Medford Newspaper Sues To Get Names Of Gun Owners

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Brien, Chancellor, just so you know, WinterWind is from China and has no concept of individual rights.

Then WinterWind is getting an education here.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind Oh and I live in Hong Kong where having a gun will get you a long prison sentence and in China (mainland) a gun will get you the death penalty. I don't know if this is related but Hong Kong has a much lower crime rate per capita. Same with Japan.

And we see what kind of freedoms they have there.

Actually, I'm considering moving out of the US. I do believe an inefficient, corrupt, "unfree" country can actually have a lot more actual freedom than an efficient "free" country. But that has little or nothing to do with the laws that are in place.

Keith

[Winter wind]

Brien, Chancellor, just so you know, WinterWind is from China and has no concept of individual rights.

I've lived in America, I'm half white, I understand the concept of individual rights. I just don't think a fire arm is among them, but being a mature person, I'm willing to accept many varying opinions on this issue.

So, you are stating that even with the DP as a consequence for having a firearm, people still use them, correct? So the consequence of the penalty therefore, has nothing to do with the crime, correct? Otherwise, there would be no gun crime at all.

The thing is, gun crime is much lower, because the people who get them are professionals. Guns are extremely hard to get and hard to smuggle in. When a professional has a gun, you, an unprofessional, will have very little chance against him in the first place. Also the professionals tend to go after people who already are in the underworld.
If you don't think I'm right, a great example are presidential assassination and shootings. All it takes is one person with a gun to overcome the best trained armed guards in the history of the world.

The government has already thrown out bits and pieces of the Bill of RIghts with the Patriot Act.

And I don't know if you've noticed, the party responsible has a approval rate of like 3%. Just for an act that throws out bits and pieces of the Bill of Rights, the country is up in arms.

Too bad! The rights of citizens outweigh the alleged "needs" of law enforcement.

Yes, but this doesn't damage the citizen, in my opinion. People who buy guns shouldn't hide the fact. It makes you wonder why they are hiding the fact. Thats why I don't understand what people think the government would do with the information.

There is no evidence that the second amendment to the American Constitution results in higher crime rates. Besides, if you make guns illegal and someone wants a gun bad enough he's going to find a way to get it.

Only in America where guns are everywhere anyway.

There are over 200 million legal firearms in this nation. If the government made them all illegal in one fell swoop, I can't imagine the consequences. Anyone who thinks this can happen, isn't familiar with the Volstead Act and the consequences of the 18th Amendment.

Who said one fell swoop? This should be a long process that gets rid of guns one at a time. Again, I'm willing to admit that the gun could be a right, but when people start buying something like this
37mm.com: The Most Fun You Can Legally Have!
It makes one wonder what defensive purpose these guns have. Then it makes one wonder whether the argument that the gun is a right is an excuse. An excuse to justify a liking of guns. Like cars.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: I've lived in America, I'm half white, I understand the concept of individual rights. I just don't think a fire arm is among them, but being a mature person, I'm willing to accept many varying opinions on this issue.

Fair enough, and thanks for clarifying that.

I try to be less harsh on those who don't understand the concept of individual rights, as in the U.S. BOR.

Winterwind said: If you don't think I'm right, a great example are presidential assassination and shootings. All it takes is one person with a gun to overcome the best trained armed guards in the history of the world.

As well as it only takes competent people with access to guns to prevent, or if necessary, halt the tyrannical actions of a government run amok.

Liberty is not free, there are risks and there will always be examples of extremists and mentally unstable people far overstepping the lines of civility. This is no reason to remove the only viable avenue of competent defense from the hands of all people.

Winterwind said: Yes, but this doesn't damage the citizen, in my opinion. People who buy guns shouldn't hide the fact. It makes you wonder why they are hiding the fact. Thats why I don't understand what people think the government would do with the information.

In the U.S., you have a right to privacy, and many gun owners don't want people to know they own guns.

What is the first thing a corrupt government will do before enslaving its people? Disarm them. What is the easiest method of finding armed people? Having a list....

Winterwind said: Who said one fell swoop? This should be a long process that gets rid of guns one at a time. Again, I'm willing to admit that the gun could be a right, but when people start buying something like this 37mm.com: The Most Fun You Can Legally Have! It makes one wonder what defensive purpose these guns have. Then it makes one wonder whether the argument that the gun is a right is an excuse. An excuse to justify a liking of guns. Like cars.

Why does liking something need to be "justified"?

Why must an admiration for machinery, tools or hand-crafted and specificly designed machines be "rationalized"?

Do you demand this of art?

[Winter wind]

I think the difference between our views is not that I trust government to much, but that I trust people too little. Giving someone the tools to kill others with is not citizen's rights, its dangerous for everyone. You don't trust government, I don't trust the average American with a gun.

Why does liking something need to be "justified"? Why must an admiration for machinery, tools or hand-crafted and specificly designed machines be "rationalized"? Do you demand this of art?

oh please.

A gun isn't art, it is a weapon. It's soul purpose is to kill or damage someone or something, whether for defense or what else.
The difference between a gun and a painting is that the painting not meant to be a weapon.

You can't make something legal because someone calls it art, because what if I call weapons grade plutonium art. It's complex chemistry and it's alluring make up are astounding. Why can't I have plutonium?
A grenade launcher is no different.

In the U.S., you have a right to privacy, and many gun owners don't want people to know they own guns. What is the first thing a corrupt government will do before enslaving its people? Disarm them. What is the easiest method of finding armed people? Having a list....

I'm going to say this again, the United States is already very trusting of it's public. Which is why I think if the government dares to over step it's bounds, the party in the government will be quickly ousted. Also the culture of America is such that no politician would dare touch the sacred status quo.

Plus, you vote these people in.

As well as it only takes competent people with access to guns to prevent, or if necessary, halt the tyrannical actions of a government run amok. Liberty is not free, there are risks and there will always be examples of extremists and mentally unstable people far overstepping the lines of civility. This is no reason to remove the only viable avenue of competent defense from the hands of all people.

It's not the extremists I'm worried about, it's how easy it is to kill someone. Hold them at gun point for money or whatever. How easy it is to do it. And if you think warding them off with a gun is possible, I ask you to look above and remember that the best trained armed guards still can't protect the president against a single person with a gun.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind I think the difference between our views is not that I trust government to much, but that I trust people too little. Giving someone the tools to kill others with is not citizen's rights, its dangerous for everyone. You don't trust government, I don't trust the average American with a gun.

This, ultimately, is the real difference between people that truly believe in freedom, and those that don't.

People who believe in freedom trust their fellow citizens. The know that the VAST majority of people are good and honest and competent.

They believe that power attracts a larger proportion of the population that don't fit those criteria and therfore can't be trusted with that power.

That most people are content with living their own lives and don't want to control the lives of others and that those that do want to control the lives of others likely are the ones you would least desire to have the ability to do so.

Those that don't truly believe in freedom, however, think that most people are evil, dishonest and incompetent. That government truly does attract the "best and brightest" and that the people that run the government and the beuracracies can do a better job of controlling the lives and fortunes of others than those others, themselves, can.

I guess one can look at the examples of the average citizen and the government to determine which point of view is most in line with reality.

Keith

[Winter wind]

People who believe in freedom trust their fellow citizens. The know that the VAST majority of people are good and honest and competent.

I used to live in LA, and I can tell you that all it take is one bad person with a gun to rob someone. Gangs, Muggers, the desperate, the sick. These all make up a larger population in a city then in suburbia, where I'm presuming you live. And to make readily available to them a deadly weapon that can kill very quickly is not about freedom, its about saving lives.

Those that don't truly believe in freedom, however, think that most people are evil, dishonest and incompetent. That government truly does attract the "best and brightest" and that the people that run the government and the beuracracies can do a better job of controlling the lives and fortunes of others than those others, themselves, can.

This sound eerily familiar to me.
I'm not against freedom. But I don't think a person should have a gun the same way I don't think North Korea should have nuclear weapons. All it takes is one idiot to throw the whole system into chaos.

[Osborn F Enready]

WinterWind said: oh please. A gun isn't art, it is a weapon.

So you are saying no art takes the shape of weapons? Clarify that please.

Winterwind said: It's soul purpose is to kill or damage someone or something, whether for defense or what else.

Nonsense. There are many guns that don't even have the capacity to kill, and serve STRICTLY as art or collectible items.

Replica Guns, Antique Replica Guns, Military Collectibles, Historic Replica Guns, Old West Collectibles, Old West Replicas, Civil War Collectibles, Civil War Replicas, Colonial Collectibles, Colonial Replicas, Medieval Collectibles, Medieval Replicas

Winterwind said: The difference between a gun and a painting is that the painting not meant to be a weapon.

So only a painting can be art?

Winterwind said: You can't make something legal because someone calls it art, because what if I call weapons grade plutonium art. It complex chemistry and it's alluring make up are astounding. Why can't I have plutonium?

Firstly, I didn't say you couldn't have plutonium.

Secondly, WMD and individual arms are in no way, shape or form comparable.

Winterwind said: A grenade launcher is no different.

Have you ever seen a bird bomb? Its a farmers tool, and often those 37mm projectile launchers are used for bird bombs. They can also be used for flares, smoke and other uses.

Winter wind said: I think the difference between our views is not that I trust government to much, but that I trust people too little. Giving someone the tools to kill others with is not citizen's rights, its dangerous for everyone. You don't trust government, I don't trust the average American with a gun.

You sound like you have trust issues. Might want to check into a visit to the therapist.

The reason to fear tyrannical government is historical fact....
The reason to distrust the average law abiding person is based in paranoia.

Winterwind said: I'm going to say this again, the United States is already very trusting of it's public. Which is why I think if the government dares to over step it's bounds, the party in the government will be quickly ousted.

I can tell you haven't been here for a while, or are very young, or both.

Winterwind said: Also the culture of America is such that no politician would dare touch the sacred status quo.

LOL....funny.

Winterwind said: Plus, you vote these people in.

Not I. I don't vote in the bi-partisan monopoly on power.

Ron Paul is the first "major party canidate" I have championed, and he is not even respected by other republicans, due to his integrity and voting record against their power grabs.

Winter wind said: It's not the extremists I'm worried about, it's how easy it is to kill someone.

All the more reason to better protect yourself.

Winterwind said: Hold them at gun point for money or whatever. How easy it is to do it. And if you think warding them off with a gun is possible, I ask you to look above and remember that the best trained armed guards still can't protect the president against a single person with a gun.

I am well trained in the use of firearms, and own some. Your case against armed defense is based in speculation and heresay, opinion and weak examples.

If you really want to debate the issue, put some effort into it with objective data and facts, and I will reply in kind.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind I used to live in LA, and I can tell you that all it take is one bad person with a gun to rob someone. Gangs, Muggers, the desperate, the sick. These all make up a larger population in a city then in suburbia, where I'm presuming you live. And to make readily available to them a deadly weapon that can kill very quickly is not about freedom, its about saving lives.

And, all it takes is one good person with a gun to prevent such things. The problem is, if you try to outlaw guns, only the bad people will have guns. It's an undeniable fact that law abiding citizens are more likely to obey a law than a criminal is. Our government can't keep drugs out of prisons, how do you think they will be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals on the streets?

But, even then, let's assume that you can accomplish your goal and remove all guns from all people, except for the government. Where does that leave you in regards to those bad people?

I will assume, based on the limited evidence at hand, that you are a young woman, maybe early 20's, probably in the range of 125lbs, or possibly less, and, in my fantasy world, very attractive. (I may be wrong, in which case simply imagine someone of the type being described.) In such a case what will happen if you're confronted by a bad guy, 200-250lbs, intent on raping you? Basically, there would be nothing you could do in such a situation except hope for a police officer with a gun, or a random passerby of similar size to your attacker, comes to save you.

However, if gun ownership is unrestricted, that same attacker would have no way to know if you were armed, or not. If you're not, at the very least he would have to concern himself with the possibility you might be able to protect yourself. If you are, you can definitely protect yourself.

Who really has the advantage in a society with no guns? It definitely wouldn't be you.

Quote by: Winter wind This sound eerily familiar to me. I'm not against freedom. But I don't think a person should have a gun the same way I don't think North Korea should have nuclear weapons. All it takes is one idiot to throw the whole system into chaos.

Again, all other things being equal, in a society without guns, the bad guys always have the advantage. Unless you're advocating police on every corner, in which case freedom is highly unlikely. The costs of supporting such a police force, alone, guarantee a rate of taxation that would be unbearable. Let alone the problem, as discussed above, that those that wish to control the lives of others through government force are less likely to be good, honest and competent.

Keith

[Winter wind]

Firstly, I didn't say you couldn't have plutonium. Secondly, WMD and individual arms are in no way, shape or form comparable.

Why not. A grenade launcher kills. So does WMD, what's the difference? The only thing we differ in on oppinion is what the citizen should have. Not WMD, What about land mines, or napalm?

So only a painting can be art?

No, but it doesn't matter that it is art, it matters that it is dangerous.

Have you ever seen a bird bomb? Its a farmers tool, and often those 37mm projectile launchers are used for bird bombs. They can also be used for flares, smoke and other uses.

I've never heard of a bird bomb, but I'm going to guess that there are other tools that can do the job other then a grenade launcher. Flare gun, for flares. And why does someone need smoke? (real question, not sarcasm)

I can tell you haven't been here for a while, or are very young, or both.

No, I just take ap us gov. The results of small infractions into citizens rights (Bush) have been huge. People are in uproar. Bush's own party is pissed at him because he ruined their chances of retaking the house and the senate and holding the presidency. America's political culture will destroy anybody who gives the federal government too much power.

I am well trained in the use of firearms, and own some. Your case against armed defense is based in speculation and heresay, opinion and weak examples.

hearsay and speculation? Robert Kenady was shot in a motercade full of well trained agents. Why couldn't you just be shot from the sidewalk as well?

[Winter wind]

And, all it takes is one good person with a gun to prevent such things. The problem is, if you try to outlaw guns, only the bad people will have guns. It's an undeniable fact that law abiding citizens are more likely to obey a law than a criminal is. Our government can't keep drugs out of prisons, how do you think they will be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals on the streets?

Problem is that lets say I want a gun. Here I have to be in the underground world. Then they have to have someplace on the outside that makes gun, and pay someone a huge amount of money to risk their lives to smuggle them over and then I have to sneak it around to use it.

In America, I just take it from my Uncle when no one is looking.

If I'm a teen-age gang member, do you think I'm going to go through the first process? how about the second one?

I will assume, based on the limited evidence at hand, that you are a young woman, maybe early 20's, probably in the range of 125lbs, or possibly less, and, in my fantasy world, very attractive. (I may be wrong, in which case simply imagine someone of the type being described.) In such a case what will happen if you're confronted by a bad guy, 200-250lbs, intent on raping you? Basically, there would be nothing you could do in such a situation except hope for a police officer with a gun, or a random passerby of similar size to your attacker, comes to save you.

There is always the cell phone, or avoiding dark alleys.
But really, if the person had a gun, what makes you think the 125lb woman is going to be able to out draw evil rapist. An aunt of mine does night work as someone who helps homeless teens get out of gangs. She's been shot (wore a bullet proof vest) and robbed, and every time she says if she had a gun, the person would have just taken it from her purse and shot her with it.

Again, all other things being equal, in a society without guns, the bad guys always have the advantage. Unless you're advocating police on every corner, in which case freedom is highly unlikely. The costs of supporting such a police force, alone, guarantee a rate of taxation that would be unbearable. Let alone the problem, as discussed above, that those that wish to control the lives of others through government force are less likely to be good, honest and competent.

Yes, but if you get rid of guns, you eliminate a person's long distance deadliness, otherwise you can just run to were other people are. Them being the good citizens they are, they'll save you with a baseball bat.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: Why not. A grenade launcher kills. So does WMD, what's the difference?

The amount of killing per one device, from one use.

Winterwind said: The only thing we differ in on oppinion is what the citizen should have. Not WMD, What about land mines, or napalm?

Individual arms are exactly that.... individual arms.

Mines, napalm and WMD are "AREA WEAPONS" and are not considered individual defense weapons.

I could see situations where landmines could be ok for personal ownership, but I would say circumstances rule the situation.

Winterwind said: No, but it doesn't matter that it is art, it matters that it is dangerous.

Air is dangerous, so is water, knives, cars, walking near traffic, being outside in a lightning storm...etc.

Point?

I have seen many works of art, that could be dangerous. Should they be outlawed too?

Winterwind said: I've never heard of a bird bomb, but I'm going to guess that there are other tools that can do the job other then a grenade launcher.

Why not a grenade launcher, if its not launching grenades?

Winterwind said: Flare gun, for flares.

Flare guns are very dangerous, how can you allow those?

Winterwind said: And why does someone need smoke? (real question, not sarcasm)

Smoke can be used for many things, from simply novelty or re-enactment situations, to useful situations such as smoking an area for pest deterrent.

Winterwind said: America's political culture will destroy anybody who gives the federal government too much power.

I could show you many many examples of you being wrong.

At times, they have bounced a person or two out of office for over-stepping constitutional bounds, but rarely are the wrongs rectified without a lot of effort by the citizens, and a lot of financing by private intrests.

Winterwind said: hearsay and speculation? Robert Kenady was shot in a motercade full of well trained agents. Why couldn't you just be shot from the sidewalk as well?

I never said a person couldn't be shot, up close or at range. What is the point?

My point is quite simple.

Trained and armed individuals are much more likely to survive an armed assault.

[Winter wind]

Mines, napalm and WMD are "AREA WEAPONS" and are not considered individual defense weapons.

And a grenade launcher isn't? Again, that wasn't rhetorical.

Air is dangerous, so is water, knives, cars, walking near traffic, being outside in a lightning storm...etc.

Which is why we have pollution regulations, life guards, regulations on switch blades, sidewalks and traffic lights along with traffic cops and driving licenses. the lightning storm thing is less dangerous then a gun.

Why not a grenade launcher, if its not launching grenades?

Because a grenade launcher can launch grenades. you just have to find one. The other ones are safer.

Flare guns are very dangerous, how can you allow those?

The flare gun fires one, non-exploding, shot that can really only be deadly if the person's cloths catch on fire from the flare.

Smoke can be used for many things, from simply novelty or re-enactment situations, to useful situations such as smoking an area for pest deterrent.

could just use a smoke grenade and toss it the old fashion way.

I could show you many many examples of you being wrong.

yes please

Trained and armed individuals are much more likely to survive an armed assault.

Untrained and unarmed individuals are even more likely to survive an unarmed assault.

I never said a person couldn't be shot, up close or at range. What is the point?

My point is how do you defend yourself if the secret service couldn't?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind Untrained and unarmed individuals are even more likely to survive an unarmed assault.

Can you prove that? I don't think you can, unless you're counting the potential for serious injury "surviving". Sure, you might be more likely to not be dead if you're unarmed and your attacker is unarmed. However, the attacker would walk away complete uninjured and able to do the same thing to the next person they run across. However, you could end up severely injured, hospitalized, maybe paralyzed or disfigured. You might survive, but you might wish you hadn't.

And, you've still done nothing to make the world a better place by stopping your attacker and, at the very least, discouraging him/her from doing the same thing to someone else.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind There is always the cell phone, or avoiding dark alleys. But really, if the person had a gun, what makes you think the 125lb woman is going to be able to out draw evil rapist. An aunt of mine does night work as someone who helps homeless teens get out of gangs. She's been shot (wore a bullet proof vest) and robbed, and every time she says if she had a gun, the person would have just taken it from her purse and shot her with it.

In the 1960's there was a problem with a lot of rapes in Orlando, FL. The police decided to, very publicly, train any women that wanted the training in how to handle firearms. Only a few hundred took them up on that offer, and there is no evidence to indicate how many of those actually owned or bought a gun, let alone carried a firearm.

Even with that miniscule effort, the incidence of rape in the area dropped dramatically. No one even had to be shot, the criminals just had to be aware that there was a slight possibility it might happen.

Criminals will always go after easy targets. Most are complete cowards and really don't want to face any risk at all.

As to your aunt, she should get some actual training if she wishes to carry a gun. It might not be a bad idea for her to consider.

Keith

[Winter wind]

And, you've still done nothing to make the world a better place by stopping your attacker and, at the very least, discouraging him/her from doing the same thing to someone else.

This only is true on paper. In the real world, it just means the criminal is more likely to shoot first.

Can you prove that? I don't think you can, unless you're counting the potential for serious injury "surviving". Sure, you might be more likely to not be dead if you're unarmed and your attacker is unarmed. However, the attacker would walk away complete uninjured and able to do the same thing to the next person they run across. However, you could end up severely injured, hospitalized, maybe paralyzed or disfigured. You might survive, but you might wish you hadn't.

My point was more based on something like the columbine shootings. If the two kids were armed with lead pipes, how many people would have been injured?

And a gun has the ability to paralyze and disfigure, as much as a knife or a hammer. With a pipe or an sword, a person has to get close to you. If you see your evil ex coming at you with a deadly look, you know to haul ass. But if the ex just pops a shot from a five story building, you don't have a chance.

[Winter wind]

In the 1960's there was a problem with a lot of rapes in Orlando, FL. The police decided to, very publicly, train any women that wanted the training in how to handle firearms. Only a few hundred took them up on that offer, and there is no evidence to indicate how many of those actually owned or bought a gun, let alone carried a firearm. Even with that miniscule effort, the incidence of rape in the area dropped dramatically. No one even had to be shot, the criminals just had to be aware that there was a slight possibility it might happen.

Numbers, Tonto.
Please.

Again, I'm willing to say you have a point worth exploring, but what about the question of an semi-auto weapon. Why do you need an uzi for defense?

As to your aunt, she should get some actual training if she wishes to carry a gun. It might not be a bad idea for her to consider.

She's like the reincarnation of mother Teressa. Little chance to get her to carry a gun.

But the deterrent is a PR thing. Not actual defense, as you pointed out yourself as very few showed up.