Re: Guns [was Property Rights]

Brian D Williams (
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Rick" <>

>Even if it means shooting a police officer following the orders of
>his supervisor? If you answer no to that then you are completely
>countering your own point. Is you precious little gun(s) worth
>someones life? If you think so then you must be wacked - no other
>reason. (No offense intended).

None taken, I would of course avoid this situation if possible (caching most likely.) But such an order is not constitutional, and would be resisted if given no other choice.

>My original point was how a guy was willing to kill innocents
>doing their job rather than hand over the guns. How the hell are
>you protecting yourself. Do you have to hide behind your guns with
>all your problems? Does that mean if someone hassles you you are
>willing to shoot them? Frankly, unless someone comes at you with
>a gun of their own and you shoot then you are nothing but a
>potential murderer.

Rick, they would not be innocent, violating the constitution is not their job. Many of my best friends are cops, none would agree to perform this duty. I don't have any problems worth mentioning, and never hide from anything (except maybe a nuke). If the cops came after my guns, they would be most certainly armed.

>Bullshit, sorry dOOd. Face to face unarmed I could most likely
>whoop your ass to hell. Since I'd rather learn how to do that than
>rely on a small projectile that is most likely going to cause
>death. I don't need to hide behind a gun unless I'm being shot at
>myself. Like I've stated before, there are other ways of
>protecting yourself other than branding a gun so freely. And for
>your information - I was not making that choice for you, I was
>stating an opinion.

Easy Tiger, as I've pointed out before I don't hide behind guns. I worked my way through college as a bouncer at one of Chicago's more notorious 4am stop-and-socks (6'6" 295 ex-marine). I follow the old Shaolin adage.

avoid rather than check
check rather than hurt
hurt rather than maim
maim rather than kill

>That is a true statement and I agree with you. I guess this point
>depends on the efficiency of the police in certain peoples area.
>Again however, there are other ways of protecting yourself other
>than going straight for a gun.
>Prevention and protection is the best cure, by which I mean more
>focus should be spent on stopping someone getting into your house
>than flooring someone AFTER they are in your house.

>I am talking a lot about home protection I know because thats the
>issue I'm referring to. Other than sports, most people quite
>simply don't NEED a gun on them all the time, unless you're
>paranoid that someone is after you. Unless of course, you're an
>armed robber, now THAT is understandable ;)

We agree, a good large dog is one of your best investments, martial arts training and even appropriate landscaping, (thorn bushes under windows) all good ideas. As I've stated before, I don't automatically reach for a gun. I like another old adage:

"To a man who only has a hammer, every problem resembles a nail."

I have considerably more than a hammer.

>Screw the constitution. Its ridiculous. Why do people in the US
>always dictate the constitution, does no one ever put common sense
>before their so called 'rights'? I'm not trying to start an
>international slagging match here, I'm just asking a legitimate
>question. Forget about the right for the moment, just because the
>right exists, it does not mean you have to cover it with a comb.
>If a police unit comes to your house with a genuine reason (in
>their eyes) to revoke your weapons, and you are willing to shoot
>them just because of an apparent right to do so then one is a
>potential murder, no matter how decent a person one is. No right
>is worth killing an innocent doing their job. Anyone who thinks
>otherwise should get their priorities straight.

We disagree on this, the police would have no legal right to take my weapons under current law.

>>In all the recent incidences, numerous gun laws were broken,
>>passing more won't stop them.

>No, but trying to stem the free-flow of them could help in the

The common misconception is that guns are more available now than before, this is simply not true. They are simply more popular. Al Capone used to buy his tommyguns from the local hardware store.

>>We will fight to stop any new violations of the second amendment.

>Fair enough. One thing that would lighten my opinion of the NRA
>is if they were at least willing to compromise instead of getting
>all defensive. There is a hell of a lot more at stake than the
>simple right to bear arms. As I mentioned above, I am not against
>guns when used correctly, I am merely expressing MY opinion on how
>many people 'opposed to new laws' sound more wacko and care-free
>'trigger wild' than a human life is worth.

Actually you may soon see something to this effect, if you've seen my previous posts you would know that here in Illinois, we have Firearm owner I.D.s (background check) plus Instacheck on purchase, a one day wait on long guns and three days on handguns. This does not currently apply to gun shows, but could be NRA approved. This has been suggested as a national model.

What do we want? A validation from the Supreme court that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, which would overturn handgun bans, and the so-called assault weapons (semiautomatic only) ban. Prosecution of those who violate the law.

>Why not let the officers take away the guns and then file a
>lawsuit stating that your rights were violated. That way you don't
>end up dead (because that is what would happen in a shootout with
>the police).

This has been tried. The court decided in our favor and the weapons were still destroyed.

>There is always two sides to every story and the best side will
>always prevail in this debate if people would just take a minute
>to consult their priorities and common sense. Frankly, it
>disgusts me to hear how so many are willing to open fire and ruin
>innocent familities all for a silly right that can be flexible.
>Have so many people lost it that they don't think of the
>consequences of such potential acts? Hell, its clear now to the
>rest of the world why so many high school kids can so easily act
>like serial killers.

We are not out to harm innocents, we maintain that individuals are sovereign, especially when it comes to self defense. I hope this post has helped clear up any misconceptions.

Member, Extropy Institute
Member, Life Extension Foundation
Member, National Rifle Association