke

[Downtown Hound]

42. Yeah, I thought it all the way through

And I stand by it. It's about what's implied by walking around a campus with an empty gun holster. You put a gun into a holster, and by relationship, it's part of a weapon. It goes together like a suitcase goes to clothes. As I understand it, drug paraphernalia like pipes is illegal in many states. Why? Can you get high off of a pipe alone? No, you get high off of what goes into it. Same principle here.

[Duke Newcombe]

47. Thanks...

By your logic, if I put my hairbrush in the car, hairbrush=car--so I can pump gas into my hairbrush, or should have to pay registration fees on it. Money in wallet? Wallet=money--I'll just send my leather wallet to my mortgage broker--that'll pay my house payment, certainly!

Unfortunately, Gitmo will be closing soon, so another place will have to be found to house this tortured logic.

Duke

[Downtown Hound]

50. Tell me something, why do you think you should be able

to enter a college campus with a gun holster? Believe it or not, some people there might be really put off by that, and they have a right to be.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Oh my gosh you were put off, the horror of it all.

How dare your preconceived ideas be challenged on a college campus? I guess they shouldn't make the christians learn about evolution either.

David

[Downtown Hound]

67. Christians that don't want to learn about evolution go elsewhere

People that want to carry guns around should do so also.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. So only people who believe as you do should be allowed in college.

I'm pretty sure you aren't a progressive.

David

[Downtown Hound]

74. LOL! So now you have to support allowing gun holsters

being used to get real guns on campus to be a progressive huh? Whatever you say man. Keep waving your fucking guns, man. But keep 'em off college campuses. Since it seems unlikely that we're going to change each other's mind here, let's just leave it at that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. No you just have to be tolerant.

Not a hard concept.

David

[SteveM]

98. Thanks. Your drug paraphernalia metaphor says it all...

"You get high off of what goes into it. Same principle here." Yes, the principle of more prohibition and more subterfuge.

[maxidivine]

113. Paraphernalia

Drug paraphernalia is only illegal if it has been used to consume drugs with. Owning a glass pipe does not make the owner a stoner, and it will not be confiscated by a competent police officer unless it shows signs of having been used for illegal purposes, ie marijuana residue.

And a holster is no more a 'part' of a pistol than the belt the holster attaches to.

Are belts banned from your campus as well?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. A holster is not a part of a weapon.

[maxidivine]

112. Holsters are NOT a weapon or "a part"

of any weapon, unless the holster is an integral part of the weapon, such as the holster-grips for the NAA Mini-revolvers. Most manufacturers don't even make holsters for their own firearms, and the ones that do rarely make anything beyond extremely simple, such as the Glock slide holsters and the XD holsters. In fact those are the only two I can think of.

Holsters are by and large an aftermarket, third party business. Not "a part of the weapon", no matter how you try to stretch it.

[beevul]

16. You may not be aware...

"The constitution says "arms" not guns. The only way to really follow that to the letter would be to allow people to have tanks, artillery pieces, anti-tank missiles, and nuclear missiles in their home."

You may not be aware thet private citizens are allowed to, and DO own tanks, artillary pieces, and anti-tank missiles - LEGALLY, your nuclear strawman notwithstanding.

[Downtown Hound]

18. You are aware that those tanks can't fire anything, right?

[beevul]

27. You sir are wrong.

See the NFA of 1934. Under it people are allowed machine guns, mortars, tanks, claymores, and yes, the ammunition for them too.

[Downtown Hound]

46. And can you bring those things to college?

No, man, why do you put up with such oppression? Why don't you drive to school in your tank and stand up for yourself? Why don't you go out into the woods and practice shooting shit for the inevitable struggle that's coming from how oppressed you are? Oh wait, you probably already did that.

[krispos42]

17. The right of people to keep and bear arms

There are two things to keep in mind.

1) "Arms" are weapons designed to be carried and employed by a single person. The current status of firearms laws draw the upper limit at .50 caliber except for "sporting guns" like the .73-caliber 12-gauge shotgun. And seeing as how a .50 BMG rifle weighs about 35 pounds and is over four feet long, it looks like they knew what they were doing back in 1934.

2) The right is not absolute, just like any other right. The freedom of speech does not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example, due to obvious public-safety concerns. Likewise, the strict regulation of what I call "non-discriminate" weapons.

"Non-discriminate" weapons is a term I use to describe weapons that have the potential for unaimed lethal effects. That generate "lethal zones", if you will. I include in this catagory explosives and fully-automatic weapons.

A person will a fully-automatic AK-47 can spray a 30-round zone of destruction. A person with a semi-automatic AK-47 can't. He can discretely fire 30 rounds, one at a time and with full personal control over his rifle, into an area that he chooses.



I think national security concerns over modern anti-tank weapons and nuclear bombs are a reasonable reason to deny public ownership as well.

Thus, if a person wants a tank, that's fine with me. If he wants a tank with a working gun and live ammunition, he'd better have the permit from the Dept. of Justice for the gun and each individual shell. The tax is $200 per shell and per gun.

[maxidivine]

110. Those "arms" are not personal arms

they are crew-served, and besides, private citizens CAN have tanks (de-milled anyway). There is a significant difference between advocating for the right of the people to keep and bear arms and supporting the idea that individuals should design and build their own weaponry such as MX and Triton missiles. Big difference.

[Downtown Hound]

3. Why can't you protest without the holster?

I'm not even allowed to carry a bullhorn to my protests, and you're whining about gun holsters? And why the fuck will gun nuts never be happy until every institution is armed to the teeth? I'm a college student, and the last thing in the world I want on my campus is a bunch of guns. Keep your fucking guns away from my campus. I don't want guns at my school, and I don't want a bunch of self-obsessed gun crybabies walking around with empty holsters either. It creates a real state of tension in an environment that's supposed to be about learning.

Sorry but no one's free speech is being violated here. The kids can have their stupid protest without the damn holsters. Oh, and by the way, I own guns. But I think these people and gun nuts in general are fucking idiots.

[TPaine7]

6. So the free speech rights of "crybabies" are subject to

your personal preferences?

Bush was right, in principle, to create "free speech zones" just like this official?

After all, "no one's free speech was being violated there. The folks can have their stupid protest without the damn t-shirts. Oh, and by the way, I own t-shirts. But I think these people and anti Bush protesters in general are fucking idiots." Right?

I think fascists are idiots. And I'm actually right.

[Downtown Hound]

9. Comparing a gun holster to a T-shirt now are we?

Like I said, crybabies. Take your guns and their holsters and get them the fuck off my campus. Neither you nor they are welcome here.

[TPaine7]

14. Exactly.

Excuse me for overestimating your intelligence.

Take your guns and their holsters and get them the fuck off my campus. Neither you nor they are welcome here.

LOL. When I chose to go on campus, the preferences of ill mannered, uneducated, fascist thugs is not exactly at the front of my mind. I frankly couldn't care less what they think.

PS: Of course if it actually is "your campus" I will respect your property rights and stay away. Somehow I doubt it, however.

[beevul]

15. I suggest you research what constitutes "symbolic speech". N/T

[Downtown Hound]

20. I suggest you learn the difference between a shirt

with a political message on it and something that is actually a part of a weapon. You can't bring weapons to school, even non-lethal parts of them. Free speech my ass.

[beevul]

28. A holster is NOT part of a weapon...

Read that as many times as it takes for you to grasp the simple fact.

[Downtown Hound]

41. What the fuck do you do with a holster?

You put a gun in it, that's what. So what kind of signal do you think it sends out when you're walking around with one? Get this straight, I don't want that kind of energy in my schools.

[Duke Newcombe]

49. And if I put a gun in a purse...

...is the purse part of a gun? Just asking.

Duke

[Downtown Hound]

52. The purse is not made specifically for the gun, now is it?

And I don't want guns is purses there either.

[Duke Newcombe]

55. We get it. You don't like guns.

It's just sad that you have to hang your distaste for the exercise of the 1st Ammendment in this example by using tortured logic that a first-year college student should be able to pick apart as mere sophistry.

I'm thinking if this were any other type of symbolic protest that you'll be just peachy about it. Sad, really.

Duke

[Downtown Hound]

61. As I already said, I own guns

But I don't bring them to school. I don't bring empty holsters to school, and I would understand it completely why if I did that it would make other students nervous and not create a good learning environment. The last thing I would ever do if someone told me why I couldn't wear a holster around my waist in the middle of school is start whining and bitching about how my rights were being violated. I'm much thicker skinned and more rational about that, unlike people who are so afraid and so paranoid that they feel they need to bring a gun everyplace.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. What are you so afraid of that you need to own guns?

Why do you live in such fear that you need to have guns in your home?

David

[Indy Lurker]

76. It can be

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

182. How about this?

ALSO I guess this can't worn on campus either.

Worried that a manbag might seem a bit girly? There's no worry about that with the Koffski. The Koffski is a wallet that is reminiscent of a gun holster and has room for a billfold, pen, keys, cell phone and more.....

http://www.luxist.com/2006/12/05/koffski-the-gun-holster-wallet

[TPaine7]

83. Signal = speech, symbolic speech.

So what kind of signal do you think it sends out when you're walking around with one? Get this straight, I don't want that kind of energy in my schools.

And fortunately

1) The Constitution was not written to ensure that you have the type of "energy" you desire.
2) As anyone who thinks rationally can see, there is no right to "feel safe." If so, a group of neo nazis with racist tattoos would not be able to non-threateningly surround a Jew on a bus or plane in the natural course of traveling. "Feeling safe," "energy," and the like are things that you can only control on your private property.
3) If "{your} schools" are actually your personal property, feel free to ban empty holsters, nose rings, political t-shirts, spoken French, or any mention of Snoopy. Otherwise, I--and a great many others--will casually ignore your desires.

Get this straight, I don't want that kind of energy in my schools.

You get this straight: Your wants are insignificant in the scheme of things. What matters is what's right, what's logical, what's constitutional. Your lack of reasoning ability makes you mildly amusing, which is the only reason I am typing this out. Your prejudice and ignorance about the people you are calling names is not justified by your passion for your subject. If you don't take a breather, admit your errors (at least to yourself), and learn to think when you are emotional you will be a lifelong fool.

[DrCory]

89. I sometimes carry my handgun

in a shoulder bag not specifically designed for carrying firearms. Does that render all shoulder bags a weapon component?

[maxidivine]

114. Keep going, this is rich

Goes to show what we're up against. People who want to restrict the rights of others, in the case of this right, tend to know very little or nothing about the topic. Lots of emotion, lots of selective restricting, little sense.

But they can't be bothered to actually learn anything about the topic they are debating.

Keep your energy, man, quit messin' with my vibes!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Why wouldn't another DU'er be welcome on your campus?

Prohibiting people who disagree with your preconceived ideas is dangerously close to the line of fascism. Seriously Democrats do not need to be associated with such behavior and if you really feel that way you may not belong here.

David

[beevul]

11. Why can't you protest without black armbands...

"I'm not even allowed to carry a bullhorn to my protests, and you're whining about gun holsters? And why the fuck will gun nuts never be happy until every institution is armed to the teeth? I'm a college student, and the last thing in the world I want on my campus is a bunch of guns. Keep your fucking guns away from my campus. I don't want guns at my school, and I don't want a bunch of self-obsessed gun crybabies walking around with empty holsters either. It creates a real state of tension in an environment that's supposed to be about learning."


A big old straw fella, is what that is. Who exactly is it that is trying to make these institutions you speak of "armed to the teeth"?

The imaginary people you described, thats who. Like I said, big straw fella.


The rest of it...is just so much gobbleygook.

It must have escaped you, that the point of the first amendment is to protect unpopular speech.

[Downtown Hound]

22. Even in free speech, there are limits

Such as bringing a part of a weapon to a school where they are not allowed. You can have as many T-shirts stating that you're a dumb ass redneck and you won't be happy until everybody is as armed and as ignorant as you, but you can't actually bring a gun or any part relating to it to a school. That includes, guns, ammo, holsters, gun powder, or anything else. Deal with it and quit fucking whining about how oppressed you are. This is the kind of thing that gives gun owners a bad name.

[beevul]

29. I say again: A holster is NOT part of a weapon. N/T

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Not to be exposed to what?

An empty holster. How is a piece of leather or plastic a threat to you? If you are paying 20k for an education that has you scared of a piece of plastic then you are getting ripped off.

David

[Downtown Hound]

54. Did you go to college?

Did you have people walking around with empty gun holsters all over the place when you did? What kind of environment do you think that creates?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Why does that matter?

When I was in high school people routinely had guns in gun racks in their trucks on campus. I thought nothing of it. It creates an environment of polite and logical discourse if people support the 1st amendment.

David

[Downtown Hound]

62. When you were in high school

you didn't have kids coming to school and gunning down the whole place, now did you? And it does matter because if you've never been to college then you have no idea what kind of environment it is and you have no concept of how wearing something like that might disrupt the place, especially after all the school shootings.

[Duke Newcombe]

65. If today's college students are so easily "disturbed" by this...

...then goodbye sweet America. They are truly squishy, marshmallow-y, doughy sheeple who cannot handle the least amount of conflict or difference.

Duke

[Downtown Hound]

69. So now we're a bunch of pussies for not wanting guns on our

campuses huh? Well, we're not the ones that are so scared all the time we have to go around carrying them for protection.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. So now you are saying cops are pussies.

Your logic is baffling.

David

[Downtown Hound]

73. Jesus Christ, you can't be serious. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. You did write this didn't you.

Well, we're not the ones that are so scared all the time we have to go around carrying them for protection.

Cops are the only ones I know that carry guns all the time for protection. Everyone else is forbidden to take them certain places. Since your scenario only applies to cops that must be about whom you are speaking.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. So only college students can have opinions on this.

Wow you are intolerant. A student in my high school actually brought a shotgun into the school to shoot a teacher, he was stopped fortunately, by my brother. After that I still saw guns on campus and still thought nothing of it. I did go to college by the way but thanks for taking the bait.

David

[Downtown Hound]

68. How long ago was it?

You know, my dad went to school with guns too. But it was a different world back then, even a different world than it was ten years ago.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. I spent 15 hours on campus last week.

Is that recent enough to have an opinion?

David

[Downtown Hound]

75. So how do you think others would feel if you walked around with

an empty holster? Cause I'm pretty sure it would cause a bit of a stir at mine. And all I know is, I'd pretty much feel like a joke if I felt that I had to walk around with one of those things. Believe it or not, there are other ways to prove your manhood, from one student to another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. I would hope they were informed enough to know it was a protest statement.

Other than that I wouldn't care. So what are women who carry guns trying to prove? It would be odd to see a fireman carrying a gun, but I doubt anyone would say anything several kids mistook me for a cop.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Another thing.

I never said I was a student. Lastly, when you have spent time in a combat zone and crawled into over a 100 structure fires then I'll listen to your advice on manhood. Until then you are an immature college student who thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does.

David

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Exactly and you have no idea what I have.

So let's not attempt to bring manhood into a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Why do you think I'm a coward? Do tell I'm quite curious. I'm not talking about me walking around with an empty holster, I'm talking about supporting someone's right to do so as a form of protest, if you don't understand that your college is doing you a great disservice. I haven't played make believe gun play since long before I carried one in service of this country.

David

[Downtown Hound]

102. You know we've already been over why I think

it's not okay to walk around with a gun holster on a college campus a thousand times, so what's the point of beating that dead horse again? As to why I think you're a coward, there are many reasons for that. You state your military service as a reason for your bravery. Military service doesn't really impress me all that much. I've known lots of guys that went into the military, some of them were my best friends. And I know why they went into it, their lives were going nowhere. They were aimless, drifting, and tired of getting up every day to work the same crappy job all over again for shit pay. They'd come home and smoke pot or get drunk night after night, and then repeat the same thing over and over again until they were about to go insane. So they joined the military to find some direction.

In other words, the military was the only way they felt they could make something of themselves. As much as I love my friends, the truth is that they were pretty much nothing without the military. All right, fine. I have no problem with that. But don't think it makes you or them any braver than me. Don't think I wouldn't put my life on the line and fight tooth and nail for something that I believed in, even if it meant my life or being maimed. However, I don't need to be a tool of the U.S. Government and it's imperialist wars just to make something of my life. I consider myself both braver and smarter than my friends that did join the military and fought in Iraq. I had the courage to say NO, I'll find another way to make my life worth living that doesn't require killing innocent people.

And if you think that the training you go through is something I could never do, think again. All through high school, I was a boxer. It was one of the things I did to help myself find direction that involved only a few bloody noses and cut lips. Every day I woke up and went running, then I'd come home from school and lift weights for an hour, and then three times a week I'd go to practice. Grueling workouts that I guarantee you could prepare me for boot camp. They make football practices look like a senior citizens aerobics class. And while I was going to my town's Junior College, I lived in the worst part of town. Every night there was gunfire, people getting shot, police helicopters, even bullets flying through my window while I was home one night. So I've seen the effects of your armed and polite society firsthand.

I think you're a coward because of your obsession that everyone needs to have a gun and should have a right to carry one anyplace they go, even a place of higher learning, for protection. Why are you so afraid? I lived in a neighborhood where at any time when I left my house I could be killed, and I never carried a gun. And I would never even dream of bringing one to my campus, or a holster for that matter. I think it's a totally stupid, paranoid, and shitty thing to do that creates an atmosphere of fear and mistrust in a place that's supposed to be about learning. You keep harping on the fact that it's only a holster and therefore a legitimate expression of free speech. You are aware that the only reason they want to do is so they can bring real guns on campus right? So generally, yeah, I think people that have an obsession with guns are very fearful people, and you could show me a wall of military medals that you've won and I'd still think that. All they would show me is that you found a way to work your fear out in the military, but that the fear was ultimately still there by your refusal to put the gun down once you got out.

So, you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. It doesn't look like we're really going to get anywhere with this, now does it? So, I'll wish you well and happy shooting! Just stay away from my campus when you're armed, and we won't have any problems.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. I never questioned your manhood or said you couldn't do anything.

You made the following statement, "I think you're a coward because of your obsession that everyone needs to have a gun and should have a right to carry one anyplace they go, even a place of higher learning, for protection. Why are you so afraid?"

I'm quite sure you could succeed in the military or in anything you choose to do for that matter. You do need a little work on persuading other people that your opinions are good ones, you'll get better at that though.

As to the context of your post though.

You made the following statement, "I think you're a coward because of your obsession that everyone needs to have a gun and should have a right to carry one anyplace they go, even a place of higher learning, for protection. Why are you so afraid?"

Please show me where I said I believed any of those things.


You also said, "but that the fear was ultimately still there by your refusal to put the gun down once you got out."


Please show me where I stated that I carry a gun. Kind of hard to do since I don't carry a gun and haven't since I left the military in 1993.


You have in fact called me a coward based upon your imagination. Cowardly behavior is more in line with calling someone a coward because they disagree with your ideas. A man would apologize for that behavior but I'm guessing I won't get one.

My belief supported by statistics and facts are this. Concealed carry by law abiding, licensed, trained citizens reduces crime without unnecessarily endangering the public. You are more likely to accidently be shot or be murdered by a police officer than by a citizen with a concealed carry permit. Guns on campus isn't much of an issue as it would affect very few students. Most students are under 21 and can't possess a handgun so concealed carry isn't much of an issue. Campus police have done a horrible job of protecting students. Something needs to be done, I'm willing to consider all ideas. Guns were banned from the campuses where the mass shootings took place last year, so that policy doesn't seem to be having the desired affect. I'll be more than happy to have a logical polite discussion on the matter. I am scared of things by the way. My dogs getting sick, my moms deteriorating mental function, heights. Fear is a useful emotion letting yourself be controlled by it is unhealthy. For instance, my fear of heights didn't stop me from jumping out of airplanes or becoming an expert rock climber. Fear should be nothing but respect for danger or injury. Reasonable people can disagree on concealed carry, a lot of people are scared of guns because they've never been around them, many people are misinformed about the issue.

David

[beevul]

118. Since you appear to have calmed down...

Since you appear to have calmed down and since I have gotten most of the phone calls I had been hoping to get from friends and relatives in my home town...

I'll now adress the part of your post thats applicable to this topic:

"You keep harping on the fact that it's only a holster and therefore a legitimate expression of free speech. You are aware that the only reason they want to do is so they can bring real guns on campus right?"


The problem here, is that you don't see any difference between protesting the prohibition of lawful concealed carry on campus, and the actual carrying of guns on campus.

They are 2 completely different things.

You say "they want to do is so they can bring real guns on campus", and I say so what? The motivation to protest in this case, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that protest should be allowed, nor should it. If you want to prevent lawful carrying of firearms on campus, feel free to protest. You have just as much right to do so as they do. You just aren't content with that though. You want to prevent them from sending the message as they want to send it, which is a completely different and offensive thing.

Heres a few court cases, and some rationale from the judges that decided them for you to think about, with emphasis by me in the apropriate areas:

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)

Facts: Arthur Terminiello, a former Catholic priest who became an anti-Communist crusader, gave a shrill, anti-Semitic speech at an auditorium in Chicago as an angry mob of about a thousand protestors threw bricks and bottles, smashed windows and nearly broke into the hall. Terminiello was fined $100 for breach of the peace, which the judge defined as including speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition or unrest, or creates a disturbance."

On appeal, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court threw out his conviction as a violation of Terminiello’s 1st Amendment rights. Justice Douglas noted that “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. "


Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Facts: Gregory Johnson leads Communist Youth Brigade in protest at 1984 GOP convention in Dallas. On City Hall steps, he burns American flag as protestors chant, "Red, white and blue, we spit on you." Johnson convicted of violating Texas flag desecration law and sentenced to year in prison. USSC (5-4) holds Johnson’s conviction invalid.
Significance: Ct. holds Johnson punished for content of his symbolic speech. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the FA, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds the idea offensive. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one’s own."

And most applicable IMO, is this:


Tinker

In TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to suspend high-school students for wearing black armbands to protest the VIETNAM WAR, because their conduct was "akin to pure speech" and did not interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students.

Facts : John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Mary Beth Tinker, John's sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school.

In December 1965, a group comprised of parents and students held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. They decided to display their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. Administrators met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. The students were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.

On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired - that is, until after New Year's Day.

Issue : Do students have a constitutional right to wear arm bands in school as a form of symbolic speech to protest the Vietnam War.

Decision: The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment rights applied because neither "students or teachers shed their rights at the school house gate." Schools must be able to show that students conduct would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school .

The school in question did no such thing. You could pretty well substitute "holsters" for "armbands" in Tinker , and have the same case with the same decision.


I would fight, and freely give my life, so that people are free to speak and express ideas, particularly protest and dissent. Even Ideas I am completely opposed to and find repugnant and repulsive.

And I really and truly expect no less from anyone that calls themself a Democrat.

[maxidivine]

119. There's your problem

First sentence, supports your diatribe about what a man you are. Here it is-
"I lived in the worst part of town. Every night there was gunfire, people getting shot, police helicopters, even bullets flying through my window while I was home one night."

Not sure what your point is, but whatever, at least it kind of goes together.

Then this happened-
"So I've seen the effects of your armed and polite society firsthand."

You attributed criminal and probably gang violence in a slum to law-abiding citizens carrying pistols. Way to go guy, your professors and parents must be beside themselves with happiness at what a rational individual they have created.

And something that shows your little biases-

"I consider myself both braver and smarter than my friends that did join the military and fought in Iraq. I had the courage to say NO, I'll find another way to make my life worth living that doesn't require killing innocent people."

Elitist much? And are you aware that our military is doing a damn good job in an incredibly hostile environment? The people fighting us do things like strap bombs to mentally retarded people before sending them into crowded markets. They put bombs on their or their countrymans children. They decapitate contractors and journalists. Believe it or not, when war is being waged people die. Some of those people will be innocent. But by and large, our servicemen and women deserve much better than your snide little remarks about how morally superior you are since you don't "kill innocent people". Our civilian leadership is to blame for this fiasco, feel free to retain that, although given your insistence that a holster is a weapon I don't expect much.

Oh and by the way, military service used to be something that future leaders did, to do their part, and give back what they could before moving on to their own lives. My oh my how that has changed, now military service is looked down on by pukes like you. I hope you never get a job in the public sector, you aren't cut out for it.

[Downtown Hound]

127. Well, basically I don't care about what a great job our military

is doing. Oh yeah, I know, it's Memorial Day, I'm supposed to be eternally grateful for all the sacrifice for my freedom and blah, blah, blah. And as for all those atrocities you mention, those Iraqi insurgents aren't doing anything we haven't done ourselves or trained others to do for us, and if you think otherwise you're damned naive. So essentially, I'm through playing the good little American that always gets behind our brave boys in uniform every time Uncle Sammy decides he needs a war. If no one showed up to fight his wars, there wouldn't be any now, would there? Go ahead and call me whatever you wish, but I seriously doubt that the Iraqi people are grateful that our military is doing a splendid job over there. All things considered, I think they'd probably wished they stayed home.

So you're right, military service is looked down on by me. And I have no intention of continuing to cover up how I really feel because some feelings might get hurt. If you're brave enough to face gunfire, you're brave enough to hear my true feelings. I never asked any soldier to join up, and I sure as hell didn't ask them to fight in Iraq. In fact, I specifically asked them not to. You say that it's entirely the fault of our civilian leadership that is responsible. Are you aware that the military vote went overwhelmingly for Bush in both 2000 and 2004? Do you know how many soldiers I've seen brag about the fact that they gunned down Iraqis, men, women, and children? About how they have tortured them, murdered, them, and humiliated them at every turn? And yet these soldiers not only volunteer for it, many of them go back for more. Do all soldiers do those things. No, of course not. I'm not saying that. But you know, I am not one and have never been one to think that the statement, "I was only following orders," excuses everything. You are a human being with a free will before you're anything else, and you always have a choice. You can choose to be Bush's stormtrooper or you don't. It's really that simple.

So try as I might, I really can't get all warm and fuzzy about the U.S. military on this here Memorial Day. I'm sure this is going to send you into fits of rage. Frankly, I really don't give a shit. About this stupid thread, or about how you or any other gun freak here feels. So y'all have a nice day. Go blow some holes in some shit with your guns or something, volunteer to fight in a war based on lies and do a damn good job while your at it and make us proud, wear your empty gun holster around a college campus, because dammit, it's your right. I've wasted enough time here arguing with the entire DU gun fanatic club and now the society for always speaking highly of the U.S. military. See ya!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. So would it be considered cowardly to run off in the middle of a discussion?

Since you failed to respond to any of my questions since you called me a coward. Good luck with college I think you'll need it.

David

[Downtown Hound]

134. I've already answered all of your questions in other posts

some of which have been deleted, which is why I find this discussion pointless. I've answered why I think a gun holster is a different thing than wearing an armband or a T-shirt, yet people keep repeating that as if I don't understand. Would you like me to repeat it to you for the umpteenth time? Okay. Like the school administration said, somebody could look at a gun holster from a faraway distance and not immediately see that it's not loaded. No school really wants to have a bunch of students walking around their hallways and into their classrooms with empty gun holsters. Well, maybe a few do, but most don't. That kind of thing could make a lot of students uneasy in this day and age of Columbine and Virginia Tech. You can call them crybabies or whatever else you want to call it, but that's the way it is.

Those gun loving students are free to wear whatever T-shirt, bumper sticker, armband, or anything else that supports their position, but leave the damn holsters at home. Your rights are not being trampled on, and you are not a victim of suppression of free speech no matter how much you want to look like a poor, victimized martyr for being asked to do so. Now, I understand your position. And I disagree with it. You can disagree with mine, but now maybe, you finally understand what it is. So don't bother asking me how I feel when a school tells a student that they can't wear a shirt or an armband or anything like that. I've explained to you why I think it's different. You don't have to like it, but just fucking get it.

You state that you never said you believe people should be able to walk around with guns. I thought you did, but maybe that wasn't you. It might have been one of those deleted posts where somebody said that. Either way, what do you believe? Do believe in any gun control?

I don't believe that more guns make people safer. You can cite me statistics about a few places where concealed weapons were tried and crime went down. But guess what? There are cities all over this country where everybody is armed, and they aren't peaceful. Most of those guns find their way there from legal sources, even if the people living there didn't buy them legally. For every person that is trained to carry a concealed weapon, far more weapons from the legal market used to supply them and all other legal guns will find their way into the illegal market. You're simply pushing the violence from one place to the next. Maybe you don't care about the next place as long as your community is safe, but that's essentially why I think gun fanatics are self-serving and ultimately very selfish.

Now, I called you a coward because I thought that you were an advocate of being able to carry a gun out in the open, anywhere you want. I believe that people that are obsessed with guns, own hordes of them, and eschew any form of gun control are very fearful. So I guess you could say I side with Obama on that one. Why would anybody need to stockpile guns for any other reason than they live in fear? Owning a few here and there is all right, but I'm talking about people that want to carry them out in the open in public. I'm talking about people that have AR-15's on their wall. I'm talking about people that think it's okay for a civilian to own a weapon that can shoot down an airplane (.50 caliber sniper rifle). So if that's not you, then I apologize for calling you a coward. If it is however, then I stand by my statement.

If it is you, then you really need to get over your fear. People are dying in this country every day because of its love of guns. No matter how much you want to deny that fact, it's still a fact. Every other developed nation has stricter gun control than we do, and all of them have far lower rates of gun violence. So your little statistics about how concealed weapons worked in this little town here or there really don't matter much to me in the great big picture of things. The big picture tells me, we have a real problem with guns in this country, and there are far too many of them. I favor licensing for all gun owners, myself included. Again, you don't have to like my position, and you can argue otherwise to no avail, I won't change my mind, but just understand it.

So um, anything else? And I'm not running away from this discussion. I've have literally taken on about a dozen of you and haven't left yet. But I must admit I am getting tired of it because it really seems like at this point we're all just jerking ourselves off. You're not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change you mind. We can go on and on in an attempt to get that little last word in and go off and thump ourselves about how we got the last word in and won, but there's no winner here.

You may have noticed that I tend to come and answer all of your posts after periodic absences. It's because I have a life outside the computer, try it sometime. It's rather busy, and I'm afraid that arguing endlessly with a few folks on the internet just isn't high on my list of priorities. So you can call it running all you want. But I'm still here, and if you really want I'll stay on for another few rounds of political ping pong with you if it makes you happy.

So, carry on. What were you going to say next?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. Apology accepted.

I do think you fail to make a distinction between legal concealed carry and unlawful carry. The cities with the strictest gun control laws are the most violent. They don't allow concealed carry but they are somehow incredibly rife with gun violence. I believe that the current laws are probably adequate concerning gun control the problem is they aren't enforced. They haven't been since 1992. I don't begrudge people who get the training and license to carry a concealed firearm, their reasons are their own, as long as they obey the law I don't find them a threat and I don't find it necessary to belittle them by calling them fearful (they may have a good reason to be afraid). I find it odd that you own guns but are worried about the proliferation of them. Gun used in crimes are often acquired during home burglaries. You wrote, "Why would anybody need to stockpile guns for any other reason than they live in fear?". Maybe they like to target shoot, hunt or just collect them. You do realize that if you own more than one gun someone here on DU thinks you have a stockpile. What is your reason for owning guns? What are you afraid of? What is the number of guns that you own at which it is caused from fear? I'm interested in your point of view because it's rare to hear a multiple gun owner make the statements you make. Concerning concealed carries little statistics I'm sure someone will be along in a minute with some for you. Anyhow good luck in school, what are you studying anyway?

David

[Downtown Hound]

136. All of my guns are inherited

2 shotguns and a .22. Family heirlooms. I've never bought a gun on my own. If I didn't inherit any, I might buy one shotgun and that's about it. I never said I was against owning guns, but I think it's way too easy to get one. And I really don't think they have any place in schools. As for concealed, I would make an exception for someone that has a credible reason to have one, such as an abused woman with a dangerous abusive husband around. Now I understand that in some states that's the only way you can get a concealed weapons permit, but not all. And I'd also have to say that I believe the school should have discretion in terms of whether or not they want to allow weapons in school. Even if some people really need it, that doesn't automatically mean the school has to allow it. They may simply want no weapons on their campus, ever. And even if I was willing to make exceptions on an individual case by case basis, I respect their right not to. These are touchy, paranoid times. Schools are really worried about on campus violence, and rightly so. You can argue that the concealed weapon would make a campus safer, but they don't feel that way. I think they're afraid that if they let any weapons on campus at all, it will open the gates to even more weapons in the future. I also think that schools, as institutions of learning, are trying to set an example. That maybe fighting fire with fire is not the best solution for everything.

Buying more guns means more fear, and ultimately, more death. You have yours so I have to have mine. And while we're stockpiling, countless guns are finding their way into the streets of America, where a lot of people aren't going to bother with obtaining a license or pass any psychological tests. The legal trade fuels the illegal trade in America. As long as there's one there will be another. Kind of makes you wonder if maybe somebody some time didn't plan it like that, huh? On the one hand, you have the people in the country, who don't have drive by shootings every day, and they don't think that guns are a problem because they're not a problem where they live. But they see the stories on TV, they hear about the murders, the drive by's and the massacres. So they buy guns, to protect themselves against criminals. And because of the fact that they buy guns, more guns are made, and find their ways into the hands of criminals, the very reason why those people bought their guns in the first place. It's an endless cycle, until we all decide to stop it.

And I'm studying Information Technology security. Protecting computers and networks from hackers, that kind of shit. I have a previous degree in journalism from Humboldt State, and I used to work for ABC but got fed up with being a whore for the corporate media. And thanks for the good wishes. Who knows, maybe this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship? I doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

[maxidivine]

138. You think it's way too easy to get one

yet you have never bought one, so how do you know what the process entails? based on your comments, it doesn't look like you've done any research, so it seems to me that you don't actually know, just have an impression that the media gave you.

[Downtown Hound]

141. In California, there's a 15 day waiting period

and a mandatory background check. But those don't always work, and you can go to any gun show and get around those rules. Don't bother telling me that isn't true, because I've been to some of those shows. Just because I'm liberal and in college doesn't mean I'm a gun virgin. I was given my first gun when I was 12. Those shows also feature useful tidbits about how to turn your semiautomatic assault rifle into fully automatic, how to penetrate body armor, and so on. There's plenty of ways to get around the gun laws, even here in CA with its supposedly strict gun control laws. I'll confess I don't know the gun laws for all 50 states, but I doubt you do either. And I'm guessing that in other states, the laws are a lot more lax.

[iverglas]

145. just because you're a liberal and in college ...

And the fact that you've never bought a firearm doesn't actually mean that you're a complete moron who is unwilling and unable to do what is needed in order to have an informed opinion on a public policy issue.

But don't worry. That won't stop maxidivine from accusing you of being / portraying you in public as a complete moron without a decent respect for democratic discourse, who sucks up opinions indiscriminately from the airwaves and then tries to impose your uninformed and nasty views on right-thinking people everywhere.

And don't worry. You won't be the first it's been tried on, and I doubt you'll be the last.

[beevul]

149. I'm forced yet again, to agree with Iverglas.

"just because you're a liberal and in college ...And the fact that you've never bought a firearm doesn't actually mean that you're a complete moron who is unwilling and unable to do what is needed in order to have an informed opinion on a public policy issue."

I agree completely. That you have not shown any informed opinion on the public policy issue in question hereabouts, might lead one to think that you haven't done the things need in order to have that informed opinion, however, which is a completely different thing than she was talking about. Your opinion on how a 50 caliber sniper rifle - scoped by definition - would be doing any shooting down of any airplanes, for instance would be an example of such a thing. Your opinion of the ar-15, being another.

"But don't worry. That won't stop maxidivine from accusing you of being / portraying you in public as a complete moron without a decent respect for democratic discourse, who sucks up opinions indiscriminately from the airwaves and then tries to impose your uninformed and nasty views on right-thinking people everywhere."

I don't think anyone here believes that he/she gets his/her opinions indiscriminately or from the airwaves. I do think however, someone has been telling you some lies, and you have been believing them. If I had to guess, I'd say someone has been giving you some brady brand kool-aid. They (and thier victims) are about the only ones on this green earth that really belive that a scoped firearm of any caliber is any kind of threat to an airplane-in-flight, and they don't like the ar-15 much either, in spite of it being much weaker in power than any hunting rifle.

"Those shows also feature useful tidbits about how to turn your semiautomatic assault rifle into fully automatic, how to penetrate body armor, and so on."


So does the internet. Knowledge is not a crime. What one does with it is if it breaks a law.

"There's plenty of ways to get around the gun laws, even here in CA with its supposedly strict gun control laws."

Indeed there are. But how many of those involve the breaking of some other law, versus staying legal? The answer to that question might be useful in determining if your talking about legal behavior or criminal behavior.

"And I'm guessing that in other states, the laws are a lot more lax."

By and large you'd be right. But its worth noting, that most of those places with so called "lax" gun laws, don't have the kind of problems that CA does.

[maxidivine]

152. How to penetrate body armor

You just have to use a sufficient caliber. any high powered .30 caliber or higher rifle will work fine for that purpose. Unless the armor happens to provide only PISTOL caliber protection, in which case any rifle will work.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

139. Good field

My brother owns an IT security company. He's doing quite well. I don't disagree that criminals acquire guns far to easily. I would like to see serious crack downs and increased punishment for straw purchasers. I would also have no problem with mandatory 5 year sentences for illegal possession of a firearm. I'd like to see mandatory 10 year sentence add ons for any crime committed with a firearm. There are no easy solutions to this problem. I would like to see the NCIS database opened up to individuals to allow background checks on private sales. Criminals will always have weapons and be willing to use them, the police will arrive to late or not at all 95% of the time or more, and those things will not change. Given those facts, I believe that law abiding people not only have the right but in fact the duty to defend themselves if they are capable. Some people, like the elderly man confined to a wheelchair who posts here frequently, need a handgun to do that. It is an endless cycle because the criminals will never decide to stop on their own. I appreciate your candor, once we get past the insults we can ussually find common ground. I apologize for the jabs. Speaking of jabs in what weight class did you box? I've got to fight a cop for charity here in a couple of months. Only chance to beat up a cop without getting arrested.

David

[Downtown Hound]

142. I apologize for my jabs as well

Sometimes I react before I think. Sorry if I offended you.

I boxed Light Heavyweight. I'm 6'3" tall, but back when I boxed I didn't have an ounce of fat on me. So I barely squeaked into that division. It was actually always something I had to watch, that I didn't gain weight and get bumped into the next division. If I was to box today, I'm certain I'd be Heavyweight. All that time behind the computer doing IT I suppose, heh, heh.

I wish I could give you some advice on how to fight the cop, but I sparred with a few cops back in the day, and most of them were pretty good. Go for the eyes. There's nothing worse than getting hit on the eye. It's a blinding flash of pain that literally just stops you in your tracks. Gut shots are good too though. People that are used to watching boxing and never doing it don't really realize how much a good hard shot to the gut can hurt. It's a lot more painful than getting hit on the head (eyes excepted), but less disorienting. It just doesn't look as dramatic because there's no blood or sweat flying off somebody's face. Remember to keep your guard up, and most importantly, keep moving. Make him chase you, don't offer him an easy target. Just make sure you don't run out of gas in the process.

Anyways, hope you kick his ass, in the spirit of charity of course. :toast:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

147. I appreciate the tips.

I have some MMA experience and my brother and I fought so much when we were kids that dad bought us both sets of boxing gloves and would make us fight till we were sick of it. I'll probably work on the gut see if I can't make them regret some of the donuts. Take care of yourself I'll keep the discussion more civil next time.

David

[Downtown Hound]

156. As will I

Take care.

:hi:

[maxidivine]

137. ".50 caliber sniper rifles"

The proper term is anti-materiel rifles, since they were designed to be used against enemy airfields and other places with plenty of delicate and most importantly expensive equipment.

No "sniper rifle" can shoot down an airplane, regardless of what bullshit horror stories you have been fed or dreamt up.

You are living in a dream world kid.

[Downtown Hound]

140. Dream world huh?

The only real dream world I see is believing that there is no correlation between 200,000,000 firearms owned in the United States and believing that there's no correlation with over 10,000 gun deaths. And since a .50 caliber sniper rifle is designed to penetrate armor, I'll personally think it's very possible to shoot down an airplane with one. As I understand it, a Marine actually stopped an Iraqi APC with one during the first Desert Storm. So I think that's way more artillery than any one person needs, airplane or no airplane.

You know, if guns really did make us more safe, then why when we have so many of them, are we less secure than every other industrial nation on the planet?

[AtheistCrusader]

148. No basis in reality.

I'm sorry, but the various .50 caliber sniper rifles are not materially different than any other hunting rifle. If you're close enough to hit a moving plane with a .50, you are close enough to hit it with a .458 win-mag and do pretty much the same damage to it. Same with a 30.06 or whatever. Just because a .50 can shoot a bit further, and contains a few grains more mass in the bullet, does not improve your chances of hitting something that, at those distances would be relatively very small and fast, and really does nothing at all to improve your chance of damaging it, should you manage a hit. Nothing in an airliner is bulletproof against the venerable 'deer hunting' 30.06, that would not be against a .50.

It's not a magic talisman. It's a rifle, a bit bigger, and shoots a bit further, a little more accurately. That's all. You can coax other rounds to perform in the same way with handloads, etc.

[Downtown Hound]

154. No basis in reality my ass

You're going to sit here and tell me that that rifle is just an ordinary hunting rifle? You know, if you can't be honest, then don't bother debating.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. I can see by your other response on 'armor piercing' rounds,

You are either completely misinformed, or being dishonest. So careful when you're swinging that sword around. The .50 is an incremental increase in power over countless other hunting rifles. Again, it shoots a little bit flatter, a little bit farther, and brings a little more mass to bear on target.

A standard .50 round you could commonly purchase will exit the rifle with a 668 grain slug at 2910 feet per second with muzzle energy (ME) of 12,550 ft. lbs. A 30.06 deer hunting rifle can easily reach that same FPS mark, so it shoots flat and far but with about 1/3 the weight of the bullet, and a little shy of 1/3 the foot/lbs in force. But that's just a .30 caliber rifle. With my .45/70 Government I can fling lead with a heavier bullet, just not the FPS. Hits nearly as hard, but doesn't have the range. There's a reason there are so very many calibers and within individual calibers, so many different types of loads. They all do different things. The .458 win-mag can be bought off the shelf with a .500grain bullet, firing at 2,192fps, 5,336 foot lbs of force. If I poke around enough, I'll find loads in other calibers that approach the seemingly massive 12,550 ft. lbs of force the normal military round used in the .50 can develop. That number is quite high for this one caliber, but it's not unique, and it's not the only number of interest. That number doesn't translate into a flat trajectory, for instance.

Personally, I wouldn't hunt with it, because except in cases of the largest of game, the 'dwell' time of the bullet inside the animal would be too low. It IS used for competition shooting though, where even a tiny incremental increase in accuracy makes an enormous difference in competition. If you want a 'hunting' example, the local Makah indians use a .50 caliber rifle to put the whales they hunt out of their misery quickly. It can take them a while to die from the harpoons.


On your point about 'armor piercing' ammunition, you can buy armor piercing ammo for any centerfire rifle in the US. I have belts of steel core armor piercing 30.06 ammo. It's cheap and good for outdoor target practice (not good for hunting because it does not expand and will not reliably kill) You are completely misinformed on this point. You cannot buy armor piercing ammunition for PISTOLS. It's a controlled or destructive device, I forget the specific term. But not centerfire rifle cartridges. You can buy all the 'armor piercing' centerfire rifle ammo you can carry. Here you go: http://ammunitiontogo.com/catalog1/index.php?cName=ap-steel-core-penetrator-ammo Steel core means armor piercing. Incendiary is probably controlled. But that's not armor piercing in all cases. That 30.06 steel core ammo will penetrate 1/2 inch of steel plate. I own some. You can buy it. It's no big deal. It's not running around committing crimes.

Most scumbags that do commit the remarkably low number of rifle-related crimes in this country probably don't even know that ammunition comes in different forms/purposes.

[Downtown Hound]

170. See post #167

[AtheistCrusader]

171. So multiple people point out your blatant misconceptions,

and instead of acknowledging or addressing your errors, you retreat behind 'gun control' in general, smear guns again, mis-characterize probably most of us, and the reason*S* we own firearms as simple fear.

Nice.

Since you invite me to have the last word, some takeaways for you for next time:

1. Only Pistol ammunition is banned or controlled for purchase and use in Armor Piercing form. Armor Piercing Rifle ammo is perfectly legal, and it is available for purchase every day, all across the country, in most centerfire rifle calibers.
2. A .50 caliber rifle IS more powerful than most other civilian-available rifles, but only incrementally so. For example, the .460 Weatherby Magnum is just about 2k lbs of force behind the .50 and achieves the same muzzle velocity. When you get over 10,000 foot-lbs of force, 2k is an increment, not some huge, astonishing number.
3. A .50 caliber rifle has been used in 7 or less murders in the United States. Ever. (I am open to correction on this point, but I made an honest attempt to find as many as possible.)
4. A .50 caliber rifle is really no more or less dangerous to a commercial aircraft than most big-game hunting rifles. Commercial aircraft are not armored. Any .30 caliber rifle, popular for deer or whatever, can easily penetrate the thin aluminium skin of an aircraft. In calibers approaching the .50, the round is most likely going to come out the other side anyway, unless it hits a major structural support, where it will deflect, disintegrate, or bury itself.


I dig sensible gun control. I vehemently disagree that banning this rifle constitutes reasonable gun control. To get back to your 'fear' smear, I've never met anyone who owned a .50 that bought it for self defense. I know VERY few who bought it even for hunting. The vast majority I've met purchase this rifle for competition, either informal, or formal.

The only person I sense fear from here is you, after all, you're the one trying to ban things, apparently because they sound scary, and you're willing to justify that ban with spurious claims. I know one of my neighbors has one of these rifles. I've fired it. There's no escalating arms race here. Since I am not interested in competitive shooting, I have no desire to purchase one of these rifles. Him having one does not concern me. I do not fear for myself, my wife, or my (soon) children because he has one. I believe you are projecting your fear on others, and I'm not buying it.

[maxidivine]

153. .50 BMG and planes

.50 BMG works against thin-skinned ground vehicles such as APC type vehicles because those vehicles do not have enough armor to prevent the round from messing up their engines. The APC that was stopped by the Marine most certainly didn't explode into a cloud of flames, but probably was either not moving at the time, and wouldn't move again, or lurched to a halt.

The point is that the .50 BMG does not have magical properties, it is like any other rifle caliber, but somewhat bigger. The reason that a .50 caliber sniper weapon cannot be used to shoot down planes is that they fly too high, they are moving much too fast for any shooter to reliable deliver hits on target, and most importantly, having a half inch hole drilled through an aircraft body is almost certainly NOT going to cause any real harm to that plane. The weapons you are talking about were designed with a Soviet-era mindset, when airfields would play a key role for both sides of a prospective conflict. The idea was to have a small team pack in a rifle, precisely hit delicate and important parts of the very expensive aircraft ON THE GROUND and maybe some of the other expensive, important equipment on the ground as well, then ditch the rifle and get back to more friendly territory.

[Downtown Hound]

155. A .50 caliber can shoot through armor

Armor piercing rounds are supposed to be illegal, except when they're fired through that gun. Why is that one allowed but others aren't. I never said it had magical properties. I said it's a far more powerful weapon than should be allowed. It has been smuggled to countless terrorist organizations around the world, including the Iraqi insurgents. You can maybe show me a few cases where it's been used to prevent violence, and I can show you many more where it's been used to ferment violence. That's what you gun advocates never seem to understand. For every time a gun is used "correctly" it has been used "incorrectly" countless others.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. Have to politely disagree there.

For every time a gun is used "correctly" it has been used "incorrectly" countless others.

I used to shoot once a week as did about 1/4 of the 1000 members of my rifle range. That was just in my parents small town. They have like 1 gun murder every 2 years there. If you meant to say that every time 1000 guns are used correctly a single gun is used incorrectly. Then I would agree with you. If you were talking about a specific weapon in this case the Barrett .50 cal I don't believe one has ever been used in a crime. They are used to shoot in long range matches. I believe the AR-15 and look alikes are the most popular center fire rifle in the US. But so called assault rifles are used in less than %1 of gun crime. Even by your own numbers of 200,000,000 guns lets say for example only 1/4 are used in a given year that would be 50,000,000 uses of a firearm in the US. If there was an incorrect use for every correct use then there would be 25,000,000 gun incidents per year. My point is guns are used far more often correctly than they are used incorrectly. Most of the incorrect uses are by people who are forbidden to possess firearms anyway so I don't see how more laws are going to stop them, since they have already demonstrated the willingness to disregard the law.

David

[Downtown Hound]

169. See post 167

And good luck to you. We may disagree on some things, but I'm glad that we were able to come to an understanding and stop yelling at each other.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Within the United States

I can find 7 deaths during criminal acts attributed to .50 caliber sniper rifles. One police officer was murdered in March of this year, near the Mexico border, and 4 BATFE agents were killed by the Branch Davidians during the gunfight at their compound, and two people were killed when some guy shot up an Albertsons store in 1995. I'm being generous with the 4 agents in Waco, because I can't find mention of whether any of those 4 were actually killed with a .50 or with any of the other dozens of firearms used by the Branch Davidians, and also with the murders in the Albertson's, because the guy was carrying many firearms and there's no clear article describing who was killed with what, and it hardly matters anyway. So 7 murders. (And two wounded Wells Fargo armored car workers in 1992.)

Now, I can find some crimes committed around this rifle platform, mostly illegal possession, or illegal transfer, or possession while committing another illegal act, such as having some drugs. But no airplane I can find has ever been shot down in the US with one of these rifles. Very VERY few deaths can be attributed to this rifle at all. Yet they are used every day for civilian training, practice, competition, all across the country. A .338 Lapua shoots just a hair shorter, with similar trajectory, and we don't see those rifles used much in crime either. I say USED in crime, not just incidentally lying around when someone has done something like get busted with some pot or whatever. I mean crimes where someone used this rifle or this type of rifle to shoot someone or something in the commission of a crime.

It's so incredibly rare it's not even worth discussing.

[beevul]

160. Once again, you show us you don't have the facts.

"Armor piercing rounds are supposed to be illegal, except when they're fired through that gun."

No, sir. You are incorrect. Rounds DESIGNED and built to pierce armor, are illegal for handguns. Handguns ONLY, for that matter.

Most centerfire rifles will pierce body armor designed to stop pistol rounds. Most large caliber rifles will pierce steel plate.

I believe in the history of the 50 BMG, there are 1 or maybe 2 crimes that were committed with one, but your free to post all the examples you can find, and show us how wrong we are.



"That's what you gun advocates never seem to understand. For every time a gun is used "correctly" it has been used "incorrectly" countless others."


Um...Bwahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha.

There are now some 280 million privately owned firearms in America.


Cites for the sum of the following please: 280 million X how ever many times they were correctly used X "countless more times they were misused for every correct use = ?




"Assault weapon" talking points based on false information...Check

50 Caliber rifle talking points based on false information and flat out lies...Check.

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a typical perjurative term such as "gun nut"...Check.

References to gun owners inadequacy and/or being afraid...Check.

Rhetoric that no informed person could possibly believe such as "every time a gun is used "correctly" it has been used "incorrectly" countless others"...Check.

Not just being wrong about any of those things, but drastically exagerating what would otherwise be just plain wrong...Check.


The odds of you not being a brady shill in spite of those things? Pretty slim. Anorexic.


Pat yourself on the back, you had me fooled for a short time. That time is over, and I imagine everyone else will be coming to the same conclusion shortly.



On edit: I acknowledge that there is the slightest possibility that you may not be a brady shill, and that you may just be someone that doesn't have the facts. Its quite difficult to differentiate between someone that doesn't have the facts, and a brady shill. One can not measure willfulness in this case...yet.

[maxidivine]

164. Yet...

the comment about being a 'gunowner' kind of reeks of Brady tactics to me.

"i am a gunowner and I don't believe anyone should have assault weapons or armor-piercing sinper rifles. We simply don't need them"

Looks like their basic template to me.

[Downtown Hound]

167. Now I'm a Brady shill?

This is good. How about I call you a freeper? I don't think you are one, but that would pretty much be the same line of thinking by which if somebody has a different opinion of yours than they must be a paid shill for some organization. You do your argument no favors by resorting to such tactics.

Okay, I'll make one more long winded post regarding this issue, and then I really am done here. This has been going on for three days, countless posts, and it's been me alone against many of you. I've gone from being angry to reconciliatory to now just being bored. Here are the gun "facts" as I understand them. I always find these kinds of facts, even ones the support my position, to be misleading and they often never get the full story. And to me, the full story is this:

In a nutshell, I believe that gun violence is an epidemic, and it is due to the gun lobby's efforts that we don't treat it as one when it deserves to be. We lose many more Americans to gunfire here at home every year than we have lost in five years in Iraq, and in only two or three years we lose more than we lost in all of the Korean War. The cycle of violence is self perpetuating. You buy guns to protect yourself, and in so doing, you feed the very thing you are trying to protect yourself from. As I have said before, most of the guns used in crime were bought legally, and either used directly in a crime or found their way into the hands of someone else who did. Here's some facts regarding gun violence in the U.S. compared to other countries for 2003.

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but those other countries all have much stricter gun control than we do right? I think you are seriously delusional, a liar, or not very bright to not think that there is no correlation there. Here is an article that you are free to read or reject based on your pleasure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/the-united-states-gun-vi_b_47153.html

Now, violent crime statistics on a state by state per capita basis. Somebody somewhere mentioned that California has a lot of problems with guns. Well it does, as does every state in this country. Yet we still rank only 11th on the list. We are behind Alaska, Nevada, Tennessee, Florida, and a whole host of others. This in spite of the fact that we have the second largest city in the U.S. and another major one up north. We are the most populated state in the Union. Our cost of living is extremely high which can drive many people below the poverty level. We have some of the most brutal gang warfare in the country. And we still don't make it in the top 10, whereas sparsely populated Alaska and Nevada do. Only two blue states with strict gun control make into the top ten, three if you count New Mexico which is blue or red depending on what year it is. Out of the next top ten, four of them are blue states and the rest red states.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri_percap-crime-violent-per-capita

Yeah, I think gun control works. And I do own firearms. I'm not a paid shill for anybody, just a college student that would like to live in a country where people didn't feel like they needed to bring a gun everywhere for protection. Others have implied that if there had been guns on campus at Virginia Tech then we wouldn't have had a massacre. Yeah, and if we had gun control that actually worked we wouldn't have had a massacre either. The background check for Mr. Cho seems to have completely failed. Some of you have stated or implied that the gun control measure in place are strict enough. Well, why when he had been declared mentally unstable by the court was he able to walk into a Pawn shop and get what he wanted?

http://en.bcnq.com/world/2007-04/23/content_857141.htm

You fail to see the big picture. You only see what's right in front of you. You fail to understand that the desire to be armed is what built a massive industry that feeds on your fear and in the end, directly or indirectly, supplies the very people you're afraid of. You are not going to stop war by building a massive military. If that were true, then why do we go to war every few years in this country? And you are not going to stop gun violence with more guns. Just as our massive weapons proliferation around the globe often fuels the very enemies we end up fighting (Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Noriega, the Somali warlords, and many others) our massive gun industry feeds the criminals, to the point where you all feel you need one as well for protection.

Now, I'm a practical human being. I understand there are legitimate things to be afraid of. Which is why I don't favor a ban on all guns. But I encourage all of you to keep your fear in check. If you feel like you need a gun to protect your home, go ahead. But keep it there. The fact that we all feel we need guns is not something to be celebrated. Work to end the fear that causes that, don't feed it. More guns will not make you more safe, it has the opposite effect.

Now, I wish you all well. I'm done insulting, and I'm done debating this. You all have argued endlessly with a mere college student (not a Brady shill no matter how much you want to think otherwise) for three days on this issue, and you have failed to change my mind. Likewise, I'm sure I have failed to change all of your minds. But there's more to life than this debate, and I think I'd rather spend my time out there. So any replies to this post will go unanswered. Congratulations, you have won this internet debate only in the fact that you got the last word in. But I will not stop, not until we have much tighter gun control and until more people recognize the ultimate futility of fighting fire with fire. It may interest you to know that I once thought as many of you did. But as I've gotten older, I've come to see how everything is interconnected, that small actions can have huge reactions in the world. And I think this relates to guns. Buying guns out of fear only makes the thing you're afraid of stronger. You can say I live in a dreamworld, but it takes courage to dream. Adios and happy days.

Downtown Hound

[iverglas]

173. just before you go

Have a glance at my two posts at the bottom of the thread.

The empty-holster assholes are astroturf. They are organized and funded by the big, loud right-wing foundations and individuals who have been engaged in a war on "liberal" education in the US for some years now, under the cloak of academic freedom and freedom of speech, both of which they besmirch by even breathing on. Think David Horowitz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_(conservative_writer)

The web is deep and wide, and the spiders that crawl around in it have tentacles everywhere.

And our little friends here have once again demonstrated that they are completely devoid of shame. They don't care whose dirt they wallow in, and whose fleas they share. It could be the poor persecuted accidental owner of an illegal firearm ... who turns out to have been feeding US military info to members of "militias" and running a business illegally converting firearms to automatic fire. It could be the poor persecuted postsecondary students just wanting to politely do something that any rational, decent human being knows will, and is intended to, intimidate ordinary passersby. It could be the militant supposed GLBT activists advocating armed resistance for their vulnerable group, who turn out to be hard right-wing "libertarian" scum. It doesn't matter. Or ... maybe it does matter to them, just not the way it does to you and me.

Don't take them seriously; based on past performance, half of the contributors to this thread will be tombstones before the month is out. ;)

[maxidivine]

175. Or maybe some of us can get past party affiliations and identity

when there is an issue we agree on. I believe that is called bi-(or maybe multi-) partisanship.

[iverglas]

176. nah

I don't think that's it.

[beevul]

179. Poison tossed into the discourse well. Which is all it was intended to be, obviously. N/T

[beevul]

174. Allow me to explain.

"but that would pretty much be the same line of thinking by which if somebody has a different opinion of yours than they must be a paid shill for some organization."

I didn't come to the suspicion that you were a paid shill simply because you had an opinion that differed from my own. Saying that I did, is just saying something thats untrue. I came to that conclusion, because of HOW you state your opinion, the names you started flinging around, and the mistruths you stated about a few different things, and the fact that you do not seem interested in discussing those mistruths, or even acknowledging that they ARE mistruths in any way.

That combination of things, is classic brady kool-aid drinker behavior.


And now you're introducing your own facts expecting us to discuss them, without having ever touched on what was presented to you, by us, first.

[iverglas]

177. just to be clear

I didn't come to the suspicion that you were a paid shill simply because ...

When do you expect to reach a firm conclusion, and will you be letting us know the outcome?

I do think you owe it to us. Donchoo?

Otherwise, this would just look kinda like the kind of demagoguery the right wing is so fond of.

I mean, just think of all the things that Bill Clinton was suspected of, and that many people were happy to suspect him of in public ...

People who value civil discourse, on the other hand, aren't heard to say such things in public all that often.

If your interlocutor actually were a paid shill for someone, pointing it out would amount only to ad locutorem argument anyhow.

If s/he isn't, or you don't at least have evidence to offer that s/he is, it's just poison tossed into the discourse well. Which is all it was intended to be, obviously.

[beevul]

178. Kindly control your bollocks.

"When do you expect to reach a firm conclusion, and will you be letting us know the outcome?"

Right after the first time the poster in question addresses the facts that he has been asked to since nearly the inception of this thread.

"People who value civil discourse, on the other hand, aren't heard to say such things in public all that often."


Yes, and people who value civil discourse don't actually ignore facts and continue stating misrepresentations and untruths in spite of facts to the contrary, either.


"If your interlocutor actually were a paid shill for someone, pointing it out would amount only to ad locutorem argument anyhow."


No, pointing it out would amount to pointing out that the person in question is not interested in civil discourse, since that person refuses to acknowledge the facts of the matter, and that being what makes the person likely a shill. Note that I never intended to mean a "paid" shill. Just a shill. Do try to pay better attention next time, and I'll try to be clearer myself.



"If s/he isn't, or you don't at least have evidence to offer that s/he is, it's just poison tossed into the discourse well. Which is all it was intended to be, obviously."

I cited the reasons I suspect what I do, and appreciate that you mentioned "civil discourse", since the lack thereof is also one of the reasons I came to suspect what I suspect. That you aren't acknowledging the things I listed that leaded me to suspect what I suspect says something about YOUR interest in "civil discourse" too.

The rest of what you wrote, is just so much of a dogs breakfast, but you knew that already didn't you.

[iverglas]

180. ah, well then

Note that I never said a "paid" shill. Just a shill.

We're back where we started. Anyone who disagrees with you is shilling for someone else.

Now, why would someone shill for someone else if s/he were not being paid?

That seems to be the question.

Actually, there is no reason. The essence of shilling is that the person doing it is doing it for gain, whether direct or indirect. One doesn't shill for a third party as a volunteer, ordinarily. That would just be dumb. The whole purpose of shilling is that the party being shilled for will profit if the shilling is successful, so what sort of moron would shill for free?

So "paid shill" would be one of those tautology thingies. Payment can, of course, take non-pecuniary form; it can be the advancement of some other personal interest.

You know ... like the interest in being able to do whatever the hell one wants without a thought for anyone else, like on the part of those who shill for the firearms industry and the right wing and their "gun rights" astroturf clubs.

What would someone gain by shilling for the Brady Campaign in the absence of pecuniary reward?? That is, what interest of his/her own would be advanced by doing so?

Oh, I know. Getting Democrats defeated in elections ... so that the firearms industry and the right wing can run the show.

So -- shills for the Brady Campaign are your friends, no?

I mean ... the firearms industry and the right wing and their "gun rights" astroturf clubs are your friends, and the Brady Campaign and its shills are working toward the same end as they are, so I have to figure the friends of your friends are your friends.

So I guess all these little battles with Brady Campaign shills, real or imagined, are just kinda like that World Wrestling Entertainment stuff ...

[beevul]

181. You're something else.

"We're back where we started. Anyone who disagrees with you is shilling for someone else."

Someone can disagree with me all they like, and not be a shill. When one is disagreeable, however, and refuses to discuss relivant fact presented to them, and instead continues to openly and outwardly espouse things which are in stark contradiction to the relivant fact presented which that person repeatedly and consistantly ignores...and when that same person says some pretty telltale things - "a 50 caliber rifle can shoot down an airplane" - which is quite well known as is its origin, hereabouts, by just about everyone, for example...




Thats quite a different matter, and one which you are free to attempt to address with me any time you like.


Pretending I meant something other than what I meant, doesn't mean what I meant is what you're pretending it was.


Sometimes a "brady shill" means someone thats been drinking the brady kool-aid. Not necessary the literal sense of the word "shill". But you knew that.

[Downtown Hound]

168. See post #167

[beevul]

172. Right after you address post 160.

You didn't address a single thing I said, except that I suspect you're a brady shill. Thats just an opinion, and maybe its wrong. The rest of what I wrote, you didn't touch. That stuff, isn't my opinion, its fact. Not addressing it, does not inspire a dialogue.

I will put it out on the table for you. I'd be happy to try discussing this issue with you again, but facts must be acknowledged. You can't expect me to acknowledge yours, when you don't acknowledge facts previously presented to you by me and a few other posters here.

The 50 cal "sniper rifle" for example. You seem to have a problem with them, in spite of the fact that they are essentially NEVER misused, ridiculously priced that no criminal would buy one, they're quite heavy and not really suited for criminal misuse, and in spite of misinformation that you may have heard, can't just shoot down an airplane. Keep in mind, that in WW2 they used a belt fed machinegun, firing that same round with tracers every 4 rounds or so, and those were marginally effective for taking out single engined prop driven airplanes that never attained the speeds of jet planes. How well do you think anyone could hit a single target moving 600ish miles per hour, with any scoped rifle, and how far would they have to lead such a target? When you stop to try to get the answers to those questions, the absurdity of the claim that the 50 bmg rifle is capable of shooting down an airplane becomes clear.

If you acknowledge those facts, and still have a problem with the 50 bmg, then fine. I still oppose any effort to ban them, and you still are against ownership - but your opinion will at least be viewed by people that disagree - myself included - as educated.

Thats an example that you'll find applies to about any subject in the guns forum, and DU in general.

One can not have a useful discussion about firearms and the laws concerning them and the people that own them, without the people doing the discussing acknowledging facts and agreeing on what they are.

[Duke Newcombe]

103. Wow. So you believe soldiers and cops are cowards. Nice.

When you get done rebelling and "talking truth to power" to "the Man" and want to acknowledge the symbolic nature of the holster protest, do let us know, hmmm?

Duke

[TPaine7]

85. You're the only one here concerned with proving manhood.

The principles I see expressed by gun rights proponents apply equally well to both genders and to lesbians as well as gay men.

Are you projecting?

[SteveM]

101. Gosh, Hound, if the gun was concealed, how could it cause "a bit of a stir?"(nt)

[maxidivine]

116. Oh the manhood!

Always comes up, and for some reason, always seems to come from the anti-rights voices.

You sound like miss Ratchet, without the speech-filter that most adults have.

[maxidivine]

115. Sorry Tpaine7, you've been knocked off

By this post, got to be the funniest thing I've ever read.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. Thank you.

[iverglas]

120. and I thought I was easily amused ...

[beevul]

123. Hey now...

You never did say whether you thought that the star trek joke I posted was funny.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x172969#173159


Edited to add the address.

[iverglas]

124. I never saw it!

Okay ... I guffawed multiple times ... all the way almost to the end.


Sigh. A lawyer joke.


Oh well, otherwise it might have been like SNL, punchline-less forever ...


Still worth passing on to the co-vivant though; a devout Macolyte<*>, him.

... and so like Gul Dukat that no girl could resist ...




Very good, very good.


<*> Damn! I thought I might have just invented another hilarious thing, but no, google tells me I merely went where others had been before, again.

[beevul]

125. Or more properly

"Damn! I thought I might have just invented another hilarious thing, but no, google tells me I merely went where others had been before, again."

went where others had GONE before...being star trek related and all. :evilgrin:


On edit: I considered the possibility you seeing it as a lawyer joke, as opposed to a star trek joke, and figured youd see the lawyers as being more of a tentacle of microsoft, in this case. Lol.

[iverglas]

128. phew

On a quick scan, my eyes lighting on your (absolutely correct, no Trekkie moi) correction before looking back at what I'd said, I was afraid for a nanosecond that I'd said something like:

I merely went where others had went before ...


Hell, Bill Shatner is a lawyer joke these days.

Speaking of ...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+am+canadian&search_type=

You have to watch #1 on the list first to get the backstory. And please keep in mind that it was a beer commercial! Then #2.

Huh. Shatner's in the real commercial down at the bottom of the list too.

The commercials no longer run. Molson's is now owned by Coors.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Come on Iverglas I get complimented so rarely.

Quit raining on my parade; and all of this after my marriage proposal.

David

[iverglas]

129. well you know

When a yank proposes marriage, it isn't so much a proposal as a plea. Please please get me across the border!

But I may have to consider yours if I want to get trinkets (I mean, you realize there has to be some inducement on the table). I seem to have been jilted by the front-runner. :(

And Wickerman is ignoring my proclamations of undying devotion ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. I do have a shoulder acting up probably just a simple repair.

It would be cheaper up there though.

david

[iverglas]

132. hah

It would be *free* up here. I mean, if you wuz one of us.

It used to be that it would be a lot cheaper up here if you wuzn't. I looked into, don't laugh, a vasectomy reversal for someone I knew in the States maybe 6 or 7 years ago. Her intended was going to have to pay I think it was $7000 US, and that may not have included hospital fees. Here it would have been $3000 Cdn, which at the time was a lot less in yankee dollars, all-inclusive. They could have spent a week here skiing first and still been ahead. (The procedure isn't covered by the health plan here, so the price was the same for anybody, local or foreign, didn't matter. There would have been about a year waiting, simply because so few doctors do it, during which the preliminary procedures were done. Tubal ligations and vasectomies are covered/free here, but reversals aren't.)

But now, what with our dollar being worth more than yours and all ... you might want to consider Cuba. ;)

I've been treated at a hospital in Cuba. Beat hell out of the NHS hospital in North London my mum was treated at when we were in England just before they started rebuilding from the wreckage left by Thatcher, that was for sure.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. Cuba is a good idea I love cuban cigars.

I'll probably just take more drugs, get rid of the pain, damage my liver and shorten my life span. But I won't be hurting right now.


David

[beevul]

13. "I don't want a bunch of self-obsessed gun crybabies walking around with empty holsters either."

"I don't want a bunch of self-obsessed gun crybabies walking around with empty holsters either."

And like the official quoted in the OP, and the bush administration too, you're all too happy to deny the rights of others to prevent speech you disagree with.


How very liberal and progressive of you.

[Downtown Hound]

23. I said they could protest didn't I?

There's a difference between speech and displaying part of a weapon, which is really just a ruse to actually bringing a weapon in this case. Quit trying to mask what you're really trying to do under the guise of free speech.

[beevul]

30. Jesus h christ on a pogo stick.

When will you quit misrepresenting a holster as something its not.


A holster is NOT part of a firearm.


No firearm requires one to operate.


For someone that claims to own a gun, you sure show no understanding of what a holster is.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

33. You really don't favor free speech at all do you?

I find flag burning repugnant. I find Fred Phelps (the Google machine is your friend) a pig. The Klan? All pukes. All have a right to demonstrate and I fully support their right to do that. Do you?

[beevul]

34. He seems to think that a holster is part of a weapon...

What a bizarre and completely unconnected to reality thing to think.

[pipoman]

37. And so is the wood used to make a sign. A little wood work and you have a gun stock..

and anyone who refers to the school they attend as "my school" then proceed to describe who and under what conditions others may attend is a moran.

[beevul]

121. The law of unintended consequences...

I think our friend on the other side of this issue may have inadvertantly highlighted something:

One poster says:

"When I was in high school people routinely had guns in gun racks in their trucks on campus.

Our friend on the other side points out:

"When you were in high school you didn't have kids coming to school and gunning down the whole place, now did you?

Yes. When the first poster was in highschool, back when guns were allowed, there just wasn't anyone shooting up schools. Now, when they aren't allowed, kids are occasionally coming to school and gunning down the whole place.


Somehow I don't think highlighting that was his intention though.


Edited for clarity.

[iverglas]

146. and the law of correlation not equalling causation

When the first poster was in highschool, back when guns were allowed, there just wasn't anyone shooting up schools. Now, when they aren't allowed, kids are occasionally coming to school and gunning down the whole place.

And?

Your conclusion from these facts is - ?

I'm really dying to know, and wonder why you didn't just state it in the first place. Don't be so coy.

[beevul]

150. My conclusion from those facts was as follows:

My conclusion from those facts was as follows:

That it was unintended on that posters part, to point them out.

I did state it, you just didn't get it.


Nice try.

[Duke Newcombe]

36. Very gracious of you. Now, why do you hate our freedoms? n/t

Duke

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Will you defend to the death our right to agree with you?

[iverglas]

25. "a bunch of self-obsessed gun crybabies"

Doesn't that just say it, eh? ;)

You do seem not to be up on gun dungeon logic.

How will we know when fascism has arrived?

When they come for the gunz.

If they haven't come for the gunz, there's no need to worry. The mark of a fascist is that they come for the gunz. They can come for everything else, but as long as they haven't come for the gunz, why then the people will still be able to revolt.

The odd thing is how they apparently don't revolt ... until somebody comes for the gunz.


Back in the real world ... in places where these moronic "protests" took place, members of the campus community were alarmed. The question that springs naturally and immediately to mind when a person sees someone wearing an empty holster is: Where the fuck is the gun??

This is not the alarm felt by nervous nellies who shouldn't go out in public because they are afraid of their shadow. This is an absolutely rational response to the sight of an empty holster in a context in which there is every reason to be apprehensive about firearms violence.

Walking around barking and growling to protest not being permitted to bring one's dog on campus would be "symbolic speech" too. It would also be annoying as hell, and give normal people grounds for apprehension, since people who walk around barking and growling might reasonably be thought to be, er, barking (as the Brits would politely call a mad person), and thus a potential safety hazard. And those would be perfectly good reasons for prohibiting it.

Just as the normal apprehension felt by people at the sight of a particular thing in a particular context is perfectly good grounds for prohibiting the displaying of the thing.

Speech, by definition, carries a message.

An object is not a message. If the message has to be explained before anybody gets it, the object is just an object.


And if anybody thinks the message being conveyed wasn't a subtle threat, well, they're barking, too. Anybody engaged in this moronic "protest" knew exactly what effect it would have on observers, and thus must be presumed to have intended that effect.

[beevul]

31. Oh bullshit.

"This is an absolutely rational response to the sight of an empty holster in a context in which there is every reason to be apprehensive about firearms violence."


It most certainly is not. If firearms violence were carried out on a regular basis by people that by and large were wearing holsters, you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.


"If the message has to be explained before anybody gets it, the object is just an object."

That a few people don't get it, is not evidence that no one does. Moot point.

"And if anybody thinks the message being conveyed wasn't a subtle threat, well, they're barking, too. Anybody engaged in this moronic "protest" knew exactly what effect it would have on observers, and thus must be presumed to have intended that effect."

Thats your unproven assertion, and your free to prove it. Until you do, its still just an unproven assertion.

"Back in the real world ... in places where these moronic "protests" took place, members of the campus community were alarmed."

If an empty holster carried in the open alarms someone, I'd say that being alarmed is the least of that someones troubles, and I'd also say that "the real world" might be defined as the point that the person alarmed might be farthest from.


"Just as the normal apprehension felt by people at the sight of a particular thing in a particular context is perfectly good grounds for prohibiting the displaying of the thing."

Acting on such an opinion, is exactly what the bush crew does with free speech zones. I'm surprised you'd be supportive of such a thing.

[iverglas]

38. oh gosh

Thats your unproven assertion, and your free to prove it. Until you do, its still just an unproven assertion.

Yup. Just an unproven assertion of what everybody in the fucking world knows perfectly well.


That a few people don't get it, is not evidence that no one does. Moot point.

That not everyone would be alarmed is not evidence that no one would be. What your point was, I don't know.


Not everybody agreed with you.

http://media.www.miamistudent.net/media/storage/paper776/news/2007/10/23/Editorials/Student.Gun.Holster.Protest.Misses.Mark.On.Campus-3049224.shtml

Miami University sent out an announcement via e-mail alerting students about the gun holster protest so as to prevent panic and alarm because of students carrying gun holsters in Miami's classrooms.

I wonder why they'd do a thing like that.

Interesting how one person comments, echoing the blather hereabouts:

Concealed carry means that firearms are not brought out in public to be gawked at and played with, but carried discretely (sic).

Funny how the same logic doesn't apply to holsters.

Most people don't feel the need for pre-emptive soothing when they use speech to convey messages:

http://www.freenewsandpressreleaseservice.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=25883&cat=15

October 22 thru the 26th, you might see students around campus wearing empty handgun holsters on their belts. Don’t be alarmed – it’s part of a harmless Rights Awareness protest. You'll probably see Ladies and Gentlemen both.

... The thing non-gun owner students can do is to inquire. ...

Or tell the brats to go fuck themselves. Free speech, you know.

Hey, if you're in a substantiation-demanding mood, you might try demanding some from the brat in question.

Another fact the empty holster protest signifies: many of the gun owner students elect not to protest, since they have seen what can happen for expressing desire to dialogue with administrators on the question. Punishment ranges from suspension to counseling to expulsion, merely for asking.

Oh yes. I'm sure.

More caveats and explanations:

http://www.wataugademocrat.com/2008/0421/0424Studentholsters.php

In an e-mail to university police chief Gunther Doerr, Morrison stressed that the group would make no attempts to disturb the peace.

Morrison said he did not want his fellow students and members of the faculty and staff to become alarmed when they saw a student wearing a holster.

What a lot of yammering about not being alarmed ...

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Detail.php?Cat=HOMEPAGE&ID=60440

Although he spoke of that potential for escalation, Adkins said he did not consider the administration’s concerns about disruption legitimate, given the Marksmanship Club’s intentions of publicizing the empty holster campaign.

“We were going to have flyers all over campus,” Adkins said. “We were going to be getting the word out that this was going to be happening. So, this was not going to be just students showing up one day with holsters.”

He dismissed the notion that students, employees and campus safety officers would have difficulty differentiating between an empty holster and a real threat.

“I would think if someone saw a holster, they would look and see there’s not a gun in there,” he said. “If it’s not in the holster, it would be in your hand. If they see a gun in your hand, that’s going to raise an alarm.”

How too fucking obvious is it that the whole lot of the brats know perfectly well that normal people would be alarmed?


If an empty holster carried in the open alarms someone, I'd say that being alarmed is the least of that someones troubles, and I'd also say that "the real world" might be defined as the point that the person alarmed might be farthest from.

And I'd say who needs me, when you're here to illustrate everything I say?

Self-absorbed, nasty crybabies about says it.


Just as the normal apprehension felt by people at the sight of a particular thing in a particular context is perfectly good grounds for prohibiting the displaying of the thing.
Acting on such an opinion, is exactly what the bush crew does with free speech zones. I'm surprised you'd be supportive of such a thing.

Yeah, well, imagine how surprised I'm not to see anybody here spewing shit like that. Allegations of moral turpitude based on a load o' crap. Par for course.

[beevul]

59. Imagine that...

"Yup. Just an unproven assertion of what everybody in the fucking world knows perfectly well."

You back up your unproven assertion with *gasp* another unproven assertion.

"Self-absorbed, nasty crybabies about says it."

Yeah. Do tell me, who in this thread is being nasty? Hint: It isn't the people supporting the empty holster protest.


I'm done with this thread for now. Part of my hometown just got levelled by a tornado, and I have better things to do than argue with people that can't or wont differentiate between a holster and a weapon, and people that buy into the bush first amendment plan, at this point.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. This says it all a person sees someone wearing an empty holster is: Where the fuck is the gun??

Gun grabbers scared of something they can't see, eh. The protesters can't help it that people who feel the way you do are illogical, so they shouldn't worry about it.

David

[Downtown Hound]

57. That's right, that is what I would be thinking if someone walked into

my classroom wearing one of those.

[Duke Newcombe]

58. So. You DO understand the symbolic value of the protest.

To provoke thought and dialog. Or are those only things that are okay with topics you support?

Duke

[Downtown Hound]

63. No, I think your symbolic defense is a bunch of bullshit

There are an infinite number of ways you can protest without bringing a gun holster.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. So the government should tell people in what way they can protest.

You may be able to get a job in the Chinese government when you graduate. They seem to think in very similar ways.

David

[TPaine7]

84. There are also an infinite number of ways to protest Bush

policies without using the word "three."


Are you phobic, or is this how you think about everything? Is this the best logic of which you are capable? Can't you see how silly this would be applied to anything other than guns? The "logic" of gun control is mind boggling.

Freedom of speech means that--with very narrow and carefully tailored exceptions--the speaker selects the mode of speech.

In fascism, however, pompous idiots select the permissible modes of speech. This is one of the many reasons I hate fascism.

[iverglas]

86. the damned thing is

Freedom of speech means that--with very narrow and carefully tailored exceptions--the speaker selects the mode of speech.

Nobody actually gets to write his/her own dictionary so as to define him/herself as "speaker" and what she is doing as "speech".

Petitio principii much?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

90. ... it can only be the sophomore lecturing the professional

If anyone here is so ill informed. . .
as to think that "speech" in the context of "freedom of speech" and the US First Amendment is limited to oral or written communication, please do yourself a favor and read up.

If anyone here had suggested such a state of affairs, you'd have a reason for saying this other than a desire to protray someone who actually knows what s/he is talking about as having said something s/he didn't say.

It is unfortunate that you weren't able to understand what was said ... and it would be even more unfortunate if you understood it perfectly well but chose to pretend you didn't. Not the fault of the person whose words you misunderstood/misrepresented, either way.

Let me make it plain for you:

I DID NOT SAY that "speech" is limited to oral or written (i.e. verbal) communication.

I DID SAY that "speech" is not whatever you or anyone else happens to feel like calling "speech".

Let me know when you get / choose to acknowledge that simple fact.

[TPaine7]

92. Professional what is the question.

She knows (or should know) what symbolic speech is.

She knows (or should know) that I did not define symbolic speech.

She knows her words suggest such a state of affairs.

She knows that speech is what "I" happened to "feel like calling speech" in this instance.

Don't be deceived. Carrying a holster is speech, and she knows it. The rest is word games--very boring word games.

[TPaine7]

93. the thing is that this has no real relationship to my post, read literally.

Are there any onlookers who can interpret it?

[iverglas]

95. maybe I can help you out

despite the dangling participle in your header, which makes it difficult to determine what you were trying to say. Your post "read literally", or "this" read literally?

You say that the speaker gets to decide the mode of speech.

I say that no one gets to decide, for the world, what constitutes speech and what doesn't.


Perhaps I can help you with one of those illustrative analogy thingies.

Let us assume that it is illegal to smoke cannabis. Let us not argue about the merits of that policy, let us simply say that there are some people who oppose it. They decide to hold a "protest" at which they will smoke cannabis (not carry signs or shout slogans; just smoke cannabis). They say that the act of smoking cannabis is "speech". They'll be happy to explain the nature and purpose of their actions to anyone who asks.

How about another one?

Let us assume that it is illegal to beat one's children. People who oppose that policy decide to hold a "protest" at which they will beat their children (not carry signs or shout slogans; just beat their children). "Speech"? They'll be happy to explain the nature and purpose of their actions to anyone who asks.

Surely *you* would not presume to second-guess the protestors. They say it's speech, so it's speech. Even though it looks to the rest of the moderately intelligent world like acts that convey no message in and of themselves, and convey no message at all unless a huge explanation is given to the intended recipients of the message, and then only should an intended recipient request an explanation. Thus making it really very plain to even the very moderately intelligent that the acts themselves were not speech, given as how they completely failed to convey any message, like.

I hope that helped.


Now, I do wonder why the self-obsessed crybabies in question didn't just tote their damned gunz onto campus and have done with it. Clearly, that, being their preferred mode of speech for the purpose of protesting the alleged interference in the exercise of their rights, would have been entirely unassailable.

[TPaine7]

100. It still misses my point,

You say that the speaker gets to decide the mode of speech.

I say that no one gets to decide, for the world, what constitutes speech and what doesn't.


I see no conflict whatsoever between these statements.

Here's another one of those "analogy thingies."


The tailor gets to decide the color of the suit.

No one gets to decide for the world, what constitutes a color and what doesn't.

Both can easily be true. The tailor can select "navy blue," "olive green" or "hot pink." He cannot select "divisor," "C-sharp" or "noun." Yet he still decides the color.


As for your analogies, smoking cannabis and beating a child are absolutely not speech as legally understood in the US. Both go well beyond symbolic communication. Carrying an empty holster is symbolic communication. The difference is profound.

[iverglas]

104. yeah, I know

Your point is that self-obsessed crybaby brats can do whatever they please.


As for your analogies, smoking cannabis and beating a child are absolutely not speech as legally understood in the US. Both go well beyond symbolic communication. Carrying an empty holster is symbolic communication. The difference is profound.

Two which the only possible and only reasonable reply is: SEZ YOU. Followed by: who gives a fuck?

[TPaine7]

106. As long as you stay in Canada

Your point is that self-obsessed crybaby brats can do whatever they please.

As long as you stay in Canada, I don't care much what you do.




Two which the only possible and only reasonable reply is: SEZ YOU.

"Two" seems to conflict with "only." In any case the sentence doesn't make sense. I attempt to interpret it below.


To which the only possible and only reasonable reply is: Says YOU. Followed by: who gives a fuck?


If this is what you meant, the only possible and only reasonable reply is "intelligent, reasonable and informed people." I understand not everyone qualifies.

[maxidivine]

122. Holsters are not weapons, carrying them is not a crime

unlike your analogies of child-beating and weed-smoking, which are two illegal acts in and of themself. The people could protest in favor of legalizing those two activities, and it would be protected speech, but if their protest consisted of beating children and smoking weed than they would be arrested. The empty holsters are not a weapon, they are not pistols, they are not parts of pistols, despite what our friend thinks. Wearing them to protest the denial of concealed carry-licensed citizens the right to remain discretely armed while in class is not a crime, unlike protesting the illegality of beating children by beating children.


I know you secretly understand the difference, but you hate guns and the evil men who love them so none of this matters to you.

[SteveM]

99. Are you sure guns are not now on your campus? Or is this faith on your part?

[Downtown Hound]

143. Yes, I'm sure

My current college is a private college. No weapons allowed.

[SteveM]

144. I have been in schools/other institutions which were "gun free." They weren't...

How does the "private" status of a college make its "No weapons allowed" claim more believeable than, presumably, a "public" school's claim?

[pipoman]

151. Yep, there were no weapons allowed at VT or Columbine either...N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Funniest thing yet.

Downtown Hounds profile says his hobby is Living Free. Are you really living free when you want to limit other peoples freedom of speech? I bet plenty of fascist lived free also, after all they could do whatever THEY wanted to, screw everybody else.

Davi

[iverglas]

161. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Brett_Poulos

Brett Michael Poulos (born 1987) had his Civil Liberties violated
by a Public College (Tarrant County College) in the State of Texas

Anybody else suspecting that Brett Michael Poulos wrote his own Wiki entry?

Now here's the good part.















Wait for it.















C'mon, it's worth waiting for.

Poulos is an Ultra-Conservative Republican. He serves as a National Media Liaison at Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and is most notably known for his involvement with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He served on Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee's College Campain Team. He has appeard for Interviews on countless National Public Radio shows as well as T.V. News Programs. Poulos also writes opinionated articles on the topic of the Second Amendment. While in College, Poulos received his ordination as a Baptist Minister.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ha.

[maxidivine]

165. What is your point?

that republicans don't have rights?

[iverglas]

162. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Let's not bother with the wiki for this one; its current version seems to be a paid announcement.

Let's just note that it's a wholly owned subsidiary of that Sarah's foundation ... Sarah Scaife, that is:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1994

And boy has it got bucks.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife_Foundation

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of the American Scaife Foundations. It is controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The foundation does not award grants to individuals. It concentrates its efforts towards causes focused on public policy at a national and international level. From 1985 to 2003 the organization awarded over $235 million USD to other organizations.

Between 1985 and 1991, it was one of five foundations to fund the George C. Marshall Institute, a known Global Warming skeptic.

It is also one of the principal funders of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the think tank in which prominent members of the Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) aligned themselves with in the late 1990s to articulate their neoconservative foreign policy, including sending a letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq.

Follow the money, eh?


When you folks wake up in the morning, do you scrunch your eyes up and run to the toilet and throw up so you don't have to actually look at who you went to bed with?

[beevul]

163. So what?

You can point this stuff out til you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.


The OP is about the speech rights of an individual that were allegedly violated. The facts relating to the event in question are not less relivant because of the political affiliation of the person they happened to. Rights, particularly the violation of them through wrongly preventing of ones exercising of them, are not things that apply to one to more or less a degree, no matter if one is right wing, left wing, or middle of the road.

I can just tell whats coming from you next: "Really? did someone say they did?".

Nope. Not a soul that I'm aware of.


The person in question...his rights were either violated or they weren't. If they were, I don't care who he is. It doesn't matter. Those rights belong to everyone, even right wingers racists KKK gun haters and gungrabbers.


What use is bringing up of or the knowledge of his political affiliation in discussing whether those rights were violated or not?


None that I can tell. Maybe you can shed some light on that.

[SteveM]

166. Whew! Glad you posted that. For a minute I thought he had rights. (nt)