decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
We didn't defeat the British with a frontal assault | 337 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 06:40 PM EST
No, you wouldn't.

If the government wanted to use nuclear weapons, there's no fighting back,
because there are no winners. Citizens armed with nuclear weapons do not act as
a counter to their own government, because nuclear weapons are not conventional
weapons, they are weapons of mass destruction.

Guns are not, even full automatic weapons, weapons of mass destruction.

To argue that nuclear weapons and assault weapons are both weapons of mass
destruction is ludicrous PJ.

I have no issues personally with outlawing automatic weapons (Uzi's, full auto
AK-47's, etc).

Unfortunately, that's not what I'm hearing on TV or even in these threads. What
I am hearing here and on TV is a bunch of people who nievely believe that we can
remove every gun in the country and that criminals and other law breakers will
magically be unable to get them.

We can't even outlaw drugs and keep them out of the country. We can't outlaw
robbery, assault, or even drunk driving. What absolute insanity is it to
believe that outlawing guns is going to magically make them all go away.

This reminds me of the DRM debates. RIAA/MAFIAA seem to belive that if they can
just get the laws to the point where it's a death senteance to break DRM then
they will never have theft. They are deluded, and all they do is make
legitimate customers life hard. This is the same thing, if you outlaw guns, all
you do is make reasonable legitmate gun owners either illegal, or you take their
guns away. You will not take them away from criminals, they will continue to
get and use them. If we can't stop marijuana smuggling from mexico, we sure as
peanuts can't stop gun smuggling.

When people want to discuss reasonable limits (like extra background checks for
assault style weapons (note they are not assault weapons, they just look like
them), then I'm good with that, but banning complete? Ludicrous).

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm sure there's people reading my post
saying 'what a gun nut'.

I have never fired a pistol in my life. I have gone hunting about 4-5 times in
my life, and have shot rifles and shotguns at target shooting off and on over
the years. I grew up around guns, but have never felt the need to collect them.
However, I have always had the RIGHT to have them, and it is my choice not to
have any at this time. The only firearm I have is a 22 caliber rifle which is
in a closet at my father's home, in a different state.

For a group that believes in responsible people and responsible choices, it's
disheartening to me to read so many posters on here, and PJ herself, advocating
to take away a basic right granted by the constitution for an illusion of
safety. You can't stop psycho's from hurting people, they'll find a way, cars
running down groups, poison in food, arson, homemade bombs with nails, the list
goes on.

He who gives up his rights and freedoms for the illusion of temporary safety
deserves neither freedom nor safety, to paraphrase.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

We didn't defeat the British with a frontal assault
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 06:45 PM EST
It was the guerrilla tactics that frustrated them and
eventually caused their downfall.

During WWII, Germany was reluctant to attack Switzerland not
because they had tanks and planes, but because the citizens
were pretty much all armed with rifles.

After WWII, Japan was asked why they didn't just take over
Hawaii after Pearl Harbor. The answer was that they knew
that the civilians were armed, and that they weren't sure
they could handle the guerrilla war.

I don't hear anybody here asking for more weapons than what
they have. I do hear people asking that they can keep the
ones they have.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 07:41 PM EST
There are no logical, rational reasons to prohibit ownership of personal
nuclear weapons

There are a myriad reasons based on emotions for doing so.
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I disagree
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 03:35 PM EST
Seeing what has happened in Egypt, and other Arab Spring countries, should be
proof that that isn't so. Sure Egypt's was mostly peaceful, and the only really
violent one required outside intervention to succeed. But then the American
Revolution was no different. The American Revolution would have failed if not
for the assistance of France. France at the time being one of the World's super
powers. If so many of the Revolutionaries had not been gun owners and proficient
shooters, the entire Revolution would not have been possible.

I would not support removing the right to own guns, especially with
Mega-Corporations increasingly criminalizing ordinary behaviour, simply because
some claim it's not possible to overthrow the US Government. The day may yet
come for a need for another American Revolution. Although, it is beyond dispute
an armed conflict in modern times has a much slimmer chance of success (without
large defections within the rank and file of the US Forces). Not least of all
because there are far fewer, per capita, skilled in the use of weapons.

Although, I would much prefer peaceful solutions. We should not forever be
doomed to resort to war to overthrow oppressive governments. Egypt was a shining
example of what we are capable of. Sadly, its promise seems to have floundered
in the aftermath. But time will tell.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )