Since joining this group I was motivated to organize my smaller FAVORITE author library. When we moved 10 years ago I donated 9 copy paper boxes of hard and soft sci fi books to local library. Now I was able to go right to "BEYOND THIS HORIZON" c1942. The projected model society has every one packing heat or a protective armbrassard if they wouldn't carry a weapon or were police. These being CITIZENS IT WAS FORBIDDEN TO FIRE AT ANYTIME.
What would have happened in that Colorado movie Theater or When Gabby from Arizona or in West Va Univ. were set on by a maniac. After the first shot the culprint would have been shot so many times , he couldn't be identified! Oh by the way these are very Liberal I mean CONSERVATIVE about gun control states.
My first answer is this would only work in a HEINLEINIAN society, which we are 180 degrees away from. It's probaly a good thing UNCLE Bob is dead, cause if hewas alive, IT WOULD KILL HIM to see what OUR SOCIETY HAS BECOME. I am not being political I just don't like INNOCENT PEOPLE MURDERED EVERY STINKING DAY. This is approaching the carnage we allow DRUNKS & TEXTERS to commit with their much more powerful and lethal weapons (AUTOs). :evil:

Allow me to give you a hint as to how to get people to consider and respond to your posts here. We welcome literate, thoughtful opinions. Postings that look like ransom notes just won't get attention. Rant if you want, but that's who we are.

Do continue to post, Charles, but please take time to make your posts a little less scattered. Maybe you could write the drafts off-line and then upload them.

I'll just note that Colorado's extremely liberal gun laws enabled a known nut to amass a substantial arsenal - completely legally - and then use it, while not producing a single armed citizen-vigilante to stop him. The NRA and CC crowd arguments never do quite seem to hold water, especially when tested by reality.

Jim, the Cinemark theater in Aurora was posted by management as "No Firearms Allowed". Concealed Carry permit holders are generally pretty fastidious about following such notices -- they don't want to do anything that will give issuing authorities reason to deny renewal of their permits.

Consider that, please, when you say that no armed citizens were available to stop the shooter.

What Bill said. I've got a concealed carry permit, and usually carry. I might avoid going to a location that forbids concealed carry even to permit holders, but I wouldn't ignore a "gun-free zone" notice even if I think those who post them are foolish. Those who bother to get the training and undergo the background check required for a concealed carry permit tend to be law-abiding. (And not fond of the idea of shooting people, for that matter.) The people who shoot up movie theaters, political rallies, Sikh (and other) temples, or courtrooms generally don't care about the law or courtesy, on the other hand.

BTW, another distinction that should be made: legal *ownership* of a gun is not the same a possession of a concealed carry permit. Last I heard, one in four to one in three Americans owns one or more guns, the vast majority legally. Even in Nevada, where concealed carry is fairly common in comparison to (say) California, less than 10% of gun owners get the concealed carry permit. That means that they cannot carry a concealed firearm legally, unless they are a sworn police officer or (in some cases) active-duty military.

Personally, I don't think a ban on guns accomplishes anything useful except when carefully targeted to people who have demonstrated that they shouldn't own a gun. (Violent criminals, people with certain type of mental illnesses, etc.) The reason is that a ban doesn't prevent them from getting a gun, and (alternatively) doesn't prevent them from wreaking mayhem by some other means. :/ What we need is the ability to spot and stop violent people. We don't yet know how to do that effectively.

Not that I've heard of, Jim. On the other hand, I doubt any would have stepped forward if they were carrying and didn't shoot because I *think* in Colorado "gun free zone" notices have the force of law. (In other words, they'd have been likely to loose their permit.)

In my experience, most people who have concealed carry permits avoid going to places with "gun free zone" notices unless they have to go there specifically, as opposed to somewhere else where they could get the same goods/services and there was no such restriction. (The Post Office, a courthouse, etc.) I avoid first nights of blockbuster hits because I don't like crowds, but when I go to a movie, I avoid the theater chain that posts a "gun free zone" notice. There are plenty of other choices.

I'm not asking if there was anyone who could have fired back - I am asking if there was a single CC permittee in the audience. What I've read so far is that there was not. Until someone steps up and convincingly states they were a carrier, were there and would have drawn their weapon if they'd had it (legally) with them, I'll stand by my statement. Bill M's comment is irrelevant if there were no potential vigilantes in the audience.

[quote="JamesGifford"]I'm not asking if there was anyone who could have fired back - I am asking if there was a single CC permittee in the audience. What I've read so far is that there was not. Until someone steps up and convincingly states they were a carrier, were there and would have drawn their weapon if they'd had it (legally) with them, I'll stand by my statement. Bill M's comment is irrelevant if there were no potential vigilantes in the audience.[/quote

In my experience (I was in the firearms business for over 30 years), most permittees would not patronize a business with such a policy simply as a matter of principle.

I was so enthusiastic finding this blog I was overcome with happiness . Succintly RAH has been my philosophic mentor since I was TWELVE years old. In college when I was really starting to gel, I dived in even deeper. All thoughtful stimuli I encounter I have to concider by his writings. Now that I have all his books readily available, I am READY TO GO.
His contemplations of future utopian societies has always left me depressed when I see the world we live in. So I pull out his discertation on an armed populace. The problem with his speculations is that Human Beings are not as INTELLIGENT, honest, polite,etc. as he projected them to be.
I could carry this thread on & on, but I was just trying to start a conversation.

i'm wondering where we'd be if there ever becomes enough (how many?) concealed carry folk in our world to counteract the tragedies such as the theater shootings ? think of a theater with even 10% of the people armed- one party pulls and starts firing indiscriminately, a gun owner pulls his and responds, someone mistakes who the real shooter is, gets excited, misses and hits bystanders- soon every pistol in the room is firing away- frightened folk making split second life and death decisions- it doesn't bode well for the unarmed 90%


but, should we disarm the populace as a whole ? RAH understood that those without arms live at the whim of those with them- i believe he always preferred his chances of throwing off tyranny armed versus unarmed. throughout his stories you see an armed citizenry is a free citizenry- He would've balanced the costs of bearing arms against disarming citizens- deduction indicates RAH being a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment and tyrants would take his gun only out of his dead grasp.......

perfect safety, perfect freedom...... seems you might have one but not the other- the problem is trying to balance how much of each you need

as usual IMHO

Nick

Yes, RAH wrote one story famous for everyone being armed or advertising themselves as being unarmed and therefore inferior. It was not the only Utopian society he envisioned, but the RKBA group gloms onto it like a toddler with a teddy bear.

An armed populace was a less visible feature of his other stories. RAH was well known for writing fiction that people attributed to his viewpoint and then disclaiming it. Do we know whether he felt that an armed society was a good idea - not hypothetically, but for this society? He regularly yanked our chains with provocative stances. Litmus test: did he have a concealed carry permit?

I just started reading Michael Moore's autobiography, and he reports in the opening chapter that someone at a screening of one of his films in Denver was detained by security for carrying a handgun, at a time when numerous death threats and assassination attempts were being made on him. Unreported as to whether this was legal otherwise, but the intent of this particular carrier was clear.

Incidentally, to compare this book with the Jobs biography, after an excellent opening chapter it goes right back to the day he was born, and grinds on through Catholic school childhood, just like every other biography... except Jobs', which spends about a page on childhood and then gets on to the parts that everyone picked it up to read. Should be a model for all biographies: We do not give a **** about your third grade school play.

The best biographies I've read start with a chapter covering a pivotal moment in the subject's life, then go back to the beginning and a linear progression with Chapter 2. This may be an excessively "pop" approach, as most formal bios I've read begin either with birth or (sigh) dim ancestry. I agree that even for the most famous and fascinating of people, drudging through great grandparents and then the fuzzy minutiae of lives up to the point where the subject says or does his first thing of remote interest is tedious - or worse, wasting time on the vanity of the biographer. I can't think of a single biography whose "childhood" chapter isn't a boring mishmash of half-knowns, maybes, and not-sure-what-this-means. (When it isn't extensively fabricated or fictionalized.)

I will note that perhaps the greatest biography ever written entirely skips the subject's life from shortly after birth until The Really Good Parts.

I am researching and writing a rather complex multi-person biography at the moment, and the issues of how to present the interesting parts while not slighting the important parts (not always the same thing) and minimizing the who-cares parts without slighting the subjects... tough juggle. But we can be spared any more biographies of current figures that discuss 3rd grade plays and Boy Scout meetings.

BillM, I don't really want to get into an ever-deeper spiral on a theological argument like gun rights, but I can address some of your questions.

"Elephant repellant" - an argument that is based on repeated claims with no meaningful test of them, and often no realistic way to test them. The only way to validate the arguments would be to make a sweeping change and then stand back and observe the results. The entire open carry/concealed carry argument is based on both sides picking microscopic points to prove their case... and done that way, you can prove anything.

"Citizens stopping crime" - I draw a distinction between those who carry or have at hand a weapon within their home or business and those who (wish to) carry weapons in public spaces. NOT the same thing. Cases where an armed citizen who was not a police officer (off-duty or plainclothes) made an effective stand against a crime in progress in a public place are hen's teeth. Cases where would-be vigilantes screw up and either end up dead or with bystander casualties are also rare... but not as rare as the first case.

"Zimmerman" - defend him if you like. A fairly full portrait of the man has been painted by all parties, including himself, and I know his type. A self-important blowhard with delusions of superiority - too good to be a cop or a trained security guard (or even a "trained militia" type)... just a paranoid citz who assumed the duty of stalking his neighborhood armed. There's no good outcome to such a situation, not for him, not for the Trayvon Martins, and not for the neighbors he professed to be "guarding." The details of what happened that night hardly matter... they would not have happened if Zimmerman hadn't felt it was his duty to stalk a kid daring to walk through his turf. Would not. It's not about racism, or who threw the first punch... it's about one person antagonizing another, pointlessly, until violence erupted. Had Zimmerman stayed home watching football, or not been armed, no outcome would have made it past the local police blotter. Other than possibly allowing himself to be antagonized into attacking Zimmerman, I can't find a scenario that puts signficant fault on Martin... and even as an older white guy, I can see where having some loon repeatedly confront me could lead to me throwing the first punch. A black teen? You have to know that he felt a greater degree of threat than you or I would have.

"privilege" - I regard concealed carry in public spaces as a privilege, not a right. You CAN distinguish that that's a special case, and not a sweeping denial of the 2ndAm? (Or maybe not. Far too many NRA types live on the slipperiest of intellectual slopes, in which every stand against marching around like a Marine in a combat zone is instantly equated to jack-booted storm troopers rounding up all civ weapons.)

"biography" - nailed it in one. Heh. "Nailed."

Jim -- to soften things up, I hope this is more of a discussion than an argument . . . .

I'd gladly concede the Elephant Repellant metaphor, but would apply it to both sides. Given that 49 (and counting) states allow some form of permitted concealed carry, and that 8 million permittees are out there, the bogeyman of vigilante shooters seems kind of nebulous as well. I do know that the average citizen is much more likely to get shot by a policeman than by a CCW permit holder (and in both cases, the odds are vanishingly small).

I don't know enough about Zimmerman to defend him as a person. He may be a jerk, he may be a decent enough guy who got caught up in events that he deeply regrets, or the truth may lay somewhere in between (as it so often does). But your characterization of him is a stereotype ("I know his type"), and that's no way to judge anyone. Yes, Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, but he'd also still be alive if he hadn't tried to beat the shit out of Zimmerman.

And the 2nd Amd. right is to keep "and bear" arms. It's not the right to "keep", and the privilege to "bear".

But you are right in calling this "theological" -- people hold beliefs like these deeply, and generally aren't subject to being talked into the other side. I don't expect to change your mind, but I like posting about it for the sake of posting.

Bill, if you were the voice of the Republican Party, I could actually have a useful debate about the future governance of the USA rather than reacting in an oscillation between ridicule, outage, and incredulity.

It has always struck me, as an immigrant, the irony in the first two amendments being such mirrors of each other. Each is a cornerstone of an opposing party. Each one, if carried to the extreme implied in the spare language of the BoR, spells the downfall of society, whereas each one's supporters will fervently claim that nothing less than that extreme can save society. I don't know that the impact from each amendment being abused is equal, but to my thinking, it might be.

I find it interesting that the 2Am contains a prelude, a justification. It is unique in this respect, I believe. In the language of systems engineering, the requirement has its rationale embedded within it, which is a very good idea and far too rarely practiced. It seems to me that a lot hinges on that "militia" thing, especially when there are handheld weapons now available that are far more deadly than any contemplated by the 2Am framers. There might be a reasoned, objective discussion of that clause's implications out there in the world but I do not know how I would be able to recognize it.

A rational discussion of this point has to advance beyond the theological argument that people should be able to carry guns because it says so in the 2Am. That's too reductionist. The only point in debating the matter is to decide whether the 2Am should be revised. Otherwise you're stuck with interpreting it, which gets back to theology again. ("Just what was the impact of the previous day's indigestion upon Hamilton's judgement?") Let's be honest: all discussions about "interpretation" are really about whether one side can contort the words on the page to fit what they thought they should have said all along. Far more authentic to simply say in clearer language what one wants to begin with, and let go of the idea that the framers were so omniscient as to be able to see the future 250 years away so much better than the inhabitants of this time that it's not worth trying to think about the issue for ourselves.

And from my perspective, far fewer Americans evidence the competence to use a firearm than are granted the right to drive a car, and it should be regulated accordingly. "But we'll be invaded by Russkies!" Get real. There has been no credible invasion scenario for the lower 48 since 1812. "But what if we need to overthrow the government?" That was probably why the 2Am was written in the first place, and certainly seems to jibe with my superficial understanding of Jefferson's notion that government should be reinvented once a generation. Again, get real. The size of the US military is so enormous that the country belongs to whoever they take orders from, not any number of shotgun-wielding hillbillies in the Appalachians. You want to overthrow the government, you'd better start studying Seven Days in May frame by frame. Hint: whatever firearms you own will make no difference.

What's left, rationale-wise, is what the public in every other country gets to use for justification to carry: You like to shoot stuff. And more reasonably, you might need one for self-defence. The whole debate comes down to whether someone carrying a gun reduces the chances that they might be a victim of attack, or increases the chances that the gun may be used against someone who isn't attacking anyone. That's really hard to determine, and varies depending on the person.

Thanks Dan, that actually made me physically ill. I've said it before: zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

No kidding. :/ IMHO that school has proved its unfitness to educate children until they get their zero thinking policy/practice fixed.

Sorry, I wrote poorly; I need to distinguish between your statements (which, on the whole, are calm and considered) and the general background noise from those who defend the 2nd without, apparently, being able to turn on the slightest logical facility.

I think it all comes down to a very simple set of facts: In 1789, the population was just under four million, living in largely rural/agrarian settings. Only the densest city centers were free of community grazing pastures, farms visible from a second floor window, etc. The firearms of the time were part and parcel of daily life, almost exclusively for hunting and fowling.

On the other hand, Washington DC came about because the founders didn't want drunken ex-soldiers pointing their guns at the congressional meetinghouse while they were in it.

2012 is just a bit different: there are 300+ million of us in here now, the vast majority in fairly high density living conditions, and guns have almost no role in daily life except for a very select few. (Even these days, even cops hardly ever draw their sidearms in the line of duty.) No significant fraction lives by hunting. But the friction is some immeasurable amount greater - in suburban and urban settings you can hardly fart in your own back yard without irritating someone. Violence is common and off the scale. Gun violence alone is at insane levels, almost always because of petty frictions or arguments that got out of hand, or in the hands of petty criminals.

So yes, the laws have tightened on guns - very little, net, on outright ownership; you have to be a proven felon or certified nutcase to be denied in most jurisdictions. Yes, on the types of weapons; the need for high-rate or large-bore weapons in private hands is almost indefensible. Yes, on where guns can be carried; there are few restrictions on 'own home and business' where it's reasonable, many on carrying open or concealed in public places - see 'friction' above. I think it's perfectly rational to have very close control of firearms in 'human ammo dumps' like NYC, Chicago, DC, Miami etc.

As much as the NRA and others want to claim they've been completely nutted by gun laws, I just don't see it. What I see is a faction demanding an unreasonable privilege (public carry) in a world that has no reason to grant it; demanding it on nearly theological/theoretical grounds and almost none that make logical sense. I won't say our gun laws are perfect, in either direction, but overall they are, like other laws regarding Constitutional rights, a continuing attempt to balance narrowly stated and virtually undefined 'rights' against reason and need. The NRA's arguments tend to be sweeping - Brooklyn and Flyspeck, Oklahoma should have the same minimal permit laws, if any such laws are needed at all. It's nonsense on the face of it, like saying all roads should have a 65 MPH speed limit.

I believe that the right to own firearms and similar weapons is absolute - not just under the Constitution but as a core human right to individual safety and security. I also believe that right needs to be defined and tempered in a reflection of reality, by limiting the level and capacity of those weapons in individual hands, and where and how they can be borne. I think it is in no way unreasonable to restrict carry to individuals who have proven ability to apply the judgment of when and how to use them. None of these moderating guidelines diminishes the basic right, not in 2012.

I want to take a whole post here to acknowledge Bill for being a beacon of restraint and decorum for the opposing view here. Thanks, Bill, for coming back over and over despite the multiple antagonists arrayed against you. If only the national conversation could be as polite.

I am glad I started a interesting dicussion thread, that was my reason to join up. In another section I wish the aliens among us would give up their "MASQUARADE" in order to bring order to our species. I do beleive the jump in intellect from the lower primates to the higher ones Orangutangs and chimps no where approachs the jump the higher ones to homo sapiens. This is either due to a spiritual addition " a soul" or as I contemplate interference fom some out side agency. Excuse my improper cosmological term, but I feel it is a accepted "SCIENTIFIC " fact that galaxies and solarsystem cool from the outside in. Another fact I accept is we are pretty far out from the center of the MILKY WAY. Past the boondocks well into aboriginal or even lesser territory. Using "OCCUMS RAZOR" isn't a fair asumption that we are NOT THE BIG DOG. When I see the mess we seem to get ourselves into, I have to shake my head and say " Where the hell are these awful childrens parents---".
RAH was one of the GREATEST VISIONARIES I know of. He projected and wished for a much better species than we have become.
I wish the human race could live up to his hopes. If it takes my idiotic assumptions to happen, so mote it be.

i think RAH would've proposed a species wide rebellion against any alien trifling in the affairs of man- i'd enlist in that insurrection humanity is no one's lab rat

So was Heinlein against undocumented aliens?

Yeah but I won't live to see it. Case Sera Sera.

I happen to be in the middle of a book that covers in part some early history.

Triumvirate by Bruce Chadwick, which is about the writing of "The Federalist Papers" and the adopting of the Constitution.

I am not ignorate of US history but I am amazed just how pro-gun the Founding Fathers were. Thomas Jefferson had a personal armory full of guns and advocated boys at the age of 10 should be given guns.

Personally I was taught to shoot by my father at a young age and was also taught resepect for guns as well. I no longer own any guns because I don't hunt anymore and I have doubts that having a pistol in my home would be any real protection.

All that said I think the policies of the NRA need to be seriously looked at.
It is much to easy in this country to buy weapons, and buy weapons that have no use other than to kill people.

We need serious national gun control. There should be licensing and passing
of classes before legal gun ownership is allowed. Yes I know people will get around the law and criminals will get weapons, but would that lunatic in Aurora, Co killed all those people if he hadn't gotten weapons. And no one
will ever convince me that any civilian needs an "Uzi- type" weapon.

Finally yes I know a future authoritarian government could pull the files and conviscate all the guns, but if your not smart enough to read the signs and
hide your guns, your too stupid to own a gun.

Gracefully stepping off my soap-box to avoid the tomatos and bricks.

You just described my own position more succinctly and earthily than I could have. Nicely done.

Can't resist:

Does anybody read my other postings ? Of course CIVILIANS need millitary weapons. How are we going to defend ourselves against the aliens I'm expecting to come out of hiding in the near future and take over this MESSED UP human race. This HEINLEIN UBERMASTER human race will rise to the occasion and fight these nasty beings who have the audacity to think they are better than us! Homo Sapien the highest and best race in the universe. Isn't that what our aborigines thought until we showed up not too long ago in their part of the jungle?
Or should I say GALAXY!

if i've learned anything from reading RAH, it is that humanity will persevere and triumph-in a set piece war versus an advanced alien technology humanity would lose- while we may lose an initial war, unless totally obliterated, we would prevail - why? because these invaders would lose a war of attrition- mankind will not be mastered

The real tragedy is Human beings can't concieve how dumb we really are. We are proud to Lord our mastery of the universe. But if we are so smart how come we cannot even wrap our mind around the simplest concept in the MATHMATICAL progression-----infinity!!!!
We play games with Shroedinger's Cat and cute inventive names for particles we have no idea what the hell they really are. Remember Plato said if horses had GODs they would be horses. A limited finite mind is only so capable. Regardless if it's Hawking or a minimally functional special needs child. We are a race of YAHOOs which is why we have so many noble failures. Oh yeah, we did walk on the moon and send robots to Venus and Mars. How much more than LEGO's is that in the true observation. I've said before I say it again Homo Sapenians are a kindergarten class without supervision or training. RAH had the vision to see past what we are and offer templates or thoughts that might help us get a leg up. But we know it's just Science Fiction BS. I make my presentation to this group because at least youse guys have gazed apon the holy words of what just might be true. I may be Paranoid but if I dissappear remember I tried to tell you.

Peyote. It's not just for breakfast any more.

that from a twilight zone script wasn't it ?

thanks for verification and additional info jeep- haven't read the knight story- the twilight zone episode from 50 years ago did come to mind- "to serve man" was a "twist" at the end of a story which was twilight zone's trademark !