Pitcairn islanders feel downside of firearm licensing, registration

PITCAIRN Islanders have been ordered to hand their guns to British authorities amid fears a six-week sex trial on the island could lead to violence, officials said today....

...Pitcairn Deputy Governor Matthew Forbes, who is based in the New Zealand capital, Wellington, said the island's governor, British High Commissioner to New Zealand Richard Fell, had ordered residents to surrender their firearms, which they use for hunting and shooting coconuts out of trees.

If people do not hand in their guns, authorities will legislate to suspend all firearm licences on the island and guns would be taken from residents, he said.

(Herb Ford, head of the California-based Pitcairn Islands Study Centre) said islanders regularly used guns to hunt wild goats for meat, shoot breadfruit and coconuts from tall trees and occasionally to shoot sharks.... (underlining added for emphasis)

For full copyrighted article please see http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10410277%255E1702,00.htm

Hmmmmmm. I suppose if the island's 47 residents were sufficiently upset about their authorities reneging wholesale on their firearms licenses they could vote the rascals out at the next election, but I'd wager that holding office on Pitcairn is seen more of a necessary inconvenience than a career.

This is why I oppose registration of firearms and licensing of gun owners. The potential always exists for a government to suddenly decide it's in everyone's best interests to go back on its word and revoke all licenses. At best that erodes confidence in the institution.

never know when some imbecile might start shooting at goats and cocoanuts....

Seven Pitcairn Island men face 96 charges over allegations of sexual abuse.

Here's a little fact:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pitcairn.html

Today about 50 people live on Pitcairn.
All but a handful—a pastor, the
schoolteacher, and others—are direct
descendants of the mutineers.

For seven out of that small number to be charged with more instances of sexual abuse than there are people -- that's evidence of a pretty big problem.

It's the kind of problem that is not unfamiliar in the Canadian north, where women and children in First Nations communities bedevilled by alcoholism and poverty are all too frequently victimized in this way. The victimizers are themselves usually victims, of family and cultural breakdown at the least, and often of physical and sexual abuse, themselves.

The problem commonly causes serious division within small communities. When the justice system of the larger society -- perceived as the justice system of the majority culture -- attempts to deal with it, factions often emerge, pitting those who want "justice" for the victims against those who think that no justice will come of outsiders punishing people who are themselves victims, at least in part of the actions of outsiders in the first place, and that reconciliation is the only solution.

Of course, there are also just plain old rivalries and loyalties within such communities, as anywhere else. People tend to side with people who are already on their side, and to have extreme animosity toward either the individuals who claim to be victims, and their "side", or the individuals who are accused of crimes, and their "side".

I suspect that a similar dynamic exists on Pitcairn Island.

The islanders support themselves by producing postage stamps and making handicrafts, which they sell primarily to visitors on passing ships. Their meager revenue does not cover the enormous costs incurred in keeping the remote island running—electricity, among other things, is exhorbitant and cargo costs several thousand dollars per ton to transport. Great Britain has until now subsidized the island, but it is uncertain whether it will continue to underwrite the expenses of its tiny but costly colony.

Yup, sounds a whole lot like a lot of First Nations communities across Canada. And, I would think, like a fair number of Native American communities in the US.

So let's see what we can find out.

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1150582.htm

The first sign to the world that there could be something amiss on the island came in 1999, when a British policewoman returned from the island with two complaints of sexual abuse.

Since then, a joint British and New Zealand investigation has laid 96 charges – some of child rape – against seven men on the island. Extradition proceedings have also begun against another six men no longer living on the island.

And yes indeed; the criminal justice process itself is a subject of dispute:

HERB FORD: We're talking about the concept called restorative justice – which has been tried in Canada and some of the Pacific Islands – and this is an informal type of situation in which all of the people that are involved in any given situation come together, sit down together, and the victims tell exactly what they have had happen to them, and what they believe should happen to the one they're accusing.

... HERB FORD: Well, I'm not saying they fear very much from it <the court processs>, I'm just saying that the outcome of it is probably going to cause so much widening of factions that are already on the island – there are three <or> four different groups of people going in three or four different ways – that it's going to be such a psychologically traumatic thing that I think that emigration is going to take place away from Pitcairn, rather quickly on.

Damn, I'm good.

There's another interesting aspect to it all. The accused are challenging the justice system's jurisdiction on the basis of sovereignty:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1158944.htm

ELEANOR HALL: This week, a court sitting in New Zealand is expected to decide whether commandeering a British navy ship, sailing it to a remote deserted island and then sinking it amounts to a declaration of independence.

The Court of Appeal of the remote Pitcairn Island, a British Pacific territory about half way between Australia and South America, is being asked to decide whether seven islanders should face trial under British law.

The men are facing 96 sex charges, some of which date back to the 1960s, and the public defenders acting for the men say that because the island was settled by the mutineers of the Bounty 214 years ago, Britain's laws don't extend to the island.

But observers of international law say the court is unlikely to accept that an act of mutiny is enough to elude the long arm of British law, ... .

The question of what constitutes an effective act of sovereignty is a relatively novel one in international law, and one that was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Secession of Quebec, for which I had the good fortune to read a lot of the research.

So all in all, there are a number of "justice" issues raised by this situation that are very much worth discussing. Me, I just think that the temporary forfeiture of firearms is the least of them.

And I see very little that is unreasonable about removing firearms from casual circulation in a situation as obviously over-heated in so many ways -- divisions within the community based on loyalties and philosophies, opposition to the authority that is being exercised and represented by the various outsiders involved in the court's process -- to avoid an outcome that it is not unreasonable to fear, and that is just a whole lot more tragic than somebody not having access to his/her firearms for a couple of weeks.

You finally understand the RKBA concerns. ;)

Permit me to use your argument...since it pertains to just about every election cycle, especially this one!

From the "constitutional control" committee:

"...I see very little that is unreasonable about removing firearms from casual circulation in a situation as obviously over-heated in so many ways -- divisions within the community based on loyalties and philosophies, opposition to the authority that is being exercised and represented by the various outsiders involved in the court's process -- to avoid an outcome that it is not unreasonable to fear, and that is just a whole lot more tragic than somebody not having access to his/her firearms for a couple of weeks."

Sounds like that could come from the VPC or HCI. Maybe already has, in not so many words. All you need now is some equally misguided politician to pick up the ball and run with it.

are that they or someone they're related to is going to be nabbed in a sex abuse case, and they won't be able to shoot hteir way out of custody?

"From the 'constitutional control' committee:"

What are you talking about?

Do you know what "constitutional control" means? Can you explain what relevance it has to your contexts?

that every court case has ruled that gun control is constitutional, contradicting the lies he's been fed....

dontchya think?

I dont know what else to call it, since its not about guns. Perhaps you have some ideas. I am, as always, open to suggestion and correction.

I thought it was such a simple question ... and I have just no clue how your "answer" even relates to it.

Maybe you can just do that?

What does "constitutional control" mean?

And what relevance does it have in your context?

I guess I use crayons for this one then.

What "else" would you call a group whose sole purpose is limiting the rights granted by the US constitution? Ashcroft Inc is already taken. So, I thought constitutional controllers would be succinct, appropriate, and fairly easy to understand.

Yup...it's called the RKBA movement...


"I thought constitutional controllers would be succinct, appropriate, and fairly easy to understand."
And you were wrong. Not to mention silly.

Not to the actually educated, I'm afraid.

"Constitutional control" refers to the process of review or supervision of the acts of governments, based on the rules laid down in constitutions. Ask google if you don't believe me. It's usually a function of the superior courts, or a particular court.

It's actually not a common phrase in English, since the word "control" in the phrase is used in its less common sense, i.e. review or supervision -- a means of verifying, not a means of restraining. You won't even find that meaning in many ordinary dictionaries. It's a bit of a calque on (copy of) the French, really -- the primary meaning of contrôler *is* to supervise or check. "Judicial review" is contrôle judiciaire in French; contrôle constitutionnel would, in good English, be "constitutional review". Nonetheless, "constitutional control" really is a phrase with an actual meaning, a meaning that I happen to know.

And it doesn't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with your "constitutional control committee". An actual "constitutional control committee" might reasonably be a committee that reviews proposed legislation to verify compliance with constitutional requirements, for example. And that really is the only thing that *I* could think of when I tried to decipher your, um, words. And it really isn't my fault that you chose to use a phrase with an actual meaning to mean something entirely different that it simply is not used by anyone else to mean.


What "else" would you call a group whose sole purpose is limiting the rights granted by the US constitution?

A "constitutional controller" is someone who wants to "<limit> the rights granted by the US constitution", I gather.

Well, first off, that ain't me, since I don't want to do nuttin about nuttin in the US constitution. Nothing to do with me. And I can't think of anybody else it has anything to do with either, except, indeed, your Ashcroft Inc. and its fellow travellers.

But apart from that, you might want to learn some basic rules about things like the formation of adjectives and noun phrases.

You seem to want to be saying something along the lines of "constitutional-rights limiters". Or "constitution derogators". Feel free to borrow.

Forgot I was dealing with educated people ;)

I thank you for the lesson in semantics and the disappointing grammar correction :eyes:

Nevertheless, Ive heard your (grammatically correct, albeit tedious) suggestion and prefer to stick with "constitutional controllers". If, that is ok with you?

Allow me if you will, to comment:

"A "constitutional controller" is someone who wants to "<limit> the rights granted by the US constitution", I gather.

Well, first off, that ain't me, since I don't want to do nuttin about nuttin in the US constitution. Nothing to do with me. And I can't think of anybody else it has anything to do with either, except, indeed, your Ashcroft Inc. and its fellow travellers."

Hmmm, I guess all this talk about gun control has NOTHING to do with the constitution?

"I guess all this talk about gun control has NOTHING to do with the constitution?"
Not a fucking thing. Gun control is constitutional, since the Second Amendment confers only a collective right...as the courts have ruled again and again and again and again and again.

Where is the stupidfaceiconthingy I need so often for "wide-eyed surprise"??

Hmmm, I guess all this talk about gun control has NOTHING to do with the constitution?

I don't recall saying anything that sounded like, or could reasonably and honestly have been interpreted as, "gun control has NOTHING to do with the constitution". I just don't. Can you copy and paste for me? (Or will you run away from your words as usual?)

I said that I do not want to do anything about anything in the US Constitution. I said that the US Constitution is nothing to do with me.

And then, yes, I seem to have got very sloppy, and said "And I can't think of anybody else it has anything to do with either, except, indeed, your Ashcroft Inc. and its fellow travellers", switching referents in midstream. As best I can tell, the "it" in that sentence referred to your question itself: "What 'else' would you call a group whose sole purpose is limiting the rights granted by the US constitution?"

In other words, what I saw was an allegation by you, in phoney loaded question form, that was false for a variety of reasons. And that's what I'm still seeing. Compounded, now, by another allegation in the form of an insinuation made in a phoney question, that I said something completely moronic that I never said.

Of course firearms control has to do with the constitution - pretty much any constitution - and of course talk about firearms control has to do with the constitution. Just as trouser control would have to do with the constitution, and pizza control would have to do with the constitution. Duh.

(tee hee. That was for you, you know who.)

I know this has to be rough but you did open that can of worms..

"A "constitutional controller" is someone who wants to "<limit> the rights granted by the US constitution", I gather.

Well, first off, that ain't me, since I don't want to do nuttin about nuttin in the US constitution."

Oh, so limiting gun rights is NOT your agenda? Is that why you spend so much time arguing FOR further gun control?

"I don't recall saying anything that sounded like, or could reasonably and honestly have been interpreted as, "gun control has NOTHING to do with the constitution"."

Ok, so we agree, finally... the time you spend down here debating gun control DOES amount to constitutional control.

thank you for clearing that up

But your problem can't be helped by me.

Oh, so limiting gun rights is NOT your agenda? Is that why you spend so much time arguing FOR further gun control?

What has that question got to do with my statement:

Well, first off, that ain't me, since I don't want to do nuttin about nuttin in the US constitution.

?

How can I have an agenda for something I can't do?? I don't vote in your bleeding country; how can I have an agenda for what legislation should be enacted in it? how can I have an agenda for anything to do with your constitution? What kind of idiot would I have to be to even considering having such an agenda??

I have opinions about your constitution and your laws, in this as in many other areas. You don't like my opinions. That's very tough, although I can't think why you care. But your dislike of my opinions doesn't make them an "agenda".

Ok, so we agree, finally... the time you spend down here debating gun control DOES amount to constitutional control.

Wouldn't you find it refreshing to tell the truth about something once in a while?

I do hope that our friend is getting some good jollies out of your performance.

"How can I have an agenda for something I can't do?? I don't vote in your bleeding country; how can I have an agenda for what legislation should be enacted in it? how can I have an agenda for anything to do with your constitution? What kind of idiot would I have to be to even considering having such an agenda??

I have opinions about your constitution and your laws, in this as in many other areas. You don't like my opinions. That's very tough, although I can't think why you care. But your dislike of my opinions doesn't make them an "agenda".}

Semantics again?! Ok, so gun control is not your agenda, and you "don't want to do nuttin about nuttin in the US constitution". Ok, if you say so. Silly question.... what DO you want? Why DO you spend so much time here. Perhaps you will characterize your time down here as nothing but a "hobby" or casual "interest"? LOL, please. Im quite sure this works elsewhere but aint happenin here.

Your goal is to persuade people to encourage and vote for further gun control legislation. Yes, I too am able to "tease" meaning out of statements, despite your objections and side stepping.

"Wouldn't you find it refreshing to tell the truth about something once in a while?"

Hey, you stole MY question!

"I do hope that our friend is getting some good jollies out of your performance."

Who is our friend? More importantly, is s/he dissapointed with your performance. I expect so.

you should expect that it will make more sense to you than to anybody else. You can call things (or people) all the names you want. It doesn't even put a dent in reality.

Its just not sinking in. I guess Im slow.

Im not sure I was trying to "put a dent in reality", but maybe I dont understand that statement either. Ive learned not to make assumptions about anything submitted by the "constitutional control" crowd so, please elaborate.

So many fine expressions that the USAmerican youth of today don't know.

At least, I think that's your implied question: "what does 'make things up out of whole cloth' mean?" You correct me if I'm wrong, now.

Meanwhile, operating on the wholly indefensible assumption that you did not know the meaning of the expression, I'll help you out. And you should not feel ashamed. About 30 years ago, a superior of mine took issue with my use of the phrase, thinking that I had improperly modeled it on the French inventer de toutes pièces, and in fact made up "made up out of whole cloth" out of whole cloth. Hahaha. And he was older than I, and a Brit to boot, so he shoulda known.

So ... has that use of the phrase in context helped you out?

Basically, it just means "make up", with a bit of emphasis to stress how just completely made up the made-up thing is.

Now, as a pre-emptive measure, in case I or one of our Brit colleagues should say "gobsmacked" in future -- and in case you might want to say it yourself, once you get to know it -- it means (and hey, a USAmerican source, just for you):

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/gobsmacked

utterly astounded

Literally, smacked (struck) in the gob (mouth). We need a gobsmacked stupidfaceiconthingy, I say.


Im not sure I was trying to "put a dent in reality", but maybe I dont understand that statement either. Ive learned not to make assumptions about anything submitted by the "constitutional control" crowd so, please elaborate.

How 'bout this, short and sweet.

"Your saying it doesn't make it so."

I have indeed learned something new today. Now I just need to find a place to use it... Hmmm, I wonder where I could...

;)

was "Gee, 15% of the population is facing charges of sexual abuse? Better disarm the other 85%."

"With Joan Vollmer, his common law wife, Burroughs moved to Texas, where he grew cotton and marijuana crops. To avoid legal problems, they moved to Mexico City. In September 1951 Burroughs killed Vollmer accidentally. They were partying in a room above a bar when he announced the assembled company he would perform shooting in the Wilhelm Tell style. Vollmer placed a glass on top of her head, and Burroughs shot at it with the gun he carried - missing tragically and Vollmer fell dead. Burroughs was never tried for the accident."

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/wbburrou.htm

"Burroughs always loved guns. Unfortunately for his wife Joan, it cost her her life. During a drunken game of William Tell, which they had never played, a drunken Burroughs placed a highball glass on her head which he was to shoot off and accidentally killed her in Mexico City in 1951. "

http://www.lucaspickford.com/burrjoan.htm

The first thing that popped into my head was "Gee, 15% of the population is facing charges of sexual abuse? Better disarm the other 85%.

... that this is because

(a) you didn't bother investigating the reasons why the firearms were required to be temporarily forfeited (even though I offered a wealth of information on that point), and so you actually think (as you seem to be saying you think) that the reasons had something to do with the fact that someone had allegedly committed sexual abuse offences; or

(b) you are pretending that you think that the reason why the firearms were required to be temporarily forfeited was because someone had allegedly committed sexual abuse offences.

Of course, whether you think it or are merely claiming to think it (and maybe you are doing neither, who knows?), it is false.

The reasons why the firearms were required to be temporarily forfeited had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that anyone had allegedly committed sexual abuse offences.

It had to do with the high levels of hostility toward the authority that was putting the accused individuals on trial for the offences committed in the past, and the perceived risk that someone on the island would act on that hostility by shooting one of the outsiders present on the island, representing that authority, for the trial.

The material I quoted did not go into details, but it did report what I expected to see: extreme hostility, also, within the resident community, between factions on different sides of the various issues. Again, in the specific situation, perceived as creating a high risk of someone getting shot by someone with opposing opinions.

So c'mon. It's your turn to say "just because somebody might have committed a crime, that doesn't mean that everybody else's guns can be taken away". It will just be unfortunate that you couldn't find a thread to say it in where it might have been relevant.

'Cause you know what the thing that's causing you such distress really is, of course.

It's a
great
big
old


http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html

Yup, that's what it is, and that's all it is.

Nobody is requiring that firearms be temporarily forfeited *BECAUSE* "15% of the population is facing charges of sexual abuse". Nobody at all.

Just as nobody is requiring that firearms be temporarily forfeited *because* the sky is blue, or the earth is spheroid, or butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

but I didn't claim that the firearms were being confiscated because 15% of the population was facing charges of sexual abuse. If I had, you'd have been able to put the quote before the because instead of after. Thanks for playing though.

Nobody is requiring that firearms be temporarily forfeited *BECAUSE* "15% of the population is facing charges of sexual abuse". Nobody at all.

to derive meaning from the things you say, and yet it seems I continue to fail.

Maybe you'd like to explain what this "thing that popped into your head" was, in some more comprehensible form.

If you didn't claim that the firearms were being confiscated because 15% of the population was facing charges of sexual abuse, I'm just damned if I have any idea what you did say.

I suppose you really might have been saying the equivalent of "Gee, 15% of the population believes that the earth is flat? Better disarm the other 85%" -- i.e. expressing two completely unrelated thoughts for no reason at all.

If I had, you'd have been able to put the quote before the because instead of after.
Except that, damn, it just *still* looks like you were stating your belief, or purported belief, that there was a causal link between the two things. Premise, conclusion. And that's precisely the way I framed them -- in "x because y" form, the conclusion precedes the premise, but the meaning undergoes no change at all from "y therefore x", the form in which you presented your thought. See?

Perhaps this is an object lesson in not typing the first thing that pops into one's head.

that what I said had nothing at all to do with the reasons for disarming the island. It was more of a "Hey look there's a bunch of predators on the island we better take everyone else's guns" sort of thing."

You just go on thinking whatever you like. Maybe you can post some more entertaining pictures in your next response. I still like the "I'm a dumbfuck!" one the best, though.

(a) you didn't bother investigating the reasons why the firearms were required to be temporarily forfeited (even though I offered a wealth of information on that point), and so you actually think (as you seem to be saying you think) that the reasons had something to do with the fact that someone had allegedly committed sexual abuse offences;

-- or, more generally, considering any actual facts at all -- and you just made stuff up in your head and then said the first thing that came into it. Because if you'd read what was readily available to you ... like, in my post in what was then this very short thread ... you'd have seen this (emphasis added):

The men are facing 96 sex charges, some of which date back to the 1960s ...

Since then, a joint British and New Zealand investigation has laid 96 charges – some of child rape ...

and known that there were really, quite simply, no "bunch of predators" on the island at all that anybody needs to give a thought to at the moment. There may well have been, and be, a bunch of predators there, but they're going on trial and somehow I just don't think they're presenting much of a danger to anybody while the trial's on.

That makes so much sense. Grab your guns, the people who have been preying on women and children for 40 years have been apprehended and charged and are going on trial. Eek!

If their firearms haven't protected them to date (and dog knows how a 3-year-old, the youngest of the alleged victims, would have used a firearm to protect herself anyway), when the sexual predators in question were actually undetected and at large -- and when, if the usual pattern holds, other people knew exactly what was going on -- ... well, I'm just not seeing what they need 'em for, in that connection, for the six weeks of trial. (Mea culpa, I said two weeks, earlier.)

Of course, in a population of 47, six of whom are facing the charges, there are plainly a lot more undetected sexual predators on the loose that people need to arm themselves against while a couple of dozen justice system officials and cops are on the island ( hey, maybe they're would-be sexual predators, or robbers, or murderers, too) even though they were armed against the now-known ones for the last 40 years while the offences were taking place and they took place anyway. Sheesh.

I'll be wondering how firearms protect children against sexual abuse, along with all the other things I have about which to wonder.

I'm disappointed. As I said, my post clearly had nothing to do with the reasons behind the gun confiscation, but that hardly means I don't understand why they're confiscating guns. I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with this.

"YOU" offered a wealth of information, ergo, we should take it as Dog's word! Hmmmm....

So, from false dichotomy, to straw man, to ad verecundiam. Wow, keep going, this may just warrant a merit badge!

"-- or, more generally, considering any actual facts at all -- and you just made stuff up in your head and then said the first thing that came into it. Because if you'd read what was readily available to you ... like, in my post in what was then this very short thread ... you'd have seen this (emphasis added):"

Source check.... anyone, anyone?

"That makes so much sense. Grab your guns, the people who have been preying on women and children for 40 years have been apprehended and charged and are going on trial. Eek!

If their firearms haven't protected them to date (and dog knows how a 3-year-old, the youngest of the alleged victims, would have used a firearm to protect herself anyway), when the sexual predators in question were actually undetected and at large -- and when, if the usual pattern holds, other people knew exactly what was going on -- ... well, I'm just not seeing what they need 'em for, in that connection, for the six weeks of trial. (Mea culpa, I said two weeks, earlier.)"

Alas, another straw man :)

Someone's been taking my advice and learning some logic. ... Well, unfortunately, that's not quite what seems to have happened ...

So, from false dichotomy, to straw man, to ad verecundiam. Wow, keep going, this may just warrant a merit badge!

I refuted the allegation of false dichotomy already -- but what the hell, why not just pretend I didn't?

I don't recall your invoking strawperson argument, so we'll move along to "I'm right because I say so". You evidently are asserting that when I said I had "offered a wealth of information" I was saying that I was right because I said so. Anybody else think that was what I was saying, class?

"YOU" offered a wealth of information ...

The problem for you is that the information I offered came from third parties -- several of them. So was I saying "I'm right because these third parties said what I said?" Class?

If I was not appealing to myself, the misleading authority in question, was I appealing to something/someone else who/which was also not an authority?

I offered information from sources that really, I mean really, appear rather authoritative. They are mutually confirming, and there just isn't any apparent reason to even suspect that they are telling falsehoods. And really, what they are "authority" for is plain, simple, verifiable fact.

... ergo, we should take it as Dog's word!

Did moi say, or even imply, or even hint, that anyone should do that *because* I offered it? (You see, here again we have the because/therefore inversion that I hope will not confuse you too: you said 'YOU' offered it, ergo <'therefore'>, we should take it as Dog's word!, and I inverted it to "we should take it as Dog's word *because* I offered it". Same diff. You see?)

I didn't suggest that anyone should believe something simply because someone else (an Australian media outlet?) believes, or says, it. Really, I didn't. I do hope you understand this. It would make me happy to see some light dawn.

So me, I'm not seeing anything remotely resembling argument ad verecundiam. Bzz again. Now it's time for you to pretend that this assertion of yours has not been refuted.

Alas, another straw man

Oh, here we are. The strawperson allegation. And I am left to guess at this too, because all it consists of is passages quoted from my writing followed by the bald allegation. (That would be the fallacy of "proof by blatant assertion", I'm sure you know.)

Apparently I am guilty of misrepresenting FeebMaster's argument. You have evidently mistaken a genuine attempt to tease meaning out of cryptic pronouncements -- one might even be forgiven for thinking "intentionally cryptic" pronouncements -- for an attempt to misrepresent those pronouncements. And yet, I begged and pleaded for clarification, repeatedly, and still to no avail.

Some people think that the purpose of saying things is to convey a message to others that they will understand. Some people evidently do not think that. I have no idea why the latter group bothers saying anything at all, ever, let alone why they, of their own volition of course, choose to say them to me, as was the case here. Nonetheless, when they do, I feel duty-bound to make my best efforts to figure out what they're on about. I seem to have failed. I am afraid, however, that I do not accept blame for my failure.


Source check.... anyone, anyone?

And now what might this be? -- immediately following as it does a quotation of my own quotation of two passages that were initially quoted in my first post in the thread.

An allegation that I had not quoted the passages earlier?

An allegation that the sources I cited for my quotations were phoney? That is, an allegation that I have not told the truth?

Or just a boneheaded failure to follow the trail of breadcrumbs?

I'm sure there's some other reasonable explanation of what that is, and I rule no possibility out, however bizarre it might be. I merely make guesses with the limited resources available to me, and offer the three possibilities that occur to me. No false trichotomy there, chum. Better luck next time.


html fixed on edit

Taking "your" advice LOL. Your hat must be tight with a head THAT big!

"I refuted the allegation of false dichotomy already -- but what the hell, why not just pretend I didn't?"

Refuting how, where?

"I don't recall your invoking strawperson argument, so we'll move along to "I'm right because I say so". You evidently are asserting that when I said I had "offered a wealth of information" I was saying that I was right because I said so. Anybody else think that was what I was saying, class?"


If you cant, or wont admit, to seeing the strawman, Im disappointed. In your usual over-worded yet never concrete way, you asserted that another poster was claiming the reason they took the guns was "because" of the criminal activity of the 15%. You proceeded with a false dichotomy in response to his post, threw in a red herring there via verecundiam, then made conclusions based on that. Voila! Your straw man is born. Just because you cited some facts and made your own conclusions based on them, doesnt mean we need to believe it. And it certainly doesnt mean we need to disregard every other factor involved.


"The problem for you is that the information I offered came from third parties -- several of them. So was I saying "I'm right because these third parties said what I said?" Class?

If I was not appealing to myself, the misleading authority in question, was I appealing to something/someone else who/which was also not an authority?

I offered information from sources that really, I mean really, appear rather authoritative. They are mutually confirming, and there just isn't any apparent reason to even suspect that they are telling falsehoods. And really, what they are "authority" for is plain, simple, verifiable fact."


You made assumptions, analogies, and conclusions based on sparse info. Im sure you believe yourself to be "the" determinant source in such matters but, allow us if you will, to cut through the crap!

"Did moi say, or even imply, or even hint, that anyone should do that *because* I offered it? (You see, here again we have the because/therefore inversion that I hope will not confuse you too: you said 'YOU' offered it, ergo <'therefore'>, we should take it as Dog's word!, and I inverted it to "we should take it as Dog's word *because* I offered it". Same diff. You see?)


Well of course not, you would never do that, wouldya? But, dont be afraid to make conclusions based on a few articles and then make assumptions based on those conclusions and then deny citing yourself as a source of those conclusions! See how that works gang? As long as you keep sticking and moving, you'll never get pinned down in an obvious attempt at claiming yourself a source!

"Oh, here we are. The strawperson allegation. And I am left to guess at this too, because all it consists of is passages quoted from my writing followed by the bald allegation. (That would be the fallacy of "proof by blatant assertion", I'm sure you know.)

Apparently I am guilty of misrepresenting FeebMaster's argument. You have evidently mistaken a genuine attempt to tease meaning out of cryptic pronouncements -- one might even be forgiven for thinking "intentionally cryptic" pronouncements -- for an attempt to misrepresent those pronouncements. And yet, I begged and pleaded for clarification, repeatedly, and still to no avail."


Tease meaning... thats a funny way to put it! If you need to beg and plead to understand what was being said, you are either playing dumb or are in need of a new monitor.


"And now what might this be? -- immediately following as it does a quotation of my own quotation of two passages that were initially quoted in my first post in the thread.

An allegation that I had not quoted the passages earlier?

An allegation that the sources I cited for my quotations were phoney? That is, an allegation that I have not told the truth?

Or just a boneheaded failure to follow the trail of breadcrumbs?

I'm sure there's some other reasonable explanation of what that is, and I rule no possibility out, however bizarre it might be. I merely make guesses with the limited resources available to me, and offer the three possibilities that occur to me. No false trichotomy there, chum. Better luck next time."


Oh, ok. So you really DONT understand that WE dont regard you as a source. Im sure someone does here but, his credibility is on par with asscroft. I guess the breadcrumbs I left for you were a little sparse. I wont make that mistake again.

"Gee, 15% of the population is facing charges of sexual abuse? Better disarm the other 85%."
"I didn't claim that the firearms were being confiscated because 15% of the population was facing charges of sexual abuse."

Masters of literacy. I still wonder why none of them bother to read any of the gun laws they love so much.

And I'm apparently supposed to be the incoherent one in this thread.

Be sure and ask again why no-one listens to you....

I know why the gun grabbers don't.

I haven't initiated any communications with them, nor do I plan to. Why would I?

I thought everyone heard from Pitcarin on a regular basis, courtesy of the Corked Bottle Manufacturers Association.

To those of you who don't listen to Feeb: PPPHHHBBBTTTTTTT

that the gun grabbers ignore what I have to say. After all, I've repeatedly told them how to get guns banned in the United States.

and you might get an idea of how the rest of us feel...

love it!

false dichotomy again?

I keep forgetting ;)

I wonder whether it might have nothing to do with a statement like

Of course, whether you think it or are merely claiming to think it
(and maybe you are doing neither, who knows?), it is false.

?

Yes, I do believe it might have nothing to do with a statement like that.

Remind me. What colour is orange: true or false?

so it was a straw man. Ok.

You throw out a false dichotomy to dispute a "purported" straw man, then back up that dichotomy with your own straw man. Great job!

Sorry but you made the false dichotomy then went on to assert causality. You make your bed, you gotta sleep in it. May I quote?:

"The material I quoted did not go into details, but it did report what I expected to see: extreme hostility, also, within the resident community, between factions on different sides of the various issues. Again, in the specific situation, perceived as creating a high risk of someone getting shot by someone with opposing opinions."

and prior to that:

"The reasons why the firearms were required to be temporarily forfeited had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that anyone had allegedly committed sexual abuse offences.

It had to do with the high levels of hostility toward the authority that was putting the accused individuals on trial for the offences committed in the past, and the perceived risk that someone on the island would act on that hostility by shooting one of the outsiders present on the island, representing that authority, for the trial."

Sounds like you covered yourself fairly well on both sides. But, I can read :) Straw is flying and heads are spinning.

An island colony with a tiny population, that subsists in large part by hunting wild goats and gathering coconuts, in which a trial creates potential for riot and feuding that could easily engulf that entire population. Note that this is a crown colony, not America and not even a sovereign nation. Note that the economy is neither industrial nor urban.

Now in such a situation, the authorities feel that a temporary revocation of gun licenses is preferable to the bloodbath they expect otherwise. Obviously, none of us is privy to all of the facts of the matter, although iverglas did an excellent job of filling in some of the gaps. I'm not prepared either to support or condemn the authorities who made this decision. We just don't know enough about the situation. But if it is really true that there would have been a bloodbath, how do we justify multiple killings to avoid inconvenience?

And what, if anything, does all this have to do with gun controls in places that are not on a subsistence hunt-and-gather economy and have more than 50 inhabitants?

the swell quote from the guy who plugged his wife while drunk about how awful it is that anyone be deprived of these dangerous playthings....

Youve taken another poster's assertions at face value. That might be a problem, just mabye :eyes:

Based on that intake of bias-laden information, you then conclude that the gaps were filled in by that poster and proceed to ask "how do we justify multiple killings to avoid inconvenience?" because of that poster's assertions. Well now, that is some kind of manufactured argument, aint it?

This one plagues me though....

"An island colony with a tiny population, that subsists in large part by hunting wild goats and gathering coconuts.... " "And what, if anything, does all this have to do with gun controls in places that are not on a subsistence hunt-and-gather economy and have more than 50 inhabitants?"

So, is it a hunter gatherer lifestyle or not? Oh yes, you said "economy". Therefore, as long as they are not financially dependent on hunting, they dont need their weapons. Food be damned!

Ask again why this MIGHT be an issue beyond self defense?

and substantiate them.

Youve taken another poster's assertions at face value.

Actually, what I took from what library_max wrote was that he had read the information I reproduced from knowledgeable, reputable sources, which information was cross-confirmed by several sources. I can't even begin to imagine what's *not* to be taken at face value in that information. Why don't you step up and make yourself plain, here?

The information I presented was NOT my "assertions". I probably did make some assertions of my own in that post, but I really just don't think that they were what library_max was referring to when he referred to my having filled in gaps. The gaps I filled in were gaps in information. The information I presented was NOT my "assertions".

That might be a problem, just mabye : eyes :

Gee. And you seem to think you speak plainly. Can't you do better than that?

Based on that intake of bias-laden information ...

Hooee, it's a blatant assertion. A claim that the information I presented was "bias-laden", without so much as an explanation of what the fuck that might mean, let alone any evidence or argument to back up the allegation.

... you then conclude that the gaps were filled in by that poster ...

Now that doesn't even make sense. If I can attempt to tease meaning from it, you are saying that library_max concluded from the information I presented that the gaps in information had been filled in. Nope, I have failed to tease any meaning from it, because that still makes no bloody sense. Oh well.

... and proceed to ask "how do we justify multiple killings to avoid inconvenience?" because of that poster's assertions.

Aha! You put your own "because" in there, this time. So allow me to invert the other way; you allege that:

I asserted something.
Therefore library_max asked "how do we justify multiple killings to avoid inconvenience?"

Find me the sense, someone.

Oh, okay. You meant to say:

and proceed to ask "how do we justify multiple killings to avoid inconvenience?" based on that poster's assertions.

(Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm just trying really hard to find meaning.)

And that's a false statement by you. Because library_max did NOT base ANYTHING on my assertions, he based his hypothetical premise -- {IF) it is really true that there would have been a bloodbath -- on the information he had read.

Did you even read my post? I feel compelled to ask.

So, is it a hunter gatherer lifestyle or not? Oh yes, you said "economy". Therefore, as long as they are not financially dependent on hunting, they dont need their weapons. Food be damned!

Forgive me ... but the only meaning I can take from this is that you believe and/or are claiming that the authorities who have required that firearms be temporarily forfeited plan to allow the residents of the island to starve.

Please tell me that I have misunderstood -- and tell me, really, you must, tell me what you did mean.

Before I fall off my chair in a fit of sniggering at the idea that anyone would believe, or even just say, such a dunderheaded and insulting thing.

Ask again why this MIGHT be an issue beyond self defense?

Hey. Ask FeebMaster that one.

'Cause I can't think of an answer, myself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Registration of guns is a necessary prerequisite for confiscation of guns. Although a government might start a gun registry in good faith, its existence may some day enable confiscation of guns for both good AND bad reasons. I don't mean to pass any judgement on what's going on in Pitcairn. It's possible that temporarily impounding peoples' weapons is really in the public interest.

OTOH I doubt that every single Pitcairnian who has a gun is both an unsavory person and involved deeply enough in this unusual situation that he or she cannot be trusted to keep and use his breadfruit-retrieval implement responsibly, but the government has taken the extreme position that the present crisis is so grave it calls for disarming everyone without exception.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to see something similar happening on at least an urban scale in the US. Look at what happened in Maryland during the DC "sniper" crisis, or the recent abuse in Oshkosh, WI, or what happened to people in California who were told by the Attorney General that they did not need to register their SKS Sporter rifles as assault weapons; then were informed that they did have to register them after all; then were told their registrations were invalid so they'd have to dispose of their rifles. The net result is a list of people who own those rifles; the problem with that is they are only the ones who acted in good faith and are now threatened with confiscation or prosecution. Of course the people who blew off the registration completely aren't on the list. What kind of message does that send, when the government can go back on its word?

Governments that change their minds and reneg on licenses cannot be trusted. If today's government is true to its word you can never be sure that tomorrow's government won't change the rules and screw you over. I've seen very little evidence that gun registration does any good. The Pitcairn situation, while it may even be the best thing for that tiny society (or not) illustrates how a gun registry can be abused.

"I doubt that every single Pitcairnian who has a gun is both an unsavory person and involved deeply enough in this unusual situation that he or she cannot be trusted to keep and use his breadfruit-retrieval implement responsibly"
Funny, I doubt that anyone who's willing to say this sort of thing...

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"
"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875


Is any sort of judge of anyone else's veracity.,...

"If today's government is true to its word you can never be sure that tomorrow's government won't change the rules and screw you over."
Of course if that's all that worries one, one might stop supporting some of the scummiest characters inb public life.

"slackmaster
47. I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20484&page=


Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

the government has taken the extreme position that the present crisis is so grave it calls for disarming everyone without exception

That really is not how I understand, or would frame, the government's reasons for its actions, and I very much doubt that it's how it would frame its own reasons, even if it were not dissembling and were being utterly straightforward and candid.

I would say that the government has taken the demonstrably reasonable position that the present situation is so volatile, and the risk that certain individuals will use their firearms to seriously harm others so high, that it calls for separating certain individuals from their firearms.

The government cannot know for sure which individuals present such a serious risk. The government cannot know whether that risk will materialize, or what the results will be if it does. The government is no more prescient than you and I are.

The government cannot justify treating certain individuals differently from others on the basis of risk analysis alone. That would, indeed, be punishment without trial. It would quite possibly also be completely ineffective for the purpose in question -- preventing the serious harm to individuals that there are demonstrable reasons for fearing -- if the government happened to target the wrong people.

The government *can* justify regulating individuals' conduct generally. Governments do that all the time, when they are acting to protect sufficiently important interests (importance being relative to a number of things, including the seriousness of the interference in the exercise of a right). That, in fact, is what governments do. Kinda by definition. "Govern", you know?

Whether the government can justify regulating individuals' conduct generally -- interfering in the exercise of individuals' rights -- is a matter to be decided by whatever body is established and mandated to review the government's actions. This would appear to be the courts of New Zealand, in the case of Pitcairn Island. Now, New Zealand does not have a constitutionalized bill/charter of rights; I happen to have its Bill of Rights somewhere in my old bookmarks, as an example of one that is modeled on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution. Let's have a look. No - hold on. The New Zealand courts hear cases involving the Island, but it would be British law that governs, I'd think. Complicated. Not unprecedented; there are arrangements in Canada for appeals from courts in a Territory to be heard by the appellate courts of nearby provinces.

So it would be the UK's Human Rights Act that would govern, as far as I can figure. It's quasi-constitutional. Here we go: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm
The "Convention" referred to is the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK legislation incorporates by reference:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1

6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

...

7. - (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may-
(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,
but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.

...

8. - (1) In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.

...

There ya go. Now of course there's the question of whether a Convention right has been prima facie violated. Rights instruments in the big world outside the US do not commonly refer to possession of firearms (any more than to possession of trousers or pizza ...).

In Canada, I'd go with that right to liberty and security of the person business in my constitution. Those rights are construed very broadly, and not merely as prohibiting imprisonment and direct harm. The European Convention says:

ARTICLE 5
RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...

and it does seem to take a narrower view of "liberty" in the bits that follow, but I'd say that "security of the person" arguably covers subsistence hunting and gathering.

So, a right and a remedy for interference in the exercise of it. I do imagine that the govt has considered these eventualities, before making its decision. Here, we have public servants in the Justice Dept that scrutinize every little bit of legislation, and all regulations, before they are enacted or made, to ensure that they do not conflict with the Charter, for instance, and certainly the public servants who propose Orders in Council to Cabinet for signing (to do things that can be done by executive order, which is what the Pitcairn Island order is in the nature of) have done the same. I sincerely doubt that the Governor of Pitcairn Island is acting on a whim and without sound legal and constitutional advice.

But if he turned out to be wrong, the Islanders would have a remedy, including damages. And as was evident from one of the links I posted, they have no shortage of legal assistance gratis for such things.

So the government (Governor) has in fact taken a position that I would assume reflects sober and serious thought about the risks that exist, the seriousness of the harm that would possibly or probably result if the risks materialized, the harm likely to be done by making the order, and ways of mitigating that harm. And I can't imagine that *anybody* is going to suffer any adverse effects from the order -- from the temporary forfeiture of their firearms -- that are not going to be compensated for if such compensation is necessary.

So on balance -- and that's how these things are decided, on balance -- I'm seeing a government doing the responsible thing, the thing that it is its function to do, protecting the public from reasonably foreseeable harm, without interfering in any noticeable way, let alone in any significant way, in the exercise of anybody's rights.

And remember -- the rights in question are liberty and security of the person; individual firearms possession for personal purposes is not a "right" that has any constitutional protection in Pitcairn Island, any more than individual trousers or pizza possession is. There is a right to do any of those things only in so far as doing them is an exercise of the right of liberty and/or security of the person (or any other right that they might be an exercise of). And the doing of them may be restricted and regulated for an appropriately important reason.


Just a brief comment on the first part of your remark:

I doubt that every single Pitcairnian who has a gun is both an unsavory person and involved deeply enough in this unusual situation that he or she cannot be trusted to keep and use his breadfruit-retrieval implement responsibly, ...

In fact, that was not the only reason for the order -- at least ostensibly. I would not claim that it is not reasonable to be a wee bit suspicious of the bona fides of the following assertion offered in justification of the order:

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10410277%255E1702,00.htm

Mr Forbes said that during the trials "there are going to be large numbers of people wandering around Pitcairn who are new to the island and there could be accidents".

I really do think that the fear is that any shootings of outsiders that might happen wouldn't be quite accidental, but that doesn't mean that there is not a reasonable apprehension of accidental shootings, also, in the circumstances.

If you believe that one's right to one's gun supersedes every other social value, then yes, I can see where this would be objectionable. If, on the other hand, one were to support the ability of government to protect the citizenry by removing deadly weapons from potentially explosive situations, one might see it differently.

In my view, a government's first priority needs to be to look after the safety and well-being of the governed. If this means responding to a serious threat by changing the way things are done (not really the same as not being "true to its word"), I don't automatically have a problem with it. As I said, I'm not close enough to the Pitcairn Island situation to assert that the authorities were justified, but I certainly allow for that possibility in theory.

If you guys have to resort to some obscure situation in the Pitcairn Islands to keep your incessant pro-gun whining from ceasing, I guess the gun ownership situation here in the good old U.S. of A. must be a lot less dire than you've been claiming. What a surprise (not).

situation in the US is dire? Come September 14th all the hard work of the gun grabbers for the last 15 years or so will go up in smoke. Almost every state has some form of concealed carry available, most have a shall issue system now. We recently doubled the number of states where you can carry without a permit. New Hampshire may follow in another year or two.

My only fear is that Bush will be reelected and pass some real gun control like that last couple of Republican presidents before him. It will certainly be worse than the assault weapons ban if it happens.

They will question the "safety" of possession under the guise of the war on terror. Asscroft will be in the lead demanding a gun registry ala canada or a "use" permit for hunting, shooting ranges, etc. Any way they can collect your info. "Assault weapons ban" will be yesterday's news, it could get alot uglier than that.

I see your concern and raise you a general fuckin panic! Maybe Im going overboard but I wont be buying ANYTHING till next year. I bought some ammunition online a few months ago and Im kicking myself for it. I dont trust ANYONE right now.

3 more months

Eternal vigilance is a price of...well, something.

I know, an opinion, like many others.

By admitting the obvious fact that gun ownership in this country is all hunky-dory, you've just given lie to about four decades of paranoid, hysterical, oh-Jeezus-they're-a-comin-for-my-shootin'-irons RKBA propaganda. Feel better?

The gun grabbers have certainly tried to mess with gun ownership in this country. It's just that they're so incompetent and have wasted so much time on assault weapons that they've lost at least as much ground as they've gained in the last 20 or 30 years. They've had a few victories, mostly stuff the Republicans passed, like Reagan's machine gun ban. But look at their losses: Shall issue concealed carry laws popping up everywhere. The assault weapons ban's likely sunset. Assault weapons more popular now (in their post-ban versions anyway) than they ever were before the ban. The only real hope for the gun grabbers is that Bush gets reelected and passes some kind of gun control like Reagan did in his second term.

...which is more delusional, your snotty little victory dance about how glorious things supposedly are for gun advocates in this country (again, tearing away from decades of the paranoid hysteria that has been the basis of the RKBA movement, and is still on daily display in this forum); OR the notion that we gun control advocates' last best hope is George W. Bush. Hey, pal, Dubya and Tom DeLay have gift-wrapped the end of the AWB for you. If anybody needs to be in line to kiss some Republican ass, it's you, not me. Pucker up and enjoy it.....

"I'm Trying To Decide.........which is more delusional, your snotty little victory dance about how glorious things supposedly are for gun advocates in this country (again, tearing away from decades of the paranoid hysteria that has been the basis of the RKBA movement, and is still on daily display in this forum); OR the notion that we gun control advocates' last best hope is George W. Bush."

Nah, I'm waiting for the repeal of the NFA before I do any dancing. Besides I'm not claiming that the gun control advocates' last, best hope is George W. Bush. He's just the current best hope and won't be the last. Who is more likely to pass some gun control? Bush in his second term or Kerry in his first?


"Hey, pal, Dubya and Tom DeLay have gift-wrapped the end of the AWB for you."

I thought Clinton signed the AWB. It did have the sunset provision in it when Clinton signed it, didn't it?


"If anybody needs to be in line to kiss some Republican ass, it's you, not me."

Why would I want to kiss any Republican ass? They're a bunch of gun grabbing drug warriors and their voters are so stupid, they think the people they're voting for are pro-gun and for smaller government.

I think the Brits should let the Islanders handle this matter themselves, whatever the outcome.

"I think the Brits should let the Islanders handle this matter themselves, whatever the outcome."

Err.. why and how?

They don't have the facilities to investigate, try and, should a conviction be obtained, to punish.

Kinda difficult to obtain a jury for a trial, when everyone knows everyone else.

Would probably be pretty difficult for any islander to secure legal representation without substantial financial assistance from the UK taxpayer in the form of legal aid, I don't imagine that there are a lot of practising solicitors or barristers on the Island who do pro bono work.

The idea that the islanders should handle it themselves is in the forefront of the case -- in two respects.

First, there is a claim to sovereignty. It's not likely to be taken seriously by anybody; 47 people just do not "a people" make, generally.

Second, there is pressure to use adapted criminal justice approaches that are beginning to be used in similar situations, like reconciliation and "restorative justice".


"Let the islanders handle it themselves" would pretty much amount to "let the lynch mob fight it out with the accused persons and their champions", in the present circumstances. Or "let the situation go unaddressed and the problems unsolved". For even a restorative-justice approach to work, considerable outside expertise and assistance would be required.

then so be it, who are we to decide what method of justice is best for them.

If that is the method they decide for themselves...
then so be it, who are we to decide what method of justice is best for them.

I think I'll round up a few of my neighbours -- we should be able to hit 47 without even going off the block -- and decide what method of justice is best for us.

Then we'll just trek to Parliament Hill and, um, shoot a couple of pigeons, and declare that an act of sovereignty, and set up a court in the vacant lot around the corner, and set about dispensing some justice. I can't wait to get the car alarm offenders in the dock. Off with their wheels, I say.

So be it, eh? Who is anybody else to decide what method of justice is best for us? Now, my tenant might not want to be voting differently from me when she gets in the jury box, lest she find herself looking for a new home, of course ...

The Pitcairn Islanders really just are not a nation, or even a people. They are citizens of the UK, as I understand it. And without that citizenship, they might be in a bit of a pickle.

I don't say that a restorative justice approach might not be preferable. I don't know nearly enough to have, let alone express, an opinion in that regard.

But as I said (you *were* replying to my post, right?), that is not something that happens by 47 people (some of whom, I'll wager, are schoolchildren) sitting around a table and thrashing things out. Just as no laws isn't freedom, it's the door to oppression and exploitation, no justice system - whatever that system might be - isn't justice, it's the door to lynch mobs and/or untrammeled victimization.

So "who are we" to decide what system of justice is best for them? Well, the "we" in question is of course not us; but it is pretty arguably the society/state to which they belong, subject to whatever legitimate claims they may have to some distinct status within that society, which I would be entirely open to saying they have.

But in the meantime, there are victims. The victims were victimized by other members of that same group. There *are* conflicting interests in play, and there *are* imbalances of power within even that small group. It almost sounds like you're suggesting that the lambs be left to work things out with the wolves.

And that would just be mighty liberal, wouldn't it then?