I accept the argument that pervasive surveillence infringes on my personal freedom, so Addison and I disagree on that point -- but with different secondary effects.

Hey hey hey, that's not what I said.

I said it wasn't unconstitutional, nor illegal. And that we needed legistlation to define "personal privacy" and "freedom"... And without that, I really couldn't produce anything that would show pervasive surveillance (of everybody, in public places) that was "wrong" or illegal.

I'm certainly *not* advocating it, and I wouldn't particularly like it. (But for instance, it wouldn't stop me travelling to England)

Helmet laws are intended to protect me from myself. I absolutely disagree with the intent. I should be free to risk my own safety in any way that doesn't affect other people.

Yes and no.

The issue with helmets, and seat belts, and such, is that you *aren't* just talking about yourself. That we live in a community, with shared resources, and you not using such safty devices puts a strain on said infrastructure, *and* impacts other people.

Which is a helluva argument. But that's the basis for it. (at least, IMO, the "legitimate" argument). (There *are* people who want to protect you from yourself, but right now they're busy trying to take our guns away. :))

I was in an auto accident about 10 years ago. Foggy night. I was driving 30, 35, on an unfamilar road, and went through a stop sign. Saw it less than 1/2 a second before I passed it, and hesitated just a fraction before hitting the brake (wondering if it would be better to go through). Too late. Another car and mine had their vectors converge and merge. The 2 people in that car weren't wearing their seat belts. They were doing 70ish.

As it turns out, when I was sued for wrongful death, the fact they weren't wearing seat belts didn't matter. Nor did it matter that they were going far faster than I. Because *I* went through the traffic control device, 100% of the accident was my fault.

But had they been wearing their seat belt (as I was), they wouldn't have been severely hurt. (The driver wasn't hurt badly, as he had the steering wheel to stop him).

And so everyone in my insurance pool helped me "pay" for that. The infrastructure was stressed (that night they were being run all over) trying to get rescue teams to our location. Had say, a fire broken out, a farther away squad would have had to made their way to it - through the fog.

*THAT* becomes the conundrum with safety devices. Its *not* merely a question of "it only affects you". It doesn't, it affects more people than that.

Additionally, with the legal system we have, blame MUST be assigned. Think about the opporunities you [could have] had, 100 years ago, to do the damage that you and I can do, on a daily basis now. (say, looking down for a second, and crashing into a school bus going the other way?).

I don't say that to say you're wrong, but to mention it as another topic of discussion (which really doesn't belong in this thread) :)

That its an attempt to provide accountability, and responsibility to people, such that they lessen the impact (no pun intended) on the rest of us. And its more complicated than saving you from yourself. (Another note of mention - apparently people drive *More unsafely* when they're buckled in - they feel safer).

Addison

is to question whether the apparent "safety" brought about by widespread personal firearm posession is a safety you wish to endure.

A reasonable question, to be sure.

But that's part of the reason that we have the 2nd Amendment. So that we would (not could) have widespread personal firearm possention...

But leaving that aside, sure, that's a reasonable question. But don't forget the total cost (most *ahem* people on the gun-grabbing side of the debate tend to).

But the biggest problem:

I think it should be easy enough to draw a parallel between the increased security of a surveillence state and the increased safety of a well-armed populace.

Most of the proponents of a populace not denied the right to be armed, such as myself, would also hotly disagree with the concept of such a state.

in supporting a system shown to reduce crime

With the cameras, I think that's not proven/shown yet. Pretty sure.

But most of us don't trust the government to protect us. :)

Addison

Uh, no, it's not. Not "the opposite", I mean.

According to all statistics I've ever seen or heard, the USA *is* pretty much "a gun-battling place".

Statistics? Or TV shows?

Guns are rarely used, even in the US. Very rarely. (rarely is a relative term, yes, they're used more than in say, Sweden) And their rates of use are going DOWN. Not up. Down.

This isn't the popular image projected by the media, I realise.

There's not a showdown on Every Main Street, Every Day, as Ashton portrays, nor does the NRA (or anybody else) advocate one.

Addison

Primarily: You've got to stop complaining about "Meedja" and "Murican peeple" if you're going to be part of them (or be hypocritical).

As to my 'hatred' of the NRA. For the same reasons you despise such rednecks, liberals or conservatives - who immediately counter *any* earnest efforts to control some of the Collateral Damage *caused by* the ready-availability of ___ (Anything! potentially harmful, not Just Guns.. or Gins! for that matter)

Yes, I despise One-Note-Johnnys.

The "meedja" has been saying that. The NRA is *not* a "one note Johnny". Lobbying and gun laws are a small FRACTION of what they do.

But the *US MEDIA* says that's all they say. So you've allowed yourself to be swayed by what you make fun of - bought into the popular viewing of the NRA as "Nuts".

(BTW, they spent more time and effort with Police Training courses than they do with lobbying, at least last time I saw the stats).

And I'll reference a comment you made on ezboard:
fringe groups like the Aryan NRA Brotherhood

Now, I don't know if you were making a "new" fringe group or not. But in any event, putting the two of them together is foul, in both the out of bounds and the smell sense of the word. You keep DOING that. (and you complain about "one note johnnies" despite the NRA's being completely, utterly silent in this scene).

The NRA, who, by the way, are among the STRONGEST proponents of freedom, equality, and legallity want nothing to do with any white supremacist groups. Insinuating that they are one and the same hurts *your* case, and your ability to claim that you've really thought things through.

So yes, you've bought into a "meedja myth" - and are perpetuating it. Not unusual, people do that all the time. I have to say it irks me when they then bitch a storm up about the unthinking masses who regurgitate what the "meedja" says.

Always it has been within the purview of the NRA or the other orgs to Face-Up to: precisely! the growing er "issue" of the blood-slippery ORs - a daily phenom in any large Murican city, and to attempt to seek YES! *innovative* New Ways (!!) for preserving BOTH the right to maintain an armed Militia *AND* fearlessly and non-BS-edly ALSO face the consequences of gun proliferation to such an extent that: literally ANYONE may easily obtain one, no matter what nominal 'laws' are on the books

Ashton, the NRA has been the *leading* proponent of laws to get illegal guns off the street. To require safe handling of weapons.

They're not against "any" law that defines guns. (Buying that is more "meedja bad mojo").

But often they get painted as such, due to their opposition of BAD LAW that's spun as good.

The NRA opposed legislation (for one example) to outlaw "cop killer bullets" (as it was called at the time, after all, who's going to oppose laws to "protect police officers"?). Because the laws were badly worded. Because they were open to wide interpretation. Several defined *any* projectile that could penetrate an "undershirt" vest as "armor-piercing"... and that includes *NAIL GUNS*. Much less *every deer rifle in the world*.

Not to mention these laws are written by these same politicians you like to lamblast for their venality and stupidity... so if they want to outlaw guns they suddenly are Nobel candidates?

Coating a bullet with Teflon (R) (TM) is illegal. Why? Because of the "cop killer buller" hysteria. Someone produced "Teflon-coated" bullets, 60 minutes ran a story.

The point that escaped most of the viewing audience, and most of the politicians was that the reason these rounds sliced through body armor *wasn't* the "teflon coating". It was the fact the projectiles were non-deforming STEEL. The teflon allowed them to "slip" down the barrel of the gun - without ripping the rifling out of the barrel. (previous weapons, mainly anti-tank, that use steel projectiles have VERY short barrel lives). Lead and copper are used currently, and they do adequately, but it would be better to use thse same tech to coat THEM.

And guess who's affected by this restriction the most? Police officers - who breath in lead vapors from the indoor shooting ranges they go to. :) (often to save money straight lead bullets are used in practice, non-copper coated).

(As a matter of science, teflon actually *retards* penetration into kevlar and spectra body armor... both of them are extremely strong in the direction of the polymer/fiber - and very weak laterally. (Which is why you don't see clothes made out of kevlar.. Nomex, an isomer of Kevlar, is used for heat-resistance, but it wears out quickly, as well. Its branched much more, and has much lower tensile strength). The *spinning* of the bullet against the fibers (which are usually knitted to "catch" it) shreds them. The less friction it can create, the less its able to shred them... lead projectiles coated in teflon experience a 30-40% *decrease* in penetration into Kevlar...)

I will salute! your NRA when it er *bites THAT bullet*, ceases the preaching to converted doubletalk - and begins by acknowledging that *gun ownership is the essence of a TWO-edged sword*

Don't wear out your hand. The "Eddie the Eagle" program is widely regarded as the *most effective* child-education program currently in production (Stop, run away, get an adult) - but since its from the NRA, and doesn't demonize weapons.

The problem of gun in BAD people's hands they've know of for years. And its not something that's ignored - they want the focus on the BAD PERSON. That's the problem.

Because that last: just is all we mainly HEAR from these dudes over and over and over

*drumroll* - because you're watching the Meedja. And that's all they WANT you to hear from them. (example., most Meedja outlets will refuse to accept NRA advertising - while running for free, or reduced prices - ads from the various groups pledged to completely outlaw guns).

Too bad, Addison - a pox on Both the houses: the One-Note-NRA? AND Let's-Confiscate-All Guns?.

Its a false comparision, but I've explained that enough, I think.

The NRA has the same thoughts about freedoms you have on the camera issue. (And most of us would oppose cameras, too). Once you give up something, its hard to get it back. And the opponents - such as the AMA president - are not opposed to outright lying, and ignoring the DAMAGE that they do (after all, its not THEM who's disarmed) (name me one major opponent of gun ownership who's not protected by armed guards).

Remember - we're talking about something that historically has in every case - raised assault, rape, and murder rates. (And you're saying that people who say "Whoa, wait a minute, why do we want to do something that's been done lots of times before with the SAME EFFECT every time?" are deviant?)

Additionally, the NRA wasn't greatly opposed to many gun laws - until it became obvious that people who wanted you and me and everybody disarmed for their great utopia - were using them to systematically do exactly that.

You've got to remember where you're getting your information from, and what bias they have.

Alas, the paranoid style of Murican politics nearly guarantees that.. the NRA-folk and their opponents - shall continue focussing upon the extremes

The NRA and their brethren are on the defensive. The battle was brought to them. Just like the AMA president - others picked the battle, and picked the context. To then blame THEM for the tone is somewhat ironic, I think.

Sure, there are lots of "You'll have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers" around. (most of whom have left the NRA for their being not hard-line enough).

But that's because there are lots of people out there who are all in favor of confiscating EVERY SINGLE GUN.

I spoke to one today. I mentioned something, referencing the Microsoft sop to the appeals court's decision, that its "compromise" like in the gun debate. The gun-grabbers say "Give us everything". "No". "OK, we'll just take THESE then". Next year "Give us everything". "NO!" "Ok, we'll take THESE then".

Its the compromise of Europe of the late 30s... retreating and giving up - just not as much as was originally demanded. Whoo. What a "compromise". (Side note, in Chamberlain's defense, I read something interesting that said that rather than being Hitler's pawn, he was fully aware of what was going on, but was buying time, since the French and English weren't ready, and overestimated how ready Germany was.).

And this person got mad, and told me in no uncertain terms that every gun should be outlawed, every one confiscated.

(This person is jewish, and has relatives in Israel... and also 10 minutes later, was voicing a concern about getting raped. I was polite and didn't link the conversations).

And yes, what you see in the Meedja is usually strident, from the NRA - but usually its made MORE SO, by someone with the same notion YOU do, and who is saying - that the NRA says this, does that, etc.

I'll just ask you to actually look into it a bit more, because I can tell you that that's *not* the case. At best, its a gross distortion. Sometimes, more than you might like to think, its a outright lie.

And just like this latest case (which the NRA I've not seen mentioned in, yet) - when someone comes out calling for "more and more and more" gun restriction - on further review.. it doesn't seem to be the good, obvious idea that they claimed.

But calling for studies, and proof, and putting things in context... gets you branded as a "one note Johnny, who's nuts, and has a penile facination with guns".....

Look into the NRA more. I think you'll be very surprised by what you'll find. (Like they were a major force in the "three strikes" sort of laws. that they have no sympathy for felons using weapons...)

But you will also likely find that when 'Oh, don't worry about it' sort of things came up, that the NRA got burned. NYC passed a law requiring registration of handguns. "Don't worry, we're not doing this to confiscate them". Few years later: "Turn it it in to the police, prove you sold it before such and such a date, or had it destroyed, or go to jail"....

Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice....?

Addison

The entire idea - NRA support of 3-Strikes - merely bolsters my characterization of the NRA (too) as falling for just as mindless, simplistic 'solutions' -- as are ever popular with opportunistic pols and with people who have no sense of what individual rights might be.

Wait. One of the very very few organizations who are willing to stand up FOR your rights - one of the most important, as envisioned by the writers of the constitution, enumerated.... and they're for eroding individual rights?

Ash, seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black here, when you paint the NRA as some sort of idiot organization. (And they can't win with you, especially since you've decided to ignore everything but preconceptions).

The support of three strikes was done because we do have a problem with crime. And since it turns out that something like 80% of violent crimes are committed by the SAME PEOPLE, the solution, simplistic as it might be, was "OK, we'll give you 3 strikes. If you get convicted three times of violent crimes, you don't get a chance to hurt anybody else".

And I *like* this overall concept. Its a simple system. Its fairly immune to abuse (it would be hard to imagine someone convicted falsely three times) (Note for those outside the US, (usually) its not three violent convictions (say, at the same trial), but three seperate trials).

I prefer systems that are simple, have margins for error, and aren't politically influenced.

we are simply fucking hysterical about so-called illegal drugs.

Often, we are. But this isn't really relevant to the NRA. Remember, the issue I'm trying to point out to you is you've taken a "snapshot" of the NRA, *based on the media's reports*, and its not a "true" picture. They're not advocating a lot of what you ascribe to them.

it's simply that a lot of lunatic fringe also imagines NRA is on the 'right' side

Why aren't they? I think they are. I think the ACLU is, with the exception of being embarressed of the 2nd amendment, and doing massive tap-dancing to avoid the support of it, that they give the 1st and 4th, etc.

What's "wrong" about the NRA? Their insistance on *your* civil liberties, their concern about encraaching government, their fighting with the belief that once you start allowing the government in, you won't get them out?

My sources are not just the talking heads either - but for the fortress mentation which NRA believes is necessary for them?

I have to question you on this... considering you're stating as fact the mistruths those talking heads persist in.

I might can agree with you its a fortress mentality. Just a couple weeks ago you had one, as well, when we discussed police monitoring of public places via cameras.

I see this as no + at all, given the intent and actuality of the provisions passed: leaving judges no choice in tailoring the punishment to fit an Individual - his/her crime, previous performance, circumstances.

First off, it also prevents either a judge from letting a violent felon walk.

Secondly, the whole point is with "3 strikes" is that there's BEEN CONSIDERATION in the past. It didn't work. I have no problems with violent felons being tossed into jail to rot after some number of attempts to teach/rehabilitate them.

They see you and me as prey, Ash. They see your Eden as a lush garden to rape, and take everything. But they do exist.

(and if you're talking about drug offenses, that's another story. I'm talking about the murders, rapists, violent felons. I don't have a problem presuming they can reform. But *at some point* you have to say - YOU! OUTTA THE POOL! NOW!)

Every judgment call up to a committee, or settle the problem of 'crime' by simplistic slogans like 3 Strikes. Even though that is the national style re all difficult topics.

I agree. You may notice that that's what raised my ire - that the president of the AMA decided that "guns are bad" - against all supporting documentation - and wants them outlawed. (One presumes, except for the ones protecting HIM).

(3 strikes might be a "simplistic" view - but note that it gets the point across... Picking battles is important, and if people aren't listeng to the facts...)

And *my* problem with this sort of "oversimplifcation" got you ranting and raving about the NRA - with a vastly over-simplified view of them.

Ironic, don'tcha think? :)

Addison