And in at least four of those examples First, the governments already planned doing the slaughter thing when it introduced gun-control. That's hardly a fair argument. They were introducing gun-control as a basis for legalising murder. We don't have gun control here because Tony wants to go and murder a load of protestants to use as raw food for his new baby. And France doesn't have gun control so that their President can round up all the ginger haired people and shoot them.

Tony and Cherie Blair recently had a baby y'know. There were pictures in the paper. He took time off to look after his kid. Everyone went "awww", and Tony probably got another load of votes. Our country is a relatively quiet one, where our leader doesn't declare war on other countries to hide the fact that he's getting blow-jobs at work from his secretary, and where pizza-delivery men can delivery a large Deap Pan Meat Feast perfectly well without having to "pack heat", and where pretty much the entire nation is happy with gun-control laws. Hell, we don't even have a constitution. Now, name me ONE unjust law we have. ONE. Come on, I'm sure you can do it.

To believe that there are not people out there that would take every right away from you if given the chance is ludicrous and imbecilic. Whether the Clintons are such people is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Such people have obtained power dozens of times in history. Only the foolish would believe that they are incapable of doing so again, and only the irresponsible would choose not to defend themselves against such an eventuality.

So, Omega....I'm guessing that you're not one for a strong United Nations?

And Liam? "Pretty peaceful nation?" What about the semi-daily bombings y'all had up to about, what? 5 months ago? 6?

Isn't it about time for Vermont to have another referendum on seceding from the union?

Will The Penguin actually trounce the Dynamic Duo?

Am I babbling?

All these gun control quotes are bothering me for some reason. I'll need to do some research, but...take Cambodia. Hardly a rich nation. Guns are expensive, complicated machines. How many were actually in the country to start with? Furthermore, how much help is having a gun when society is crumbling around your ears? By 1938, the fate of Jews in Germany was, at least to people in the country, quite clear. And yet we see no armed revolution before this.

I'm going to ask a serious question here. Has there ever been an instance where an armed minority has been able to stop a government? The only possibility that springs to mind is Vietnam, and to say that the U.S. lost to a group of untrained militia there is to completely misunderstand what really happened.

For that matter, any popular revolution in any country that did not have the support of the government or military would be a case in point.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Crazy idea here, but perhaps a better way to ensure a continued government you approve of is to, oh, I don't know, take an active role in the political process? Vote for candidates you like? Bizarre concept, I realize.

Wouldn't you actually try terrorism instead? Except it might be a bit harder, you being half-way accross the globe.

Oh, and Shik? "Semi-daily bombings"? Just how inaccurate IS the news service in the US? Besides, they (largely) ended WAY longer than 5-6 months ago. And there is a fairly okay-ish chance of the peace-process actually doing some good.

And to go back to Omega's argument: Are you suggesting that if England's citizens were armed like the US's are, then we would have had less of a problem with the IRA?

------------------
Oh, goody, the Sea Monkeys I ordered have arrived. Heh heh heh, look at them cavort and caper.
~C. Montgomery Burns

"Are you suggesting that if England's citizens were armed like the US's are, then we would have had less of a problem with the IRA?"

Of course not. There's not much anyone can do about terrorist bombings. Why would you think that I suggested something like that? What I am suggesting (or rather, have already proven) is that not removing the people's right to own a gun lowers crime in general.

Sol:

"Crazy idea here, but perhaps a better way to ensure a continued government you approve of is to, oh, I don't know, take an active role in the political process?"

And if someone declares martial law and tries to forcefully remove all your God-given rights like in, say, Cuba?

Time for a rant.

This sort of thinking, Omega, represents exactly what drives me away from the right wing. Namely, their consistant and overwhelming attempts to convince the American people of their own stupidity, namely by trying to sneak in their legislation under our radar. This is a problem the left simply doesn't have. (They're up front with their silly and/or downright stupid legislation.) Take the recent initiative here in Washington. According to the ads, the interviews, and the posters, it would lead to 30 dollar license tabs. Only 30 dollars! Everyone vote for this amazing money saver!

Of course, what was seldom mentioned was the rest of the initiative, which would remove the power of the state legislature to tax the citizenry without a direct vote. Now, regardless of whether you think this is a good idea or not, it's a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation. Beyond that, it's a slap in the face of every voter in the state. The clear implication is that we're too stupid to vote for public officials, and so they need to bypass the entire system of representational government. There's your clear and blatent attempt by a tiny minority to trick the populace. The really evil part is that I liked paying thirty dollars instead of several hundred myself. Who wouldn't? But the larger issue, namely of completely gutting the state legislature, went unannounced.

And I have a solution! Not much of one. Probably pretty wacky. Still.

Vote. Vote for candidates who you like. Never, ever, ever vote for the lesser of two evils. Why vote for evil at all? If you're unsatisfied with Bush and Gore, then for Liam's sake, don't vote for either one! Find a candidate you can truly support. The only wasted vote is the one that for a candidate you can't support.

Of course, I can think of all sorts of reasons why this wouldn't work. Realpolitik works rather well, after all. Oh well.

------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.

"Someone CAN'T declare martial law in a nation where the people refuse to allow it."

Of course they can. Just give them control of the military, and they can declare martial law. Whether they have any legitimate authority to do so or not makes no difference. 'Course, I think that if Clinton tried it, someone'd shoot him. Unless, of course, they weren't allowed to have guns...

"This sort of thinking, Omega, represents exactly what drives me away from the right wing. Namely, their consistant and overwhelming attempts to convince the American people of their own stupidity."

Oh, that's rich. You think CONSERVATIVES think the people are stupid, so you become a LIBERAL. Anyone else here think that's hilarious?

Do you not realize that the whole basis for liberalism is that people are supposedly to dumb to take care of themselves and their families, and thus need a government to do it for them?

"The clear implication is that we're too stupid to vote for public officials, and so they need to bypass the entire system of representational government."

Funny. I see the implication as that the legislators should not be trusted with such power, and the people themselves should. Odd, that anyone'd think that wanting to give people more direct power over their own lives implies that you think they're stupid.

The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

Criminals don't really want to kill people, and living witnesses don't bother them.

An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to peace, and China, Pakistan, and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That Charlton Heston as pres. of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc, is an ambassador entitled to an audience at a UN arms control summit.

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people" refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing tresspassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have 'assault rifles,' because they are military weapons.

That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless its for possessing a gun. That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the 'gun problem.'

That the Illinois law that allows and government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of statism.

That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to committ violence, but sex education courses don't encourage kids to have sex.

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any moment, but that anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates AFTER gun control are 'just statistics.'

That we don't need guns against an oppressive government because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and sieze all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.

That guns are an inefective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

That Massachusetts is safer with band on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machine-gun toting guards.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
"Ultra Magnus is Undeniably Fun!" David Stevens, New York Magazine.
"Total Complete excitement from start to finish!" -WPIX-TV, New York
"This isn't a thrill ride, it's a rocket..." -Richard Caves, Time Magazine.